TELEVISTA
Report without losing cool
Amita Malik

THE terrible mass killings at Hyderabad, which left several families in mourning and innocent lives snuffed out, will haunt us for long. What concerns this column is the way the media covered it. I must confess things are slowly improving. There were no close-ups of bodies or mutilated limbs. There was hardly any interviewing of the type where mikes are thrust onto the faces of the dying and severely injured. And I give full credit to the producers and camera persons for showing signs of restraint and consideration.

There is still vast room for improvement in reporting and anchoring from the studio end. Reporters tend to get emotional and over-excited in the midst of death and injury. That is human. But as reporters they must keep their cool, their excitement within control and do a professional job of reporting without getting involved. But while reporters tended to be objective, they spoke at a fast speed in high-pitched voices, particularly women, which is, to put it mildly, being amateurish. Worse still were the anchors in the studio.

Particularly over-excited was a well-known speed merchant of CNN-IBN, a one woman who increased her speed when talking to reporters which, at times, made her incoherent. Most of the anchors at the studio end also asked those familiar questions which are impossible to answer at the early stages of a disaster. How many people have been killed (The number gradually rose from six to 42 and it always takes time)? Who are the militants who planted the explosives (Even now investigators do not know)? Then the time-consuming interviews with the police and other officials when they have an urgent job to do.

Interviewers seem to think that the more questions (mostly silly) they ask and keep on repeating, and the longer the interview, the more they score over other channels. However, even this has improved vastly.

In fact, I think channels should conduct briefing lessons on how to cover disasters from outside and how important it is for studio anchors to let both reporters and the concerned authorities in the field get on with their jobs.

To change the subject completely, the rather charming film Chak De India has become a social phenomenon of sorts, raising all sorts of serious issues — the state of Indian sport, the status of women not only in sport but their general empowerment and putting the blame for defeat on the worst possible reason — in this case communal prejudice when a Muslim player is blamed for losing to Pakistan. Most cheering of all, the film is said to have brought the focus back on hockey, which was once our national game and pride but which has got sidelined by cricket, mainly because of the media and the big bucks involved in both the sport (the BCCI, of course) and the comparatively astronomical sums earned by even the youngest cricketer, and the advertisers.

Quite rightly, most channels devoted important discussion programmes to all these aspects and issues raised by the film, and did so thoroughly. The charm of Shah Rukh Khan, for once, was pushed back as the women hockey players in the film (some real players and others trained for the film) from places as far apart as Jharhkand and Haryana and Kerala and Manipur stood up to be interviewed with the same aplomb as they showed on the field. The one jarring note was struck by both the man and woman anchor on the twin channels of NDTV in both English and Hindi. Having brought in a famous hockey giant like Zafar Iqbal, they kept him standing apart as the anchors shot their heads off talking too much on the sport itself instead of letting the expert talk to the girls, which would have been much more professional and interesting.

A misunderstanding. I am afraid there was a gender mix-up when I wrote about the Karats last week. The trendy hairstyle (stylishly all white and plastered down) and stern exterior was a description of Mr Karat. Wife Brinda has a simple hairstyle, although her huge bindi and bangles stand out on screen.