Writ Petition Restrain Television.com

8/14/2019 Writ Petition Restrain Television.com

1/59

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (Civil) No. of 2008

SYNOPSIS

01-Jan-2006 to

present day

India, our country, is rapidly losing itswar on terror. At last count, in terms offatalities due to terror acts, it keepscompany with a host of nations that areravaged by war, run over by anarchy,armed rebellion, military coup, civiliandisobedience and mutinies, famine,bankruptcies and ignominy Iraq,

Afghanistan, Sudan, Congo, Nigeria,Pakistan and the like. For the years 2005,2006 and 2007, India is clearly ahead ofevery other country in the world exceptIraq.

Of the 404 television channels licensed tooperate in India, a number of News andCurrent Affairs channels have engaged inconduct that is detrimental to the

nations fight against terror. With respectto the recent Mumbai attacks, they haveput assaulting terrorists on air to freelyexpress their views and to state whatmotivated them to do so, have declaredexclusivity in unraveling more sinisterbids upon the country by relaying theconfessions of arrested terrorist, havethemselves connected several ongoinginvestigations, formed their own

television conclusions and haveconsulted banned terrorist outfits tosupport television conclusions, haveaired inflammatory speeches of leaders ofbanned terrorist outfits and have freelyoffered airtime to suspected terrorists to


2/59

2

declare their innocence and haveperformed many more acts that portrayand magnify terrorists actions even whileaccording minimal role to the institutionof our Government.

While no democratic country imposesrestraint upon free exchange of news andviews, the fact remains that it is neither atraditional nor a legitimate function of the

media to facilitate communicationbetween the terrorists and people theyterrorize. The reporting of terrorist strikesby the Television media in the context ofinformation circulated by the terroriststhrough these channels is bound to havea contagious effect upon people prone toviolent tendencies. Their dramatizationand spectacular portrayal furtherincreases the probability that other

groups or individuals will emulate theviolence being reported. The unrestrainedstyle of reporting terrorist incidents by

Television media vicariously contributesto the terrorists sense of accomplishmentand runs the risk of significantlyprolonging the consequences. Todisseminate terrorists messages in sucha context is to violate public peace.

The media is not immune from ordinarycriminal laws and the petitionermaintains that the fundamental right ofthe citizens of this country to secure apeaceful existence is considerablythreatened by the acts of terrorism uponthe Indian soil and the mediasinvolvement in facilitating disseminationof terrorists messages, statements and

announcements considerably infringesupon citizens peaceful existence. Themedia is operating here in the context ofactual acts of terrorism and theiruninhibited conveyance of messages fromterrorists to the people without anygovernment interface, specifically in the


3/59

3

context of actual strikes, takes themaway from the role of a mere messengerand puts them, under extremecircumstances, in the position of anaid/extension of the terrorists.

Media and terrorism are linked indemocratic societies. Terrorism, by itsvery nature, is a psychological weaponthat depends on communicating a threat

to the wider society. This is why there is arelationship between media and terrorismbased on mutual need. The media in anopen society is in a fiercely competitivemarket for their audiences, constantlyunder pressure to be first with the newsand to provide more information,excitement, and entertainment than theirrivals. Success is reflected in increasingratings, which then yield higher profits.

Hence, they are almost bound to respondto terrorists deed because it isdramatically bad news.

Acts of terror and media coverage of thesame share a symbiotic relationship withone another. In view, thereof, restraintupon the television media has becomeabsolutely essential to contain the

escalating insecurity among the people ofthis country.

The omission of Government Respondentsto restrain Television Media Respondentsfrom disseminating messages andstatements from the terrorists to theirviewers in India is clearly actionablebefore a Court of Law competent to directa public body to discharge its legal duty

to the public. Consequently, this petitionis filed seeking the issue of a Writ ofMandamus upon GovernmentRespondents to restrain Television MediaRespondents from facilitating or relayingcommunication from suspected orapprehended terrorists to their viewers in


4/59

4

India forthwith unless the GovernmentRespondents consent-in-advance to suchrelaying of communication.

13-Dec-2008 Hence, this Writ Petition filed underArticle 32 of our Constitution for theprotection of a fundamental andparamount right of citizens to publicpeace, to compel the Government, in thelight of a failure of its duty to restrain the

media, to restrain the television mediafrom relaying or disseminating messagesand communication from suspectedterrorists.


5/59

5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION (Civil) No. of 2008

IN THE MATTER OF:-

A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA ESTABLISHING A BREACH OFDUTY OWED BY GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS TORESTRAIN MEDIA RESPONDENTS FROM RELAYING ORDISSEMINATING MESSAGES AND COMMUNICATIONFROM SUSPECTED TERRORISTS AND FOR RELIEF OF AMANDAMUS UPON GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS TO SORESTRAIN MEDIA RESPONDENTS FROM BREACHING AFUNDAMENTAL AND PARAMOUNT RIGHT OF CITIZENS

TO PUBLIC PEACE.

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

1 Shekar G DevasaAdvocateNo.4336, Ajanta ApartmentsIP ExtensionNear AVB Public SchoolPatparganjNew Delhi 110092

Petitioner

VERSUS

1 Union of IndiaRepresented bySecretaryMinistry of Information andBroadcastingRoom No.655, A WingShastri BhavanNew Delhi 110 001

Respondents

2 Union of India


6/59


7/59

7

8 AAJ TAK Television8th Floor,Videocon TowerE-1 Jhandewalan ExtensionNew Delhi 110 055Represented by its Editor-in-Chief

9 INDIA TelevisionIndependent News Services PrivateLtd (India TV)

Film CitySector 16ANoida 201 301Uttar PradeshRepresented by its Editor-in-Chief

10 LIVE INDIA Television6th Floor,Adhikari ChambersOberoi Complex

New Link RoadAndheri WestMumbai 400 053MaharashtraRepresented by its Editor-in-Chief

11 ZEE TelevisionEssel StudioFC-19, Sector 16-ANoida 201 310

Uttar PradeshRepresented by its Editor-in-Chief

12 SAHARA TelevisionSamay LiveSahara India Center3rd Floor2, Kapoorthala ComplexAliganjLucknow 226 024

Uttar PradeshRepresented by its Editor-in-Chief

13 STAR NEWS TelevisionMedia Content AndCommunications Services (INDIA)Pvt. Ltd


8/59


9/59

9

The Humble Petition of the Petitioner

above named, Respectfully Showeth:

1. The Petitioner is 32 years old and is a resident of New Delhi.

He is an Advocate in practice at this Honble Court and at the

High Court of Delhi and other courts in Delhi subordinate to

the High Court of Delhi.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of

our Constitution as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the

enforcement of the fundamental right of the citizens of this

country to secure protection against invasion of public peace

by the acts of Media Respondents, 3 to 18.

3. Respondent 1, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,

is the executive branch of our Central Government which

plays a significant part in helping people to have access to free

flow of information. It also caters to the dissemination of

knowledge and entertainment to all sections of society, striking

a careful balance between public interest and commercial

needs, in its delivery of services. Ministry of Information &

Broadcasting is the apex body for formulation and

administration of the rules and regulations and laws relating to

information, broadcasting, the press and films.1

4. Respondent 2, the Ministry of Home Affairs, is the executive

branch of our Central Government that discharges

multifarious functions, important among them being the

maintenance of Internal Security.2

1Prefatory statement of the Ministry

2Prefatory statement of the Ministry.


10/59

10

5. Respondents 3 to 18 are Television News and Current Affairs

channels permitted by Respondent 1, the Ministry of

Information and Broadcasting to operate in India. No entity is

permitted to operate a Television channel in India unless the

same is first registered and licensed by Respondent 1. At last

count, a total of 404 television channels have been permitted

by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to operate in

India. Respondents 3 to 18 are the major News Channels

amongst the said 404 television channels. Respondents 3 to

18 are primarily devoted to news and current affairs. They are

available to subscribers across the country and the advent of

Direct-To-Home (DTH) has made it possible for people

residing in the most remote corners of our country to gain

access to every channel aired across the country.

6. The Petitioner expresses great concern at the frequency,

magnitude and scale of the escalating terror attacks in the

country. The Petitioner expresses regret for the fact that our

country is losing its war on terror. Since 2006, India has

witnessed at least 73 incidents of terrorist attacks. The

frequency of these strikes has accelerated rapidly in the pasttwo years: there were 12 attacks in 2006, 13 in 2007 and there

have been 48 to date in the current year.3 The conflict in

Jammu and Kashmir, attacks by extreme Leftist Naxalites and

Maoists in eastern and central India, assaults by ethno-

linguistic nationalists in the north-eastern States, and terrorist

strikes nationwide by Islamic extremists took more than 2,300

lives this year4. Given the magnitude, frequency and the

regularity of terror attacks upon Indian soil, it must be said

3Institute for Defence Studies And Analysis

42007 Report on Terrorism United States National

Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)


11/59


12/59

12

crowded market

29-Sep-2008 Modasa,Gujarat

One Killed and several

injured after an explosion

near a mosque

13-Sep-2008 New Delhi 26 people killed in six

blasts across the city

16-Jul-2008 Ahmedabad 57 people killed after

synchronised timing of 20

bomb devices

25-Jul-2008 Bangalore 1 person killed and several

injured after co-ordinated

bomb blasts across thecity.

31-May-2008 Jaipur 68 people killed in serial

bombings

25-Aug-2007 Hyderabad 42 people killed in two

blasts one at a popular

eatery and another at a

public stadium

19-Feb-07 SamjautaExpress

66 people killed after 2

firebombs went off on the

India Pakistan friendship

train.

8-Sep-2008 Malegaon,Maharashtra

40 people killed in two

blasts

11-Jul-2006 Mumbai 209 blasts killed in Seven

blasts on suburban trains


13/59

13

and stations.

7-Mar-2006 Varanasi 21 people killed in three

blasts including one at a

temple and another at a

railway station.

29-Oct-2005 New Delhi 61 people killed in three

blasts on the eve of Diwali

25-Aug-2005 Mumbai 46 people killed in two

blasts including one near

the Gateway of India

24-Sep-2002 Gandhinagar 34 people killed in the

attack on AkshardamTemple

8. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner humbly submits

that the Television channels broadcasting news and current

affairs, that is, Respondents 3 to 18, have engaged in conduct

that is detrimental to the nations fight against terror. With

respect to the recent Mumbai attacks, they have put

assaulting terrorists on air to freely express their views and to

state what motivated them to do so, have declared exclusivity

in unraveling more sinister bids upon the country by relaying

the confessions of arrested terrorist, have themselves

connected several ongoing investigations, formed their own

television conclusions and have consulted banned terroristoutfits to support television conclusions, have aired

inflammatory speeches of leaders of banned terrorist outfits

and have freely offered airtime to suspected terrorists to

declare their innocence and have performed many more acts


14/59

14

that portray and magnify terrorists actions even while

according minimal role to the institution of our Government.

Respondents 3 to 18 shall be referred to hereinafter as the

media wherever the context admits.

9. The people of this country have a fundamental right to a

peaceful existence and the same is unduly threatened by the

relentless exposure to expanded terrorism brought forth by

the media. The media freely contacts suspected terrorists and

puts them on air for a free dissemination of their views or

denials. While no democratic country imposes restraint upon

free exchange of news and views, the fact remains that it is

neither a traditional nor a legitimate function of the media to

facilitate communication between the terrorists and people

they terrorize.

10.The electronic media is unique in terms of its feature

pervasive and intrusive nature of its reporting. By attacking

highly visible or sensitive targets in a dramatic manner,

terrorists make a direct appeal to traditional news values by

exploiting the news industrys attraction to dramatic, conflictladen and devastating tragic events. The media thus

unwittingly furthers terrorists objectives by publicising an

incident that was staged principally for the purpose of

spreading fear through the media.

11.The terrorists aims are clearly not aimed at individuals but

at destroying the values that characterise this nation

diversity, toleration, kindness and a belief in a higher purpose

for human life.


15/59

15

12. If a citizen of our country were to install a loudspeaker in a

crowded market and relay messages originating from one or

more banned terrorist outfits, say, from the Pakistan-

Occupied-Kashmir (POK), he clearly commits the offence of

aiding and supporting an assault upon the State and its

people even if the content of the message itself is not

inflammatory per se. The laws governing such conduct do not

apply with equal force to the registered media and the media

is subject to a lesser restriction in the hope of furthering

democratic goals of facilitating free exchange of views and

opinion. However, the liberty confirmed upon the media in

our country has resulted in them practically abandoning

much discretion in the matter of reporting upon terrorism

and competitive pressures have virtually pushed them to

compete for scaring the most.

13.As such, the petitioner, as a member of the affected class, the

people of India, begs the leave of this Honble court to direct

Government Respondents 1 and 2 to restrain Media

Respondents 3 to 18 from broadcasting any message or

communication from any suspect terrorist without theinterface of the Government. The petitioners insistence upon

government interface is to inhibit the media from breaching

public peace.

14. While the media is certainly free to express its views and

inherently possesses the right and freedom to facilitate free

expression of views and opinions, this freedom does not

extend to a liberty to endanger the safety of people at large by

disseminating threatening or damaging information with

respect to matters pertaining to acts of terror.


16/59

16

15. Indian media is subject to fewer or no restrictions in the

matter of content it airs for the public and this fact is

welcome by the petitioners. However, the media is not

immune from ordinary criminal laws and the petitioner

maintains that the fundamental right of the citizens of this

country to secure a peaceful existence is considerably

threatened by the acts of terrorism upon the Indian soil and

the medias involvement in facilitating dissemination of

terrorists messages, statements and announcements

considerably infringes upon the citizens peaceful existence.

While the media is certainly not restrained from relaying live

coverage of acts of terror, they violate citizens peace when

they put assaulting terrorists on air to freely express their

views and to state what motivated them to do so, declare

exclusivity in unraveling more sinister bids upon the country

by relaying the confessions of arrested terrorist, connect

several ongoing investigations, form their own television

conclusions and consult banned terrorist outfits to support

television conclusions, air inflammatory speeches of leaders

of banned terrorist outfits and freely offer airtime to

suspected terrorists to declare their innocence and perform

many more acts that portray and magnify terrorists actions.

16. The petitioner is not in the least suggesting that our

Government is not at fault in preventing terrorist attacks or

that the media should be excluded from reporting truth about

our government. Rather, the petitioner asserts that the

actions of the media respondents outlined earlier are

indistinguishable from a television station unwittingly

sympathetic to terrorists.


17/59

17

17.The Petitioner further asserts that television channels in the

United States, the jurisdiction with the least governmental

restraint upon content of expression, routinely broadcast

messages from suspected terrorists and do so without any

government interface whatsoever. The fact however remains

that those broadcasts are aired in the context of their

government effectively preventing any terrorist attack upon

their soil ever after 11-September-2001 (the day on which the

Two World Trade Centre Towers in New York were hit by

passenger planes hijacked by terrorists) and the terrorists

statements are disseminated in a context that does not

witness an actual terror event. However, the situation

prevailing in India is in utter contrast to the situation in the

United States. The media is operating here in the context of

actual acts of terrorism and their uninhibited conveyance of

messages from terrorists to the people without any

government interface, specifically in the context of actual

strikes, takes them away from the role of a mere messenger

and puts them, under extreme circumstances, in the position

of an aid/extension of the terrorists.

18.The petitioner furnishes below, excerpts from a scholarly

analysis, TERRORIST IS A STAR authored by Michelle Ward

Ghetti and published in the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

LAW JOURNAL, June, 2008:

"There is no need to cry in the wilderness when anyone so

inclined can plead his case on national television."

Since 1982, the lower federal courts in the United States

have dealt with the balance between media and the First

Amendment in only limited ways. They have dealt with the

reporter's privilege and found it insufficient to block the


18/59

18

government's access to phone records relevant to funding ofterrorism or defendants' access to videotaped interviews of

terrorists, they have restricted media coverage of deportation

proceedings where terrorism is involved, and they have

found no right of the media to imbed a journalist with the

troops. They have also dealt with civil claims against media

alleging that the media outlet aided and abetted crime or

negligently caused harm to another person.

II INTRODUCTION.One of the problems of combating incidences of publicity-

seeking crime is media involvement. Violence or threats of

violence have long been deemed newsworthy items by the

media. Publicity-seeking criminals have recognized this fact

and put it to full use. By attacking highly visible targets in a

dramatic manner, publicity-seeking criminals guarantee

themselves saturated news coverage. They make a shocking

appeal to traditional news values by making full use of the

news industry's attraction to the dramatic, conflict-laden,and potentially tragic event. The media thus furthers the

criminals' objectives by publicizing an incident that was

staged for the very purpose of obtaining media coverage.

This has come to be called by many as a symbiotic

relationship.

Critics both within and outside the news industry have

begun to voice an awareness, if not a concern, for the ease

with which such criminals obtain publicity on both a nationaland international platform.

III. THE PROBLEM OF MEDIA COVERAGE OF PUBLICITY-

SEEKING CRIMES

The objectives of terrorists, other than seeking publicity, are

often coercion, extortion, disorientation and despair,

provocation of unpopular countermeasures, and (with regard

to the terrorists themselves) morale-building.

If nothing else, commentators seem to agree on one thing - to

these people, more conventional means of communication

seem to be unavailable or ineffective.

Scattered, isolated incidents of violence by themselves are of

little use to publicity-seekers in producing their objectives of


19/59

19

fear, coercion, and publication of a cause or self-identification. Terrorists rely on the psychological impact of

acts rather than their immediate destructive consequences.

To achieve such impact, publicity-seeking criminals need to

publicize their acts as widely as possible. Since the mass

media have the ability to confer importance upon an

individual or an event merely by presenting it, they play a

major role in the spreading and intensification of the desired

psychological impact. With the advent of increasing numbers

of technological communicative advances, publicity-seekingcriminals are able to command the immediate attention of

millions, enabling these criminals to work their felonious will

on whole nations rather than just the hostages in their

presence.

The media has been described as a powerful force,

sometimes more influential than government itself.

American mass media--electronic (television and radio) and print (newspaper and magazine) -- are commercial

enterprises just as any other business. They exist and thrive

by making profits. Profits are obtained from selling time or

space to advertisers at rates determined by circulation or

audience size. The larger the audience, the more each

medium prospers. The availability of attention-getting content

serves the audience-attracting needs of the industry. The

dramatic, often emotional events staged by publicity-seeking

criminals make news, sell newspapers, and draw millions tothe television set. This adds handsomely to the profits of

media owners, advertisers, shareholders, and employees

(and no doubt to the job security of the journalists covering

the event) and contributes to the overall success news

reporting has seen in recent years.

As the line between news and entertainment grows less

and less visible, and as the commercial objectives of news

carriers become more and more evident, publicity-seekingcriminals can be expected to continue, if not escalate, their

efforts to feed on this audience-attracting need.

What if this situation continues to exist? What are the

consequences?


20/59

20

Professor Bassouini has determined four main effects ofmedia coverage of publicity-seeking crimes: intimidation,

imitation, immunization, and imperilization. Media coverage

of publicity-seeking crimes often (1) enhances the

environment of fear and coercion the terrorists seek to

generate (intimidation factor); (2) encourages other

individuals to engage in such conduct (imitation factor); (3)

dulls the sense of outrage and contempt in the general public

(immunization factor); and (4) endangers hostages' lives and

interferes with effective law enforcement (imperilizationfactor).

A. Intimidation

By focusing on terrorist events and giving them a

disproportionate amount of news coverage, the media

engenders the feeling in the viewing public that such events

are more common and, therefore, more dangerous than they

really are. Media, particularly television, gives the effect of

authenticity per se. It gives the criminal the auspices ofpower in a short time, with little effort, on a wide scale. In

some respects, the modern terrorist is created by the

media - they magnify and enlarge him and his powers far

beyond its true magnitude. In effect, television puts everyone

at the scene of the crime, helpless to do anything,

engendering feelings of anxiety and fear - the terrorist's

instruments of coercion. This public anxiety enhances the

perceived power of the terrorist in his own eyes as well as

the eyes of his peer group and others. This enhanced power

often leads to imitation and the cycle repeats itself.

B. Imitation

According to leading sociologists, among all the different

ways one might behave in given circumstances, any

particular way is more likely to be repeated when the

circumstances recur if the previous time it was done it was

followed by some gratifying experience. This is referred to

as the operant conditioning model. This can also occur as aresult of vicarious reinforcement through observational

learning.

Therefore, if a would-be terrorist sees someone else's terror-

inspiring act succeeding (i.e., resulting in a gratifying


21/59

21

experience) then the probability that the would-be terroristwill engage in similar acts is increased. If publicity is what

these individuals seek, then receiving such publicity is

gratifying and rewarding. By providing such a reward to

publicity-seeking criminals, media is reinforcing and

encouraging present and future terrorists. An excellent

example of such a phenomenon took place during the Iran

crisis. Shortly after the incident began, United States'

Embassies were attacked in Bangladesh, Libya, and

Pakistan, basically following the steps of the successfulIranians.

But, to quote former Surgeon General Jesse Steinfield,

There comes a time when data are sufficient to justify

action. There is a strong argument that the time is now.

Ninety-three per cent of police chiefs surveyed in a recent

study felt like live television coverage of terrorist acts

encouraged terrorism. Sixty-four percent of the general

public surveyed in a 1977 Gallup poll believed detailednews coverage of terrorism encourages others to commit

similar crimes. It is also suggested that terrorist groups

conform to certain media stereotypes in their internal

organizational structure, chain of command, choice of

targets, time, place, and manner of action, and even in the

attitudes of their members.

C. Immunization

Constant and detailed coverage of publicity-seeking crimeshas three less immediate and perhaps more subtle effects on

society. First, it increases the level of public tolerance of such

crimes and lessens the feeling of righteous indignation.

Second, the portrayal of all terrorists as crazies or as

individuals and/or organizations beyond society's means of

control suggests to the public that there is nothing that can

be done to solve the problem.

Third, repeated coverage of terrorist events tends to

conceptualize the act. Instead of seeing an individual

criminal, an individual victim, or an individual policeman, the

public perceives roles -- i.e., terrorists, hostages, law

enforcement agencies -- being played in a huge chess game.


22/59

22

The individual act becomes an event and the humandimensions become lost.

D. Imperilization

Ongoing coverage of hostage-taking incidents is the hotbed

of the media coverage controversy, and yet the problems

seen there are probably the most susceptible to legal

solution. There are two general areas of conflict: (1) media

dissemination of information tactically useful to the publicity-

seeking criminal and (2) media interference with an effectivelaw enforcement response.

1. Media dissemination of information

Media can serve as the intelligence arm of the criminal in

many ways. Today, in most hostage situations, the criminal

has a television or radio device within near proximity. By

broadcasting police strategies, activities, plans, or the

presence of hidden persons or escaping hostages, the media

endangers the lives of the hostages, law enforcement personnel, and innocent citizens. They also assist the

criminals in determining escape routes and repelling police

assaults.

2. Media interference with law enforcement

The physical presence of the media often interferes with the

law enforcement agencies at the scene that are trained to

effectively handle such situations. The somewhat obtrusive

equipment interferes with their free movement and attracts

crowds which compound the risk and increase the burden

on the police. Questioning by a multitude of reporters can

often distract key personnel at critical moments. Direct media

contact with the criminal can tie up telephone access, incite

the criminal by use of inflammatory questions or phrases,

goad the criminal into action to prove himself in the spotlight,

and can have the effect of isolating a trained professional

negotiator from the mediating process by increasing the role

of the untrained media person. Police officials claim that thestampede of journalists to interview terrorists reinforces their

sense of power and accomplishment. Often, the mere

presence of the media encourages terrorists to remain

barricaded or to demand a press conference so as to

increase coverage.


23/59

23

Why then, with the multitude of bad consequences, do themedia continue to grant such all-pervasive coverage to

publicity-seeking criminals? The profit motive was

considered earlier.

Walter Jaehnig, a professor of journalism himself, terms this

role the libertarian tradition. Libertarianism lacks a moral

code or philosophy and promotes moral neutrality. When

asked if a distinction shouldn't be made between terrorist

acts and civil disobedience and the coverage keyed to sucha distinction, an editor of a major metropolitan newspaper

answered that once we start making judgments of this sort

... I think the media is ... doing something far different from

its basic role of simply informing.

This idea is simply not true. First, it assumes that such

judgments are not already being made. Every day, editors

and news producers decide what's newsworthy and what's

not, how much coverage will be given, how it will beclassified, how the headline will read, who will be

interviewed, how many reporters and cameras should be

sent, and so forth. Second, with the instantaneous coverage

permitted by the minicam, the individual decision of where

one wants to go and what one wants to see has been taken

away from the individual and put in the hands of the press.

They have become the eyes and ears of the public -- a

conduit, a surrogate. Like it or not, the media has the

responsibility of deciding for the public what they want toexperience in their lives. The roles of the neutral, uninvolved

observer and recorder of fact are antiquated ones if they

even exist at all. Particularly in the area of coverage of

publicity-seeking crimes, journalists today are often thrust

into a life and death situation. Every reporter covering such

an event must decide whether his actions are going to be

governed by the interests of the hostages/victims, public

authorities and the community at large, or the newsgathering

and financial interests of his station or newspaper.

An additional purpose or role of the free press, as perceived

by Justice Stewart and others, is to act as an additional

check on the three official branches of government. In fact,

the press has come to be termed the Fourth Estate. This,


24/59

24

arguably, is an important role the media does play. But thecoverage of publicity-seeking crimes is not related to the

functioning of any one of our three branches of government.

Even if the criminal's purpose is to draw attention to what he

considers a defect in our governmental system, he must be

made to understand that there are many nonviolent ways for

his protest to be heard within the legitimate parameters of

free speech. He has no constitutional right to express himself

in violent ways at the expense of innocent people, yet the

media nearly guarantee him just such a right. In addition,there are other ways for the media to provide him a forum

for expression and to inform the public about an individual's

grievances with our government in ways that do not

publicize these violent acts.

As argued later in this Article, limited access and perhaps

restraints on publicizing life-endangering information prior to

the culmination of the event would still allow the public to

stay informed and yet alleviate some of the problems relatedto media coverage of such crimes.

These are legitimate observations. It must be remembered,

however, that were the media not there to begin with, in all

likelihood neither would be the terrorists; the immediacy of

rumors usually only affect the immediate area and can be

dissipated with minimal coverage. In a trade-off between

giving tactical information to the terrorists which would

endanger lives and getting tactical information from theterrorists, not many would choose the latter. Also, as has

been previously argued, saturation coverage has the same

effect on possible escalation in forms of violence as does

lack of coverage and media-created anxiety is functional

rather than dysfunctional only when it prepares individuals

to confront danger realistically which current coverage

doesn't do.

V. SOLUTIONSWhat, then, can be done? A number of suggestions have

been made by both law enforcement officials, government

and the media. However, very little else has been done.

These suggestions can be divided into two basic groups:

non-content-related and content-related.


25/59

25

A. Non-content-related SuggestionsThe most often recommended and probably most feasible

suggestion is to limit the media's access to the crime scene.

Possibilities include setting up a broadcast area near police

lines for bulletins and interviews, setting up a briefing area

for off-the-record information where no cameras or recording

equipment would be allowed, establishing a police hotline

that would be updated continuously, appointing an official

police spokesperson to give periodic briefings, and restricting

direct contact with the criminal during an ongoing crime.Another non-content related suggestion is to restrict the use

of cameras and lighting or allow only lone camera shots.

Finally, some suggest limiting the number of reporters

allowed on the scene by using pool reporters to cover

activities on behalf of all news organizations and agencies.

One journalist, himself having been held hostage, proposed

that a committee of editors in the city experiencing the

incident be empowered to declare and enforce a news

emergency under which certain rules of the profession be

suspended and where protecting or, at least, not

endangering the lives of hostages would be top priority.

Anyone violating this rule would be subject to disciplinary

action by his employer. It has been suggested that instead of

regulating the actual on-the-scene press activities, the law

enforcement agencies could offer training to media

representatives in handling hostage situations. It is felt that

through this educational process the media would becomemore aware of the problems and be better able to

understand the police requests made and consequently be

more apt to follow them.

B Content-related Suggestions.

The content-related suggestions can be further divided into

two more groups: limitations on what information is to be

released and requirements of specific information to be

released.Limiting information: Suggestions to limit information include:

Police tactical information which could prejudice the lives of

hostages or potential victims should not be released; any

inflammatory or aggravating information should be delayed

until the incident is over; sensationalism should be avoided;


26/59

26

reports should be confined to police disseminatedinformation only, at least until the incident is over; how to

information relating to terrorist tactics should be avoided;

and the name of any individual or group claiming

responsibility for a bombing should be withheld.

C. Providing Information

Most authorities agree that at least the media should strive

to give a balanced treatment of the phenomenon. They

should provide information from official sources in answer tothe criminal's self-serving statements. They should give

follow-up coverage of the incident; for example, they should

cover the law enforcement and judicial responses to the

criminal and his actions. Some feel that media has the

responsibility to educate the public concerning the

impropriety of taking innocent lives in order to publicize

demands and grievances, the relative infrequency of such

acts, the legitimate needs of law enforcement in a democratic

society, and the non-romantic aspects of terrorism. Themedia do indeed contribute to the problem of publicity-

seeking crime. Is it not too much to hope that they would also

contribute to its solution?

Perhaps it is too much to expect of the media. Since 1941,

the media have been urged to police themselves. And yet, it

took a flurry of incidents in 1977 to even get some

guidelines proposed and randomly adopted. Western

media officials are now aware of the dangers inherent in thecoverage of publicity-seeking crimes but the competitive

pressures are strong, professional judgment may be

unattainable, and the industry is fragmented in nature and

therefore hard to control from within.

The competitiveness of news organizations, their fear of

being scooped by the opposition, and their aforementioned

quest for larger audiences and prestige combine to

encourage rather than discourage escalated reportingtechniques and sensationalistic coverage. Many police

officials, in fact, believe that it is the competition between

newsmen, inspired by their respective news organizations,

that lies at the root of the problem. An individual reporter

who might refrain from covering a particular event for


27/59

27

personal ethical reasons will more often succumb to thesubtle persuasion of potential career enhancement. Network

policies of recruitment and advancement assure that

newsroom policies rather than philosophical principles

succeed in network news. Newspaper staffers also conform

to newsroom policies due to the somewhat more subtle

factors of socialization within the job environment and

esteem for superiors. Reporters are seeking to establish the

reputation of being first with the news and first with the

viewers. Neither factor is conducive to operating a self-regulated industry. Neither is either factor conducive to

responsible reporting.

The media industry argues that they are a profession and

that like any other recognized profession -- e.g, doctors or

lawyers -- should be allowed to regulate themselves.

However, journalists are not now and have never been truly

considered professionals. They have no intense period of

specialization; they, in fact, abhor responsibility for theirjudgments and actions; they tend to place greater emphasis

on economic gain rather than personal service; they have no

comprehensive self-governing organization; and they have

no true Code of Ethics subject to clarification and

interpretation by the courts. In truth, there is no reason to

expect the industry to be professional enough to regulate

itself.

Finally, self-regulation itself is an almost impossible taskgiven the vast number of organizations nationwide with no

central authority. The National Association of Broadcasters

(NAB), which most television stations belong to and which

has been instrumental in regulating such areas as the family

viewing hour, is the nearest thing in the industry to a central

authority; however, membership is not mandatory. Even the

United States Supreme Court has openly recognized the

problems inherent in fragmented self-imposed restraints:

reporters from distant places are unlikely to be guided bytheir own standards and state courts have real practical

difficulties in controlling newspapers or broadcasters outside

of their jurisdiction.


28/59

28

A few words should be said at this point concerning theunique status of the electronic media (television and radio).

The Supreme Court has been willing to recognize a limited

distinction between printed and electronic media. Rationales

for the different treatment of the broadcasting industry

include: (1) airwaves are in the public domain and, as such,

the grant of a license is a privilege, not a right; (2) due to a

scarcity of airways, some regulation must occur so as to

guarantee the public an uncluttered, comprehensible

broadcast; (3) the unique power of the medium; and (4) thepervasive and intrusive nature of the medium. The Court has

upheld regulation of the broadcasting medium by the FCC

who has been empowered by the Communications Act of

1934 to grant renewable licenses on the basis of a public

interest, convenience, or necessity standard.

However, suggested that the prohibition against prior

restraints is not absolute, noting that limitations on First

Amendment protection might be recognized in the followingsituations: (1) to prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting

service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or

the number and location of troops (troopship exception); (2)

to enforce the primary requirements of decency against

obscene publications; (3) to protect the community against

incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of

orderly government; and (4) to enjoin against uttering

words that may have all the effect of force.

Particularly in ongoing situations involving hostages or

potential victims, media reporters should be able to predict

with a reasonable degree of certainty that a harmful act is

likely to result from certain broadcasts. That the act is

physically perpetrated by a third party should make the

media no less culpable. Media corporations should be held

financially responsible for harm caused to innocent victims

through the fault of the media's employees. They profit from

the broadcast of the incident and in a just and fair system,that profit should be made available to compensate the

victim of the activity.

Where the public goes, so goes the press. Historically, the

public has not had access to prisons; therefore, regulating


29/59

29

media access would not be discriminatory against the press,but would merely eliminate a special privilege the press has

vis-a-vis the public. Similarly, restricting media access to the

scene of a publicity-seeking crime would surely be within

constitutional bounds. The Supreme Court has specifically

said, "Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to

scenes of crime or disaster when the general public is

excluded." Except to know whether they are in immediate

danger, the public has no real interest in the details of a

crime -- other than morbid interest in the tragedy of others onwhich our society seems to thrive. Therefore, the press,

having no greater access rights than the general public,

could constitutionally be restricted in their access to

publicity-seeking crimes and criminals.

As has been detailed previously, the Supreme Court, at least

in areas other than news coverage, has been willing to make

a distinction between the printed and electronic media. It is

time for that distinction to flow over into the area of newsbroadcasting. News broadcasting poses unique problems not

present in the traditional free speech case and certainly

inconceivable to the framers of the Constitution. It is

pervasive, becoming less and less edited, and gives the

impression of authenticity per se.

In summation, then, what can be done? The problems

created by media coverage of publicity-seeking crimes are,

again, that: (1) unbalanced media coverage enhances theenvironment of fear and coercion the terrorists seek to

generate, (2) such coverage may encourage other individuals

to engage in such conduct, (3) such coverage will dull the

sense of outrage and contempt in the general public; and (4)

such coverage can endanger hostage's lives and interfere

with effective law enforcement.

By not showing the actual crime being perpetrated on the

screens of viewers' living room television sets, feelings ofanxiety and fear could be lessened. By not showing the

criminals in the act of committing the crime, much of the

gratification is removed from the act for the criminal and for

those who might imitate him. Again, by not continually

showing the gory details as they happen, the viewing public


30/59

30

becomes less immunized against the atrocities of crime. Thereasons for limiting access are not related to the intimidation,

imitation, or immunization factors but are based on the

safety of potential victims.

When media coverage becomes an immediate threat to the

lives of potential victims of publicity-seeking crimes, it is very

possible that finely tailored government regulation is

possible in all four forms: prior restraints, subsequent

punishment, access restrictions, and FCC regulations.

First and foremost, the Government should require that on-

the-scene coverage should be limited to only those reporters

who have had training in terrorist situations. Such selective

access could be supported as long as it furthers a compelling

governmental interest identified by narrowly drawn

standards. Secondly, all suggestions made regarding

broadcast areas, briefing areas, police hotlines, police

spokespersons, direct contact with criminals during ongoingsituations, and so forth could be justified based on the fact

that the public has no need or right to be at the scene and

the press has no more rights than the public, the lack of

governmental alternatives in dealing with the problem, and

the gravity of the harm.

It is quite possible that prior restraints could operate to

restrain a newsman from publishing information such as

police strategies, activities, or plans or the presence of

hidden persons or escaping hostages. Such publication

would surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable

damage to our Nation's ... people.

Media reporters, especially those trained in terrorist tactics,

should know what information, if released, would endanger

lives. Such knowledge should make them and their

respective employers liable for any harm caused because of

their actions.

Three of the purposes for constitutionally guaranteeing

freedoms of expression and of the press were 1) the

advancement of knowledge and discovery of truth, as an

essential element of self-governance, 2) the provision of a

safety valve by substituting reason for force, and 3) the


31/59

31

providing of a framework within which the conflict necessaryto the progress of society could take place without destroying

society. Media coverage of publicity-seeking crimes thwarts

all three objectives.

As to the purpose of advancement of knowledge, in the

technological world of today, the majority of the public is

informed through television news. Should a person decide

that he or she does not want his or her children to watch a

publicity-seeking crime as it takes place -- a decision which,given the chance, most persons would probably make -- he

must completely give up his constitutionally guaranteed

source of information (since he has no control over the

sequence of the news). Secondly, by giving publicity and

gratification to these criminals, newspersons are

encouraging substitution of force for reason -- which is a

complete contradiction to the very purpose they serve. And,

finally, instead of providing a framework within which

conflict can take place without destroying society, theyprovide a framework within which to destroy society.

19.This Honble Court in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union

of India5 stated that:

Terrorist acts are meant to destabilize the nation by

challenging its sovereignty and integrity, to raze the

constitutional principles that we hold dear, to create a

psyche of fear and anarchism among common people, to tear

apart the secular fabric, to overthrow democratically elected

government, to promote prejudice and bigotry, to demoralize

the security forces, to thwart the economic progress and

development and so on. This cannot be equated with a usual

law and order problem within a State. On the other hand, it

is inter-state, inter-national or cross-border in character.

Fight against the overt and covert acts of terrorism is not a

regular criminal justice endeavor. Rather it is defence of our

5AIR 2004 SC 456 : (2004) 9 SCC 580


32/59

32

nation and its citizens. It is a challenge to the whole nationand invisible force of Indianness that binds this great nation

together. Therefore, terrorism is a new challenge for law

enforcement. By indulging in terrorist activities organized

groups or individuals, trained, inspired and supported by

fundamentalists and anti-Indian elements were trying to

destabilize the country. This new breed of menace was

hitherto unheard of. Terrorism is definitely a criminal act, but

it is much more than mere criminality. Today, the

government is charged with the duty of protecting the unity,

integrity, secularism and sovereignty of India from terrorists,

both from outside and within borders. To face terrorism we

need new approaches, techniques, weapons, expertise and

of course new laws.

20. The fatalities by Country (as published by the National

Counter Terrorism Center, an executive agency of the United

States Government) for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 may

be noted below. The rank secured by our country in this list

is utterly incomprehensible to sociologists who are quite

unable to explain Indias inclusion (not to mention, the higherranking) in a club of nations primarily ravaged by war,

anarchy, totalitarianism, civil mutinies, armed rebellion or

breakdown of established forms of government.

For the year 2005

Rank Country Fatalities1 Iraq 13340

2 India 12563 Afghanistan 10424 Sudan 7165 Sri Lanka 6276 Columbia 5337 Thailand 520


33/59

33

8 Chad 5189 Pakistan 38710 Philippines 291

For the year 2006

Rank Country Fatalities1 Iraq 82622 India 1361

3 Columbia 8134 Afghanistan 6845 Thailand 4986 Nepal 4857 Pakistan 3388 Russia 2389 Sudan 15710 Congo 154

For the year 2007

Rank Country Fatalities1 Iraq 136062 Afghanistan 19663 Pakistan 13354 India 10935 Thailand 8596 Somalia 7677 Sudan 403

8 Chad 3689 Columbia 36410 Sri Lanka 241

21.The simple relief sought for by the petitioner is a judicial

order to ensure that Media Respondents 3 to 18 do not

facilitate any communication between suspected or

apprehended terrorists and the citizens of this country except

with the prior approval of our executive Government,

Respondents 1 and 2. It may be noted here that the 2nd

Respondent, the Ministry of Home Affairs has recognised a


34/59

34

list of 34 organisations as Terrorist Organisations under the

provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 19676.

22. It has become necessary to seek such a judicial order in view

of the fact that Respondents 1 and 2 have failed to discharge

their obligation respectively to impose reasonable restraint

upon conduct of the media, which conduct is clearly

disruptive of public peace. The people of this country have a

reasonable right to expect peaceful existence and this

reasonable right is clearly a fundamental right and is the

underlying context of every enumerated fundamental right in

part III of our Constitution.

23. Article 14 that forbids unequal treatment or unjust

favouritism by the State, Article 15 that forbids

discrimination against citizens upon enumerated grounds,

article 16 that secures equality of opportunity in matters of

public employment are provisions clearly devoted to

securing a peaceful co-existence amongst the diverse people

of our country.

24. Article 17 that forbids untouchability, Article 18 that forbids

grant of nobility or titles are provisions clearly devoted to

securing a harmonius social balance amongst people

historically grouped into arbitrary hierarchies. The underlying

aim thereof being peaceful coexistence of people.

6The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, a Central Statute, is

a self-contained code of provisions for declaring secessionist

associations as unlawful and imposes certain restrictions on the

liberties secured by our Constitution Freedom of Speech and

Expression, Right to Assemble Peacefully and without Arms and the

Right to Form Association or Unions.


35/59

35

25. Peaceful co-existence is impossible unless there is a peaceful

existence in the first place and the right to a peaceful

existence is clearly the unimpeachable basis of Articles 14,

15, 16, 17 and 18 of our Constitution.

26. Article 19 that guarantees individual liberties and which

prescribes grounds for restraint, Article 20 that protects

against punishment for acts that violate future laws and

which prohibits double jeopardy and self-incrimination,

Article 21 which ensures that neither life nor personal

liberty shall suffer except according to procedure established

by law are provisions that strive to secure a peaceful

existence for the citizens.

27.Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28 that enshrine the right to freedom

of religion are provisions that strive to secure a peaceful

existence for the citizens.

28.Articles 29 and 30 that safeguard interests of the minorities

are provisions that strive to secure a peaceful existence for

the citizens.

29. Accordingly, the right to a peaceful existence is clearly a

fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens of our country

and the same is put to increasing assault given the increase

in incidents of acts of terror and escalating media ambitions -

the news medias obsession for display of disorder and

destruction on a scale grander than its nearest competitor.

30. The petitioner further invites the attention of this Honble

Court to another scholarly analysis on the competitive

pressure upon Television media and on the utter


36/59

36

abandonment by the media of discretion and responsibility in

its relentless pursuit of presenting terrorist acts on screen,

TERRORISM AND NEWS MEDIA by Time Dunne7:

The reality is that terrorists win when they dont lose, and

police and security forces of western democracies lose when

they dont win.

The news media, by the tenets of their profession and thefundamental nature of the work, are drawn to these events

as moths to a flame. Theirs is the responsibility to cover,

witness, analyze and report. However, negligent, careless,

or irresponsible reporting can prolong an event, or result in

injury, death and damage.

Modern terrorism involves the use of violence to influence the

actions and attitudes of their intended audiences through the

use or the threat of use, of violence against innocent peoplein a way that captures the attention of the news media and,

through them, to the worlds public.

As time moved on, those who use terrorism as a political tool

became increasingly aware of the capability of generally-

7Tim Dunne is a retired Canadian military public affairs officer with

32 years of service. He served on both of Canadas coasts and in

Ottawa. His experience includes peacekeeping missions in Israel,Egypt, Syria and the Balkans. He served with NATOs peace support

missions in Bosnia Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia (FYROM), Albania and Kosovo, and conducted numerous

seminars and workshops in Mauritania, Austria, Algeria, Slovakia

and Italy. He held numerous public affairs management and

leadership positions, most notably with the Media Centre for the

recovery operations for Swissair flight 111 which crashed off the

coast of Nova Scotia in 1999, with NATO led exercises in France,Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In 2001, Bulgaria awarded him the

Medal for Loyal Service, among its highest military awards, for his

work during a major NATO exercise that paved the way for Bulgaria

to join the Alliance. He is currently the Communications Advisor for

the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources.


37/59

37

accepted mass media and nontraditional media to increasethe public impact and to raise the level of worldwide public

knowledge of their existence, ambitions and methods. They

progressed from accepting media coverage to planning and

incorporating news media coverage as a force multiplier.

Philip Heymann8 observed Most crimes do not involve as

part of the plan for accomplishing their objectivestrying to

change the occupants of government positions, their actions,

or the basic structures and ideology of a nation.. But allwould agree that political violence is different from ordinary

crime, in that it is planned to force changes in government

actions, people, structure, or even ideology as a means to

whatever ends the perpetrators are seeking with whatever

motivations drive them towards those ends.

The events of 11 September 2001, demonstrate how much

bang can be achieved for how little buck. It cost the al

Qaeda terrorists approximately $300,000 to murder threethousand people, destroy billions of dollars worth of

property (directly and indirectly), and shatter the confidence

of the world -- classic terrorist ambitions. New Yorks World

Trade Centre was the principal target because of the public

attention the act would garner, and that New York is the

headquarters for the Big Three news networks; ABC, CBS,

and NBC.

The success of terrorism anywhere breeds terrorism

everywhere, making media coverage of terrorist events a

major concern. Is there a relationship between terrorism and

the news media Examples of interaction between the news

media and the terrorist movements suggest that they share a

symbiotic relationship.

Richard Perl of the U.S. Congressional Research Service

suggests that what terrorists want from media are:

Publicity, usually free publicity, that a group could

normally not afford or are unable to buy. Any publicity

surrounding a terrorist act alerts the world that a

problem exists that cannot be ignored and must be

8Author of Terrorism and America A Common Sense Strategy for A

Democratic Society, Belfer Center for Science, 2000.


38/59

38

addressed. From a terrorist perspective, an uneditedinterview with a major figure is a treasured prize, such

as the May 1997.CNN interview with Saudi dissident,

terrorist recruiter and financier Osama bin Laden. For

news networks, access to a terrorist is a hot story and

is usually treated as such.

Favorable understanding for their cause, if not their

act. One may not agree with their act but this does not

preclude being sympathetic to their plight, theircircumstances, and their cause. Terrorists believe the

public needs help to understand that their cause is

just and terrorist violence is the only course of action

available to them against the superior evil forces of

state and establishment. Good relationships with the

press are important here and they are often cultivated

and nurtured over a period of years.

In hostage situations, terrorists often monitor the mediato learn the identity, number and value of hostages, as

well as details about pending rescue attempts, and

details on the public exposure of their operation. They

seek details about any plans for military retaliation,

particularly where state sponsors are involved.

Terrorist organizations seek media coverage that causes

damage to their enemy. This is particularly noticeable when

the perpetrators of the act and the rationale for that act

remain unclear. They want the media to amplify panic, to

spread fear, to facilitate economic loss, to make populations

loose faith in their governments ability to protect them, and

to trigger government and popular overreaction to specific

incidents and the overall threat of terrorism.

Richard Perl also notes what the media wish when covering

terrorist incidents of issues.

Journalists generally want the freedom to cover an

issue without external restraint- whether it comes from

media owners, advertisers, editors, or from the

government.

Media want to be the first with the story. The scoop is

golden, and the philosophy is old news is no news.


39/59


40/59

40

American press and television to provide them with unlimitedpublicity and perhaps even some form of advocacy.

Voluntary self-restraint is the general medias preferred

policy on terrorism coverage, and the approach most

favoured by more responsible members of the generally

-accepted mass media organizations to avoid the dangers of

manipulation and exploitation by terrorist groups. In

addition, major media organizations have adopted guidelines

for their staff with the aim of preventing the more obvious pitfalls. For example, CBS news guidelines commit the

organization to thoughtful, conscientious care in restraint in

its coverage of terrorism:

avoiding giving an excessive platform for the

terrorists/kidnapper;

no live coverage of the terrorist/kidnapper- thereby

avoiding interference with the authorities

communications such as use of telephone lines;

using expert advisers and hostage situations to help

avoid questions or reports that might tend to

exacerbate the situation;

avoiding obstruction of the police but reporting to their

superiors media strictures that seem to be intended to

massage (i.e.: spin) or suppress the news; and,

attempting to achieve such coverage downsized tolength that the terrorist story does not unduly crowd

out other important news of the hour/day.

The way calculating terrorists define and calibrate the cost

and benefits of their actions may be different from the way

common criminals decide whether to rob, cheat, or bully.

Societys response, therefore, must be based on pragmatic

considerations. Those who employ terrorism have their own

criteria for evaluating success and failure. Whengovernments, media and the public adopt the belief that

those who employ terrorism must be desperate and hopeless

to resort to this tactic, we commit a profound error by judging

them and their actions against our own criteria, and accord

them the rationalization that they are forced into this action


41/59

41

as an absolute last resort. Their motivations may be far moremanipulative than desperate, and their rationale, more

preferred than a last resort. Using these concepts as

justification for the actions of terrorists, we are judging them

by our perceptions and our frames of reference functions

that do not apply to activists from cultures so different from

our own.

The RAND Corporations Bruce Hoffman said:

In this new era of mass media in which theinformation revolution has transformed

communications at a world level as a result of the

advances in transmission in real-time, their hurry to

fulfill the exigencies of time for an edition and the

consequent precipitated judgments and immediate

decisions can mean more opportunities of manipulation

for terrorism and more influence than before.

Media and terrorism are linked in democratic societies.Terrorism, by its very nature, is a psychological weapon that

depends on communicating a threat to the wider society.

This is why there is a relationship between media and

terrorism based on mutual need. Media generally tend to

reflect the underlying values of the society in which it

resides. Nevertheless, the media in an open society are in a

fiercely competitive market for their audiences, constantly

under pressure to be first with the news and to provide more

information, excitement, and entertainment than their rivals.Success is reflected in increasing ratings, which then yield

higher profits. Hence, they are almost bound to respond to

terrorists Propaganda of the Deed because it is

dramatically bad news. Thus, the media are in a kind of

symbiotic relationship with terrorism.

The news media is a powerful force during confrontations,

and whether we like it or not, the mass media has more

impact than most other agencies in how operations areperceived by the outside world. Their coverage is instant and

can be world-wide if the circumstances warrant the attention

of viewers in other countries. And they will take sizeable

risks to get the story and get it out to their audiences.


42/59

42

The lesson learned is that the media will be on-site instantly.They have radio scanners and contacts throughout

communities that will tell them what is happening, where it

is happening and what has occurred so far, in the opinion of

some who would not qualify as expert witnesses. Media

responses in crises situations like these begin by reporting

immediately by describing the scene, and initially their

stories are normally negative because there usually is no

one available to provide the government side of the story

when they arrive.

The first images are the live eye. The cameras will scan the

immediate vicinity to communicate the environment at the

scene, and in their haste to begin their reports they will seek

witnesses, report fact and fantasy, and will seek linkages.

As they become established, reporters will interview non-

competitive reporters and they will find self-proclaimed

experts.

First of all, if none of the good guys will speak to them,

then representatives of the bad guys will, even if it is by

telephone from the Middle East. Also, it is critically important

that journalists understand what they are permitted to do

and not permitted to do. One glaring example of what has

been called media irresponsibility happened during the

hijacking of a Kuwaiti airliner by Hizballah and its landing in

Larnaca, Cyprus in 1988. Security forces intended to launch

a rescue effort while the plane was on the ground, but themedias unrelenting coverage and live television images

made a surprise attack impossible. Cameras were equipped

with infra-red filters so that television watchers could see

everything, even at night.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the news media

and spectacular terrorist events. One of the most important

aims of a terrorist attack is to gain publicity for a particular

cause or even a particular aim, and the terrorist depends onthe media to inform the public. At the same time, and

contingent on the particular audiences monitoring these

events, the media endeavour to entertain shock, amuse, or

otherwise affect the emotions of the people who monitor the

news media the readers, listeners and viewers.


43/59

43

Competition between media organizations only heightens thenecessity to focus on their ability to affect emotions. Those

who commit and perpetrate terrorist acts understand this

and carefully script and choreograph to attract the coverage

they want. There is no way that western media can ignore

an event that has been fashioned specifically for their needs.

Television terrorists can no more do without the media than

the media can resist the terrorist event. The two create a

symbiotic relationship so that forces and pressure on oneprovokes reactions by the other.

In response to these requirements, the U.S. Department of

Justice (National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice

Standards and Goals) made a number of recommendations

based on the principles of minimum intrusiveness and

complete, non-inflammatory coverage. Some of the more

notable suggestions include:

When necessary, use a media pool to cover thesituation on behalf of all news agencies;

Self-imposed restrictions on lighting, use of cameras

and other special newsgathering technologies;

Limit direct interviews with hostage-takers during an

incident;

Avoid inquiries to reveal tactical information that would

be detrimental to police operations if revealed;

Delay the reporting of details which may inflame the

situation;

Where possible, avoid reporting that emphasizes the

sensational aspects of the incident;

Rely on official government spokespersons, when

available. Balance the coverage of self-serving terrorist

propaganda with contrasting information from officialsources.

Negotiations for the life of a victim are done in an

atmosphere of ghoulish public curiosity, apprehension and

even hysteria. To refuse the terrorists demands is


44/59

44

tantamount to valuing the life of the victim below that of theransom or demand. The presence of publicity forces the

negotiating authorities to accept that refusal may have a

vastly magnified impact on the victim, the victims family and

on other potential victims. A government at war will

contemptuously reject an ultimatum in the knowledge that it

may cost thousands of lives in a city under siege. But that

same government may pay a huge political price to save an

individual in the face of an ultimatum from a group of three

or four clandestine terrorists. The best example is theSeptember 1972 Munich Olympics in which eight Black

September terrorists kidnapped and killed eleven Israeli

athletes. The terrorists had no serious expectations of the

Israeli or German governments, but millions of people

watched. While most were disgusted, if even a small

percentage were sympathetic this could have amounted to a

huge number of potential collaborators all over the world.

A form of symbiotic relationship exists between the newsmedia and spectacular terrorist incidents. One of the most

important aims of a terrorist attack is to gain publicity for a

particular cause, sometimes the only aim. The presumed

primary aim of news media is to inform. However, it is at

least as important in practice to entertain, shock, amuse or

otherwise affect the emotions of the audience, in particular,

of television. Competition between media organizations

seems to heighten the necessity to focus on the emotion

generating, as opposed to the purely informational aspects of

news reporting. Terrorists are aware of the phenomenon of

media coverage and often consciously script live action

spectaculars. Specifically, media coverage of terrorist events

are said to have some or all of the following effects:

It provides a platform for the expression of extremist

views which provoke violence and undermine the

authority of the state;

The reporting of spectacular terrorist incidents has a

contagion effect which increases the probability that

other groups or individuals will emulate the violence

being reported;


45/59

45

Coverage of an ongoing incident hinders policeoperations and may place the lives of hostages and

police in jeopardy;

Coverage of an ongoing incident puts inappropriate

pressure on the authorities which limits their powers

as decision-makers;

The large number of reporters at and extent of

coverage of a terrorist incident reinforces the terrorists

sense of power and particularly in the case of

deranged terrorists, may contribute significantly to

prolonging the incident or to an increase in its serious

consequences;

Related to the contagion effect is the claim that

excessive detail of both terrorist and counter-terrorist

operations supplies disaffected groups with tactical

and strategic information and technical knowledge

which make the resolution of future terrorist incidentsmore difficult;

The competitive nature of newsgathering places an

undue emphasis on the sensational aspects of terrorist

events and makes entertainment of public violence

rather than performing a public duty to inform;

The instantaneous reporting of terrorist incidents and

the existence of some newsgathering principles (suchas telephone contact with terrorists in the course of an

incident) make reporters participants in, rather than

observers at, a terrorist event and diminish the ability

of the media to report objectively.

There are forces in the news industry which sometimes

subtly and sometimes visibly affect the presentation of

facts so that some ideas appear good and others bad. The

concept of a free market of ideas is a romantic one that is at

odds with the modern realities of monopolistic group-

ownership and cross-media control of news outlets. It is

absurd in the face of all the evidence that media are merely

passive observers passing on all information they receive to

allow the public to draw on informed conclusions.


46/59


47/59

47

Responsible CBS News representatives shouldendeavour to contact experts dealing with the hostage

situation to determine whether they have any guidance

on such questions as phraseology to be avoided, what

kinds of questions or reports might tend to exacerbate

the situation, etc. Any such recommendations by

established authorities on the scene should be

carefully considered as guidance (but not as

instruction) by CBS News personnel.

Local authorities should also be given the name or

names of CBS personnel whom they can contact

should they have further guidance or wish to deal with

such delicate questions as a newsmans call to the

terrorists or other matters which might interfere with

authorities dealing with the terrorists.

Guidelines affecting our coverage of civil disturbances

are also applicable here, especially those which relateto avoiding the use of inflammatory catchwords or

phrases, the reporting of rumours, etc. As in the case

of policy dealing with civil disturbances, in dealing

with a hostage story reporters should obey all police

instructions but report immediately to their superiors

any such instructions that seem to be intended to

manage or suppress the news.

Coverage of this kind of story should be in such overall

balance as to length, that it does not unduly crowd out other

important news of the hour/day. A second and more easily

substantiated charge is that some newsgathering practices

hinder the effective management of terrorist incidents,

particularly those involving hostage taking. There have been

situations in which media have conducted direct telephone

interviews with hostagetakers, and one situation in Ottawa

in the late 1970s, a local television team was showing live

the hostage-taking at the Turkish ambassadors residence,and broadcast the ambassador lying beneath a window.

Had the terrorists been watching television they would have

been able to carry out their primary mission of

assassination.


48/59

48

In another incident in the mid-1980s, a national newsreporter entered Toronto International Airports security area

through an exit passing in front of a security guard, and

then was shown on an aircraft placing a starter pistol (used

to start races, and does not fire a projectile) and simulated

explosives in the seat pocket of this airline seat. He was

charged by the RCMP.

In both cases, authorities should have considered the

possibility of bringing charges of criminal mischief and/ornegligence against these media personnel.

When journalists invoke the privilege and authority that goes

with their advantaged positions, they must also exercise a

commensurate level of responsibility and accountability.

Concurrently, public and police officials must also take steps

to hold news personnel accountable when they exercise their

prerogatives irresponsibly. To do otherwise could result in

losing control of a situation with the potential of direconsequences.

31. Respondent 1, the Ministry of Information And Broadcasting,

has published a grand and ambitious set of guidelines titled

Self Regulation Guidelines for the Broadcasting Sector

2008. Excerpts from the same are presented below to

contrast the actual conduct of media with that stated below:

The Self Regulation Guidelines were enacted for the

following reasons:

A need has been felt to regulate the content going into public

domain to ensure conformity with acceptable contemporary

community standards and to protect the vulnerable sections

from harmful and undesirable content on TV.

These Self Regulation Guidelines (Guidelines) set out

principles, guidelines and ethical practices, which shall

guide the Broadcasting Service Provider (BSP) in offering

their programming services in India so as to conform to the

Certification Rules prescribed under the Cable Television


49/59

49

Networks (regulations) Act 1995, irrespective of themedium/platform used for broadcasting of the programme.

These Guidelines have been drafted to introduce greater

specificity and detail with a view to facilitate self regulation

by the broadcasting industry and minimize scope for

subjective decision by regulatory authorities or the

broadcasting service providers. The basic underlying

principle of these Guidelines is that the responsibility of

complying with the provisions of the Certification Rules vestswith the BSP.

As the Guidelines are based on self-regulation, these set out

the factors, which should be taken into account by the BSP

when forming a view about the acceptability of any

programme.

The BSP has to adhere to the Certification Rules under the

Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, which are

in addition and not in derogation of the Drugs and CosmeticsAct 1940, the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper

Use) Act, 1950, the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950, the Drugs and

Magic Remedies (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1954, the

Prevention of Food & Adulteration Act, 1954, the Prize

Competitions Act, 1995, the Indecent Representation of

Women (Prohibition)Act, 1986, the Trade and Merchandise

Marks Act, 1999, the Copyright Act, 1957, The Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 .., The Cigarette and other

Tobacco Products Act 2003, the Cinematograph Act, 1952,

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and such other existing

or new statutes, and Rules/Regulations/Guidelines framed

thereunder from time, relating to exhibition of films or

broadcasting of programmes and advertisements.

Principles

The Self Regulation guidelines were made on the following

principles:

These Guidelines are intended to guide the BSP and are

based on enduring principles; that all programming should

not mislead, cause offence, or lead to harm, particularly to

the vulnerable.


50/59

50

This section should be read in conjunction with CertificationRules. Basic principles of these Guidelines are the following:

Programmes should always be scheduled with an

awareness of the likely audience in mind. Great care

and sensitivity should be exercised to avoid shocking

or offending the audience.

Each BSP shall categorize each of their programs

based on its theme, subject-matter treatment, language

and audio visuals presentation and slot it accordingly.

The BSP will ensure that all programmes broadcast

are in accordance with scheduling as per Certification

Rules.

The BSP should take reasonable steps to protect

minors. The BSP should be vigilant in gaining an

understanding of how material shown on television

could impact the development of minors. Minors cover

a wide age group and levels of maturity. It is thereforenecessary for the BSP to exercise judgment on the

capacity of minors in different age groups in coping

with the depiction and treatment of material, which

may not be suitable for them.

By and large, the Certification Rules shall uniformly

apply to all types of BSPs. However, for News and

Current affairs (N & C A) programming, it is desirable

that BSPs edit the content as well as carry prominentwarnings and suitably mask any portions of news or

current affairs scenes considered unsuitable for

viewing in accordance with the certifica

Documents

Writ Petition Restrain Television.com