IF televised coverage of last week’s assault on Karachi’s PNS Mehran airbase is anything to go by, it would seem that the industry still has lessons to learn in terms of covering such events in a responsible fashion, and keeping the safety of newsmen as well as others in mind.

News crews rushed to the spot as knowledge of the attack spread with a rapid ripple effect. Within hours of the assault being launched late Sunday night, live coverage was being beamed into millions of homes across the country. Reporters gave the ‘facts’ as best as they could ascertain them in a rapidly evolving situation — while a counter-operation was going on. After all, the drama eventually ended nearly 16 hours after it had begun.

Many aspects of the assault, for which the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claimed responsibility, remained murky while security forces were still battling with the militants. How many people had invaded the base, where they were exactly in the compound, whether or not hostages had been taken, how many security personnel were involved — all these details emerged much later.

In their eagerness to cover the situation in as much detail as possible, though, some news crews appear to have crossed the line of responsible reporting in such a volatile and still-unfolding situation.

There were shots, for example, of security forces’ movement in the compound. This breaches the basic guideline of keeping in mind the safety of the security personnel: what if the militants inside the compound had access to television, which would tell them where the counter-operation was being launched from? Even if direct access to televised news was not available, in this era of cellular communication it is highly likely that they could have been in touch with others outside the compound who did have access to the footage being flashed on TV.

Such a failing on the part of Pakistan’s news channels has been witnessed before in other and similar situations, notably the attack on Lahore’s Manawan Police Academy in March, 2009. Then too, the intentions and positions of the security forces were revealed on television, to their detriment.

This particular issue — of compromising the safety of security personnel and alerting terrorists to the situation outside their barricade — came into sharp focus after the November 2008 Mumbai siege. Then, similarly, live footage of events as they unfolded, particularly of the movements of the security forces, were thought to have breached certain limits.

It was realised that the immediacy of televised news can work to the benefit of terrorists. There was a general recognition that in such situations, particularly where hostages may be involved, safety concerns must take precedence over the people’s right to news as it happens.

The hostage factor applies to the coverage of the PNS Mehran attack as well. For many hours, it was unclear whether or not hostages had been taken, and whether any foreigners were present at the base. Such speculation was bandied about without a thought to whether such ‘information’, if conveyed to the militants holding a portion of the base, would compromise the safety of any hostages that had been taken or foreigners (or others) that may have been attempting to exit the compound safely.

There was also the matter of journalists’ and news crews’ own safety. It was a location fraught with danger, where bullets or bombs could conceivably go off any time and at any place. Few news crews, however, maintained a safe distance from the focus of operations; few flak jackets were in evidence. We can only consider ourselves fortunate — a matter of happenstance — that the dead and the injured did not include those who were reporting on the situation.

Pakistan is becoming more dangerous by the day, and those reporting the news are amongst the people in the line of fire. There have been many instances where journalists have been caught up in terror attacks, killed or wounded in the course of duty.

This aspect of the job and others were recognised and addressed two years ago when, in November 2009, a number of large televised news channels agreed upon a voluntary code of conduct to standardise professional guidelines regarding terrorism coverage.

This agreement was motivated, in part, by concerns for journalists’ safety as well as irresponsible coverage: recall, for instance, a portion of footage from the carnage in Karachi on May 12, 2007, when a television channel aired footage of a wounded man dying in the shell of a bus, with the camera continuing to film but the news crew doing nothing to help the victim.

According to the relevant press release dated Nov 6, 2009, news managers decided that, when required, they would utilise a delay mechanism in their transmissions, enabling the channels to edit out undesirable footage. “The news managers also agreed to exercise extreme caution when covering incidents involving hostages. They decided that in such situations they will take all steps necessary to ensure that information being relayed through the channels does not, in any way, help the hostage-takers.

“Better training for camera crew and safety orientation of reporters were other areas where the group agreed to implement swift measures in line with the potential and constraints of each channel.

“They also agreed to introduce strict safety measures for their crews covering disaster situations.”

How much of this has been achieved or implemented? The level of graphicness while reporting on terror incidents has, certainly, reduced for the most part. Yet news organisations still have a lot of ground to cover, particularly in terms of the points enumerated above.

From time to time, articles published in various newspapers point out the need to train journalists for working in hostile conditions, not just terror incidents but also reporting from conflict zones such as the north-western parts of the country.

The news industry must recognise the need for not just factual and objective reports as far as is possible, but that the interests of the state and the citizenry are also of paramount importance. A process of internal examination is required not just on the level of the organisations but of the individuals that gather, wrap and present the news.

The writer is a member of staff.

hajrahmumtaz@gmail.com