Terrorism coverage

Published February 22, 2023

AS Pakistan faces a resurgent wave of terrorism, important questions need to be discussed about how the media covers acts of violence, especially pertaining to its live coverage of hostage/combat situations. At the moment, rolling coverage of acts of terrorism and their aftermath is the norm, as was witnessed during last week’s militant siege of the Karachi Police Office. In this regard, electronic media regulator Pemra on Monday issued a notification banning live coverage of terrorist attacks. The regulator cited a variety of reasons for its decision, including the fact that such coverage can create hurdles in rescue and combat operations, adding that media workers too could put their own lives at risk by ignoring protocols. Therefore, citing the 2015 media code of conduct, as well as other legal precedents, the authority banned the broadcast, rebroadcast and live coverage of explosions, blasts and acts of terrorism.

There can be little argument with the point that hostage situations should not be covered live, as the airing of sensitive material during such coverage can compromise security operations by leaking confidential information to militant handlers who may be active outside the conflict zone. A similar situation was witnessed during the terrorist attack targeting GHQ in 2009. In the aftermath of that episode, the media fraternity hammered out a code of conduct concerning the live coverage of such events. It is time media organisations themselves reviewed and updated this code. Going live in such circumstances can put the lives of hostages as well as security and rescue personnel at risk, as terrorists can have advance warning of the law enforcers’ movements. Yet the public also has a right to know, and in the absence of credible information during such operations, wild rumours and outright lies can spread panic. Therefore, there needs to be a balance between maintaining operational secrecy and providing credible information to the public. This can be done if the state appoints official spokespersons who can provide the media with verified facts about a particular counterterrorism operation. It is also true that media personnel need better training — particularly in reporting in active conflict zones — for their own safety as well as those they are reporting on. The state should not arbitrarily ban media outlets, but the media industry does need to discuss SOPs internally to ensure credible and responsible coverage of acts of terrorism.

Published in Dawn, February 22nd, 2023

Opinion

Editorial

Free, fair & timely
Updated 01 Jun, 2023

Free, fair & timely

The stakeholders need to take a step back and let democracy take its course.
Virtual SCO summit
01 Jun, 2023

Virtual SCO summit

HOSTING multilateral summits is a matter of great prestige for states, as world leaders gather at the same table to...
Missing anchorperson
Updated 01 Jun, 2023

Missing anchorperson

IT gives insight into the obduracy of those in whose custody Imran Riaz Khan is being held that multiple appeals ...
Constitutional courts
Updated 31 May, 2023

Constitutional courts

While the idea may not be without its merits, the establishment of a constitutional court cannot be done without national consensus.
Hunger pangs
31 May, 2023

Hunger pangs

A RECENTLY released report by two UN agencies should serve as a wake-up call to the ruling elite — that is, if ...
No-Tobacco Day
31 May, 2023

No-Tobacco Day

DESPITE successive governments’ efforts, tobacco use continues to remain a significant public health challenge for...