THE DHAKA MASSACRE
On the night of 1st July 2016, at 21:20
local time, the citizens of Bangladesh witnessed the worst terror attack in the
country. Everyone’s lives came to a standstill as the news of twenty people
being taken hostage by six militants in the city’s hub ‘Gulshan Café’ spread.
TVs were switched on, phones were ringing and social media was buzzing with a
number of speculations about the massacre. The assailants managed to kill 29
people using cold-blooded and barbaric means. The victims were of Italian,
Japanese, Bangladeshi, Indian and American origin. Ten hours post the beginning
of the attack, to gain control of the situation, the Bangladesh Armed Forces
launched a counter-attack resulting in a siege that lasted 50 minutes. They
managed to rescue 13 hostages and to kill five of the six assailants. The last
one was caught alive. The attack came to an end after 11 hours, but managed to
stay with everyone for much longer than that.
Articles from very prominent newspapers have been
chosen in order to analyse the reporting on this topic. The analysis is of
reports that came out the very next day of the massacre, i.e. on 2nd
July. The articles chosen include:
1. The
Times of India’s front page article (with continuation on page 20).
2. Business
Standard’s front page article in a column (with continuation on page 5).
3. Mumbai
Mirror’s page 16 article.
4. The
Indian Express’s article.
5. An
online article by BBC News.
For a country that witnessed a very gruesome and
monstrous that goes by the name of 26/11, news of the Dhaka massacre brought
back terrible memories for all Indians. Any mention of the 26/11 cruelty still sends
shivers down one’s spine. The very phrase “taken hostage” in the news was
enough to make everyone stop their work and take a walk down memory lane. If
any country could relate the most to Bangladesh at that very moment, it was
India.
The Dhaka massacre, being one of the inhuman attacks
in Bangladesh, has been subject to much speculation by the media, both national
and international. Various assumptions about the attackers, the armed forces,
the authorities and the whole situation were made. It is a well-known fact that
26/11 witnessed not only sadistic human behaviour from the terrorists’ end, but
also reckless and insensitive human behaviour from the media’s end. Thus, this
topic was chosen to see whether media reporting in this case was appropriate
and careful, or whether it took inspiration from the recklessness shown during
26/11.
In order to analyse the reporting, articles from the
top newspapers have been picked, including The Times of India, Hindustan Times,
Business Standard, Mumbai Mirror and BBC news’ online forum. The motive behind
picking such prominent papers is to understand whether or not media houses with
the widest reach among citizens are delivering news appropriately and
correctly.
1. The
Times of India
The Times of India report on the Dhaka massacre was
found in a small paragraph on the front page, with a continuation on page 20.
The majority of the report spoke only about speculations. Without offering much
concrete information, the report was summed up leaving the reader deprived of any
accurate knowledge about the massacre.
There is no proper format or organization to the
report. The paragraphs do not follow a sequence and are found to repeat the
same information over and over. Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5, all deal with what
exactly happened in more or less the same words. The same information too is
found repeated in the form of quotes by various different people, thereby
delivering no new facts. The same content is framed in different ways to make
the article longer:
a)
“…taking hostages and exchanging gunfire with security forces…”
b)
“…took customers and staffers hostage at gunpoint.”
c)
“Some people are being held hostage at gunpoint inside the restaurant,” Monirul
Islam… told The Daily Star newspaper.
d)
“We are aware of what appears to a hostage situation in the Gulshan
neighbourhood of Dhaka.”
Not
following the pattern of a traditional report, this Times of India report does
not even portray experimentation. It merely shows information recklessly
scattered everywhere without a comprehensive flow. Indicating no real facts of
their own, the Times of India article has taken bits and pieces from the
articles of other newspapers and compiled them.
2. Mumbai Mirror
The
Mumbai Mirror’s report on the Dhaka massacre was found on the 16th
page of the newspaper. It is a blatant copy of the Times of India report (or
perhaps the Times of India report is a copy of it). Making no changes to the
original article other than the addition of four extra lines in between, Mumbai
Mirror did not mention the source for their report, which is Times of India.
Following
the same unstructured and unorganized pattern, this report did not even correct
the grammatical error found in the original report by ToI: “…what appears to
(be) a hostage situation…” There is not just blatant, but also blind copying.
3. Business
Standard
The
Business Standard’s report on the Dhaka massacre was found in a column on the
first page of the newspaper. While the information here offers a good insight
into the situation by answering the basic questions of ‘What’, ‘When’ and
‘Where’, its continuation on page 5 starts off with more or less the same
information. The next paragraph then adds to the facts by discussing the
assailants, but the paragraphs following it again explores the situation in a
manner similar to paragraphs 1 and 2. Although making use of good grammar and
simple sentences, the report still fails to follow a very structured format.
The reader keeps coming back to the same information every few paragraphs.
4. The
Indian Express
The
Hindustan Times’ report on the Dhaka massacre proved to be the most
well-written article of the lot. It offers a lot of information that the other
newspaper don’t, with the reader finding new facts in every other sentence. It
discusses concrete information rather than speculations made by other media
houses. Focusing solely on how the events unfolded, it does not try to make any
assumptions by answering the question ‘Why’ on its own. The report follows an
organized, structured format and clearly divides the information into different
contexts. The reader witnesses a comprehensive flow of facts, making it a
traditional report.
5. BBC
News (Online article)
The
BBC News’ report follows absolutely no structure or format. It gives the
impression of an article that was written for the sake of it. With facts thrown
here and there, the report makes for a very disconnected piece of writing. The
report is written in point-form which prevents the reader from recognizing a
flow in the sequence of events. Moreover, the article is made of lesser facts
and of more personal accounts of the journalist. Giving it an essay-like
essence, the “report” focuses on personal experience and feelings. It deviates
from the purpose of the report by influencing the way in which the situation is
portrayed to the readers. It gives a more emotional than factual vibe.
With
only one article following a structured format (the one from The Indian Express),
most of the articles were found putting up any information anywhere. The
articles give one the impression that they have been written just for the sake
of writing something. Although they do not indicate any “sensationalization” of
news, they fail to bring out the seriousness of the situation with accuracy.
The frequent repetition of facts in the same article shows lack of research and
importance given to the situation.
Thus,
overall, while the media reporting was not reckless or insensitive, most of the
articles do not provide information about an event that occurred just one day
previously in a crisp and significant manner.
-Vaishali Singh
Comments
Post a Comment