‘Our war reporting has evolved to a stage where international media is looking at us’

Media, it is said, is the fourth pillar of democracy. It is the onus of the media fraternity to bring forth accurate and data-driven information to the masses. While reporting in the city requires a set of definitive skill-sets, the dynamics change when the same reporting is done from a war zone. Discussing the perils, challenges and obstacles that a reporter on-ground at a war zone faces and overcomes was a stellar panel of journalists as Sweta Singh, Sr Executive Editor, Social Programming, Aaj Tak; Vineet Malhotra, Consulting Editor, NewsX; Gaurav C Sawant, Sr Executive Editor, India Today and Aaj Tak; Megha Sharma, Assistant Executive Editor, NewsX. The session was moderated by Ruhail Amin, Sr Editor, e4m and Karan Bhatia, Strategic Business Advisor, e4m.

Amin kick-started the session by putting forth one of the most important questions: "When it comes to reporting a war, Indian channels Vs international media - where do we stand? Is it just an eyeball game for us or is it humane and driven by the zeal to bring out the hidden facts?" To this, Sawant explained, "For us, it is not about eyeballs. For us, at the India Today Group and Aaj Tak - whether it is the conflict in Ukraine or the situation in Ladakh or counter-terror what's operations in J&K - it's telling our country about what's happening on the ground and reporting it as factually and accurately during the war. That has been our effort throughout, Whether I was reporting from Libya, Egypt, Lebanon or Iraq, the effort was always to get to the heart of the story and get to ground reality."

Singh agreed and said, "The Indian media was much bolder than all of the international media. We did not have bulletproof jackets in Ukraine. We went there when the war hadn't started. I had to walk about 4 km with a 30 kg backpack before I could get a taxi to move around. Bulletproof jackets were the last of our priorities. We ventured into areas where there was active firing and shelling without them, while most international media were mostly in Lviv where the embassies were. And when we were venturing into these areas, India was neutral. Our stand as journalists - whether we were covering it from Ukraine or from Russia - was completely neutral and we were the bravest journalists the world over."

Today, the Indian media is covering the war internationally, perhaps more than ever. The question then arises as to how evolved has Indian media become. "I definitely agree with Gaurav and Shweta," said Sharma and added, "While I was covering from the news studios, my reporters were out there covering the entire conflict zone. There were a lot of challenges and problems that these people had to face, and I would definitely have to say that the Indian journalists and reporters were at the top of the game." Agreeing with Singh on India being neutral, she added, "It was a neutral ground on which we were actually covering and it continues to go on even now. Then comes the big question about the conflict that the western media portrays when a Ukraine-Russia conflict happens vs what Russia or Russian allies continue to say - so it was important for the Indian media to put up a neutral stance, and that gave us a lot of commendability from international media as well. And I think perhaps the first time around where international media have been looking at Indian media that has been getting into the trenches, figuring out by themselves and giving us neutral coverage of what actually happened. So, kudos to us, the Indian media, for having evolved to a stage where international media is looking at us and gaining perspective. I also feel that we have come of age in terms of not looking at international media any longer."

The discussion took a turn to deliberate on the ways the Indian media covers war and where have we arrived in terms of experience and coverage and insights. Malhotra pointed out: "I saw Gaurav and Shweta go to Ukraine and cover the war, and when I saw them I realised, as did every media person, that that was what you signed up for. Unfortunately for Megha and I, we could not go but I grew up in Russia as my father was a diplomat. So, I have been to Ukraine and Russia, and I know how difficult it can get in terms of weather and language barriers. And the way our journalists were able to handle all that and not even break a sweat - I think it was a very humbling moment for us. You can sit in the studio and form an opinion on a number of things, but I think the action is where the war is. And what happened in Ukraine, I think Indian media was very intrepid and bold. In the past, we have had wars and a few media houses covered them. But this time I saw everybody did it. And it was not for the TRPs but for telling the people the truth, and that, I feel, was a defining moment in Indian media. It is important to understand that a journalist could be the main person in the studio but when he goes to a war zone, he is vulnerable, volatile and is reporting facts. We have lost a few journalists. In Afghanistan, when the Americans were leaving, we did lose a couple of reporters. So, it lent a lot of perspective to people like me as well. I have reported in the past but I have never been in a situation where I had to think about my life and at the same time figure out what's going on."

Mitra shared a different perspective on the visible transition of how Indian media has gone from reporting at the home ground to international events and whether it is happening the right way. "There are two aspects to this. First, when you report on the ground during a war, it's different when you are posted there as a correspondent. Getting posted and being at a place for some time, three years at least, would give you a lot of ground context as to what's happening. Whereas, when you land during a war, it's extremely tactical - you are covering what you are seeing. One of the problems that I realised was, when I landed in Afghanistan, a lot of our trips to interview the Taliban used to get blocked by shelling, fighting or whatever was happening. And the problem there was you'd only see what the Taliban wanted you to see." He highlighted the role of the editor in ensuring all-encompassing news that is accurate to the last detail. "Remember, reporting on the ground, you get caught up in the tactical and not able to see the strategy. And this is where a great news editor or a newsroom person compares it, contextualises the raw reporting in a way that would suit his audience and brings in the balance and fact-checking and the analysis. So, I think, war reporting, in that sense, technically should be the perfect synchronicity of live, on-the-ground, up-to-date reporting plus the more academic side of a newsroom, which is calming things down, contextualising and putting it in the larger picture."

Bhatia delved into one of the most pertinent challenges facing Indian journalists reporting on the ground in a foreign country - communication and language barrier. Recounting his experience of witnessing the Ukraine and Azerbaijan war, he enquired the panel how they validated and authenticated the information that they were receiving? "Most of you were there on the ground and must be relying on some local resource who must be telling you what is really happening then and there at the ground," Bhatia asked, directing the question towards Gaurav, who shared that he was in Ukraine for a little over two months and in two phases. "Initially when we went, we were lucky to have landed in Kyiv at a time when the war had not started. So, we had an Indian translator and an Indian driver who could speak Russian. You also have Google Translate to help but you are right. Your perspective comes from the country that you are in. But one of the big things in this war was access to information and the Internet, so you would always have the other side of the story. And when you are a reporter on the ground, you cover what you see, which is often described as a 'worm's-eye-view'. But that is exactly why you are there. You are reporting tactical stuff while your anchor in the studio is reporting the strategic stuff. Language, therefore, is a huge barrier. FOr example, we were detained by the Ukrainian Army for several hours multiple times. We were suspected of being close to the Russians, although we had all clearances. It was perhaps because I had a number of Russian Visas on my passport. That was a crisis at one point in time but when they got to know that we were reporting and would cross check everything on the Internet, they permitted us to go to Bucha much ahead of anyone else."