UPDATED: DECEMBER 1, 2008 AT 18:42
"Our Politicians Fiddle as Innocents Die," blared the Times of India newspaper on Sunday as the political recriminations began in the wake of last week's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The headline coincided with the resignation of India's highest-ranking internal security official, who said he was taking "moral" responsibility for the tragedy.
While the country's black-cat commandos have been largely commended for their work in the street-to-street (and sometimes room-to-room) combat with the assailants, the Indian intelligence, counter terrorism and surveillance services faced almost immediate criticism for allowing the attacks to happen in the first place. There are even reports that the government had advance warning.
All of this sounds eerily reminiscent. The early reporting from India suggests that national governments have not learned the lessons from the failures of earlier targets of terrorism.
It is worth saying out loud that the strengths and weaknesses of the evolving media landscape were also on full public view during this latest tragedy, marking an evolution that can be traced back to natural disasters (hurricanes on the gulf coast of this country or the Asian tsnami) if not before.
Consider stories that were published and posted while Mumbai was still under siege. NPR introduced its listeners to Sreenath Sreenivasan, a journalist who also serves as dean of student affairs at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. Within in an hour of learning of the Mumbai attacks, Sreenivasan "was hosting a Web radio call-in show with other Indian journalists relaying what they knew." It was the meeting of old and media, with the conventions of journalism tempering the noise that inevitably follows shocking developments.
Elsewhere, a Reuters dispatch reported, "Bloggers across Mumbai fed live updates ... [on the] ...attacks in the heart of India's financial capital, highlighting the social media's new expanding role in news coverage." It pointed to photos of the attacks on Flikr, frequent updates of an entry on Wikipedia, a steady stream of updates and comments on twitter and myriad bloggers doing what they could to help. Clearly, these Web 2.0 technologies are as effective as anything we have seen in terms of immediacy -- a particularly powerful attribute when they are in the hands of those on the ground with unique, authoratative information.
But, and there is are two big buts here: (a) precious few bloggers and even microbloggers are that close and that relevant, prefering instead the comfort of home half way around the world (present company included); and, (b) something disturbing happened to embedded links as they aged. Dina Mehta blogged furiously from Mumbai during the siege, originally describing herself as "upset and angry and bereft." But by Sunday night, visitors to her blog learned that she had grown weary of a secondary problem -- inappropriate and even abusive speech.
In a helpful clarification (including a corrected URL for her post) to the original version of this post, Mehta wrote me:
Another blogger, Gaurav Mishra responded to Mehta's decision by setting out a multipoint plan for confronting extremest commentary. Citizen journalism has no conventions to guide it, and those that comment are prepared to say almost anything under the veil of anonymity.
[As if to remind us of those things at which Web 2.0 is particularly good, Mishra provides links to events or movements spontaneously conceived on or through the Web to benefits of victims of the 11/26 terrorist attacks -- some local, others global -- Nov 30 Tweetup at Leopold Cafe, Facebook Wear White Event, Facebook Support 11/26 Fighters Event.]
At the risk of making a snap judgment even as the events of last week are still unwinding, the response and the reportage were both only partial successes. Honoring those who served well is important but taking a hard look at what failed may be where the greatest value lies. It is the only way to perfect or reform institutions about which we care -- government, media and that still amorphous thing called Web 2.0.
A final note. There is another post about Mumbai that I struggled to write over the long Thanksgiving weekend. I couldn't get it right. Thankfully, CBC essayist Rex Murphy did:
"Our Politicians Fiddle as Innocents Die," blared the Times of India newspaper on Sunday as the political recriminations began in the wake of last week's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The headline coincided with the resignation of India's highest-ranking internal security official, who said he was taking "moral" responsibility for the tragedy.
While the country's black-cat commandos have been largely commended for their work in the street-to-street (and sometimes room-to-room) combat with the assailants, the Indian intelligence, counter terrorism and surveillance services faced almost immediate criticism for allowing the attacks to happen in the first place. There are even reports that the government had advance warning.
All of this sounds eerily reminiscent. The early reporting from India suggests that national governments have not learned the lessons from the failures of earlier targets of terrorism.
It is worth saying out loud that the strengths and weaknesses of the evolving media landscape were also on full public view during this latest tragedy, marking an evolution that can be traced back to natural disasters (hurricanes on the gulf coast of this country or the Asian tsnami) if not before.
Consider stories that were published and posted while Mumbai was still under siege. NPR introduced its listeners to Sreenath Sreenivasan, a journalist who also serves as dean of student affairs at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. Within in an hour of learning of the Mumbai attacks, Sreenivasan "was hosting a Web radio call-in show with other Indian journalists relaying what they knew." It was the meeting of old and media, with the conventions of journalism tempering the noise that inevitably follows shocking developments.
Elsewhere, a Reuters dispatch reported, "Bloggers across Mumbai fed live updates ... [on the] ...attacks in the heart of India's financial capital, highlighting the social media's new expanding role in news coverage." It pointed to photos of the attacks on Flikr, frequent updates of an entry on Wikipedia, a steady stream of updates and comments on twitter and myriad bloggers doing what they could to help. Clearly, these Web 2.0 technologies are as effective as anything we have seen in terms of immediacy -- a particularly powerful attribute when they are in the hands of those on the ground with unique, authoratative information.
But, and there is are two big buts here: (a) precious few bloggers and even microbloggers are that close and that relevant, prefering instead the comfort of home half way around the world (present company included); and, (b) something disturbing happened to embedded links as they aged. Dina Mehta blogged furiously from Mumbai during the siege, originally describing herself as "upset and angry and bereft." But by Sunday night, visitors to her blog learned that she had grown weary of a secondary problem -- inappropriate and even abusive speech.
In a helpful clarification (including a corrected URL for her post) to the original version of this post, Mehta wrote me:
I have only been deleting some comments for this reason as stated in my blogpost: "I'm getting a huge load of comments around the politics of religion, of division and hate at my last few posts on the Mumbai terror attacks. While religion and politics may have a lot to do with the state of our world today, my blog's not the forum to air or feed these divisions. I almost feel it's a violation of my own person. So I am deleting them. Sorry. All other comments and conversations are welcome, as always! The #Mumbai Twitter feed is now flooded with them too. I'm stopping watching it. I'm certainly not playing. For all those who feel they have lots to say - I'd recommend they do something more constructive. Start by reading Ingrid Srinath's post titled This is not India's 9/11 ... and Priyanka Joshi's comments there."[See comments for full text.]
Another blogger, Gaurav Mishra responded to Mehta's decision by setting out a multipoint plan for confronting extremest commentary. Citizen journalism has no conventions to guide it, and those that comment are prepared to say almost anything under the veil of anonymity.
[As if to remind us of those things at which Web 2.0 is particularly good, Mishra provides links to events or movements spontaneously conceived on or through the Web to benefits of victims of the 11/26 terrorist attacks -- some local, others global -- Nov 30 Tweetup at Leopold Cafe, Facebook Wear White Event, Facebook Support 11/26 Fighters Event.]
At the risk of making a snap judgment even as the events of last week are still unwinding, the response and the reportage were both only partial successes. Honoring those who served well is important but taking a hard look at what failed may be where the greatest value lies. It is the only way to perfect or reform institutions about which we care -- government, media and that still amorphous thing called Web 2.0.
A final note. There is another post about Mumbai that I struggled to write over the long Thanksgiving weekend. I couldn't get it right. Thankfully, CBC essayist Rex Murphy did:
We should not see what happened ... in India - what is happening - as something in a distant country, but as a chilling and depraved assault on on what all decent people share in common.Terrorism is the murder of innocents as a tactic in the service of fanaticism. It is the anti-politics of our time. It is a threat to us all. The blast was in Mumbai, but its vibrations are meant for every civilized city of the planet.
... It is merely right therefore that we give our thoughts to their particular plight - and offer - to these, our fellow citizens - our alert and full sympathy.
Hello, just wanted to correct you that my blog URL is http://dinamehta.com/ and not http://dinamehta.com/blog. No wonder you got the error message. Its never been down. I have only been deleting some comments for this reason as stated in my blogpost:
"I’m getting a huge load of comments around the politics of religion, of division and hate at my last few posts on the Mumbai terror attacks. While religion and politics may have a lot to do with the state of our world today, my blog’s not the forum to air or feed these divisions. I almost feel it’s a violation of my own person.
So I am deleting them. Sorry. All other comments and conversations are welcome, as always!
The #Mumbai Twitter feed is now flooded with them too. I’m stopping watching it. I’m certainly not playing.
For all those who feel they have lots to say - I’d recommend they do something more constructive. Start by reading Ingrid Srinath’s post titled This is not India’s 9/11 [thanks Peter, for the link] and Priyanka Joshi’s comments there."
Please make the change in URL in your post. Thanks very much, and thank you too for caring what's happening here.
Dina
Dina,
The URL has been changed as you requested. Thanks for taking the time. Take care.
pwt
How to Beat The Indian Politician
Section 49-O of the Constitution:
(A Repetition worth a read)
Did you know that there is a system in our Constitution, as per the 1969 Act, in Section "49-O" that a person can go to the polling booth, confirm his identity, get his finger marked and convey to the presiding election officer that he doesn't want to vote anyone!
Yes such a feature is available, but obviously our seemingly notorious leaders have never disclosed it. This is called "49-O".
Why should you go and say "I VOTE FOR NOBODY"... because, in a ward, if a candidate wins, say by 123 votes, and that particular ward has received "49-O" votes more than 123, then that polling will be cancelled and will have to be re-polled. Not only that, but the candidature of the contestants will be removed and they cannot contest the re-polling, since people had already expressed their decision on them. This would bring fear into parties and hence look for genuine candidates for their parties for election. This would change the way of our whole political system... it is seemingly surprising why the Election Commission has not revealed such a feature to the public....
Please spread this news to as many as you know... Seems to be a wonderful weapon against corrupt parties in India... show your power, expressing your desire not to vote for anybody, is even more powerful than voting... so don't miss your chance. So either vote, or vote not to vote (vote 49-O) and pass this info on...
"Please forward this mail to as many as possible, so that we, the people of India , can really use this power to save our nation". Use your voting right for a better INDIA