Every time I open Facebook, I see disturbing pictures of missing children being shared. Long ago, only broadcast media carried such information. During my service in Doordarshan, every evening, missing person announcements used to be made, with photographs and physical details: any positive feedback was passed on to the nearest police station.
Such announcements used to be more during weekends while airing feature films to grab maximum eyeballs. But the procedure for such announcements was cumbersome: a form had to be filled up with a police FIR report. A photo with specifications to fit the caption was essential. Necessary clearances had to be issued at certain levels starting from the duty officer to the officer incharge of transmission. Those days, terrestrial transmission was limited to only a few hours. The officer incharge had to check all recorded material before broadcasting. Transmission duty was sacrosanct.
I am reminded of an incident that happened at the Madras Doordarshan Kendra in the early 1980s. It was a Sunday evening and the officer in charge was a young mother. While coming to office, near the Anna Memorial on the northern side of the Marina beach, she noticed a child, separated from his parents, crying aloud amidst the leisurely crowd. She rushed to the spot with a camera team and recorded the visuals. There was a community TV set in the park, where the visiting public could watch the broadcast. The child’s plight was aired and soon, he was reunited with his parents.
The next day there was a furore over the ‘illegal’ broadcast. There was no mandatory application with police certificate and clearances! The lady was reprimanded for violating procedures. Her defence of spontaneous compassion fell on deaf ears. It was claimed that she acted as per a plan: a camera was loaded with film and sepmag (to record sound); it was processed and edited and hence, her act was construed as deliberate violation of rules! I was asked to furnish a report.
I reported that it was a proactive humanitarian act with laudable intentions with the caveat that in future, verbal approvals should be taken on phone. After a week, a senior police officer visited me to clarify ‘some aspects’. Probably, the parents of the child might have been at the receiving end from relatives for negligence, following the broadcast! He wanted to know the policy governing such matters. Relevant instructions were explained but he was adamant on police clearance. It took a visit to the then Commissioner of Police, who was appreciative of the lady’s public service, to avert a storm in a tea cup.
Email: kkunhikrishnan@gmail.com