Four Corners reporter Stephen Long said that he had been in Mundra, in Adani’s home state in Gujarat for less than 24 hours when the police turned up at the crew’s hotel. He said that their main concern was to safeguard the interviews and footage they had filmed on the story they were investigating. Long said, “We were questioned on and off for about five hours, the senior policeman kept on going outside and talking to someone on his mobile, and whenever he’d return the questioning, the hostility, would ramp up.”

“It was obvious they knew why we were there but everybody was avoiding the ‘A’ word: Adani.”, he added.

“They’d told us that if we stayed there’d be officers from three Indian intelligence agencies coming to see us the next day, plus we’d have an entourage of crime squad detectives and local police wherever we went,” Long said on camera while introducing the film. The journalists left India and in their subsequent story telecast in Australia on October 2, share concerns whether Australia should be supporting Adani’s controversial mine in Queensland.

This is the text that Four Corners put out:

“Why would the crime branch want to see us?” Stephen Long, reporter

When Four Corners travelled to India to investigate the activities of the giant Adani group, they soon discovered the power of the company.

While attempting to film and gather information about Adani’s operations, the Four Corners team had their cameras shut down, their footage deleted and were questioned for hours by police.

The team were left in no doubt that their investigations into the Indian company triggered the police action.

For months, Four Corners has been digging into the business practices of the Adani Group. This is the corporate colossus that plans to build Australia’s biggest mine site.

“I do know about Adani and that means thousands of jobs for regional Queenslanders …” Annastacia Palaszczuk, Qld Premier

The polarising debate around the proposed mine site in Queensland’s Galilee Basin is often pitted as a simplistic jobs versus greenies argument.

But there are influential figures in India who warn that Australians need to know much more about the Adani Group.

“You know, the Australian politicians are obviously not properly briefed by their offices.” Former senior energy official

On Monday Four Corners examines the troubled corporate history of the Adani group in India revealing the findings of government investigations into financial and environment crimes.

“The report found not accidental violations, the report found deliberate violations, wilful violations.” Former Government Minister

The program analyses the Adani Group’s opaque financial operations and investigates the ramifications for their Australian operations.

“What this tells you is that here is a business group that will not stop at anything to maximise its profits.”Economist

This investigation examines whether, in the rush to secure jobs and shore up the mining industry, Australian politicians have failed to properly scrutinise the company that’s now hoping to receive a taxpayer funded loan of up to $1 billion for its project.

“I think the Australian Government ought to do environmental due diligence, which it seems not to have done. It certainly has to do financial due diligence. Both due diligences are required, both for the financial side and from the environmental side.” Indian politician

The film is fast being picked up by organisations and the media across the globe.This is what Greenpeace reported, for The Citizen readers to get a sense of how this investigation is playing out across the globe:
“An expose aired last night by the ABC’s Four Corners program revealed a shadowy network of companies and trusts behind Adani’s Australian assets, which offer the Indian firm “multiple ways” to reduce their tax in Australia, experts say.

Adani Australia has previously boasted its Carmichael mine could boost Australia’s tax coffers by up to $22 billion over the life of the project.

However, Adani’s Australian assets are seemingly owned by companies domiciled in notorious tax havens such as the Cayman and British Virgin Islands, which provide a means to minimise tax paid in Australia.

The investigation also revealed that the man behind a British Virgin Islands company variously described as ARFT Holding Ltd, AFRT Holding Ltd, and Atulya Resources Family Trust, which appears to be the ultimate owner of Adani’s Australian assets, has been accused of money laundering.

Vinod Adani, the older brother of Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani, has been investigated by Indian authorities with ex-Adani Group employees and Adani companies for allegedly executing a “planned conspiracy of siphoning off foreign exchange abroad … and Trade Based Money Laundering”.

Adani has requested a $1 billion loan, currently under consideration, from the publicly funded Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.

“The Four Corners revelations prove that Adani is a company which cannot be trusted with a taxpayer loan, or to build the world’s biggest export coal mine on the Great Barrier Reef coastline,” Greenpeace Australia Pacific Climate and Energy Campaigner Nikola Casule said.

“Now more than ever, it’s time for the government to rule out any public money for Adani and say no to the proposed $1 billion NAIF loan for Adani’s rail line connecting the proposed Carmichael mine and Abbot Point coal port.”

“Its secrecy, apparent use of tax havens and alleged money laundering provide the Australian government with all the evidence it needs to rule out even one cent of public money going to Adani’s rail line.”

This is what Adani group stated in its response:

Dear Mr Long,
The team from ABC Television while visiting Mundra did not adhere to the journalistic codes of conduct and fairness. While you had earlier expressed your desire to visit Mundra, without further discussion or intimation you and your team landed in Mundra and started filming the sensitive areas without proper permissions and any kind of intimation to the company officials. To our mind it is both unfair and unethical apart from a serious security breach at the industrial site locations in border area.

The Adani Group is one of India’s leading business houses with a core vision of nation building. The group has created a portfolio of businesses aligned with the national priorities of infrastructure development, food security, energy security and clean energy. Each of our businesses is integrated to the core of the country, touching millions of lives and generating direct and indirect employment for thousands of families.

We at Adani Group follow every principle of law that governs operations of company like us in India. To therefor suggest through a documentary, which in its essence have been made surreptitiously and without any legal sanction, is indicative of the fact that the purpose of the documentary is malafide and riddled with the singular agenda of national shaming. For reputable organisation like ABC Television to indulge in this form of ethical violation is truly sad.

On the issues mentioned in your last email, please find our response below. We request you to use the same verbatim, without tweaking its context.

Issue 1 – The reference that has been made to the Lokayukta of Karnataka, Retired Justice Santosh Hegde

Pursuant to the report by Justice Hegde and reports of CEC the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order directing CBI to investigate the allegations over illegal export of Iron Ore from Belekeri Port. After the detailed investigation CBI came to the conclusion that Adani Enterprises Limited and its officials had never violated any State and/or Central laws of India. Accordingly, CBI filed closer report and the same was accepted by the designated CBI court at Bangalore.

With regard to another allegation of “Illegal gratification to public officials”, Karnataka Lokayukta formed Special Investigation Team. Adani Enterprises Limited submitted all the data to SIT as required. However after the detailed investigation, SIT found that no case is made out against AEL & others. Accordingly, closer report was filed and the same was accepted by the court.

To summarise, our activities at Belerkeri Port have been conducted within the framework of Law. The Adani Group is absolute and religiously Law abiding organization and respect Law of the land.

Issue 2 – The ruling of HC of Gujarat about developments in the Mundra SEZ without valid environment clearances
The Gujarat High Court in its order passed in January 2014, ordered that 12 units operating in Mundra SEZ cannot operate till Mundra SEZ is granted the Environmental Clearance (EC). The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court of India and the Supreme Court stayed the order of Gujarat High Court and permitted 12 units to continue with their operational activities. The matter is pending before the Supreme Court.

There is no restriction for units to set up their facilities and operate in SEZ with their appropriate clearance, till SEZ is granted the EC. Even the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Ministry of Commerce and Industries (MoCI) and Pollution Control Boards have granted clearances to units even irrespective whether the SEZ was having the EC or not. Therefore, it was not a case of development of Mundra SEZ without valid EC, as such practice has been followed in all SEZs across India. In any case, Mundra SEZ is also granted Environmental and CRZ clearance by MoEF on 15.7.2014.

Issue 3 – Sunita Narain on environment violation in Mundra
The Sunita Naraian Committee submitted its report in 2013 and it was India’s largest business daily The Economic Times which in July 2014 revealed the manner in which the committee was appointed. In any case, the committee’s findings were just that – recommendations. Neither they were absolute; nor were they binding or implementable because of the malafide agenda driven nature of those findings.

Based on the Report, MoEF issued a show cause notice in September, 2013 which has been disposed of on 18.9.2015. The final order is not challenged since. Therefore, Report cannot be cited to defame the Adani Group. Further, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the public interest litigation in April, 2015 concerning this issue and the Supreme Court of India also did not entertain appeal against the order of Gujarat High Court.

Issue 4 – National Green Tribunals decision on Hazira Port
The order that NGT has passed has been challenged before the Supreme Court of India. NGT failed to appreciate the facts and no reasons are given which supports the order. NGT observed that the company damaged mangrove whereas, in February 2007, MoEF itself substituted the condition based on NEERI report and permitted development in that area. The company came into picture only in November, 2010. Likewise, all the findings of NGT in its decision are wrong and contrary to the facts placed before it. In any case, the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and is sub-judice and it is unfair and unethical for responsible media to jump to any conclusion and report a story till the matter is finally decided.

Issue 5 – As for the really trite charge of money laundering
On August 22, the adjudicating authority of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has passed orders striking all proceedings launched by the DRI against Adani Group for alleged money laundering. This can be only be challenged at the higher appellate authorities and that too by governmental authorities. Since no challenge as of now has been made, there is not only complete acquittal but in fact a validation of what we at Adani Group has always been saying.

Adani Group adhere to the laws of the land in which we operate – be it India or any other of the 50 geographies we work in. To suggest that we are non-compliant, deviant or unethical will once again attract defamation and severe legal action. As an organisation with more than 11,000 employees spread across the world, stakeholders and vertical businesses ranging from agriculture to port to logistics, we cannot be held to either ransom or blackmail by media organisations that indulge into sensationalism without any basis and contrary to facts.

For any media organisation to jump the gun and believe that we have indulged in any malafide is in itself is illogical because we shall have to wait for the Supreme Court of India to pass its judgement. Some of the issues have even attained finality which cannot be blatantly ignored and no damage can be inflicted on Adani Group on the basis of vexatious allegations.

Please note that any manipulation of this message by way of twisting the facts will compel us to undertake legal recourse. We request you to use our response in totality to avoid any misinterpretations.

Thanks & Regards,
Mitul Thakkar
Associate General Manager Corporate Communications Adani Enterprises Limited

(Interestingly, the Adani’s have not slapped a legal notice on Four Corners limiting the response so far to the above rejoinder)
 

The post How the Gujarat Cops Questioned an Australian Film Crew Investigating Adani appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Herald Sun devoted its first 11 pages to the bombing on Wednesday and another seven to it on Thursday. By Friday, Manchester had disappeared entirely from the front page of The Age, was reduced to a side column on the front page of The Australian and a small box at the bottom of the Herald Sun’s page one.

For as long as I can remember, media critics have cried foul that European and American deaths appear to be worth more in news terms than similar deaths in the Middle East. To which journalists mostly replied that “proximity” in a cultural (if not geographical) sense, or “rarity”, were the reasons.

So, is it now the case that European terror attacks have become normalised? Or is it just that news cycles have rightly moved on to other important news stories closer to home?

In Britain, the coverage is still around the clock. On Wednesday the stories and photographs on the front pages were mostly about the victims. There was a particular focus on the youngest girl, eight-year-old Saffie Rose Roussos, who featured on the front pages of all mainstream media.

This front page from The Sun, which compared the little girl to the bomber under the banner headline of “Pure Evil”, was particularly striking.
The Sun.Twitter

Across the week the media have reported on the threat level rise to “critical”, the hunt for other members of the terror group, soldiers on the streets, and public mourning.

By Sunday, the front pages were back in unison, with almost all mainstream newspapers’ front pages showing CCTV pictures of “the casual killer”  Salman Abedi – this time from the day of the bombing.

Opinion about the media’s coverage of these incidents is intense on social media and elsewhere. The New York Times’ photograph of the bombing aftermath was widely seen as irresponsible during an ongoing security operation, and it led to a diplomatic row between the UK and US over security leaks.

There is no shortage of advice offered to journalists on responsible reporting. In March, UNESCO published a 110-page booklet, Terrorism and the Media: A Handbook for Journalists. On page 44, it lists 21 “Key Points” to be aware of in the coverage of terrorism. These include:

• the dangers inherent in live broadcasting;
• caution about reporting leaks and unverified information;
• avoiding sensationalism;
• keeping a sense of proportion;
• not glamorising terrorists;
• respecting the dignity of victims; and
• being careful about the language used.

In February, in interviews conducted for a research project I am undertaking with Verica Rupar about terrorism coverage, I spoke to several French media editors about how they saw their editorial roles. Due to France having witnessed several major terrorism attacks in the past few years, all reported they had evolved their coverage from experience.

The editor of Le Monde, Jérôme Fenoglio, told me that after the siege at the HyperCacher supermarket in January 2015, he had published a front-page photograph of one of the terrorists, Amedy Coulibaly, sitting next to his sub-machine gun while justifying the murder he was about to commit.

He said that following the Nice attack in July 2016, in which 84 people were killed, he decided against showing terrorists’ “self-justifying videos and selfies”, as he believed it was the terrorists’ intention to make everybody talk about them through their deaths. He said:
 

And so their deaths give a supplementary dimension to these documents that they prepare in advance and circulate everywhere. I don’t want to republish these documents because it means to play, to be imprisoned, to be a victim of their own games.
 

Fenoglio stressed that he wasn’t advocating censorship, but rather “editorial choice”. He was not going to glorify the deeds of terrorists by showing pictures of them, unless they were alive and still being hunted by the authorities.

After the siege at the HyperCacher, the 24-hour BFM Television channel was censured by France’s Higher Council for Broadcasting (CSA) and sued by hostages over claims the channel put people in danger by reporting on live television that hostages were hiding in the basement. This outlet and others were also accused of “disrupting the arrival of security forces”.

At the public service broadcaster, France Télévisions, the director of news Alexandre Kara said they are constantly updating their handbook of coverage to learn from their latest experience.

His corporation also refuses to rebroadcast “Islamic State propaganda” and only uses “neutral” photographs of terrorists – for example, from their ID cards, rather than anything that might portray them in a sympathetic light. He said that this decision was made “after the Bataclan”:
 

There has been a big debate in France about whether or not one should show the photograph or give the name of a person guilty of a terrorist act. We decided to continue to give the name and show the photo. One of the reasons is because a terrorist is a criminal, and we show the photos of criminals, so there’s no reason to not show a terrorist. And secondly, I think that in not showing terrorists you add to the arguments of the conspiracy theorists who think that we hide the truth.
 

However, like Fenoglio, he believes there is a difference between transparency about who did what, and the danger of showing the terrorists’ actions to be in any way heroic, thereby doing their proselytising for them.

The co-editor of Libération, Laurent Joffrin, said there is now a “civic state of mind” in terms of co-operation between the media and police “because everybody knows they can be attacked themselves”. The main point is not to help the terrorists with untimely revelations, but to concentrate on the victims, and then the hunt for the terrorists.

After the Bataclan, the paper put a team onto writing biographies of all 130 victims killed at the venue and elsewhere in Paris. These portraits and photographs are still available to view “in memoriam,” in agreement with the families.

While the British threat level has now fallen back from critical to “severe”, nobody is under any illusion that these kinds of attacks will cease any time soon. The way in which journalists cover them will remain under scrutiny, as bitter experience continues to force changes in reporting behaviour.
 

Colleen Murrell, Undergraduate Coordinator for Journalism, Monash University
 

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Manchester and the media: what coverage of the terrorist attack tells us about ourselves appeared first on SabrangIndia.