A reporter working with a leading national daily filed a report on March 22, 2014 about a tanker explosion that killed seven people and caused heavy loss of property. It was mentioned in the report that the tanker belonged to Reliance. When the report appeared in the newspaper the next day, the R-word was missing. The reporter didn’t bother to question the editor on the issue.

The same news report of a speeding oil tanker killing seven people and injuring several others on the Mumbai-Ahmedabad national highway on March 22, 2014 was published by The Hindu, The Times of India and The Indian Express in their Sunday editions. The Hindu headlined the report, “Seven charred to death as oil tanker explodes” and carried it on its front page.

TOI also featured it prominently in its Mumbai edition City page with pictures showing the degree of damage done by the tanker
which was carrying 35,000 litres of inflammable substance.

 To read the full story click here

IE carried the news on Page 8 amidst a number of ads, but provided the necessary details.

While  The Hindu, mentioned that the tanker “belonged to Reliance”, the others did not name the company for whom the tanker was ferrying oil or who owned the tanker .  Having gone through a bunch of old news reports on similar accidents involving tankers carrying inflammable substances, it seems to be the norm to report the name of the companies involved.

Here are some examples:

In January, 2014 when there was an accident involving a luxury bus and an oil tanker most news reports mentioned that the tanker belonged to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, one of the largest public sector oil marketing companies in India.

In April, 2013 a gas tanker accident in Mangalore claimed nine lives after overturning. Reports clearly mentioned that the tanker was “was transporting 16 tonnes of LPG for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd”.

When two leading newspapers decide to make the same omission, it makes one wonder whether it’s a coincidence or a deliberate editorial call to leave out the company name has been taken.

On March 24, 2014 at 6pm, Newslaundry asked editors at both TOI and IE whether the decision of not mentioning the name of the company to which the tanker belonged or for whom the vehicle was ferrying the inflammable substance was a reporting error or an editorial decision.  Dereick De’sa, TOI’s Resident Editor, Mumbai refused to comment. Unni Rajen Shanker, Managing Editor of IE also refused to comment immediately on the issue claiming ignorance about the matter. The following day (March 25, 2014), Megha Chhabra, editorial coordinator of IE informed us over e-mail that, “The first report did not mention who owned the tanker because until the time we went to press on Saturday night, our reporter could not independently confirm who owned the vehicle. The follow-up report to the accident filed yesterday (March 24, 2014) has details on ownership of the vehicle and of the cargo”.

The report was published on IE’s website at 3:20 am on March 25, 2014. The newspaper also carried a detailed report headlined “Oil tanker accident: Cops quiz owner of transport firm” on March 25, 2014. According to the report “The tanker belonged to Randhawa Transport Service, based in Vadodara and owned by Ranjit Singh Randhawa”. It also mentions that the tanker was carrying methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), sold by Reliance Chemicals to Vinati Organics. The story also quoted a Reliance spokesperson as saying, “The cargo was sold by Reliance Chemicals to Vinati Organics. Our liability in the matter is zero”. It took Indian Express three days to publish all the details.

Apart from the newspapers, news websites including NDTV, Zee News, India Today and IBN Live which reported on the accident didn’t mention the name of the company involved. The only exception was DNA which reported that the tanker “belonged to Reliance”. It was also worth noting that news channels which have detailed debates on “dancing pilots” being a safety hazard for passengers refrained from naming Reliance and ownership details of the cargo and the tanker while reporting on the accident.

@India_MSM(who tweets on Indian media) raised an alarm on Twitter a day after the reports were published.

To one of @Indian_MSM’s tweets, Editorial Director of Niti Digital– Kanchan Gupta, who is usually vocal about mainstream media’s biases, had the following thing to say.

On other occasions, Gupta isn’t as forgiving when it comes to criticising the media. Here are some examples. 

Even after accepting that media “erred”, Niti Central’s report on the accident still doesn’t mention the company which owned the tanker or was using it to ferry its product.

That a large section of the media held back a crucial detail is odd. Any good reporter would not miss out on such information. Is the name of the company which is using the tanker or which owns the tanker important? The product which was being ferried was highly inflammable and the damage done to life and property was severe. Among those killed were 10-year-old children. The tanker hit a police barricade after losing control and causing damage to a nearby hotel. Three six-seater autos, two private cars and around 10 two wheelers parked near a hotel were caught in the flames.

Indian Express’ follow-up report puts things in perspective. Usually, the onus of safety and damages lies on the company that has a contract with the vehicle owner.  According to the IE report, the owner of the transport service was in a contract with Vinati Organics and not Reliance. The question, however,  is not just about placing responsibility for the accident on a company, but about reporting all facts – without omission. Doing so would ensure that there is no room left for conjecture.

The author can be reached at somi@small-screen.com