Media falls in the old trap

By Beena Sarwar



THE Mumbai nightmare has plunged the media in India and Pakistan into
the dangerous, old trap in which nationalism trumps responsible

reporting. This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it restricted to
India and Pakistan.

American journalists fell into this trap after the attack on the Twin
Towers in New York on Sept 11, 2001. They were vigorously criticised
for their unquestioning over-reliance on the security establishment
for information. The security establishment, with its blinkered
security paradigm, fed them false information that prepared the
ground for the Iraq invasion and the Afghanistan bombing.

As part of society, journalists may find it difficult to step back
and see the larger picture, especially when their countries are under
attack. Responsible reporting and commentary require recognising this
fallibility. There is no such thing as objective journalism. All
journalists have their own world views and political baggage but at
least we can aspire to be fair — to our subjects, to our audiences,
and perhaps to our common humanity rather than national
identities.”Media manipulation is less an issue of overt censorship
than an internalisation of myths and mindsets,” commented Rita
Manchanda, summing up a radical critique of the mass media by Indian
and Pakistani journalists (`Reporting conflict’, South Asia Forum for
Human Rights, May 2001).

If the Indian media tends to be nationalistic and trusting in its
government (which Pakistan government representatives often ask the
more cynical Pakistanis to emulate), the Pakistani media has clearly
demarcated no-go areas. As the veteran Peshawar-based journalist
Rahimullah Yusufzai said at the consultation, “Pakistani journalists
never had the opportunity to professionally cover the 1965 or 1971
wars or the Rann of Kutch or Kargil conflicts.” Add the conflicts in
Balochistan and the northern areas to that list since then.

The Babri Masjid demolition, the nuclear tests and the Kargil
conflict all fed jingoism and jingoistic reporting on both sides.
Sometimes journalists are culpable more by omission than commission,
ignoring or playing down certain aspects or not asking crucial
questions.

Take the festering issue of prisoners. The young Indian fisherman
Lakshman who died in a Karachi jail on March 10, 2008 received scant
mention in the Pakistani media. The body of a Pakistani prisoner
Khalid Mehmood who died in an Indian prison, sent home around the
same time, made front-page news, with many journalists accusing the
Indians of torture.

Prison conditions and how the police treat prisoners in both
countries are no secret. It is not that we treat Indian prisoners
well, while they viciously torture Pakistanis. Sometimes a prisoner’s
death results not from outright torture but illness arising from
neglect — poor living conditions in a hostile environment, extreme
temperatures, lack of medical attention, all compounded by lack of
contact with loved ones back home.

When the Maharashtra government stopped two Pakistani artists from
continuing their work in Mumbai, TV reporters here got sound bites
from passers-by who condemned the action. The reporter did not ask,
and nor did the respondents bring up, the question of what would have
happened had the situation been reversed — would Indians have been
allowed to continue working here in the aftermath of such an attack,
in which the attackers were widely believed to have links with India?

Similarly, talk show hosts let hawkish talk go unchallenged. In one
recent instance, a retired army general referred to India as
Pakistan’s dushman mulk (enemy country). They invite more balanced
commentators also but give them get far less time and space. Channels
play up Mahesh Butt’s criticism of the Indian media but, as the
analyst Foqia Sadiq Khan asks, would they quote someone from Pakistan
criticising the Pakistani media? “They quote Shabana Azmi ad nauseum
that she couldn’t find a flat in Bombay being a Muslim, but not on
her opinion of fundamentalism.”

Media might have brought the people closer but when nationalism rears
its head, the beast of 24-hour television news also fuels conflict.
This is where the commercial aspect comes in. When something big
happens, the public seeks answers. The channels which cater to this
need improve their ratings. Sensation sells. With viewers glued to
the screens, channels keep them there with a continuous virtual
reality show. They fill the time with speculative
commentary, `expert’ guests and whatever footage is available.
Sometimes such footage is repeated ad nauseum — like when the Twin
Towers were destroyed on 9/11, when the Marriott hotel was attacked,
when the FIA building in Lahore was struck.

Even when nothing big is happening, information is packaged in an
exciting way in order to attract attention. This often means playing
up bad news and downplaying good news. TV channels continuously
showed the scene of the blasts that rocked the World Performing Arts
Festival in Lahore on its second-last day, injuring two people. They
did not give the artists who defied fear and went ahead on the last
day the same kind of attention.

When Zardari was sworn in as president, a breaking news ticker
reported: “Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh congratulates
Zardari”. Breaking news? At least it was true. In the rush to be the
first, channels often misreport.

The Mumbai nightmare provided several examples, as Kalpana Sharma
documents in her critique of the Indian media’s coverage of the first
60 hours, `Unpacking the pixel’ in Tehelka. She concludes, “it is
essential that reporters be trained to handle such extraordinary
situations, that they learn the importance of restraint and cross-
checking…. Professionalism and accuracy will ensure that we don’t
contribute to prejudice and panic.”

Some Indian channels are running the Pakistan factor like a movie
trailer, complete with sound effects and watch-for-the-next-episode
commentary. This obviously fuels Pakistani indignation. However, this
indignation could be tempered by being less reactive and empathising
with the Indians’ pain and grief that many Pakistanis share. Zealous
commentators could also recall the times that their own media houses
sensationalised an issue.

Journalists may argue that they are just the messenger, reflecting
official or public opinion. But the media must also question, and get
people to think. The stakes are high in our nuclear-armed countries,
in a post-9/11 world where the major players include armed and
trained men around the world who subscribe to the ideology of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban.

As President Asif Ali Zardari said, even if elements within Pakistan
were involved it is these same elements that the Pakistan government
is fighting. So how much sense does it make to push the Pakistan
government in a corner and divert its attention from fighting these
elements?

The writer is an independent journalist based in Karachi. This piece was first published in the DAWN