jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2008-weekly/nos-14-12-2008/enc.htm#1 The News,
14 December 2008
ONE SIDE OF THE STORY
A look at the art of omission that the modern media has mastered and
how this completely changes the perspective, especially in a time of
crisis
By Ammar Ali Jan
For the past two weeks, the Pakistani media has been busy exposing
the 'bias' and 'hypocrisy' of the Indian media. Our anchors,
columnists, analysts and journalists are drawing our attention
towards the baseless allegations being hurled at Pakistan from across
the border without any investigation at all.
The critique of this lack of substantiation is indeed a valid one. It
has created an atmosphere of anger and hate in India, perfect pre-
requisites for war. Our media is also right in pointing out the
growing disparity in 'shining India', the great injustices being
committed against minorities and the dozens of insurgencies that have
rocked our neighbour. That the Hindu right-wing will benefit from the
Mumbai carnage in the upcoming elections is also a fact that has been
given a lot of attention in the Pakistani press.
However, this is the actual limit of the 'honest' critique by our
media. While we condemn the one-sided reporting by the Indians, are
we not falling prey to the same?
In order to understand this bias in the media, we should look at the
art of omission that the modern media has mastered and how this act
completely changes the perspective, especially in a time of crisis.
People like Professor Noam Chomsky from MIT have been very critical
of the way the US media handled the 9/11 incident. In order to create
war hysteria in the country, the media played on the existing anger
and directed it towards a country without demanding much evidence
from the administration. The US media was right in pointing out that
these barbaric acts were committed by those who became a threat to
civilisation. That terrorists groups did exist in the Muslim world
and there was an increasing radicalisation among the Muslim youth.
The dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world were also severely
criticised, and rightly so. However, this was the limit of the
'truth' that the US media could afford.
As Chomsky points out, the US media failed to educate the American
people about the reasons for this monstrous attack. For example, no
one in the mainstream media was able to highlight the US policy in
the Israel-Palestine conflict where it completely favours Israeli
aggression. It did not expose the results of sanctions on Muslims
countries like Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan and the periodic
bombings of these countries. Nor could it demonstrate the support the
US gave to tyrannical regimes in the Muslim world including Saddam
Hussain himself. Mort importantly, the media was never able to
demonstrate the support given to these terrorist organisations during
the Reagan era and establish that 9/11 was nothing more than a
blowback of a short-sighted imperialist policy. Being patriotic meant
being pro-war. Dissent was silenced.
Coming back to Pakistan, we can witness a similar line being taken in
"reaction to the Indian threats". It is easy to criticise the US
media and its citizens, but are we any better? The sort of jingoistic
nationalism portrayed by our media has been extremely disturbing
because one had great respect for the independence of the Pakistani
media. It will be worthwhile to have a look at some of the things
being said on various channels.
As already stated, the Pakistani media is highlighting the plight of
minorities in India. One anchor stated that all of the viewers should
bow in front of Allah and thank Him for creating Pakistan; otherwise
we would have been oppressed (obviously there is no oppression in
Pakistan!). Our anchors are also trying to prove how RAW has been
interfering in Afghanistan against our interests (since we have never
interfered in that unfortunate country!) and it is involved in
insurgencies in Balochistan and even in the recent Karachi riots (of
course, it is only the responsibility of the Indian media to
substantiate its claims). This tit-for-tat rubbish would have made us
all laugh, only if the future of millions was not at stake!
Another outcome of this crisis has been the revival of the image of
the army and ISI in the eyes of the public. Suddenly, we are being
told by all television networks about the importance of the ISI as
our first line of defence and warned of the 'Jewish-Hindu conspiracy'
to destroy this 'national asset'. General (r) Hameed Gul is seen on
TV all the time lecturing us about the 'professionalism' of the
agency and his willingness to lead our defence against the US and
India (much like he did during the Afghan jihad, though as a crony of
the US).
Suddenly all criticism of the army, bureaucracy and the monstrous
intelligence agencies has vanished as we need to "unite as one nation
under one flag". Anyone showing dissent is a RAW agent.There is a
frightening similarity to the US media's response after 9/11.
Why is there no one questioning this narrow interpretation of
nationalism? Was it the RAW that disrupted the democratic process in
Pakistan? Was it the Indian army that deprived Bengalis of their
rights and later launched a brutal operation that is termed genocide
by the Bengalis? Did the Indian generals hang the most popular prime
minister of Pakistan? Was the Indian government alone responsible for
patronising ethnic groups like the MQM? Is India responsible for the
deprivation felt by the Balochs, Sindhis and the Pukhtoons? Are they
the ones launching military operations against Pakistani citizens?
Are the Indian agencies involved in rigging elections in Pakistan and
depriving our people of their democratic rights? Who was involved in
handing over Pakistani citizens to the US for paltry rewards? Who has
monopolised our economy and is depriving ordinary workers the right
to decent life?
In acting the way it is, our media is lending its uncritical support
to all the state and non-state actors which have only put our
existence under threat. "We must stand united as one" is the typical
reply you get these days as a response to any criticism of these
actors. However, if we hold this form of nationalism to be true, then
why do we critique the US, Israeli and the Indian media? Plus, what
does this line of defence actually imply? It can be rephrased in
these words "at a time of a national security threat, it is okay for
the media to twist facts, make unsubstantiated claims, slander the
enemy and conceal facts in order to spread patriotism".
The job of the media is not to spread the elite's version of
patriotism. Its job is to educate the masses through objective facts
and objectivity cannot change with one's own association with a
geographical location.
In a time of crisis, one would expect genuinely critical analyses, if
only because the stakes are too high. Think about it. This current
crisis can even lead to a war in which millions of lives will be
affected. The media of both India and Pakistan, however, is busy
spreading 'patriotism' and concealing facts from its viewers. The
more troubling part is that no one seems to have an ethical problem
with all this bigotry. A scary thought, indeed!
We are waiting for someone in the media to categorically state that
the war-mongers in both these countries are a threat to ordinary
people. We cannot equate Indian nationalism with Hindutva or
Pakistani nationalism with its intelligence agencies. We need people
in the media who can put a stop to this bashing of the other country
and look at the crisis in its entirety by criticising their own
establishments, who can show that our nationalism is about the
betterment of our people, and not simply a hateful reaction to the
other country.
Dr Luther King Jr.'s words directed at the US media for their
shameful silence on US atrocities in Vietnam may prove useful for the
Indian and Pakistani media. He said, "In a time of a great moral
crisis, silence in the name of patriotism is betrayal."
Cynthia Stephen
Independent Researcher and writer
Bangalore, India
