By Haroon Rashid
With authoritarian regimes in fashion around the world, states are increasingly asking journalists to toe their line or face dire consequences. This jingoistic hyper-nationalism has severely affected the credibility of the national media, which is at historic low, and social media is making things further difficult.
I was in Kabul in the spring of 2014 to cover Afghan
presidential elections. After voting was over, around a dozen Afghan ministers,
including the interior minister sat before their media to update them about the
conduct of elections. Those in presence were all Afghan and some international
journalists but none from Pakistan. The interior minister to a question about
shelling on Pak-Afghan border took at least 15 minutes answering it in detail. The
gist was that Pakistan made life hell on that day, by shelling more than the
usual on the critical election day.
The next morning, I went to his office to meet him and asked
him to record his last night reply for the BBC Urdu audiences. He flatly
refused, saying those utterances were for his domestic audiences only. I then realized
that it could be part of the Afghan establishment decades old strategy to keep anti-Pakistan
narrative and anti-neighbour hype. Later I thought presence of a Pakistani
journalist in that presser could have Pakistan bashing a little less intense.
The gesture of deploying each other’s journalist is strictly banned in this
region, only occasional visits take place.
Similarly, Pakistan used to have some journalists posted in
India on reciprocal basis, including the official Associated Press of Pakistan.
Not anymore, that tradition was wound up long time back. Journalists are not
given visas, and even if they do get lucky, they must report to local police in
other country.
After brief collisions
with Iran and India, came the two-day war with Afghanistan. The Afghan national
media, especially public RTA started broadcasting venom against Pakistan in a
way not seen before. But like Zee News of India, Pakistan had banned several
private Afghan Pashto TV channels such as Shamshad from its cable network
several years back. The reason was their coverage of Pakistan’s tribal regions
and militancy.
But its not just the
governments that want coverage on their terms, many nationalists and so-called
civil right activists target journalists for not reporting as per their ‘wish’.
An appropriate example was a group of three journalists, including the scribe,
heading for Kabul in October 2021 soon after the fall of Dr Ashraf Ghani
government to report on the change.
As soon as the group
posted a photograph of themselves at the historic Babe Khyber in the Khyber
Pakhtunkwa province on the social media that the dangerous trolling started. The
visiting journalists were well-known, senior and known for their journalism. But
Pashtoon Tahafuz Movement (PTM) supporters, and many others sitting safely in
foreign countries, started to label the group’s visit as sponsored by
Pakistan’s intelligence agencies. Though all three of them at that time had
nothing to do with the Pakistan government or agencies, their lives were put at
great risk. One tweeted: “they are being
sent to highlight Afghan Taliban success and muster support for them.”
It did not stop here. The
social media storm kept gaining traction as the team reached Kabul. Security
was already non-existence, as the Afghan Taliban grappled with the challenge of
power unexpectedly dropping in their lap. All three were called back to
Pakistan by their organizations, because of the bitter social media propaganda.
Near to home, authorities have started to spoon feed the
media when it comes to domestic security or foreign policy issues, leaving
independent journalism high and dry. Journalists don’t decide the day’s agenda
on these two important concerns. Government’s intentions could be justified
since ‘war is a serious business, and coverage can’t be left to some fools.’ But
the dark consequences are twice detrimental; one journalist losing their
relevance or importance and second losing sight of regional cooperation. Both
are losses and no gain.
States now increasingly expect high degree of compliance from their media in wartime, rationalised on grounds of operational security and the protection of militarily sensitive information. They have also made considerable use of patriotism as a mechanism for disciplining mass media.
Remember in early 2000s, when media was liberalized in
Pakistan that we could watch Zee News in the comfy of our living rooms. But it
did not go on for long. India used it as a tool to disseminate strong and
ridiculous anti-Pakistan propaganda. Hence,
the channel was taken off the cable network in the country for good.
Some Indian channels continue
to ‘yell’ anti-Pakistan ‘absurdities’, leaving no room for their broadcasts in
Pakistan. We saw crazy madness in May earlier this year when the two South
Asian nuclear power nations had their first formal, but thankfully short war
ever since their atomic explosions in 1998. The deadly clash has even diluted the
deterrence factor of the bomb we cherished so much.
This is just one example
of how countries have used various ways to ‘misuse or manipulate’ national
media to malign rival ‘enemy’ country. The game did not stop there. Numerous officially
supported channels and digital platforms have popped up with the sole purpose
of maligning the ‘enemy country’. They all build on hatred.
Several countries, notably Russia, have enacted strict laws
to control media reporting on the conflict with Ukraine. In Russia, new
legislation criminalizes calling the Ukraine conflict a "war" or an
"invasion," with penalties including up to 15 years in prison for
journalists who violate these rules. In Pakistan, after being not content with
being called terrorists, journalists have been made to use more antagonistic
terms and threatened with Pakistan Electronic Crimes Act (PECA).
Conflict acts as adrenalin for the media. Independent
journalism becomes difficult in war situations, but when things are calmer,
they need to be helped and facilitated for access to the conflict zone and
information. A Vietnam veteran and now an independent joruanlist, Tom
Nusbaumer, recalls the Gulf war. “When it began, 1,500 journalists were taken
along and then reduced to electronic and print cheerleaders for the home team.”
During the same war, US media too relied on the triangle of
Pentagon, White House and State Department-rather than the frontline in Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait. During the Falklands conflict, the then BBC chairman was
adamant that "the BBC is not, and could not be, neutral as between our
country and an aggressor. We all know that.
War is deadly but very difficult to cover too. Media doesn’t
need to be a cheerleader all the time, it must regain its lost trust by showing
its independence. Each countries media working in silos would not help bring
durable peace and economic prosperity. Big nations of South Asia would have to
one day change their gameplan.
Note: The writer is a senior journalist based in Islamabad. He can be reached at theharoonrashid@outlook.com
This article was first published in The News on Sunday.
Comments
Post a Comment