Author: Shailaja Bajpai
Publication: The Indian Expressb
Date: October 18, 2001
URL: http://www.indian-express.com/ie20011018/top7.html
Pak is US ally so you can't anger
Islamabad: that seems to be CNN's unwritten code as it covers strike against
terror, Indo-Pak ties
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 17: ''...CHRISTIANE
Amanpour on Pakistan's border with Kashmir.'' A slip of the tongue or a
Freudian slip? Either way, shouldn't CNN correct this declaration of Independence?
Amanpour accompanied officials from
Islamabad on a guided tour of a village in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir near
the Line of Control. The officials' ostensible mission: to dismiss India's
claims that Monday night's shelling was only on military targets. So as
the camera dwelt upon a damaged house, a dead animal, then cut to the hospital,
Amanpour said, ''...these are children who have been hurt...targeting civilians
is a crime of war...'' And then added a brief homily on how the poor have
no choice in such circumstances. Forget the fact that ''the poor'' have
also been killed in the Kashmir Valley.
Forget the fact that when it comes
to Taliban's photo-ops, TV correspondents (including those from CNN) keep
saying that it's impossible to verify the cause of the injuries. Why wasn't
the same yardstick applied by Amanpour? How did she assume that the poor
dead animal, the injured people had to be victims of shelling from across
the border?
Perhaps because that suits Islamabad's
interest and what suits Islamabad's interest suits Washington's, at least
for now. In times of war, news organisations certainly have to grapple
with problems of objectivity and access but CNN doesn't seem to be rushing
in where Bush and Powell fear to tread.
Amanpour's report on the village
may be the most provocative example of this. There are others. For example,
on Tuesday, after the Jaswant Singh-Colin Powell press conference, Maria
Tessa, CNN's chief of bureau in Jakarta who was covering this meeting (Satindra
Bindra, the Delhi Bureau Chief, says the CNN, is ''on assignment elsewhere
in the region.'') said, ''India has heard the words it wanted to hear.''
If you switched to Star News almost
immediately, you would have heard the different view-that Powell ''had
not brought anything very interesting to Delhi.'' Immediately thereafter,
CNN whizzed across to Islamabad for a ''view'' from Pakistan which Walter
Rodgers helpfully supplied in an interview with a former Pakistan Foreign
Secretary, H O Khan. He was asked why India did not favour international
mediation. ''I don't want to speak on their behalf,'' he began. Quite rightly
so. This question ought to have been addressed to an Indian but over two
hours after the joint press conference, CNN did not give any Indian point
of view on Powell's visit. When contacted, a spokesman said they did interview
former Prime Minister I K Gujral.
For the record, BBC did not field
any expert either but its correspondents in New Delhi did a far more satisfactory
job of reflecting a balanced position.
Its story on the militant groups
in Kashmir had accurate references to the Lashkar and the Jaish and explored
the links between these groups and the Pakistan establishment.
As the ''main ally'' of USA in this
coalition against terror, Pakistan receives much more press coverage than
India. India's concerns have been given space but it's a very tight squeeze.
Thus, General Musharraf's condolences for the deaths in USA were given
wide coverage while Jaswant Singh's press briefing on the same night received
an honourable mention.
So the CNN anchors talked about
how countries like ''China, Russia and Pakistan'' have pledged their support
to the fight against terrorism, not bothering to mention India which was
prostrate in its support. And never has the channel explored Pakistan's
very friendly links with Taliban, its sponsorship of terrorism, merely
adding these on as an occasional rider.
The feeling that CNN is more patriotic
than the American flag tends to become more evident when you compare it
with the coverage of the only other American TV channel we receive: CNBC,
which is more thoughtful and even-minded, beginning with the words they
choose.
CNN calls it ''Strike Against Terror'',
CNBC says ''Attack on Afghanistan''. That pretty well sums up the difference
in attitudes. Some explanations could be offered for the imbalance in coverage:
a rather important one is that General Musharraf has mastered the art of
holding press briefings almost every day and, therefore, receives considerable
coverage. (May be we should take him at his word and do the same?) Second,
as we are told repeatedly every day, Pakistan is the ''main ally'' of USA.
If CNN is American government's unofficial spokesman, then India, with
its accusations against Pakistan, is seen as a spoilsport, queering the
pitch of the grand alliance.
Another is that most of CNN's coverage
of events in Afghanistan emanates from Pakistan and it doesn't wish to
annoy its hosts. However, this doesn't wash well because BBC is in Pakistan
too, and it has managed far more representative coverage.
CNN International is a bit like
an international airline. It is supposed to be a global service for a worldwide
clientele. At the moment, it seems to be on a domestic flight. You don't
know where the American government ends and CNN begins. Mr Bush has promised
us a long war, so CNN still has time to fly places-and take some
for a ride.
