Author: Arvind Singh
Publication: South Asia Analysis
Group
Date: November 6, 2001
URL: http://www.saag.org/papers4/paper356.html
Sometimes we get requests from scholars
to get their paper published in our web site. While we take no responsibility
for the contents, we would publish selectively papers of interest. We thank
Mr. Arvind Singh for sending his paper. The views expressed are his own.
- Director.
There is much to learn about media
in a war situation. Media plays an important role in disseminating
information and thereby shapes public opinion. In a war situation
where psychological blow to enemy count a lot, warring parties use media
to achieve this end. Truth, as learned men say is the first casualty in
a war, media is the chief player in creating this adage. Among other
things, media without any scruples can turn a lie to truth and vice versa
with little accountability.
US media for instance did not wait
the US Congress to declare the war to avenge the killings. Their
resolve to fight the war especially the electronic media was so intense
that they enthusiastically renamed their 24-hour news programme as "the
war against terror". If one says the US and Britain are bombing Afghanistan,
he should subtly observe the US media. The US media is fighting against
terror coalesced with the US army.
What is interesting of the US media
coverage is it has exposed its prejudices and lack of historical perspective
and human sentiments. For them there exist two sets of human values-one
for Americans and second for non-Americans.
Particularly CNN's coverage of the
war is galling. Along with the Bush administration, it is on the
forefront to resurrect Musharraf as a liberal and pro-West leader.
Its Pakistani correspondent Christiane Amanpour is leading the rally.
She either does not understand what she is saying or assumes her audience
bereft of any intellect. While covering the numerous-anti-US demonstrations
in Pakistan, she wanted us to believe that the vocal minority (according
to her estimate not more than 10-15 per cent) holding the nation ransom.
She led credence to the Musharraf's
theory by reiterating that the protestors were mere Afghan refugees.
To bring home the point, she explained that the cities like Peshawar and
Quetta where trouble erupted have Afghan refugees in considerable numbers.
She exhorted us to believe that a common Pakistani is not participating
in the anti-US rally. In that case, she did not care to tell why
Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad and other Pakistani cities also witnessed incendiary
situations.
In her bid to present a moderate
Pakistan and a liberal Musharraf, she did not find anyone who would support
Musharraf's assistance to the US. However, she merely got some Pakistani
officials to toe her line.
Meanwhile, a Gallup Poll published
in Newsweek suggested that around 83 per cent Pakistanis oppose the US
strike and refused to support Musharraf's stance. The poll effectively
demolished the CNN stand. We yet to hear anything on this from CNN.
Absent was also any effort to trace
out in CNN's coverage of the Pakistani complacency in the Sep. 11 attacks.
It was left to the Indian intelligence to disclose to the world how ISI,
Pakistani intelligence agency helped financially Mohammad Atta, the principal
malefactor, to carry out the task. Not a single US media grilled
Musharraf on this account. Not even renowned Larry King on CNN asked
a single uncomfortable or difficult question to Musharraf. When Musharraf
purged the so-called hardliners from the army and the intelligence agency,
it made good copy for the US media. No one asked him how suddenly
after the Sept.11 attacks he became aware of the hardliners in his army.
Or were they turned hardliners after the Sep.11?
To some extent, the New York Times
made considerable efforts to unravel the Taliban-Pakistan mystery.
Amongst several scoops, it was this newspaper on Oct 11 reported Musharraf's
association with Rabita Trust, which was banned by the US for aiding terror.
The US wanted to include this organization in its first list released on
24 Sept. But the US faced a small problem: "The president of Pakistan,
General Pervez Musharraf, was on Rabita's board." The US gave Musharraf
36 hours to quit from the trust. But he did not relent and the Rabita Trust
was quietly dropped from the list. Interestingly, the Rabita Trust secretary-general
was a founder of bin Laden's al-Qaida.
However, situation changed dramatically
after the first list was notified. The US condemned the Oct 1 attack
in Srinagar where more than 40 civilians were killed. Jaish-I-Mohammad
took responsibility for the explosion only to declaim it after four hours
under Musharraf's pressure. Jaswant Singh who was in the US then,
pressed the Bush administration to fight terrorism in all its manners and
on all fronts.
The US hinted India that it was
taking very close look at Jaish-I-Mohammad, and dropped a broad hint to
reconsider banning the Rabita Trust. Musharraf realized the danger
and quit from the trust. On Oct 10, the US Justice Department notified
another list putting 17 more individuals and organizations considered for
aiding terrorism including the Rabita Trust.
Despite so glaring the proofs indicating
his involvement in abetting terrorism, Musharraf got a clean chit.
Being a front line state against the Taliban, Pakistan was spared of any
insinuations.
Surrealistically, Iraq and not Pakistan
was found helping al-Qaida. The mere suspicion was: Mohammad Atta
visited Prague at the same time when one senior Iraqi intelligence officer
was also incidentally in Prague. There is still no substantial proof
that the duo discussed the impending attack. The US media, which
reported the story gleefully, declined to blame Musharraf working for several
years with the founder of al-Qaida.
The whole western media has decried
al-Jazeera for broadcasting speeches of bin Laden and its cohorts.
Since it's only news channel which has its office in Kabul, al-Jazeera
is denounced primarily because it has stolen the march over the western
media. Its reporting about the attack was therefore dubbed as biased
and pro-bin Laden. Infuriated they were losing out to a "pro-Laden
media" the US media started openly taking boastfully chauvinistic line.
CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan on Oct. 12 confessed the same in
an interview: "How we are supposed to be neutral when 6,000 American citizens
were killed." Media ethics is therefore determined by nationality of the
killed.
The US media at one hand applauded
and even encouraged its government to bomb Afghanistan, to smoke out bin
Laden and to kill him, while criticizing India for not restraining its
activities in Kashmir. In last 20 years, more than 50, 000 Indians
were killed in Pakistan abetted terrorist violence. But the US media
deny India the same avenge-logic that they bestowed on the US.
On Oct 14, the Indian troops destroyed
12 bunkers of Pakistani army across the border and killed 30 terrorists.
India said that its army opened fire to stop infiltration from Pakistan.
Christiane Amanpour put the blame on India. When CNN was asked to
verify the claim, Reena Golden, Executive Vice President of CNN International
said wryly, "Amanpour had said she was on a media tour organized by Pakistan
officials and she could not clarify herself as to the veracity of Pakistani
claims." So much care CNN takes for the objectivity.
Finally, tell me who said this to
whom. "We are deeply moved and impressed when your Government offered
us your assistance after the tragic events of September 11. We are strongly
supportive of a full engagement between India and American counter-terrorism
experts, we cannot allow this momentum to stall.(and India's) anti-terrorism
capabilities as among the best in the world. the U.S. needed its expertise
and friendship more than ever."
No clue? 50 US Congressmen to the
Indian Prime Minister. You wouldn't read it on CNN.
