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."