Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Independent Media Try to be Balanced and Fair in
Their Coverage
Yet all parties play their ‘well-known game of intimidating the media.’
By Fazal Qureshi
Coverage of Terrorism
For the journalists in Pakistan, the
September 11 attack was a bolt
out of the blue. And this bolt was
followed quickly by President George
W. Bush’s call to President General
Pervez Musharraf asking him to choose
sides—the Americans’ or the terrorists’.
With the decision to back America,
Pakistan suddenly emerged into the
world’s spotlight and became a highly
strategic news location for the international
media. For the people and journalists
of Pakistan, this marked a giant
change from years of being an international
recluse that was known primarily
for its many sanctions following its
nuclear testing and after General Pervez
Musharraf seized power by overthrowing
an elected government.
On September 11, and again on
October 7 when the bombing campaign
in Afghanistan began, Pakistani
newspapers employed
large-size, hard-hitting
headlines to report the
news. During much of
this crisis, entire front
pages of the nation’s
several dozen newspapers,
along with editorial
columns, were devoted to news,
opinions and images of its dramatic
events. Following the attack on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
the overriding view expressed in
Pakistan’s media was of wholehearted
condemnation of the terrorist attack
on the United States. However, as
American bombardment of targets in
Kabul, Kandahar and other Afghan cities
dragged on and caused the killing
of civilians, media sentiment gradually
came to reflect heightened concern
and sympathy for the suffering of the
Afghan people.
The upsurge in sympathy for Afghan
civilians did not translate into support
or sympathy for the Taliban. The majority
public opinion in Pakistan favors
a moderate, progressive Islamic
society. Even before September 11,
many in Pakistan were thoroughly dismayed
with the distortion of Islam by
the Taliban. Enlightened public opinion
has always been very apprehensive
of the rising threat to Pakistani society
from indigenous religious fanatics
hopeful of imposing a Taliban-type,
rigid Islamic system in Pakistan.
Increasing concern was also reflected
in stories about the escalating
number of civilian casualties and the
arrival of hordes of hungry and sick
Afghan men, women and children on
Pakistan’s borders. Columnists wrote
that the American offensive was inflicting
very harsh punishment on the citizens
of Afghanistan (not the Taliban)
Pakistani journalists have had to walk a
tightrope in trying to keep all parties
satisfied with their ‘balanced’ coverage.
and that the United States should have
found a better way to deal with the
Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
In Pakistan, almost all the largely
circulated English and Urdu language
newspapers are independent in their
editorial policy, thus allowing a diversity
of viewpoints to be put forth in
news and opinion columns. Among
these independent print media, condemnation
of the terrorist attacks was
virtually universal, as was support for
General Musharraf’s decision to side
with the international community,
though there was certainly fair and
balanced coverage given to all the parties
in the conflict. In Pakistan, too, a
substantial number of publications are
brought out by political and religious
parties and, in those, views adhere
more to the publisher’s purpose. Their
circulation is limited to those who tend
to already share those opinions.
Pakistani journalists have had to walk
a tightrope in trying to keep all parties
satisfied with their “balanced” coverage.
Despite their best efforts, no one
seems fully satisfied with their performance,
and some journalists and publications
have faced complaints, even
overt or hidden threats from different
sides. Government functionaries call
editors and news editors with “advices”
to be a little more careful in their display
of news and headlines hostile to
the government. Journalists in this
country are quite familiar with the
threats concealed in these “friendly
advices.” This is a version
of the well-known
game of intimidating
the media and a reminder
that the government
in power in Pakistan
is a military
dictatorship. If driven
to the wall, it might clamp harsh restrictions
on the press.
With this in mind, news managers
always take these “press advices” seriously
and, drawing on their experience
with the two previous military
dictatorships of General Ayub Khan
and General Zia ul-Haq, exercised care
not to provoke the generals. The approach
that seems to work best is to
avoid printing abusive or offensive
words and expressions of the opposition
leaders, while at the same time
finding ways to project their criticism.
But even with this approach there is a
limit. When one religious cleric issued
Nieman Reports / Winter 2001 53