How do you write about something where there’s clearly a victim and a source of wrong doing, without taking sides and framing the story rhetorically? I often wonder as I read critical writing, why it is almost always writing that criticises, bitterly, even vehemently. Surely, if the person laid out all the facts or all that they saw before me, I would reach that same conclusion without the help of emotional annotations.
I read this piece by Dilrukshi Handunetti and it made me very sad–as may have been intended. But that happened without any extra cues from the author.
I thought it worthy of posting here because I liked that it gave me the room to come to my own conclusions. And from the point of view of peacebuilding, I thought its temperate tone allowed all sides to engage with it easily. The door is open for the conversations to continue. To me that’s journalism that contributes to peace.
The author does comment critically on the accounts now available about the war:
“The war’s accounts were compiled mostly by biassed, pro-government voices. Access was allowed not to those committed to professional journalism, but the embedded kind. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) had their share of embedded journalists and the military cum government had theirs. Between these two groups, the country has ended up with utterly biased accounts with facts and figures not even the State agencies could agree with.
The story of resettlement is the same. Statistics are released, but with little explanation. The process is carefully concealed. Access is only through the Ministry of Defence and one has to be entirely lucky to be granted access, despite IDPs having all been resettled…
We continue to record false history, each step being heavily controlled by the long arm of militarization.”
Strong words, but measured when you read them in their context in the article. That’s good peace journalism, in my view.
Dilrukshi Handunetti, Closed and not accessible, Ceylon Today, September 30, 2012.
“Running dogs of the capitalist pigs!” An old clichéd chairman Mao quote. But it perfectly defines the kind of journalism Washington Post (WP) and other mainstream media (Indian and otherwise included) actually practice. The people of USA are in deep turmoil led there by the corporate government policies, but trust the WP to be more worried that our Prime Minister is not jumping into the ‘reforms’ bandwagon to create a free market economy like theirs instead of truthfully analysing the reasons why not.
The ‘running dogs’ media keep putting up a rosy picture of their worlds without deigning to realise that the internet revolution has unchained information (of any kind) from its corporate-government stranglehold. With explosive results. Now anyone who cares to know what’s really going on can easily find out.
One of most important facts that surfaces from there is that the mainstream media are not telling you the truth about whats happening in the country or the world by selective reporting or ignoring. They are actually hedging the truth and mis-informing people and WP is too for example . Or they are outright lying to further their own interests like WP for example, or to interests they refer to as ‘national’ interest which actually translates into ‘corporate and big business interests’. The middle east, Americas, Africa has suffered from this general syndrome and there is no reason to believe that South Asia has not.
The US government’s global war mongering or arm-twisting machine works in close partnership with their mainstream media which is used to set the agenda and create an intellectual climate for certain action and the WP has been part of this we are told. By making him out to be a sad ‘tragic’ figure out of tune with the rough and tumble of politics, there seems to be an attempt to set up the PM Singh. They first tried to needle him into doing something by calling him an ‘under-achiever’ in the Time magazine, next this current WP report which was loaded with adjective-masala but no real meat about why the Indian PM could not take on reforms. Barely two months ago the president of the US B Obama had criticised the Prime Minister for not opening up the country for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) wildly picked by all the major media houses. Which was followed up by the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) follow up demanding the same thing given wide coverage. But the other side of the issue, the why of why there is a large section of people in India who do not want these kind of reforms fails to be given equal attention. In fact it is played down. Or people who hold that view are labeled ‘Maoists’ or potential terrorists. The mainstream media wants the under-achiever prime minister to become an achiever by completing the process of becoming a US clone state. Singh cannot lay claim to his own wisdom for this. If anything he would have loved to go ahead but he was blocked from being an ‘achiever’ by the ‘99%’ in India on who’s backs the achievment is likely to be built. Unlike the politically illiterate 99% in the West especially the US, who have been kept in the dark about the source of their ‘modern, prosperity and power’ the rest of the world, particularly the ‘99%’ Indian, has wised up to the source of this affluence, which is the loot and plunder economy.
When reports like the WPs on the PM appear, it is better to speculate why and where these running dog media assaults originates from, particularly when there is not a word about the double-barrel gun nature of his prime minister-ship, the handle of which he shares with the Indian National Congress (INC) supremo, Sonia Gandhi.
To many many Indians it is these very reforms which the mainstream media fully supports, that has raised inequality to sensational levels in the country. While a small percentage are benefited, the majority are thrown into ever growing poverty and hopelessness. Indian reform policies can be traced into the deep bowels of the corporate government of the most powerful country in the world (United States still is even though it is on the wane) and implementation of these are threatening to wipe out communities and environments even as far into the remote mountain areas as the north eastern region of India. These policies have set off a primordial competition for individual ownership of natural resources including water, minerals and forests. For example, hungry companies and hungrier politicians and bureaucrats are all set to build more than 150 mega dams in the hilly Himalayan state of Arunachal Pradesh without balancing this ‘national need’ for hydel-power with the destruction they are about to wreak upon the unique micro-numbered tribes of the area, some of them with as less than a total population of 12,000; nor pausing to ponder over the fact that the area falls under a region earmarked as one 18 mega-diversity spots, vital for the survival of the human race and therefore requiring extremely delicate handling. Nor did the fact that it is also one of the 25 global bio-diversity hotspots or that the communities are largely against this, divert them from attempting to ‘harness’ its rivers to create hydel power to run the engine of Indian industrial empire to make it into a world power. Land, water, plants, human DNA, everything is up for sale. Played up, played down or ignored public happenings and analysis’ have meaning in their larger strategy and reveal their agenda.
WP, said to be the second most important newspaper after New York Times in the US media world has been at the forefront of public deception so accuse the Americans themselves. See examples here and here and some older ones here. The paper has hardly made any attempts to find out the problems of their own people and their future . Their own citizens are crying hoarse against the take over of their freedoms by the corporate run government and their cronies. The current report on the Indian Prime Minister therefore cannot but be seen in the light of the ‘running dog’ media syndrome. (Linda Chhakchhuak)
Often, when the media reports on a story, they provide some of the facts. Now, of course, facts can come embellished with drama, adjective, hyperbole and can get fudged too. But when the facts are presented in a context, as in this blog by Kingshuk Nag in The Times of India, they acquire a greater punch. Entitled: How Gujarat bucked a national trend, the blog refers to the incrreasing isolation of Muslims from mainstream society, typified by the denial of housing to them:
A story carried in TOI’s Ahmedabad edition last week is illustrative of the present state of affairs in Gujarat. It reports a tale of peaceful demonstrations accompanied by Ram dhuns in front of a bungalow owned by a Hindu in the city of Bhavnagar in Saurashtra. The bungalow was being sold off to a Muslim and the saffron brigade laid siege till the Hindu bungalow owner acquiesced and called off the deal. The story notes how in the last few months many such deals – of Hindus trying to sell property to Muslims – have been stymied in Bhavnagar, the only city in Saurashtra to witness riots during 2002.
Yes, “ten years after madness” things remain quite the same in Gujarat. True there has been economic growth and Ahmedabad is well on the way to becoming a major automobile industry hub. There has also been a marginal improvement in social indicators but society remains polarized like it was a decade ago. In Ahmedabad, you can be a well-to-do Muslim with enough moolah, but still can’t buy property in “posh” enclaves or middle-class areas. Certain areas are demarcated for Muslims in Ahmedabad and they can only stay there. There are hardly any exceptions to the rule.
Muslims do find it difficult to get jobs or do business, they avoid mainstream schools or colleges and it is incredibly difficult for Muslims to find the accommodation they seek. Muslim friends have so many stories of being turned down from housing societies in posh areas of Mumbai, in Bangalore and Delhi. Most of this is at the individual level. Very few flat-owners actually take the fight further (Madhavi Kapoor, Principal of Aman Setu school in Pune was a heroic exception).
But when political parties orchestrate campaigns such as this, it is the collective bad that we witness. Is the media courageous enough to slam this?
That’s the thrust of the front page lead and a full inside page coverage of the economic conference hosted by the ‘The Times of India- Jang newspaper group Aman ki Asha in Lahore, Pakistan on May 7 and 8, 2012.
But are better trade relations and the strengthening of economic ties a sure-fire way to build peace in the sub-continent? Obviously, that’s not an easy question to answer.
The Aman ki Asha project of the two media groups – both the strongest in their countries, seemed such a contradiction in terms when it was launched in January 2010. The sabre-rattling of the Times Now after the November 26, 2008 attack on Mumbai was still fresh in everyone’s minds and the Jang group was also not exactly dove-ish in its coverage of its neighbour.
Nevertheless, the two groups came together and hosted several cultural events, all of which recieved ample publicity in their respective media networks. So, after all the ghazal events, the sufi music programmes and the tentative discussions on screening Bollywood films in Pakistan, cricket seems the next stumbling block…Typically, today’s coverage in The Times of India hopefully poses the question: Will India, Pakistan resume cricket ties?’, blissfully forgetting the “Pakraman’ coverage the Indo-Pak cricket matches have elicited in the past. But, with such a lot of hope in the air, let’s not go there….
So the 45 CEOs discussed visa issues and talked of better cooperation in trade, the potential for which is estimated at least $12 billion (from the present $2.7 billion – according to the TOI report). They discussed how India and Pakistan can function as a single economy under Art 24 of the GATT, the problems in moving ahead on trade despite according Pakistan the most Favoured Nation status and how the ‘informal’ trade between the two countries must be legalised.
Bugbears were reduced to code. The ‘K’ word made only one item in the sidelights to the conference, only to state that it wasn’t mentioned by anyone present and that the economic track could, finally, run independently of the political one!
Alas! if only it were that simple. You simply can’t take the political out of the peace process.
Perhaps only when that happens, will the dots on this initiative connect.
Peace took centre stage in the Sunday Times of India of 22 April. A banner headline running right across the top of the full-page Special Report conveyed a clear message: “Love thy neighbour. It’s time.”
The lead story by Shobhan Saxena reviewed recent developments that suggest that “hope has replaced doubt,” including Pakistani army chief General Ashfaq Kayani’s unanticipated comments a few days ago in favour of the “demilitarisation” of the Siachen glacier and “peaceful co-existence” with India. Saxena pointed out that the real mood-changer has been the exchange of singers, writers and actors, as well as interactions between business leaders and even army officers (the latter under the aegis of the India Pakistan Soldiers Initiative for Peace).
An interview with Pakistani parliamentarian Ayaz Amir by Sameer Arshad, headlined “India is no longer seen as enemy,” indicated that old mindsets have changed and the new mood is in favour of a less fractious, more cooperative relationship between the two nations.
The guest column by Pakistani journalist Beena Sarwar, headlined “In the air, a hope song,” paid tribute to the sustained groundwork done by peace-loving people on both sides of the border over many years. According to her, the foundation laid by citizens and civil society groups strengthens and has in turn been strengthened by the Aman ki Asha Indo-Pak peace project jointly launched by a Pakistani media house (The Jang Group) and an Indian newspaper (The Times of India) on 1 January 2010.
While the brief interview with External Affairs Minister SM Krishna, headlined “We need to be patient,” was not particularly enlightening or enriching, a note of caution was added by the final piece, headlined “Peace on the horizon, but it’s a hard trek,” by Indrani Bagchi.
A column by Gurmeet Kanwal on another page of the Sunday Times of India also suggested that “It’s time to melt frost in Siachen.”
On Friday 20 April, too, the second edit in the TOI (with the Aman ki Asha logo inset in the text), headlined “Words of hope,” proposed that it would be a good idea to build on General Kayani’s message.
Edits on the subject in other newspapers on Saturday 21 April were less positive: “Is Kayani serious? Wait and watch” (Deccan Chronicle), “Don’t buy peace at cost of national security” (The New Indian Express).
Interestingly, on Saturday the TOI’s global news page carried a report by Sameer Arshad, reviewing Pakistani media coverage of General Kayani’s remarks. It was headlined “Pak media hails Kayani for his stand on Siachen.”
On Friday other newspapers were more preoccupied with the successful launch of the inter-continental ballistic missile, Agni-V, the previous day, with lead edits on the topic: “The ‘game-changer’” (The Hindu), “Agni success must propel self-reliance in defence” (The New Indian Express), “The Agni effect” (DNA). The TOI’s edit on the subject, which appeared only on Monday 23 April, seemed to view the success of Agni V as an “Insurance Policy” and a boost for “India’s diplomatic depth.”
Interestingly, DNA obviously thought this particular event deserved editorial comment even though it has done away with the tradition of daily edits. I found one sentence in the edit particularly intriguing: “China, however, has not been able to inspire much confidence about its motives in an Indian population that is still to live down the humiliation of 1962 despite its great love of Chinese food and cheap Chinese products.” Even I was only nine years old in 1962: how real is that conflict to the vast majority of Indians today? And if it is indeed a bone in the throats of some fellow citizens what roles have history teaching and media commentary played in keeping it stuck there?
What is puzzling about the Times of India’s stand on peace between India and Pakistan is that it seems rather inconsistent. First of all it appears significant that the Aman ki Asha project is restricted to its flagship newspaper whereas, across the border, it seems to have been embraced by the Jang group as a whole. Perhaps this is at least partly why the campaign appears more active and sustained across the border (judging by the websites on either side).
Aman ki Asha related stories have so far not been regularly featured even in the daily. But the fact that the TOI devoted yet another full page to Aman ki Asha (“Destination Peace”) coverage on 23 April may indicate some change. Of course, perhaps predictably, the page was almost entirely related to the possible peace dividend for business and trade.
Maybe the fact that the project is confined to the daily newspaper could also explain the contrast between coverage of Indo-Pak relations in the TOI, on the one hand, and Times Now, the Times group’s 24-hour news channel, which appears to offer a dedicated safe haven for Indian hawks.
For example, the Newshour “debate” on the question “Are Pakistan’s intentions malicious?”– triggered by General Kayani’s remarks on Siachen and anchored by Arnab Goswami in his inimitable fashion – featured the usual line-up of retired army officers nursing old wounds (not necessarily their own), defence analysts zealously guarding their possibly endangered territory and former diplomats who seem to have forgotten what diplomacy means.
As journalists in Sri Lanka began a campaign on January 25 in memory of colleagues who fell in the island nation’s civil war, the response of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government suggested a commitment to “national reconciliation” that does not go beyond empty gestures.
Sri Lanka’s journalists believe that the climate of impunity for attacks on the media should be dispelled as part of the healing process after a quarter century of ethnic strife. Human rights defenders who stand up for a fair society should be allowed a free voice if national reconciliation is to be a possibility.
Government spokespersons began a campaign of hostile rhetoric soon after the Free Media Movement (FMM) – a platform shared by Sri Lanka’s journalists across linguistic and ethnic divides – announced its intent to begin this campaign on January 25.
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has learnt from sources in Sri Lanka, that in the second week of January, the government-owned TV channel launched an attack, bristling with unseemly personal animus, against the FMM.
While playing old footage of journalists who used the FMM platform, the TV channel ran a commentary on its news programmes, attacking them in virulent terms.
On January 10, Sri Lanka’s government-owned newspaper accused the FMM of petitioning the European Union (E.U.) to terminate bilateral trade preferences granted the country. This is a complete travesty of the FMM position, which has been to address the Sri Lankan government with the urgent need for it to live up to basic human rights standards.
Prior to the FMM’s demonstrations of January 25, the government secured a court injunction restricting the protests to a narrow area around Colombo’s Fort Railway Station, a major landmark in the capital city.
Gangs of stick-wielding toughs reportedly took over the area just before the demonstrations were to begin. They carried placards explicitly identifying the FMM as an ally of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the insurgent group defeated by government forces in 2009 after a civil war in which gross human rights violations were rampant on both sides.
On January 25, the government-controlled newspaper, the Daily News, carried an editorial which warned that any effort to “sabotage the progress of the country by disruptive elements (would) be put down”. The editorial identified the FMM as an organisation that has “been in the forefront of lambasting the Lankan state on numerous issues”.
The IFJ believes that the tone of official commentary speaks of a determination to pursue the policies that led to the bitter estrangement of the past.
The report of a commission appointed by President Rajapaksa as part of “national reconciliation” was published late-2011. This voluminous report, by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), has only modest space for media freedom. But its language is compelling.
The LLRC records that it has been “deeply disturbed” by the persisting reports, even after the end of the war, about “attacks and obstacles placed on journalists and media institutions”. These difficulties have been experienced even by “news websites”.
Taking note of a record of murderous violence against journalists, the LLRC remarks that the failure to “conclusively” investigate and bring “perpetrators” to justice does little credit to the Sri Lankan government.
The IFJ and all its global associates are encouraged by the LLRC recommendations. These include the recognition of the “pivotal role” that “freedom of expression and (the) right to information”, play in “any reconciliation process”. “Restrictions placed on media freedom”, the LLRC records, “would only contribute to an environment of distrust and fear within and among ethnic groups”.
The five specific actions that the LLRC urges, include “deterrent punishment” against those who attack media personnel and institutions; the proper investigation of such incidents from the past; the assurance that media personnel would have freedom of movement through the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka, which bear the deepest scars of the war; and the enactment of a law protecting the right to information.
Despite the clear roadmap sketched by the LLRC, the IFJ and its global partners are seriously concerned that the Rajapaksa government seems intent on escalating the rhetorical violence.
The IFJ recalls that this manner of rhetoric contributed directly to the brutal attack on Poddala Jayantha, then the General Secretary of the Sri Lanka Working Journalists’ Association, in June 2009. Jayantha, a highly awarded journalist, suffered permanent disability and now lives in exile.
In January 2006, S. Sukirtharajan, a photographer with the Tamil daily from Colombo, Sudar Oli¸ was shot dead by assailants on motorcycles, just days after he published photographs suggesting that five Tamil students found dead in the eastern city of Trincomalee had been victims of an execution by state security agencies. A cable from the U.S. ambassador to Sri Lanka at the time has now come to light, which records Basil Rajapaksa, brother and senior advisor to the President, expressing his belief that the “Special Task Force” of the Sri Lankan military carried out the killing of the five students.
The IFJ calls upon the Sri Lankan government to explain if Sukirtharajan was killed because he got the real story of the Trincomalee killings, which the President’s advisor was only willing to share in confidence with the U.S. envoy.
In August 2006, the Jaffna office of the Uthayan newspaper – part of the same group as Sudar Oli – was attacked with fire bombs and seriously damaged. As narrated to the U.S. ambassador in Sri Lanka, again by the President’s brother, this attack was in all probability carried out by the Sri Lankan Navy, in league with a Tamil political party that is a close ally of President Rajapaksa’s.
In one of the most shocking incidents since the civil war was officially declared over, the news editor of Uthayan was attacked with iron rods on the streets of Jaffna and left for dead shortly after elections to local bodies in the northern province in July 2011. The newspaper had editorially supported the opposition parties which registered significant wins in the elections.
The LLRC commented sharply on this attack which happened during its deliberations.
The IFJ and its global partners conclude with extreme regret that the Sri Lankan government’s continuing failure to act against this manner of lawlessness, indeed its seeming eagerness to promote the rancour that contributed to the violence, suggest not a desire for national reconciliation, but its very opposite.