The Role of Media in Politics

What role does the powerful new media play in Politics? The short and long term effects cannot be denied. But does the new media offer us sound political information or simply entertain us for profit and ratings?

The New Media

Every so often, the mass media system in the United States experiments significant transformations that signal a new plateau in its evolution. Widespread recognition of the new media's role on the political scene occurred during the 1992 Presidential campaign. The candidates flocked to talk radio, television talk shows, news magazine programs and the internet. Although the media offered many options to deliver their views, the debate as to rather or not the content was informative or entertainment had begun.

Talk Radio

If there has been one communications format that has become emblematic of the new media, it is talk radio. Talk radio used to be the "night shift" of the airways. Talk radio reinvented itself. Talk radio became an important candidate forum in 1992. President George H. Bush interviewed with conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. By 1994 nine talk radio hosts ran for statewide or local office. Most were unsuccessful, but their positions in talk radio gave them legitimacy as
candidates.

Other unsuccessful candidates such as former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and New York Mayor Ed Koch moved into local or national talk show host jobs. Talk radio had a political platform. Americans were tuning in. Ratings were up. Profits were rising. Talk radio had become a force to be reckoned with.

Television

Cable television opened the airways for an onset of media opportunities. Time slots were filled with talk shows and news programs that you could tune in twenty four hours a day. The television media quickly enhanced their position in the political process. Politicians and the mainstream press could not help but take them seriously. One of the criticisms levied against the television media was that they trivialized serious issues of governing by mixing politics with entertainment. Every political issue at hand could now be analyzed and scrutinized twenty four hours a day on cable news. Campaigns had to give a second look on the role of media in politics. The media could be a tool of support or a thorn in your side. Campaign strategy had to be changed. The power of television was not to be denied.

The Internet

Twenty five years ago the term "modem" did not even appear in the dictionary. Modems connect people to online computer services such as CompuServe,Prodigy, America Online or MSN, and to hundreds of thousands of world wide websites and home pages. Increasingly, the internet has become a tool for political communications as well. On the net you could gain political info, express political opinion, and mobilize other voters and political leaders. You could also make political donations. In this years Presidential race, candidates have raised literally millions of dollars online. The web has become a electronic town hall. In a brief time, the web has grown into a major player in the new media.

Conclusion

The media has found its niche in today's politics. Rather its talk shows, television or the internet, they have laid a foundation, built a platform from which to voice their social agenda and flex their political muscle. How much of that voice is quality content is still up for debate. One thing is for sure, if you want to succeed in politics, it will not hurt to have the media in your corner.

Islam and the Western Media

Islam and the Western Media

Stereotypes and misconceptions about Islam in the media are rooted in prejudice, and ignorance, says Bassil Akel.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West. Nevertheless, the West has many stereotypes and misconceptions about Islam that are due to the media, prejudice, and ignorance. Islam is often looked upon as a "extremist", "terrorist", or "fundamental" religion. Many people hate Islam and do not want to acknowledge its true teachings. In many cases, the media’s reports about Islam are incorrect due to ignorance. This is one of the reasons why the West often hates Islam. In contrast to what many Westerners think of Islam, Islam is a peaceful religion, which does not promote any forms of uncalled for fighting or "terrorist" actions.

Stereotypes about Islam are not new to Western culture. Problems can be traced back 1400 years. At that time, Islam and Christianity were involved in the Crusades in the 1100’s and in the Ottoman and Moorish control in Europe. Islam spread quickly to the West, and started to threaten the position of the Christian Church and the ruling class. The Western elites, mainly the governments and the churches, then became highly involved in seeing that negative images were presented about Islam. As a result, not only were battles fought against Islam, but also a war of words was initiated to make sure that Islam would not have any converts or sympathizers in the West. These kinds of actions and feelings that the West had long ago still seem to be the case in the West today (Hassan 1).

Today, the West, with little or no understanding of Islamic history, has identified a new enemy, "a new demon that has replaced the Red menace of the Cold war, i.e., radical Islam" (Agha 6). This "radical Islam", a stereotype common to Western thought, portrays Muslims as fundamentalists or potential terrorists. Some of these ideas that the Western people have about Islam are due to the mass media of the West. Reporters who cover the Muslim world often know very little details about it. The media then develops a distorted image of Islam that Western culture adopts (Agha 2).

A major factor which contributes to Islamic stereotyping in the West is due to the media’s ignorance of selecting their words that describe Muslims. Some common names heard or seen in the news about Muslims are "extremist" or "terrorist". These words are misleading and are mainly anti-Islamic. The media rarely uses more neutral terms such as "revivalist" or "progressives" (Hassan 2).

The Western media also creates the idea that Muslims are "returning" to Islam. This is not true in most cases, because most Muslims have never left Islam in the first place. Islam has always been a big part of their lives. A more accurate and just way to describe this idea is to say that there is a revival of Islam and it is becoming more and more influential to everyone (Hassan 2).

Adding to the fact that the media creates inaccurate ideas about Islam, the Western media is also very influential to its audiences in making negative Islamic stereotypes, such as the assertion that all Muslims are fundamentalists. The term "fundamentalist" is actually a term that is interpreted by the media. A fundamentalist, in fact, only represents a normal Muslim who follows his or her religion. Fundamentalism means an attitude, an effort, or a movement that an ideology, group, or religion tries to promote in its fundamental beliefs. The "fundamental" beliefs of a Muslim is to believe in only one God (Allah) and the Prophet Mohammed is His messenger (PBUH), pray five times a day, fast the month of Ramadan, give alms to the poor, and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. This means that all Muslims are fundamentalists if they believe in their own religion’s fundamentals. Although the media is uncomfortable with religious groups, it focuses heavily on "Islamic fundamentalism". A majority of the media’s reports that talk about Islamic fundamentalism usually describes most Muslims as extremists. This shows how the media is ignorant, because Islam specifically prohibits any forms of extremism. The Prophet Mohammed said, "Those persons who go to extremes (in practicing their religion) were cursed (by God)". The media most often portrays Muslim "fundamentalists" prostrating themselves before God in prayer. For example, in the October 4 issue of Time, Muslims soldiers were shown performing prayers with guns. The caption on the bottom of the picture said, "Guns and prayer go together in the fundamentalist battle". The part that the reporters omitted or failed to state was that the Muslim soldiers were praying on a battlefield in Afghanistan. Common sense of the situation meant that the soldiers had to remain armed at all times in case of an ambush at any time. This is a clear example of the media’s biased and inaccurate reporting (Martinez 1, Ba-Yunus 1).

With regard to the soldiers, another great misconception that exists is the truth about Jihad or "holy war" in Islam. The ideas of war and violence have become related to the Islamic religion from the media. Jihad is so often apparent in the news because the media thinks it is Islam’s justification for war and violence. The Quran (Muslim Holy Book) says "Fight for the sake of Allah those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. Allah (God) does not love aggression". A Muslim is permitted to take up arms only as an act of self-defense. A Muslim has the right to defend his life, and his property (Martinez 1, Hassan 4).

Jihad literally means "The struggle in the path of God", or "holy war". However, the Western media often abuses the meaning of jihad by referring to it as a holy war where Muslims unreasonably kill non-believers. But the fact is, is that jihad can mean a numbers of things that a Muslim does for the sake of God. Rarely has the Western media used this kind of a definition in their reports. The way the media represents jihad is wrong. The media often takes the word "jihad" out of context to propagate negative views on Islam. A student striving for top grades, individuals pursuing for equality and justice for all people, honoring your parents, a mother giving birth to a child, eating, and even simply sleeping can all be considered jihad (Martinez 1, Hassan 4).

The association of Islam and violence is a common misconception that the general Western public has developed about Islam. An example of this kind of misconception is that the Western media and some historians often say that Islam was a religion spread by the sword, meaning that Muslims went from one end of the world to the other forcing people to either convert or die. Islam spread by people learning about it and some by holy wars, but they did not force people to convert or die. Since a majority of the American public only get their information about Islam through the media, they believe this wrong idea. The media’s reports about Arab or "Islamic" events, such as the Gulf War, are often misunderstood. The media usually fails to give background information about these Islamic events that it reports on. The media infrequently distinguishes between the religion Islam and the political affairs that occur in most Islamic countries. For instance, what Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq, did in the Gulf War was not Islamic and totally wrong (to attack other people for no reason, especially Muslims). But the media still makes reports about Islam and how Islam is made of war-crazed people. For example, to help put things into perspective, Hitler was a person of the Christian faith. This does not mean that all of his actions were consistent with the Christian beliefs. Likewise, Saddam Hussein is of the Islamic faith, but all of his actions do not necessarily represent Islam. So you can see that the media’s reports about "war-crazed Muslims" are incorrect. The notion of associating of Islam and Muslims with the terms Arabs and Middle East are in fact misleading. Arabs only account for 18% of the Muslim population across the world (Hassan 1-2, Washington 1).

Aside from the fact that the media misrepresents Islam because of ignorance, the media is also a profit-seeking organization which often seeks to create a false image of reality. Islam is often news of an unpleasant sort for the general public of the United States. Islam has often been presented as a menace or a threat to the West. These negative images do not correspond to Islam, but are the belief of certain sectors of a particular society. These prominent sectors can propagate negative images of Islam, which sometimes influences people’s views on Islam (Agha 3). The Western media actually poorly represents Islam. Most of these problems of poor representations come from poor language translations, the absence of developed news agencies with international networks and native reporters, and biased reporting by many Western reporters (Agha 3).

Some biased reports come from negative images that have happened in the Muslim world in the past like the hijacking of airplanes by Palestinians, the occupation of the United States Embassy by students in Tehran, the fact that there are no democratic governments in most Islamic countries, and the Gulf War. For most of these events, the media has misinterpreted and misrepresented them. The media sometimes unintentionally blows things out of proportion, sometimes because of biased feelings toward Muslims. However, many positive developments in the Muslims world rarely go noticed (Agha 3). Some inaccurate representations of Islam are often due to the media’s incorrect representations of Islamic countries, such as jihad, or Islam women’s rights. Waseem Sajjad, former Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan explains the situation of Islam and the media:

The Islamic world is poorly represented in the West in terms of press and media coverage. Not only are there just handfuls of news agencies in Muslim countries; there is the concern over the number of inexperienced reporters. Many reporters don’t understand the local cultures nor speak the language, leaving them with access to only those English or French speaking Westernized elites. Thus their representation is often a biased account of the political and social events from the point of view of the ruling minority in Muslim countries (Hassan 2).

A negative image of Islam is becoming more inherent in the Western culture from inaccurate media coverage. The media helps to make an image of Islam to unsuspecting audiences. The Western public often is misinformed about Muslims through the images on television, motion picture screens, magazines, radios, and comic strips in newspapers, which promote strong messages among their audiences. Western reporters often say that Muslims are terrorists. This becomes a common image to the general person that all Muslims are terrorists. Edward Said’s book, Covering Islam, talks about how the media and experts determine how we see the rest of the world. He says that:

The term Islam as it is used today seems to mean one simple thing, but in fact is part fiction, part ideological label, part minimal designation of a religion called Islam . Today Islam is peculiarly traumatic news in the West. During the past few years, especially since events in Iran caught European and American attention so strongly, the media have therefore covered Islam: they have portrayed it, characterized it, analyzed it, given instant courses on it, and consequently they have made it known . But this coverage is misleadingly full, and a great deal in this energetic coverage is based on far from objective material. In many instances Islam has licensed not only patent inaccuracy, but also expressions of unrestrained ethnocentrism, cultural, and even racial hatred, deep yet paradoxically free-floating hostility (Agha 2) .

As well as creating inaccurate images about Islam, the Western media usually identifies Islam in Muslim conflicts. The media hardly points other religions out in their conflicts. For example, the news would say, "five Israelis may have been shot, but they were shot by five Muslims", instead of saying "Five Israelis were shot by five Palestinians". The media often reverses this action when a conflict is against Muslims, for example the news would usually say "Bosnians are being killed by Serbians", but instead rarely says, "Muslims are being killed by Christians"(Hassan 3). In addition to the media’s inaccurate representations about Islamic conflicts, human rights of women in Islam, such as women veiling and women authority, are big topics that Western media often confuses and misinterprets. The media often represents Islam as a male dominant religion where Muslim men have complete authority over all groups of people. The media often says that Islam discriminates against women, and that women have no power or authority. However, it is ironic of what the media represents, that the Prophet Mohammed was one the greatest reformers for women. In fact, Islam probably is the only religion that formally teaches women’s rights and finds ways to protect them. When Islam is practiced correctly, it becomes the best example of an equal gender society (Hassan 3).

As Islam came around, traditional pre-Islamic roles of women were replaced by new Islamic roles that women followed. Islam allowed women to have the right to be educated and the right to participate in political, economical, and social activities in their community. This created upward mobility in their communities. Women were also given the right to vote, something the U.S. did not allow until 1919. Women were given the right to inherit property and take charge of their possessions. While most of these rights are denied to Muslim women today as a result of cultural tradition, one should not associate this with Islam, because they do not correlate with it (Hassan 4). Islamic women wearing veils is a another commonly misunderstood concept in the West. Westerners often think that this is a harsh custom that Islam requires of women. Westerners often say these women have no freedom or dignity for wearing these veils. But in fact, these veils actuality help protect women and help them remain in chastity. In Islamic societies there are very few rape cases and AIDS victims as opposed to the Western societies, were there are thousands of rape cases and AIDS infected victims a year. But in some countries, like Saudi Arabia, women are forced to wear abbayyas (floor length veils). Such excessive forms of these kinds of dress are not mentioned in Islam. Islam requires women to wear a veil for their own safety, but if a woman chooses not to wear it, it is her choice and it is between her and her God. God will do anything He wants to her in this world and the after (Hassan 5).

Islamic women are indeed supposed to be granted these rights, but the media often fails to inform its audiences about this fact. The media also fails to report that most of the Islamic countries have a high illiteracy rate. This means that it is "virtually impossible for many Muslim women to challenge cultural male authority when the women themselves do not know the difference between village customs and actual Islamic law". The Western media would be able to better represent women’s issues in Islamic countries if they identified how and why governments have limited women’s rights that are guaranteed to them by the Quran (Muslim Holy Book). Most so-called Islamic countries such as Syria are corrupt (according to Islam) in their religion and should be addressed in the media’s reports. But instead "the media falsely portrays Muslim women as victims of a harsh and suppressive religion". While the media is so concerned about negative and discriminatory images about Islamic women, it fails to remind their audiences that there are three Islamic countries (Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Turkey) that have had female heads of states. In contrast, most Westerns nations such as the United States, "who condemn Islamic countries for their oppression of women, have yet to see a non-white, male president, let alone a female" (Hassan 5-6).

With regard to Islamic women’s rights, Islam is also a hot topic of Western governments. Western powers do not usually easily tolerate Islamic movements or governments. One main reason is that in an Islamic government, in contrast to Western governments, there is no separation of church and state. Judith Miller states in her book Challenge of Radical Islam, "that anyone who believes in universal human rights, democratic governments, political tolerance, and peace between the Arabs and the Israelis cannot be complacent about the growing strength of Islamic militant movements in most Middle Eastern countries". Miller says that the Western governments should oppose these kind of Islamic movements. This statement shows one Western’s views about how the West opposes Islamic movements (Agha 6, Emerson 2).

Observers often say that the goal of Islamic fundamentalism is to wage a holy war against the West. These observers believe the idea that Islamic leaders only wanting the redress legitimate political grievances is totally nonsense. They think that even if Israel or any other opposing regime in the Middle East would disappear, "the appetite of the Islamic fundamentalists would only have been whetted". These ideas are false and also misleading. (Agha 7).

The Western media often portrays Islam as a "militant Islam" or a "fundamental Islam" threat to the West. Edward Said states that:

For the general public in America and Europe today, Islam is "news" of a particularly unpleasant sort. The media, the government, the geopolitical strategists, and although they are marginal to the culture at large - the academic experts on Islam are all in concert: Islam is a threat to Western civilization. Now this is by no means the same as saying that only derogatory or racist caricatures of Islam are to be found in the West...What I am saying is that negative images of Islam are very much more prevalent than any others, and that such images correspond, not to what Islam "is"...but to what prominent sectors of a particular society take it to be: Those sectors have the power and the will to propagate that particular image of Islam, and this image therefore becomes more prevalent, more present, than all others (Muzaffer 1).

John L. Esposito’s book, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality, states the question, is Islam a threat to the West? He tells us that the answer lies in the West’s views. He says that if the Western powers continue to defend the unjust status of the Middle East in the name of an illusory or fleeting stability, Islam will be a threat. "But if the Western powers begin to appreciate the legitimacy of grievances in the Middle East, the West and Islamic movements will get along peacefully" (Agha 7).

With the Western media’s spotlight and some Western governmental attitudes, the West is a place where Islam is a name of negativity. The Western media has contributed a great deal to this negative image of Islam. The media often misrepresents and inaccurately explains Islam and its manifestations. Sometimes the media seems to be biased against Islam. When the media distorts the image of Islam, the general public tend to believe it, because the media is a major source of information that the public gets about Islam. This ignorance that the West accumulates from the media leads them into making stereotypes about Islam and associating all Muslims and Arabs together. The West often times views Islam as "fundamental" "extremist" or "discriminatory", but all of these terms have be manipulated, purposely because of biased feelings and accidentally because of ignorance, by the media to present a negative image about Islam. Islam is actually a peaceful and fair religion that most often does not correspond to the media’s reports. As Islam grows more and more in the West, Westerners will eventually learn the truth about Islam and find out that these negative stereotypes are incorrect. It is possible that Islam will become one of the biggest religions in the United States. As more people follow Islam, the media will start to learn about it, understand it, and report about it in positive ways. As long as the Westerners are educated about Islam, they will probably learn to accept it as well.

Bibliography

Agha, Dr. Olfat Hassan. http://bertie.la.utexas.edu/research/mena/acpss/english/ekuras/ ek25.html#Heading5. Islamic Fundamentalism and Its Image in the Western Media.

Ba-Yunus, Ilyas. http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6453/myth.html. The Myth of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Emerson, Steven. The Other Fundamentalist. New Republic. June 12, 1995.

Hassan, Anser. http://psirus.sfsu.edu/IntRel/IRJournal/sp95/hassan.html . Invitation to Islam: Islamic Stereotypes in Western Mass Media.

Martinez, Pricilia. http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~rfayiz/media.htm. Muslim Culture, Religion Misrepresented by Media.

Muzaffer, Dr. Chandra. http://www.peg.apc.org/~newdawn/misc2.htm#top. Dominant Western Perception of Islam and The Muslims.

Washington, DC. http://www.twf.org/Releases/Fears.html. Why The West Fears Islam: The Enemy Within.

US Media Coverage and Pakistan

To judge by what appears in the nightly TV news or the morning newspapers, the American people spend most of their time pondering their gallbladders and cheering for cat-rescue stories. Yes, there's still news out there. But hard news, and particularly hard foreign news, is increasingly being squeezed by soft family, health, celebrity and "lifestyle" stories.

While the fate of O.J. Simpson led every broadcast and headlined every newspaper for a year, the genocide in Rwanda quickly grew old and disappeared. Many nights, you won't even see a foreign story on the evening news. Bombs in Johannesburg? Crisis in Paris? Sorry -- but are you interested in the library crisis in Bangor? According to Andrew Tyndall, whose New York-based Tyndall Report monitors the three nightly network newscasts, there's only half as much international coverage today as there was in 1989. Last year, for example, NBC aired only 327 minutes of stories filed by reporters from abroad, compared to 1,013 minutes at the end of the Cold War. (1)
The American media is notorious for its lack of foreign news coverage. It's shocking that the only superpower with the strongest military and most far-reaching cultural influence is inhabited by people who couldn't care less about what happens around the world.

This lack of viewer/reader interest, which news media say they are simply reflecting in their lack of coverage, is no less when it comes to a country like Pakistan.

Pakistan tends to be in the news when something big happens, like a military takeover, or when something bad happens, like honour killings. Beyond that, there has typically been little or no coverage of the day-to-day happenings in Pakistan.

Given the current crisis, there is a great deal of focus today on Pakistan, especially the madrassah school system. Although there is a huge journalistic presence there, that doesn't mean the stories coming out of Pakistan are terribly informative. Many stories are shallow or have basic factual errors. There is also an interesting development in which cultural institutions have taken on a whole new meaning given the events of September 11th.

The whole concept of madrassah education is one cultural institution that is being completely misrepresented. Another is the "havala" system of money exchange; "havala" as in giving someone something in trust. This is a fairly common practice throughout the developing world. Person A in one country needs to send money to person B in another country. Person A gives money to a "money broker" here and his associate will pass on the equivalent in local currency to person B over there. The broker will take a cut of the exchange, say two rupees for every dollar, and that will be his fee. This is a system used throughout south Asia, the Middle East, Africa, southeast Asia, etc. given the dearth of financial institutions and people's general preference to work with cash.

However, the news media are portraying this system as somehow being a terrorist masterminded plot to transfer money without leaving a paper trail. On closer inspection, they would understand that this system predates the events of September 11th.

Foreign news coverage is already eroding in the US. When countries are not tied to the daily events in America, it is not likely there will be any mention of them regardless of how big an event happens. Within a few years in the late '80s and early '90s all three major television networks were bought up by corporations whose engines are fuelled by profits. NBC was purchased by General Electric, CBS was taken over by Westinghouse and ABC was sold to Disney. (2)

Study after study has shown that the public is not interested in foreign news and will tune out. Given that news now has quest for profits as a prime motivator, the least lucrative thing will be the first to go.

It will be interesting to see how the recent events in New York and Washington and the ongoing crisis in Afghanistan will affect people's overall appetite for knowing what goes on in the world.

References (1) and (2) can be found at: http://www.salon.com/july97/media/media970701.html

Lack of Media Coverage for Pakistan Floods

 

Nearing a month into the devastation of flood-stricken Pakistan where nearly 20 million have been displaced from their homes and risk of water born disease is causing emergency situations; I am surprised at the lack of coverage by American Media. It’s obvious the response from the West has been slow in all capacities; partly due to the fact that most of us are ill informed at the magnitude of Pakistan’s tragedy or worse, don’t care. The blare of repetitive news about devastation I have become accustomed in American news reporting is almost non-existent with Pakistan floods. By now, I would have expected a child or two plucked from her/his desolate fate and paraded onscreen to make us feel the suffering. Make us want to give money, clothes, whatever we could manage. Get us connected to a part of the world that seems so far away. I expected a flood of news reports and coverage, much like the coverage for Haiti Earthquake.

Without continual constant ‘noise’ and updated broadcast footage of the disaster, we cannot be expected to find our own news, can we? The fact is, the noise builds momentum, which also builds compassion. Without proper coverage, the devastation and suffering become invisible. Out of sight means out of mind. Ask the countless celebrities who will do just about anything to stay in the eyes of the media.

The problem of the lack of American news coverage goes much deeper then reporting the crisis in Pakistan. The West and Europe have adopted Islamaphobia, which obviously has clouded humanitarian concerns.  The Afghani insurgents that seem to corroborate with Pakistani governments sit at the forefront of our minds. Ask David Cameron who reportedly suggested that ‘Pakistan was an exporter of terrorism’ at a charity event.  It seems, we see the face of the enemy in the victims of the floods, but they shouldn’t be the ones we blame. They have been paying for a corrupt and inept government for years and currently they are the ones suffering the most.

Foreign aid and minimal coverage pretty much go hand in hand. It’s taken almost a month for the International community to come forth with Aid. After several pleas from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, only a fraction of the Aid asked for is coming. The poor donor response from the global community hinders the success for organizations like the UN to help those in desperate need.

At this point, the urgent need to quell further cholera outbreak, bring clean drinking water and build infrastructure is crucial.  Without it, the world will be facing the largest humanitarian catastrophe it has ever seen.

Any contributions that the world makes will contribute to peace. Hungry and angry people do not make a peaceful country.  Contributions cannot just be considered in terms of dollars, it must be considered in terms of good will. Take India’s offering of 5 million in Aid to Pakistan. This rare gesture of kindness suggests solidarity. India probably would not have come to the table had there not been an increase in global reporting.

The US has given Aid worth $90 million by way of 18 helicopters and a personnel, diverting some of it’s military from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Saudi Arabia said it would give 80 million, with obvious designs to protect its theological presence in Pakistan. Countries like Germany have also pledged more money, none of it adding up to the $460 million that Ki-Moon says it needs. Countries are helping, not as quickly and vigorously as they could, but they are helping even if it is with fingers crossed and tight lips.

Wishing you the luxury of clean water and food today.

Pakistan Proposes Law Restricting Media Coverage of Terror Attacks

The Pakistani government is proposing a measure that would restrict graphic media coverage of militant attacks.

If approved by the National Assembly, the legislation would prohibit broadcasting video footage of suicide bombers, bodies of terrorism victims, statements from militants and any other acts which the legislation says "may promote, aid or abet terrorists."

Those who violate the restrictions could be punished with up to three years in prison and a $117,000 fine.

Pakistani government officials said Wednesday the measure will also repeal "draconian" laws imposed by former President Pervez Musharraf that prohibited the media from defaming Mr. Musharraf.

Pakistani officials say the legislation is not an attempt to control the media.

Separately on Wednesday, Pakistani military officials say fighter jets bombed suspected militant hide-outs in the Orakzai tribal region, killing at least 15 militants.

Militant violence has continued in Orakzai despite an announcement by the Pakistani military early this month that operations against Taliban fighters had successfully concluded

Pakistan's Media: Dissecting its Coverage of Extremism, Terrorism and Pakistan-U.S. Relations

Predominantly state-run until a decade ago, Pakistan's broadcast media has transformed into a largely independent and proactive presence in Pakistani society. Complementing this is the already rich vernacular and English language print coverage that the country has possessed for years. Combined, the print and broadcast outlets have strengthened a significant element of Pakistan's civil society as the media is now extremely vocal in covering international and national issues, heightening public awareness and critical understanding.

Perhaps most pertinent to understand from the U.S. perspective is the Pakistani media's coverage of issues pertaining to extremism, the war in Afghanistan, and more broadly, the Pakistan-U.S. relationship. Often, there have been concerns raised by outside observers that Pakistani media outlets paint too negative a picture of the Pakistan-U.S. bilateral ties and that major Pakistani media outlets have not taken a strong enough stance against extremist outfits. Is this criticism true? What are the motivations and constraints which lead the Pakistani media to determine how they present issues? And what are the nuances and differences in messaging between broadcast and print, and vernacular and English language media?

This event discussed these questions and was co-sponsored by USIP's Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention and USIP's Center of Innovation for Media, Conflict and Peacebuilding. Participants watching the live webcast were able to participate through chat and twitter, asking questions of the panelists and commenting on the discussion.

Drone strikes again sparks controversy between US, Pakistan

Missile strikes by U.S. Predator drones inside the Pakistani tribal territory has once again sparked controversy as a U.S. law-maker has accused Pakistan of tacitly approving the attacks while the latter says these strikes are counterproductive.

Accusing Pakistan of double tone, Senator Carl Levin told a Congressional briefing in Washington earlier this week that Pakistan should accept "its tacit approval of drone strikes."

His comments came as Pakistani Interior Minister Rahman Malik claimed days ago that these strikes were counterproductive.

"They are killing civilians and turning locals against our government," Malik stressed.

The fresh trade of allegations came on the heels of two drone attacks in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal area last week, in which over 70 militants, including foreigners, are said to have been killed.

It is for the first time for well over a year that the U.S. pilotless planes are targeted hideouts of Baitullah Mahsud, chief of Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) or Pakistan's Taliban Movement.

The latest drone strikes coincided with the military operation, which the Pakistani forces have been preparing to launch against Mehsud group for the last two weeks.

The simultaneous strikes by U.S. drones and Pakistani artillery have, of late, aroused the feeling as if they were in a sort of collaboration against the militants, posing threat to both Pakistan and the U.S.-led NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Formerly Pakistani officials had been taking serious exception to the drone attacks, saying they violated its national sovereignty.

Reports about the utility of drone strikes are frequently appearing in Pakistani media ever since the Pakistani forces have announced to launch operation against Mahsud.

However, at the official level, Pakistan government still continues to take exception to drone attacks.

"We try to win people's heart and then one drone attack drives them away. One attack alone last week killed 50 people," Rahman Malik was quoted in a report.

For his part, Senator Carl Levin says it is wrong on Islamabad' s part to blame "us" for the missile attacks.

"For them to look the other way or to give us the green light privately and then to attack us publicly leave us at very severe disadvantage and loss with the Pakistani people," he told a Congress hearing.

In recent months, when the Pakistani leaders toned up their protest over the drone attacks, U.S. media quoted administration officials in Washington claiming that the U.S. pilotless aircraft were being operated from inside Pakistan.

Pakistani officials claim that majority of the victims of drone attacks over the past couple of years have been civilians.

However, officials with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), say the drone operations are very successful as they have perished 13 of the 30 top Al-Qaida operatives.

Failing to convince Washington to give up the drone exercise, Pakistan has now started to demand drone technology for its armed forces.

In his talks with U.S. National Security Advisor James John late last month, President Asif Ali Zardari called for transferring drone technology to Pakistan "to boost its indigenes capacity to eliminate the militants from its soil."

The controversy over drone strikes may heat up once again as media reports suggest that the Pakistan government is trying to mend fences with Baitullah Mehsud.

Rahimullah Yousafzai, a Peshawar-based analyst and journalist claimed on Wednesday evening that the government was trying to mend fences with Baitullah Mehsud through a local jirga (tribal council).

The change in Pakistan's position came as two other powerful Taliban commanders, in the lawless tribal area Maulvi Nazir and Hafiz Gul Bahadur, announced to support Baitullah Mahsud.

While Pakistan would not like to annoy its people in the militancy-plagued tribal areas at the cost of drone attacks, Washington would also not accept Pakistan making friends among those who pronouncedly support operations against international forces in Afghanistan.

(Xinhua News Agency July 18, 2009)