Media bias against Pakhtuns

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/News.aspx?ncat=ar&nid=1131 Media bias against Pakhtuns

Jan Assakzai

The media coverage of unfortunate attacks on Ahmedi minority mosques on May 29, portrayed Pakhtun community in a negative light. Some media outlets quoted the Law Minister Rana Sanaullah that a "Teenage Pakhtun" has been arrested using a common identifier "Pakhtun" for a suspect. Using common identifier for these militants will only reinforce the negative image of the whole community in the county. It creates mis-perception if Pakhtuns are equivalent to terrorism. I received several emails complaining the same. However, if you are concerned, and would want to express your complain in a democratic and peaceful manner, I thought I might be able to help. In other words, if you are one of those concerned Pakhtuns, a concerned pro-Pakhtun or ordinary concerned citizen and believe that media's hate speech could spark reprisal attacks and discrimination against Pakhtuns — particularly in Punjab — you can complain to the media and can respond. But this response should be done intelligently. Here you go: (A) One should not accuse the person or the outlet of "bias." That highly charged indictment carries conspiratorial overtones, implying that these busy news reporters are secretly conferring on how to make Pakhtuns look bad. In case you're wondering, that's not how it happens. And while it is certainly true that many reporters and editors are ideologically pre-disposed to looking at the world in a way that may not always favour the community, it simply does not help to point that out in your critique. Just stick to the news coverage. (B) Many in the pro-Pakhtun community properly conclude that they could no longer stand idle by as the community's reputation is unduly tarnished by unfair media coverage using the labels like militants and gang mafia, land mafia and using common identifiers — Pakhtun — for suspects. In addition, (C) You can send emails and make phone calls to media outlets. These grassroots emails and phone calls to media outlets should present sound critiques of the media coverage. Otherwise, they will be self-defeating because, if these emails do not have a common courtesy and civil demeanour, they would end of annoying the very people you want to influence. If your emails do not have common courtesy, that's bad. It shows lack of political maturity of the the community. People should know better that yelling or hurling epithets may make a person feel better, but it is anything but persuasive. And remember: your goal is to persuade. This kind of behaviour also crowds out the more reasonable criticism because some editors prefer to print shrill commentary for effect and even to make the writer and the cause look bad. So in approaching the media in the future, here are some stylistic tips you may want to keep in mind: (1) One should not threaten the editor or reporter. Even if you plan to cancel your subscription, keep that to yourself (if you are engaging in a boycott campaign, you should tell the publisher, not the editor). The people on the news side don't worry that much about subscriptions, but rather about the quality and accuracy of the coverage. (2) You should acknowledge the complexity (and inherent messiness) of the media. It is no small feat to get a newspaper out on a tight deadline. Working at a frensied pace, reporters and editors are bound to make mistakes. You need to be aware of the hurdles they face in getting a story out in a timely manner. The spokesperson for an organisation they called for an interview may not have returned their call by the 4 p.m. deadline. No story should be treated as the final commentary of a media outlet's competence or objectivity. Expressing an understanding of this complex reality will buy you some credibility. (3) One should appreciate good media coverage. It's not enough to blast them when they're wrong; you should let them know when they've done a good job. They appreciate it, and it will add to your credibility the next time you launch a complaint. (4) One should focus on the facts. Nothing will sway media outlets like a good case that they got the facts wrong. (5) One has to keep it short and concise. If you are complaining to an editor, so are half the people on your email chain, as well as people on the other side of the issue. Keeping it short will improve your chances at getting a fair hearing. (6) One needs not to expect too much too soon. News editors are not candidates for public office, which means that they do not need to curry favor with you in order to get or keep their jobs. They also have a great deal of pride in what they do, and don't like to admit to fundamental problems in their coverage. (7) In the final analysis, Pakistani media outlets are simply not going to cover the news in the manner one would like them to. Only The Frontier Post voices Pakhtun community's concerns, problems and challenges. The dirty little secret is that there is always a level of subjectivity in the news coverage — a value judgment inherent to the process of deciding what to report and what not to report. While one must strenuously make his/her case, it is unrealistic to expect that a news outlet's value judgments are always going to fall in line with our own. The real goal must be achieving a measure of fairness, and one can help judge whether that standard has been met. The more thoughtful you are in your approach, the more likely you will get the desired results. janassakzai200@gmail.com