Covering violence

Speaking at an Iftar-dinner he hosted for media persons on Wednesday, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani expressed his displeasure over what he termed as exaggerated media coverage of bomb blasts and other acts of terrorism that, he said, had a telling effect on the economy. If the concern is about the economy, the Prime Minister can rest assured that investors, whether local or foreign, tend to make their own evaluations on such an important matter as law and order rather than to rely on what they read in newspapers or see on TV screens.
So far as the exaggeration issue is concerned it needs to be remembered that people no longer rely on newspapers and radio alone for information, they see events for themselves on the TV screens. The TV, of course, can show only what happens on the ground. The Prime Minister also said, "Let the media be an impartial judge of situations," adding the caveat "keeping the larger national interest in mind."
The problem is that 'national interest' is open to different interpretations, depending on who is trying to define it. The one defined by the government is often times likely to clash with the basic principle of objectivity that must inform reporting. An interesting example of what the government may or may not think fit for reporting emerged around the same time as the Prime Minister's iftar-dinner advice.
The press reported on Wednesday, amid rising tensions over repeated US violations of Pakistan's sovereignty, that a Predator drone was shot down by the security forces and Waziri tribesmen in the Angoor Adda area. American officials denied the incident.
When Pakistani TV channels later showed the wreckage of the plane, a US military spokesman acknowledged that a drone had crashed, but said it happened inside Afghanistan. Since the wreckage had been shown on TV, Pakistan had no option but to confirm that "a surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle while flying over Pak-Afghan border yesterday night crash-landed on this side of the border ... apparently due to malfunctioning."
The denial and then the acknowledgement about the downing and the insertion of the malfunction reason obviously show that truth was not being told. A respected foreign news agency later quoted tribesmen insisting that they had shot down the spy plane.
It would be useful if the Prime Minister explained what national interest was being served by hiding the fact that an intruder spy plane had been shot down in Pakistani territory. In this age of real time TV and the Internet, it is almost impossible for governments to hide unpleasant facts, especially when they relate to murderous events perpetrated by state or non-state terrorists.
There can be no civilised argument in favour of glorifying terrorists or helping terrorists make triumphant claims. Unfortunately, there have been examples of some people crossing the fine line between reporting facts and giving a sympathetic hearing to extremists/terrorists, and thus helping them to propagate their violent ideologies.
Only last month a private channel anchor was seen making polite conversation with the spokesman of Pakistani Taliban, Maulana Omer, as he proudly claimed responsibility and offered justification for a double suicide attack on August 21 at the Wah Ordnance Factory, which killed 60 Pakistanis and wounded over 100 others.
Understandably, the government has since sought and received media co-operation on observing certain guidelines on giving coverage to extremist elements. Closer liaison on such issues between the media and the government seems to be in order so that neither side colours the facts.