Analyzing the war–media nexus in the conflict-ridden, semi-democratic milieu of Pakistan

Abstract

This study combined the key findings of a dozen empirical studies with an original qualitative investigation aimed at understanding the dynamics of conflict journalism in Pakistan. The author devised an original contextual model and tested its applicability in five different conflicts of varying intensity. The study found that conflict journalism is dependent on the interaction between two key factors: the journalistic assessment of a conflict in terms of its seriousness of threat to national security and the resultant flak that stems from various sources that significantly influence professional reporting. The article concludes that journalists working in the semi-democratic, conflict-marred settings of Pakistan adopt a more vigilant and independent stance if they perceive a conflict to be posing an enormous threat to national security, for example the Taliban conflict, and that their critical stance erodes to a more compromising position in the case of a medium-level threat in conflicts such as the one in Balochistan and the ethno-political conflict in Karachi; their reporting further diminishes to a more sensational stance in the case of a low-level threat conflict due to the preponderance of the commercial interests of media industries.

Evaluating war and peace potential of Pakistani news media: Advancing a peace journalism model

“…The military elites in these two conflicts enjoy a monopoly on media reporting and the events are presented through their perspectives. These findings are supported by other researchers who found a preponderance of elite-oriented coverage (Hussain and Rehman, 2015) that often leads to war journalism (Rawan and Hussain, 2017). For instance, Geo News (February 18, 2018) reported, “Terrorists in Balochistan have stricken again.…”

“…Journalists are disallowed access to the conflict zones and to report freely. In the particular context of Pakistan, the military dictate to the media how to report conflicts (Lynch 2013; Hussain 2017). This scenario is however, different from the patriotic scenario, in a sense that society does not fully support the military’s view.…”

“…The enemy is securitized, peace-efforts are criticized, the coverage is zero-sum oriented and uses demonizing language for the enemy (Carruthers 2011; Lynch 2013; Hussain 2019; Youngblood 2017). These attributes show that during high intensity conflicts, journalists cease to be professional and serve as patriotic citizens (Ginosar and Cohen 2019; Allan and Zelizer 2004; Hussain 2017).…”

“…As shown in Table 1, the strong de-escalatory coverage, often dubbed as resurgent form of peace journalism (Keeble 2010; Hussain 2017), is characterized by open calls for peace and reconciliation, criticism of the war strategies, humanization of all the sides in a conflict and provision of solution-oriented coverage (Lynch and Galtung 2010). The moderate form of de-escalatory coverage, often dubbed as responsible conflict journalism (Kempf 2003), includes attributes of avoidance of good and bad in reporting, non-partisan, people-oriented coverage and use of objective language (Lyon 2007; Hanitzch 2007).…”

“…These attributes are not limited to the approach of peace journalism (Lee and Maslog 2005) but rather are the demands of the journalistic profession (Kempf 2007). Finally, low de-escalatory coverage, that is often dubbed as a mild form of peace journalism (Lynch 2008), includes attributes like voice of the victims, highlighting their issues and problems and avoiding using victimizing and emotive language (Hussain 2017).…”