Watching Both Sides, Pakistanis Believe Arab Media

by Muddassir Rizvi

Like millions of other viewers around the world, Pakistanis have access to a wide range of information about the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq beamed live by scores of satellite television channels from Iraq,

But this information is playing out in different ways and fueling debates in this mainly Muslim country, caught between a public angry about the invasion and a government trying to stay on the good side of the U.S.

Islamabad's official policies have shifted in recent years away from its support for the Taliban in Afghanistan and over to Washington after Sept. 11, and this shift has drawn opposition from religious parties here.

"I know Iraqi civilians are being killed, but how many? I know American forces are advancing, but at what cost? I know Iraqi forces are offering resistance, but how tough?" said Mujtaba Hussain, who works with a travel agency in Islamabad.

"If I believe what CNN is saying, then there are hardly any civilians who are killed. But if I go by with what Al-Jazeera is reporting, then the death toll runs in thousands. There seems to be nobody who can give an independent picture of the war. I have to create my own truth and believe in it," he said.

What some Pakistani viewers say they do know now is that the corporate-supported mainstream media, whether Pakistani or foreign, is not as independent as it claims to be. The war has prompted many to classify U.S. channels as mouthpieces for the U.S. government.

Conversations with Pakistani viewers show they are well aware of what they say are the differences in the way the foreign channels cover the invasion, which marked its second week on Thursday.

The U.S.-based Cable News Network with its "embedded correspondents" may be the first on the scene, but what it says may not be the truth, many believe.

Others add that the British Broadcasting Corp, long been considered a credible voice through the years of dictatorships in Pakistan, is also taking a beating as it tries to strike a fine balance between its responsibility to do honest reporting and Britain's national interests in the war.

U.S. networks Fox, MSNBC and ABC, though not commonly viewed, are being dubbed as outlets of "downright lies" by many.

By virtue of their religious bonding to the larger Muslim community and as a result of a strong anti-U.S. sentiment, it is common to hear people talking about the war in Iraq as being destructive and devastating as reported by Arabic news channels, rather than a "humane affair" meant to liberate Iraqis as projected by Western television stations.

"I just find it so ridiculous that Western media is accusing the Arab television channels of breaking international conventions by showing American war prisoners and inciting anti-West sentiments," said Ayesha Khan, who teaches in an elementary school.

"It's the Western media that is censoring images of civilian casualties and losses to allied forces to save the Bush administration from trouble at home," Khan argued.

"The war has established the links between Western media and the establishment there," Sen Mushahid Hussain, a well-known commentator and a former information minister, said at a seminar on Monday to discuss the role of Pakistani media in covering the Iraq war.

But at this same seminar, which gathered journalists, government information officials and scholars, the Pakistani media's own coverage of the war also came under sharp criticism.

The most debated point was Pakistani media's growing reliance on Western sources of information that are considered by many as "self-serving" and "deceiving."

Whether it is due to lack of financial resources or absence of media planning, not a single Pakistani media outlet has sent its correspondents to cover the war from inside Iraq.

GEO, the first Pakistani channel launched a few months ago and owned by the country's largest Jang Group of Publications, however, sent some reporters to Jordan days after the war began. They occasionally give a roundup of the war situation through videophone dispatches.

However, GEO has grown to be popular among the public for its extensive coverage of the war, mainly drawn from a mix of CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi Television footage.

Its only competitor is state-owned Pakistan Television (PTV), which has a news exchange agreement with CNN. Information Secretary Anwar Mehmood said it does not censor the live coverage of the war.

In sharp contrast to talk shows on GEO that are hard-hitting and has commentators asking U.S. and British troops to leave Iraq and let Iraqis make their own decisions, PTV is seen to be inviting more centrist panelists to its shows who toe the official line Á-- that the war should stop, that Iraq should disarm and that the United Nations should get a central role in post-war Iraq.

But Anwar Mehmood defends the official media as covering all points of view and blames the privately run media for choosing Western sources of information.

"It is regrettable that our newspapers are publishing Agence France Presse, Reuters and Associated Press stories, rather than investing in developing their own sources of information which could serve the information needs of the Pakistani people independently," he said.

While English-language print media tries to compile stories that have versions from all sides, the Urdu-language newspapers, especially evening publications, are resorting to sensationalism.

'Mini Atom Bomb in Basra', in big bold letters, was the headline of one evening publication a few days ago, magnifying the successes of Iraqi military and exaggerating the losses of the U.S. and British forces to maximize sales.