Pakistan has had a history of being governed by authoritarian regimes that often denied access to factual information on issues of political and strategic significance to the citizens, who, in turn, had to rely on the foreign sources. One such outlet of information is the US daily, The New York Times (The NYT).
This newspaper claims to be Americas newspaper of record, offering objective reporting and comprehensive analysis in politics, business, the arts and entertainment. Thus, if Pakistans information media and the public rely on what is printed in it about their country as being balanced and true should not be surprising. But how many of us have actually bothered to analyse as to how fair, balanced and impartial has The NYT been in its comments on the issues related to Pakistan?
Of all the news content published in a newspaper, the editorials are considered as the voice of every newspaper. It has been so in the case of The NYT as well because John B Oakes, the editor of its editorial page stated in the 1974 Annual Report of The New York Times that the primary objective of its editorial page is to focus peoples attention and provide leadership on socio-politico-economic issues at the local, national and international levels.
Dr Mughees Uddin Sheikh, who is a Professor at the Institute of Communication Studies and is also the Dean of Behavioural and Social Sciences, at the Punjab University, Lahore, has conducted an interesting research that has analysed the editorials of The NYT for the period (1980-1990) to see as to what image of Pakistan was presented by this newspaper to its national and international readership. This research has been published in June 2010 issue of Pakistan Vision, which is an international journal published under the editorship of Dr Massarrat Abid at the Pakistan Study Centre, University of the Punjab.
During the 1980s, two issues dominated the Pak-American relations: (i) US policy with respect to Pakistans position on Afghanistan, and (ii) US military and economic aid to Pakistan and Pakistans military and the nuclear programme. Out of the fifty editorials published by The NYT during the period under study, twenty-four dealt with issue (i) and twenty-six focused on issue (ii).
Every newspaper espouses certain ideals and is within its rights to promote them by all means, and at the same time oppose all that comes in conflict with its philosophy, including the policies of its government at a given time. For example, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, President Carters administration lifted the ban on American military and economic assistance to Pakistan. Later on, Secretary of State Alexander Haig under President Reagans government, while explaining the US official policy stated, Not only Pakistan, but others among our allies and friends, are looking to the United States to demonstrate its commitment to support those friends who are standing in the way of a Soviet thrust into this vital area.
But The NYT not only opposed the economic and military aid to Pakistan; it linked this assistance with Pakistans nuclear programme and the Islamic status; and at the same time reminded the policy-makers in Washington not to forget the experience of the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran. In addition, while making efforts to manipulate the US Congress for the presidents accountability, it expressed grave concern about Pakistans nuclear programme; urged that it must be stopped; and demanded a more decisive action than the mere termination of aid.
However, when General Zia tried to neutralise this opposition by arguing that Lets have an even-handed policy.Pakistans offer is that if India agrees to sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we will be signing one minute before.lets have mutual inspection of both nuclear installations.lets have a bilateral nuclear non-proliferation treaty.Why is Pakistan alone to be put on the spot?; The NYT instead of appreciating Pakistans bold and reasonable stance, magnified the Indian position. It carried nine editorials expressing support for the Indian concerns regarding US assistance to Pakistan and went a step forward in its preference of India by suggesting the supply of nuclear fuel to the Indians. In other words, it looked at the Pak-American relations through the window of Indian interests.
A parallel of such bias in The NYT can also be found in its position on the Arab-Israel relations. For example, in case of American arms sales to Saudi Arabia (an ally of the US like Pakistan), The NYT opposed such deals from the Israeli point of view by arguing that those weapons would be used against Israel. An important question arises as to why would The New York Times be biased against Pakistan and supportive of India and Israel? Dr. Mughees study concludes that this newspaper is prejudiced against Pakistan because Pakistan is an Islamic state whereas The NYT is staunchly pro-Israel and anti-Islam in character.
Moreover, as Pakistan and India are opposed to each other, The NYT finds India as a natural ally to support on critical issues. The NYTs Israeli linkage was commented upon in a 1985 study by Zeev Chafets, which stated that it was owned by a Jew family (the Sulzbergers) and its editor AM Rosenthal was also a Jew. This had a direct bearing on its editorial policy. Another research conducted in 1979 by D. Daugherty and M.Warden revealed that anti-Arab editorials in The NYT outnumbered Israeli supportive editorials by an almost three-to-one ratio, and as Pakistan has supported the Palestinian cause and condemned Israeli atrocities since independence, therefore, the Pakistani nuclear programme was viewed as a threat to the Israeli hegemony over the predominantly Muslim Middle East.
Dr Mughees research actually validates some other studies conducted by Edmund Ghareeb (1983), Zeev Chafets (1985) and Victoria Hammond (1987) that also concluded that The NYTs policy had been pro-Israel and anti-Islam. Lastly, it is assumed that the American information media often follows the cues of the official foreign policy makers instead of exercising independent judgement. The editorials of The NYT on Pakistan negate this assumption because while the US government provided economic and military help to Pakistan, The NYT consistently opposed this official policy.
A corollary to this assumption is a widely held perception that The NYT is so influential that it runs the United States. Roland Wolsely in his write-up in Journalism Quarterly rejected this assumption by arguing, If it does, it has done a poor job for it was defeated in the 1984 national election when it sought, through editorial policy, to replace President Reagan and certain of his foreign, as well as domestic policies. Wolselys argument holds good in the case of Pakistan as well because despite The NYTs strict opposition, the US government refused to be influenced by its editorial tirade and continued to assist Pakistan throughout the eighties.
The writer is an academic and journalist. He can be reached at [email protected]
