How press covers it, and how it should
The press is never innocent in conflicts. Robert Fisk, one of the more famous Middle East correspondents, says journalists should be inherently biased (in favour of the oppressed), otherwise there is the risk of letting an apartheid wall pass for a ‘fence’, a freedom fighter for a terrorist, etc. It’s alright to give 50-50 space to either side in a football match, he says, but not in lingering, asymmetric confrontations like the Israeli-Palestinian issue. But the Middle East is infinitely more complicated, especially since the so-called Arab Spring so rudely destroyed the uncomfortable status quo that had endured for more than half a century.
Take the Syrian civil war, for example. The integrity of the information coming out of the mess depends which side of the divide is reporting. Reuters will mostly speak of Free Syrian Army (FSA) advances in the north, never mind if Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al Nusra is the driving force behind the gains, and there are serious reports of Taliban style sharia law enforced in rebel held Aleppo, previously one of the most secular places in the region. The same is true for much of the western press. It’s mostly Turkey, and Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, and billions in aid money for refugee camps, and, of course, the constant demonisation of the Assad regime.
The regional press is more sectarian, which is natural, especially since the war has already spilled over into Iraq and Lebanon. The Shia-Sunni divide has always been an integral part of the Arab street, but it has become infinitely more pronounced since the Syrian uprising. Which is why it was unusual for one of the country’s leading Sunni clerics, Mohammed Said Ramadan al Bouti, to lend his weight so wholly behind the ruling, pro-Iran, Alawi government of Bashar al Assad. It wasn’t so unusual, though, for him to be quickly targeted by a bomb that killed him and 48 others. And even though the tragedy bore the unmistakable fingerprints of Al-Qaeda, the regional coverage was little short of comic.
‘Thousands grieve for murdered Syrian imam who supported Assad’, ran the front-page headline of Abu Dhabi based The National. But just after reporting that thousands did indeed flock to Damascus’s ancient Umayyad mosque to mourn the cleric, there came the “But exactly who is behind the murder remains unclear”. And then a strange diversion from reporting an event to speculation about how the government might have been responsible. This from the same paper that (more than) occasionally runs front pagers on Syria from New York, only quoting US based “sources”. Robert Fisk’s intent may have been noble enough, but there’s only so far patterns can work in conflict journalism.
This week also marked the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war. And as the noose tightens around the neck of the only remaining Baathist regime, it seems the international press has learned about just as little as governments that pushed for the march on Baghdad. “I owe readers an apology for being wrong on the overriding question of whether the (Iraq) war made sense”, wrote The Washington Post’s David Ignatius whose syndicated column is carried, among others, by Lebanon’s famous Daily Star, reaching thousands of Arabs. He goes on to warn about “the danger of creating a political vacuum by overthrowing a dictator”, yet believes President Obama has been careful in dealing with the Syrian problem.
The new press’s inherent ahead-of-the-curve nature in terms of news reportage has also, quite interestingly, left it behind-the-curve in focusing on the nature of evolution of the militant far right. Not only was it not finished when the war on terror tried to destroy it by force, it also developed as an insurgency model. By toning down very little on the Wahabi model’s rigid intolerance for different religions, though not sectarian minorities, it has presented a look more agreeable to the large centre-right body of middle and lower class Muslims. Interesting diversions from Iraq can be noticed in their actions in Syria. There are reports of Al-Qaeda accommodating Christians and Druze, even promising a return to recent calm once the Alawis are gone. But they do not spare the Alawis. “When they find an Alawi, they torture and kill”, is often cited in on ground reporting.
They have also surrendered to the inevitability of democracy in Muslim countries. Egypt’s Salafis rode with the Brotherhood past the finish line. It’s another matter altogether that there were differences and Morsi-led the brothers to shame far sooner than most analysts thought possible considering Mubarak’s dark cloud. The larger body of Islamists would rather exploit their growing numerical clout, achieved after long years of sacrifice, into more meaningful public power. That is one of the reasons the new generation wasn’t too upset with the passing of the Osamas in their fold. They have become a bigger public force in all countries of the Spring – militant and moderate varieties alike. And as the more dangerous kind spreads its tentacles far and wide into Syria, the popular press would still rather fight big-interest battles than notice radical changes in usually tolerant societies. Interesting, also, that this should happen when the traditional enemy, Israel, is in undergoing unprecedented radicalisation of its own.
Pakistan’s is, as always, a slightly different model. While Islamists have grown politically over many years, militants have also established themselves as a long-term feature of Pakistani life. Yet their participation in politics and democracy might be even more novel. As Imran Khan and Gen Musharraf broaden the field, TTP threatens bombing and sniper killings. And our talk-show press is far too involved in political intrigue to warn the public about coming times.
The writer is Middle East correspondent, Pakistan Today, and can be reached at jafry.shahab@gmail.com