With the availability of numerous on-line news sites and global information sources, deciphering a given situation, or affairs of a particular part of the world, has become quite cumbersome. Obviously, the readers are not actually present on the ground to understand the dynamics and grasp the different angles. They are relying on the one relaying the information to present the facts and the situation. The irony is, more and more, even the reporter is not located on the ground.

Thus the credibility of the media house and objectivity of the reporter and analyst, takes on immense importance. However, to think that the author is independent and not influenced by his own ideological tilt and belief systems would also be naïve. A good writer, however, will constantly check to counter any such tendencies. Then there could be external pressures and influences that also come into play.

If the initial reporting of the facts is flawed, it will cause all subsequent analysis to be erroneous as well. However, the user of the of the information would not know this, and will lead him to develop an opinion that is not connected with reality, and this may result in a faulty and costly decision at some point.

From the perspective of the reader, the best approach to take these days is to treat all information with suspicion, and not as the literal truth. Moreover, the users of these global information sources should learn how to understand and synthesize the news and analysis they are being presented, in order to develop an accurate assessment of an issue or a situation.

The consumers of media information in Pakistan, and else where, need to get sophisticated in deciphering the media, the ideological divides, and what they may mean. It’s not the loyalty to the country that is often at stake, but a lack of comprehension on the existence of different approaches to address the present challenges and the way out. Similarly, the media houses should not hide under the garb of their ideological tilts, and present information as the truth or reality, when they may actually be lobbying. When this distinction is lost, even deeper risks and circumstances result.

Analysis

Making Sense of News

It’s remarkable how a single event can have various interpretations. First of all, the reader should ask if someone is deliberately attempting to shape or create a certain perception as part of what is known as strategic communication. The free flow of information accompanies with it the risk that an actor is attempting to create a favorable opinion about an issue or policy related to the player’s interests. Research suggests the elements of soft power work best when people trust it. However, the trust can also be easily lost and very hard to regain as many western media sources are discovering.

The reader should also attempt to understand the ideological slant. More and more, it’s the ideological underpinnings that are overshadowing the media coverage of the various events in Pakistan, and mimic the political divide that otherwise exists in the society. They can be defined as the Liberal, Nationalist, and Conservative perspectives. It should be noted that such political divisions occur in many other democracies around the world. They reflect distinct outlooks for how a country should deal with its current challenges and move to the future.

The Nationalists

For example, in Pakistan, the Nationalists are of the belief that majority of the security problems being confronted by the country have external causes, and foreign powers are conspiring to manufacture a civil war in the country. Once such circumstances have manifested, the global powers will declare Pakistan unsafe to possess nuclear weapons. This is also the reason that some Nationalist are weary of Pakistan’s involvement in the campaign against extremists, which has progressively destabilized the nation and weakened its economy.

Moreover, the Nationalist have strong anti-India posture and believe that country is bending over backward to improve ties and enhance trade with India, when the later has not reciprocated in a similar spirit. Furthermore, the Nationalists believe that India and Afghanistan are conspiring to ethnically divide the country. Most importantly, the Nationalists strongly support the military as an institution.

The Liberals

On the other hand, the Liberals are of the view that Pakistan’s past use of proxies in Afghanistan and India has produced a backlash against it, and that is the main reason for the predicament it presently faces. In other words, Pakistan should have never joined the Cold War and gotten involved in the Afghan Jihad. Since these actions were taken under a military dictator, it blames the army for what ails the country currently. The Liberals strongly support improving trade ties with India and Afghanistan and that it may also result in improving the security situation.

The Conservatives

For all intents and purposes, the mainstream religious parties, such as Jamatey Islami, represent the Conservatives. The views of the Conservatives are nearer to the ones held by the Nationalists when it comes to policy over major domestic and international issues. Especially relating to parting with war against extremists and over ties with India. The Conservatives have also been staunch supporter of the military and have been sympathetic to the views of the militant and extremist groups.

Pakistan and Global Media

When it comes to major media houses of Pakistan, ARY Channel has presented an outlook held by the Nationalists while Express and Geo Media channels have catered to the Liberal point of view. With both groups somewhat catering to the Conservatives as well. This is similar to the US where Fox has voiced the Conservative point of view while MSNBC has tilted more towards the Liberal viewpoint.

In the US, however, such differences have not created questions related to the loyalty to the country; and are taken as representing different approaches to solve the nations problems.
Moreover, different international actors attempt to lobby the Conservative (Republicans) and the Liberal (Democrats) representatives based on their stand on different policies and global outlook. How the political leaders in US balance the national interest while catering to various international voices is a demonstration of how real power politics and diplomacy plays out at the world level.

Through the strategic use of information, one can shape a version that is closer to ones interests and future outlook. No wonder global players like China (CCTV) and Russia (Russia Today) are now spending big bucks to open their own English media houses and convey their story to the world. A British journalist Chris Tryhorn wrote in Nov 2013,

“With plenty of foreign faces on screen on its English, French, Spanish, Arabic and Russian channels, CCTV doesn’t seem all that Chinese. In contrast with the consciously anti-western slant of RT (Russia Today) and Iran’s Press TV, CCTV plays things pretty straight, but unsurprisingly avoids controversial issues facing China and its government.”

According to Daud Moradian, a former foreign ministry advisor in Afghanistan, Iran spends $100 million a year in the country. A major portion of this assistance goes to media, civil society projects and religious schools. Reports indicate nearly one third of Afghanistan’s media is either backed by Iran financially or through providing content. Afghanistan’s intelligence department, National Directorate of Security, had alleged in 2012 that Iran was meddling in Afghanistan and was funding weekly Ensaf, including Tamadon and Noor TV channels.

With significant changes taking place in Europe, US recently decided to shift $10 million from the $1.5 billion Kerry-Lugar-Berman annual fund meant for Pakistan, to support and expand Ukrainian, Balkan, Russian, and Tatar language services of Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Voice of America.

The consumers of media information in Pakistan, and else where, need to get sophisticated in deciphering the media, the ideological divides, and what they may mean. It’s not the loyalty to the country that is often at stake, but a lack of comprehension on the existence of different approaches to address the present challenges and the way out. Similarly, the media houses should not hide under the garb of their ideological tilts, and present information as literal truth or reality when they actually may be lobbying. Whenever this has been done, it has produced even deeper risks than the ones it was originally attempting to avoid.

The post The Growing Challenge Of Deciphering The News Media appeared first on Politact.

Context

The media debacle that unfolded during the last couple of weeks is not unique to Pakistan; it has already rocked the West. Rupert Murdoch and his media empire are under the gun in UK for the phone hacking scandal and reporting practices. During the second Iraq war, the credibility of the American media was questioned for not asking the right questions. Then came the WikiLeaks phenomena, the repercussions of which are still being felt. As the reputation of mainstream media got hit, alternative sources of information gained in status.

The connection between powerful individuals and media is nothing new. International actors spent huge sums to protect their image and influence the messages that reflect on them. The bottom line is, in the information age, media has become a tactical and strategic weapon. It is used to shape perceptions that ultimately are instrumental in developing pubic opinion. This is one of the key reasons why the battle for the control of cyber space is heating up.

Analysis

The Advent Of Social Media

What constitutes media has changed over times as well, and it’s no longer just the print and the traditional electronic media. Modern communication technologies and social media such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have been added to the list and are playing a key role in the Arab transformation.

For instance, in the Arab awakening, WikiLeaks acted as a catalyst in igniting the resentment and discontent that existed within the Arab society. The leaked documents reinforced the perceptions widely held by the public about their duplicitous rulers and elite. On the other hand, with tools like Facebook and Twitter, people were able to vent their anger, organize and maintain the much-needed momentum, as seen in Tahrir Square. They empowered the otherwise powerless citizens of these countries to become voluntary reporters and spies in this modern day information warfare. The vitality of social media has increased to such an extent that UN wants to classify access to the Internet as a basic human right.

However, these modern tools have not been able to generate leadership to take charge of the movement it has inspired. Thus, while the social media has had a galvanizing influence and in providing the initial momentum, it has a dangerous side effect of not preparing people for the day after. Despite these limitations, the social media tools appeared to be tremendously successful in bringing about regime change but constitute a threat to the forces of status quo. Many Arab regimes have now imposed strict control over these mediums while UN wants to classify access to Internet as a basic human right.

Cyber Warfare And Cyber Security

With increasing dependence on Internet, protecting the infrastructure and networks that facilitates these information-based transactions to occur in the cyber space, has emerged as the most important arena of the future warfare. The US and the West are spending big bucks towards beefing up cyber security, to prevent not only the extremists from exploiting the vulnerabilities, but to also protect against industrial espionage from countries like China.

In June 2011, Defense Secretary Panetta had commented, “The next Pearl Harbor we confront could very well be a cyber attack that cripples our power systems, our grid, our security systems, our financial systems, our governmental systems.” With cyber attacks becoming increasingly frequent against government networks, last year President Barack Obama approved guidelines that determine the parameters of the military response against the perpetrators of a cyber attack or espionage. According to this strategy, US will consider the use of conventional weapons.

Meanwhile, Li Shuiseng, a researcher at the leading military science academy of the People’s Liberation Army, stated in an interview at the time the new strategy was “fundamentally an attempt of the US to maintain its unparalleled global military superiority.

“The allegations by the analysts came after Google accused Chinese officials of attempting to hack Google email accounts relating to US officials, government offices, politicians, journalists and activists – a claim denied by China. Instead, Beijing asserts that America is using online tactics to bring about regime change in Arab nations and claims it has evidence that the cyber assaults originated in the US.

Some recent examples of cyber warfare have come in the form of ‘Stuxnet’ and ‘Flame’ viruses that were deployed by US and Israel against Iran. While Stuxnet impeded Iran’s progress towards acquiring nuclear capability, Flame reportedly was used to map and monitor Iran’s computer networks. Flame virus has an extraordinary data snatching capability and can eavesdrop on unsuspecting computer users by manipulating its audio system and listen to office conversations and Skype calls.

Conclusion

One can discern the following patterns from the above discussion. With the control of local governments, international actors and powerful individuals on the mainstream media, it is increasingly seen as preserving the status quo.

Consider this report that indicates nearly one third of Afghanistan’s media is either backed by Iran financially or through providing content. Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security had earlier alleged Iran was funding weekly Ensaf, as well as Tamadon and Noor TV channels. It was further suspected that Iran might also have Afghan MPs on it pay roll, with 40 of the 249 members receiving funding from Iran. “What Iran wants, what they are striving at, is a power base in Afghanistan that can counter American influence,” said a senior government official.

On the other hand, social media is supporting the cause of those seeking change. In this atmosphere, alternative sources are increasingly bringing out the shocking truth. And, as they do, it further erodes trust in the traditional sources of news and information. Meanwhile, the reporting business itself is changing when Twitter provides 24 hours coverage of the raw ground reality in different languages, to whom it may concern. While the forces of change may want to keep the Internet switch on, the forces of status quo will like to have the ability to turn it off.

In this context, the Mediagate in Pakistan is just a tip of the iceberg. The global trends that are impacting the information and cyber warfare will ultimately have an impact in Pakistan as well. The struggle for access to information and knowledge, and being able to control and influence it, continues on like never before.

The post Media, Cyber Wars And Change appeared first on Politact.