The know-alls who don't know enough

A.B. Shahid

The Lal Masjid saga was a dark chapter in our history. It proved that sometimes everyone has to reap the harvest of what a handful choose to sow. That pampering demented and overly self-righteous clerics that encourages them to go berserk, can lead to unimaginable tragedies. The anguish caused is irreversible, and its victims may take years or, perhaps, a lifetime to get over it. We must share in alleviating their sufferings. Making political capital out of such tragedies by sensationalizing them would be an unforgivable sin.

Admittedly, covering this tragedy meant living with a constant fear of a bullet flying in from almost anywhere, the inconveniences caused by curfew restrictions and the oppressive heat. This was bound to impact reporters' mental frame. Yet, most maintained high professional standards. They deserve our unqualified admiration. Having said that in earnest, in the Lal Masjid saga, there were some disappointing incidents, that media managers should review dispassionately. What follows is certainly not intended as criticism but as a word of advice.

Media creates perceptions and what should concern the managers is the ultimate rationality of those perceptions. What brought people on to the streets when the government tried to throttle the media via the PEMRA ordinance was their belief that this is what the media cares about. However, this was not as reassuring in reporting on Lal Masjid tragedy - the demands placed by producers and newscasters in TV studios on their reporters for giving their 'opinion' on a situation that remained dicey throughout due to the clerics' shifting stand and wild estimates of the hostages.

A recent trend is that when we decide to liberalise an activity we just do it leaving it to the world to worry about the fallout from such exuberance. We did just that while 'freeing' the media. Virtually overnight we have scores of TV channels, and as a result thereof, many rely on young and inexperienced reporters even for covering routine events, let alone hostage crises, cross-border terrorism or wars. TV channels make their reporters' task tougher by requiring them to do what they aren't capable of doing yet - analysing fast moving scenarios and feeding their analysis live to the viewers. Often reporters appear unsure while reporting live. Their being young and therefore being prone to becoming emotional further complicates things.

While covering the Lal Masjid saga, reporters often seemed unhappy with government's handling of the affair - being overly cautious in trying to save an unknown number of men, women and children supposedly held hostage by the clerics. Going by their reports it was obvious that some of the less patient reporters misread the sincerity of these intentions because many had no experience of how such tense situations are handled by security agencies that are also under pressure to appear calm, caring, compassionate, careful and yet firm in their resolve.

The impact of the reporters' frustration was, that they did not give government the credit it deserved for saving 1,300 lives by holding back Army's firepower that could have ended the affair in a matter of hours. It seemed that reporters sympathised with Lal Masjid occupants (many known terrorists) who, in spite of repeated government promises of safety, insisted on free passage to a place of their choice. Shockingly, some reporters even suggested that (like the Sharif family), Masjid occupants might be given safe passage to Saudi Arabia.

Reporters voicing this view unwittingly thought it to be a course that satisfied the egos of both Masjid occupants and the government, but ignored the fact that, firstly, it implied legalizing powerful militant's right to go scot-free. Secondly, that Saudi Arabia is a dumping ground for unacceptable characters. And these hopes were expressed without a clue about whether Saudi Arabia had agreed to accept the Masjid occupants. The more tragic part is that reporters forgot that mercy is conditional upon repentance, even in the divine court.

It seemed that some reporters wanted the government to show mercy without the militants repenting for what they did, which amounted asking to do the popular, not necessarily the right thing. That isn't how the media should go about building a consensus based on equity, justice and fair play. Building a perception of this sort will have very serious consequences for peace and stability in the coming days and months as misguided viewers take to the streets in support of Lal Masjid occupants for which the media will share the blame.
Throughout the operation, reporters complained of non-access to Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa. In the conditions then prevailing, only the naive could ask for it. There were fears that these premises had been mined and booby-trapped to kill/immobilize the visitors. Besides, there was no guarantee that visitors won't be taken hostage, as were scores of the Masjid students. It is certain though, is that had reporters, or scores of negotiators who wanted to meet Ghazi Abdul Rashid met this fate, the government would have got the rap.

Reporters were frustrated about non-access to rescued students and the injured among them lying in hospitals. Nowhere in the world the media gets immediate access to hostages, especially if some of them are believed (with good reason in this case) to be terrorists. First, the hostages are de-briefed by security agents and only then exposed to the media. The injured are accessible once their condition stabilizes and they too have been de-briefed. To fault the security agencies for what happened in Pakistan as odd, was wholly unfair.

Serious doubts were raised about the delay in releasing the details of those rescued and those who died during the mopping up operation. No concession was made for the time needed to elicit and record personal details from 1,300 psychologically shocked individuals, nor the fact that it was impossible to immediately identify many of the dead (and thus beyond answering queries) who were not known to anyone. All this conveyed the impression that TV reporters wanted to report in 'real-time'; whether it was correct or not was a peripheral consideration.

Strange demands were made on the security force commanders the most unprofessional of them being that the commanders share their 'strategy' with the reporters. Does it make professional sense to make such a demand and is it fair to fault the commanders for refusing to accede? On top of that, even after the Supreme Court ruled against stopping the Lal Masjid operation, a TV analyst went as far as saying that the strategy should have been approved by the parliament and since that wasn't done, it amounted to undermining the parliaments privilege.

On the night of July 10, when bulk of the resistance had been neutralized, the complaint again was non-access to Masjid premises. How could reporters (with no idea the risks involved) be allowed into the premises about whose being safe i.e. cleansed of explosives and the hiding terrorists was uncertain at the time? No responsible security force can take that risk; it is unfair to blame it for imposing this restriction.

Such complaints conveyed to the viewers that the government wanted to cover up the truth because what it did was monstrous, and that Lal Masjid occupants did not deserve it. Even now reporters keep saying that there were 'better' alternatives that the government could but did not adopt. None has a clue about what these 'better' alternatives were. No doubt, majority of the occupants weren't militants but was there a way of coolly separating them from the militants? The government achieved as much of this unachievable objective as was possible.

Reporters alone did not get emotional; even analysts on TV channels fell into that state. On the night of July 10, a TV analyst placed before his viewers a list of unanswered questions about the tragedy. Some were valid since they sought crucially important disclosures about why, how and with whose help did Lal Masjid become a fortified and an impregnable fortress over the past two decades, and why was all this allowed to go on right in the heart of the federal capital. But the analyst was silent on the media's role in this extended lapse.

Isn't the media supposed to indulge in 'investigative' journalism? How often did it highlight the suspicious activities that went on in Lal Masjid, and did it point a finger at those aiding these activities? The analyst didn't say whether the media was prevented from exposing its investigative results. These issues too need inquiry even if only as an exercise in introspection. Media managers need to candidly re-assess their capacity for giving their reporters clear mandates, and to ensure that they remain careful and non-controversial in their reporting because viewers believe in what they report.