“If the bomb that drops on you,

Gets your friends and neighbours too,

There’ll be no one left behind to grieve.

And we will all go together when we go,

What a comforting fact that is to know.

All suffused with an incandescent glow,

We will all fry together when we fry.”

So sang Harvard mathematician Tom Lehrer back in 1959, when the shadow of nuclear horror had been cast over the world relatively recently and the cold war was still in the process of digging in for the long haul.

He couldn’t possibly have known that nearly fifty years later, his words would find relevance here in South Asia where two long-time adversaries appear to be squaring up for what, if allowed to occur, will be the final battle. Because as various columnists and commentators have been pointing out, if India and Pakistan were to engage with each other now, we’d be extremely – to say nothing of extraordinarily – fortunate to get away with a few skirmishes over peripheral territories. In the modern world, and particularly in terms of the circumstances and realities of our two countries, it is difficult to imagine the viability of a war of territorial occupation but horrifyingly easy to imagine an ‘accident’ of nuclear proportions. And, as has also been said often over the airwaves and in the newspapers, it is hard to remain sanguine in the face of these two countries’ shared history of antagonism, irresponsible posturing and occasionally, what seems like sheer political idiocy. One is tempted to laugh at the predicament and think of Tom Lehrer because the only other option is to weep.

For those who choose to see it, there’s a grim lesson in this, particularly given that officialdom from both sides of the border is blaming the Indian news media for having played a role in bringing matters to the current pass. The modern age is characterised by the way it is ruled by media networks, which not only reflect reality but also play a role in creating it. So while certain officials and opinion-makers in India may have brought up the possibility of a face-off with Pakistan, it cannot be denied that the media – of both countries – had a part to play in the ripple-effect of aggression. In simple terms, the more the possibility of war is debated and discussed, the more real the prospect becomes in the minds of ordinary people. This can then snowball into actively influencing civilian and military decision-makers of India and Pakistan.

The lesson, therefore, pertains to the responsibilities that come with media freedoms. Those who work in the news media must recognise the fact that with their right to report upon what is true and what is happening comes the need to be as objective and balanced as is possible. And, the people’s right to know is mitigated by the people’s right to remain safe from harm, be it physical or ideological.

There is a fine line between the two, of course. The idea of a citizenry’s right to be kept safe from harm can easily be twisted to mean feeding it misinformation and propaganda. Consider a country that is engaged in a war, be it against another country or something less physically tangible, such as poverty or extremism. In order to keep people’s spirits up, it is necessary to have them believe that the war is being won. But to present a skewed version of events, such as was the case with America during the Vietnam war or Germany during the Second World War, amounts to feeding propaganda to the news outlets and is clearly unacceptable.

On the other hand, however, the role played by the news media during November’s terror attacks in Mumbai is also unacceptable, given that it turns out that the terrorists were using the live news reports to keep themselves informed of and a step ahead of the security forces’ efforts. The Pakistani media are also not exempt of having committed such follies: recall the Lal Masjid operation when certain mediamen tried to negotiate with the terrorists.

The media’s role in any situation is not to participate in and directly influence the course of events, but to observe and report. And even this role is, on occasion, limited. From a BBC editors’ blogspot, for example, one learns that the organisation’s belief in editorial independence is tempered, when the occasion demands, by prudence – there is an “unwritten agreement” that in certain situations, especially those concerning hostages and/or active security threats, coverage that is live or otherwise will not contain material that will either hamper security efforts or endanger people’s lives. The caveat is there precisely in order to avoid a situation such as that witnessed recently in Mumbai.

Other aspects of responsible reporting include the need to be circumspect, to avoid sensationalism and to retain people’s dignity and privacy. Recently, for example, a colleague described to me the aversion he felt to a televised news report concerning a polio victim. Sitting next to the adolescent polio victim, the reporter talked about how the young girl’s life was blighted by the disease and that she would never be able to live a normal life. Now, that’s all true but it may have been better not to use such brutal terms in the girl’s presence – she does have feelings, and it is not very kind to hurt them.

Similar insensitivity is shown when dealing with victims of crimes ranging from rape to terrorist attacks. In many news organisations in Pakistan and around the world, there is an unwritten rule of refraining from giving rape victims’ names in order to protect their privacy and security. On a number of occasions, however, I have been shocked to see local news channels break this rule. Equally insensitive, meanwhile, were reports on the families of those killed in the Oct 18 attacks on Benazir Bhutto’s homecoming procession: is it right to ask a grieving mother or brother how they feel about their loved one’s death, or to zoom in on their ravaged faces?

Some would argue that reporting of this style is sometimes necessary in order to give tragedy a human face, and thereby bring it to world’s attention. Certainly, it is true that iconic images of Palestinian women, or Afghan land-mine victims, have played a role in building up the case against war and oppression.

Nevertheless, it is vital to maintain a balance and not confuse brutally honest reporting with the salacious or sensationalist. The limits can only be set by each individual reporter or editor using his judgement in every individual situation. Otherwise, media organisations run the risk of providing governments or rulers the excuse to clamp down curbs.

hmumtaz@dawn.com