July 14, 2005

The July 8 editions of The Guardian and The Washington Post, arguably two of the world’s best newspapers, played up the bombings that took place in London last Thursday in which 50 people perished.

The Guardian had a poster-size picture on its first page, showing the double-decker bus which had been ripped apart in one of the four blasts. Above the picture a bold headline screamed: London’s day of terror.

The Washington Post, on the other hand, carried five write-ups on its front page, all of which dealt in one way or the other with violent actions or what is labelled in the West as terrorism. Two of these items were devoted to the bombings in the UK, one to the killing of a foreign diplomat in Iraq, one to the high alert which had been sounded in a few American cities, and the fifth one to Al Qaeda.

The online editions of the aforesaid newspapers, besides those of The Independent and The Sun, also gave a lot of prime space to the bloody attacks that rocked parts of London. The Sun, in addition to covering the tragic events extensively in its normal edition, actually took out a special 24-page News and Pictures Special on Friday. Pakistani newspapers also gave importance to the blasts, most of them making the event their lead story.

All this flew, if you like, in the face of the efforts made by a number of scholars and politicians who have been contending since long that journalists should exercise caution when it comes to covering violent actions carried out by fringe groups or individuals.

These people claim that continued and thoughtless playing up of such attacks could lead to a “contagion of extremism” by: encouraging the creation of new “terrorist” outfits; highlighting the controversial groups’ names before the public; causing the less successful groups to carry out more daring operations; and tempting “extremists”, enjoying favourable coverage, to seize the media.

Prominent among those who support the Contagion Theory is Margaret Thatcher, who once famously said: “Democracies must find ways to starve the terrorists of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

It is noteworthy that in her statement, which in time became a mantra of sorts for the supporters of the theory, she actually advocated censorship, and that too in a democracy. It is remarkable also that she described publicity, and not real and perceived injustices, as something that sustained “terrorism”.

Well, one can understand why Mrs Thatcher said what she did. She was heading a government when she made the famous remark and no ruler likes to see the boat rocked violently, hence her desire to see all media downplay, no ignore, the violent actions perpetrated by people angry enough to take up arms against a regime. All rulers, be they democrats or dictators, think on similar lines.

No matter how persuasive these rulers’ arguments, however, there are very few news organizations in the world, if any at all, which are ready to downplay each and every violent action. The prominent display throughout the world of the news items describing the London bombings, is a case in point. So is the guideline adopted by the well-known CBS News, which is being reproduced below, and which shows clearly that the Contagion Theory may remain confined to some scholarly books and research papers only:

“Because the facts and circumstances of each case vary, there can be no specific self-executing rules for the handling of terrorist/hostage stories. CBS News will continue to apply the normal tests of news judgement and if, as so often they are, these stories are newsworthy, we must continue to give them coverage despite the dangers of ‘contagion’.” The United Press International works under similar guidelines, as do most news organizations in the world.

The main reason why the Contagion Theory is not taken seriously by news organizations is simple: they are in the market to “sell” news and not merely to ignore or downplay them. After all, if the media don’t deal in news items, why have them in the first place?

To be sure, however, there is at least one newspaper in the world which has exercised considerable caution when dealing with sensitive issues like bombings. This is a Pakistani newspaper.

I remember distinctly that in the 1990s, when Karachi had turned into the killing fields of the country, this daily struck a difficult but seemingly appropriate balance when it came to issues in political violence: it carried almost all violent actions on the front page, but only as single-column, objectively written (and carefully edited) items.

Considerable thought went into the selection of pictures as well, because the editor had instructed the newsroom staff to desist from publishing gory pictures, which could either incite people to violence or simply leave a bad taste in the mouth.

The newspaper maintained the policy throughout the battle of wits, and of blood, which raged between the state and the MQM. This continued even as its competitors relished in playing up every item that involved violence, thereby giving a lie to the contention that the market was the great equalizer.

Today, when attacks on mosques are again becoming quite common, perhaps we should revisit our standard operating procedures and reformulate them in the light of our experiences in the `90s. After all, we don’t want to divide our own people. Or do we?

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)