Choose your words carefully

To the layman, copy editing is amongst the least glamorous of the jobs available in the news industry. All it requires is a good grasp of the grammar and structure of the language, runs the argument, and that requires hardly any special training. Anyone with a reasonable education can do it, right?

Wrong. As news professionals with insight know all too well, the copy editor wields immense subtle power. Depending upon the meat of the story, everything hinges upon how it is edited and presented, how far it is contextualised and which words are used to do so. An effective editing job can be the difference between straight news, contextualised news and hyperbole: for example, a bomb attack on a building can also be described as an attack on a symbol of the state, or an attack against democracy and freedom. Each carries different associated meanings and leaves a distinct impression in the mind of the audience.

By the time news reaches the consumers, it has gone through a many-tiered process that involves a great number of people. This is obvious. The novice reporter may bring in a story about a ten-year-old child who was ‘attacked’ in a public park, for example (as happened in Karachi a few months ago). The competent reporter will ascertain the nature of the violence and include comments by the examining doctor. On top of that, it is usually the copy editor who decides whether the final story will say that the child was ‘attacked and injured’, ‘sexually assaulted’, ‘raped’ or ‘sodomised’. Each of these terms carries different shades of meanings and legal implications that are important in the short-term; and in the long-term, the continued use of certain terms has an effect on the societal understanding of such crimes.

So, the manner is which news is presented dictates how it is understood. Thus we have the ‘war on terror’ (for while this particular phrase was invented by the spin doctors of the Bush administration, it was taken up gladly by not only the American media – which is understandable – but also many media houses of countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Morocco – which is not understandable because they are at the receiving end of the war’s fallout). Thus we have attacks against the “American way of life” over there and the attacks against “democracy” and “freedom” out here, depending upon the level of irresponsibility being demonstrated.

It follows, therefore, that media outlets must choose their words extremely carefully, despite the high-stress and time-short nature of the work – or perhaps because of precisely this reason, for when time is short and the pressure is high, it is all too easy to let the wrong word through instead of searching for the mot juste.

In practical terms, I have my reservations about the manner in which the Urdu press refers to the fighters in Waziristan and Wana etc as “askariat-pasand”. Literally, this is fair enough, for the words roughly translate to “fighters”. The trouble is, we’ve for 60 years been bombarded with positive references to the term with reference, of course, to the Pakistan army. From Askari Bank all the way to Askari villas and all shades of enterprise in between, ‘askari’ has ideologically become a positively-charged word for us. Referring to the terrorists up north and out west in such terms, therefore, may well leave a residual feeling that what they call their ideology could have its merits. And this residual invoking of sympathy is of absolutely crucial importance since the so-called ideology under which they hide their murderous intent is religion, which is a topic that few in Pakistan would go as far as to condemn, even when it is presented in the twisted,

perverted and downright falsified form favoured by the likes of the Taliban.

While on the subject, it is worth pondering why the news media and subsequently most of the citizenry continue to give people such as Fazlullah the honorific title of ‘Maulana’. Last time I checked, the word was reserved for respected clerics of the faith whose repertoire did not include fire and brimstone speeches commanding one to break the law, murder fellow citizens, and loot, plunder, pillage and smuggle. It is understandable that these criminals have chosen to take such title unto themselves, but by playing along with it we needlessly glorify them and what they understand to be their cause, and resultantly play right into their hands. There they go laughing, as they light the fuse.

In these days of lawlessness and war, it is doubly important for the news media – and the citizenry – to not mistakenly lend legitimacy to the cause of what are basically common criminals. At the moment, the warlords’ coffers are mainly being filled by money obtained through crime, drugs, the arms trade and kidnappings for ransom. What they deal in is death, and not the honourable death of soldiers during war. What they broadcast is fear, and what they use is criminality. Can we please not make a mockery of our own selves by uttering statements such as “they are fighting for the establishment of the Shariah” and echoing their delusions by referring to them as Maulana this and Mullah that?

hmumtaz@dawn.com