Distortions in News Reporting

Distortions in News Reporting
Gopal Vaidya

On September 9, 2002, a family of five -- three men and two women -- was killed in Kashmir, in cold blood, by indiscriminate firing! News like this unfortunately, is not all that unusual in Kashmir -- a state that has been racked by bitter conflict. But this article is not about this sad event, but about how it was reported.

Reported by AFP in a brief release, the news item was only 126 words long. It was carried by a few major national newspapers -- one of them being the Times of India -- one of India's oldest papers, with a circulation that places it amongst the world's top five English language newspapers. Like many of India's papers, the Times of India is proud of its independence. During the recent Gujarat riots the paper was at the forefront, condemning Hindu communalism. Its editors play a leading role in setting the national agenda and are influential in national politics.

When the Times of India reported the AFP story, it changed the first two paragraphs and one important word -- that being “terrorist”. It was changed to “militant”. They also deleted the religious identity of those who had been slain. So while the AFP story said five members of a Hindu family had been killed, the Times of India story indicated that five persons had been killed. In following paragraphs those five were identified as belonging to the same family!

I asked myself what made the paper change the story. Remember, such incidents are not uncommon in Kashmir -- so I suspect the paper has been making these subtle alterations for years. The cumulative effect of all these changes could have a significant impact on people's perception about the conflict in Kashmir.

First, let us consider why “terrorist” was changed to “militant”. Maybe it was done because “terrorist” is a loaded word. We know that terrorists are supposed to be bad -- they strike terror in peoples hearts and frequently kill innocent beings. However, the definition of terrorist has never been clear. What if some people are fighting for their freedom and while doing are compelled to kill innocent civilians? Does that make them terrorists? I can imagine the editorial staff at Times of India brooding over this point. They probably decided that it would be fair to everybody concerned, if killers were called “militants” instead of “terrorists”. Militant is more neutral. To me, the word merely implies that those who are willing to use extreme means to achieve their goals, could be termed that.

Let's go on to why the paper removed the religious identity of the slaughtered family. After all, religion is an integral part of the Kashmir conflict and therefore the religion of the family is certainly central to the story. However, this has to be balanced with the fact that India is a tinderbox where 150 millions Muslims live in a total population of 1 billion. India has a long history of religious acrimony. Perhaps, the Times of India was concerned that this massacre would add to the tensions in India. Another massacre of about 50 Hindus had led to large-scale riots, where about 1000 people died. In India there is also a law, which requires that the religious communities should not be identified while reporting the incident. This law is to prevent rioting from spreading to other areas. However, with the ready access to newspaper, TV, radio and Internet, including those originating outside India, it isn't difficult to figure out the communities involved. Hence this rule has become largely defunct. In fact this was a massacre and not a riot; so it is not clear whether the law was even applicable. In any case, the Times of India itself did not follow this law when reporting on the recent rioting in Gujarat.

None of the conventional reasons work well while explaining why the Times of India changed the story. So I looked deeper. When I explored other stories, I found that the paper has indeed been making subtle distortions in its stories. I found that it has used the word “terrorist” in numerous articles. In fact, they have described the bombings of the World Trade Center as “terrorist”.

I then looked at dozens of editorials and news items that have been published in the Times of India. It turns out that while it is pretty liberal in condemning Hindu violence against Muslims as “communalism”, the vocabulary changes considerably when it comes to condemning Muslim violence against Hindus. I did discover one editorial where it condemned both Hindu and Muslim extremism. Yet, even in that editorial, Hindu extremists were identified as being part of the “Sangh Parivar” referring to a collection of pro-Hindu organizations. On the other hand, that same editorial chose not to identify any Muslim extremist organizations!

The Times of India is one of the largest papers in India. Since Muslims constitute only about 15 per cent of the population of India, the majority of the readers are not Muslims. Then what should we make of this extreme sensitivity to condemn Muslim violence? I think the reasons for these double standards lie in history. After independence, many of India's leaders considered it imperative that there be peace between Hindus and Muslims. The partition of India had led to horrific riots. To maintain peace, it became essential to forge a secular identity for the nation. However, it was much easier for the Hindus to accept that secular identity, because Hindu religion is old, diverse and fragmented. Hindus take pride in their ability to assimilate ideas and practices from other religions. On the other hand, Islam is a much younger religion and one that had ruled large parts of the world. Like all Muslims, Islamic Identity is linked to the grandeur of Islam's past and its rich theology, law and social rules. It was much harder to create a new identity for India's Muslims. That was one of the reasons for India's partition -- a move that had been supported by the majority of Indian Muslims -- not just those living in the areas that are now Pakistan. Therefore the term “communal”, which is used pejoratively, was applied mostly to Hindus and not to Muslims. Indeed there are Muslim parties and Muslim leaders, some of whom want to convert India into an Islamic state. Yet they are not called “communal”.

Unfortunately, these double standards in reporting, have been very harmful to India. It has created a deep sense of disenchantment amongst India's Hindus. It has helped Hindu extremists convert more moderate Hindus to their point of view. However, the real harm has been elsewhere. It has prevented Muslims from looking at their own religion critically. India's Muslims are amongst the most backward in the country. They have not kept pace with either literacy or women's rights. Accurate reporting would help strengthen the more liberal Muslims who could point to the ills of Muslim extremism. It also prevents Muslims from realizing that there are many in their own midst who are part of the problem. Muslim communalists have driven out Hindus from the Kashmir Valley. Many of their leaders, such as Syed Gilani, openly speak the language of religious hatred. Yet these leaders are never taken to task by secularists in India for being religious bigots. Biased reporting creates victims -- and now both Hindus and Muslims consider themselves as victims! This is making it hard for them to reconcile with each other.

It is essential that a paper such as the Times of India, stops distortions in news reporting. Accurate and honest reporting is fundamental to a paper's credibility. As the plethora of sources of news increases, people will anyhow discover the truth. Today these news distortions are harming the credibility of the paper and coming in the way of national reconciliation and integration.

References:

1. Hindustan Times: http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_61631,0008.htm
2. The Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp? Artid=21636391