What is included and what is excluded -- BBC on Zardari and Kashmir

News outlets have to be selective. They can only devote their energy to presenting a certain amount of information, if they choose to hold it to a certain quality standard and want to respond quickly to new developments. But who chooses the stories, and on what basis? Alex spoke in class about an equation... using an incident's proximity and magnitude to gauge the amount of airtime/word count it deserves. These criteria provide a rough indication of the audience's supposed interest in the report. Naturally, you care more about something happening in your neighborhood-- which might impact YOUR daily life or the lives of people you know personally -- than about international conflicts, which are far removed from your experience. So, news outlets set priorities based on appeal to their audience.

To what extent SHOULD news outlets base their reports on their audience? Don't journalists have a responsibility to report news as objectively as possible?

There's been a lot of chatter in the international media about unrest in Kashmir of late, but very little of it has been picked up in our U.S. news outlets (I searched "Kashmir" on Google news and all of the most recent results were from other countries -- India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UK, Australia -- but then yesterday Bloomberg, AP, and Reuters put up some blurbs).

I decided to do my Fairclough analysis on a BBC World report about reactions to Pakistani President Zardari's recent statements on Kashmir.

International news outlets refer to "protesters," "terrorists," or "victims of state terror" in the Kashmir region, depending on whose position the news outlet favors (Pakistani government, Pakistani public, Indian government, U.S. government, etc.). You may remember that Zardari was one of the leaders with whom Governor Palin met in New York a week or so ago. Our government has kinda been frustrated with Pakistan for not letting us cross the border to hunt down terrorists (it came up in the Prez debate). Recently Zardari's govt has begun cracking down more on Islamic militants because of increased U.S. pressure. He issued a statement that his government is "committed to eliminating terrorism" (Daily News, Pakistan, 10/7/08) and called the separatists in Kashmir "terrorists."

See the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7654480.stm

(BTW, I am not at all as well-versed as I should be on developing world situations. There is just too much going on, and I don’t really understand it all. So, I’m sorry if I simplify things too much and don’t give the proper context for statements.)

News generally has some entertainment content to it, and this article is no exception. Even the title “Fury over Zardari Kashmir comment” has a gossipy flavour. The title posits an action and a reaction. Obviously there was a comment, and the comment was inflammatory enough to provoke a “furious” response. The reader thinks “ooooh, what did he say?” and “why were people furious?”

The subtitle further intrigues the reader: protesters “defied a curfew” to “denounce” President Zardari and “burn his effigy.” The positioning makes it seem that all the commotion is over one little comment, although we have not been told what the comment is, or why it has provoked a strong reaction.

What struck me about this article was that the subject matter is words and how they are used and media and the reactions they cause, which fits in exactly with the theme of our discussion.

How is the world represented in the article?

-Separatists against Indian rule in Pakistan are discussed in very positive language throughout. There is very much the impression that Zardari calling them “terrorists” is wrong, and even silly and outrageous.

-Article does not even affirm that Zardari said they were “terrorists,” only that he was reported to have said it in the Wall Street Journal. (calling credibility into question, not-so-subtle critique on U.S. media)

-Geelani "Zardari has made these remarks to please the Americans"

-Report “It is the first time that a Pakistani leader's effigy has been burnt in Indian-administered Kashmir where anti-India protests have often been marked by pro-Pakistan slogans.” (so Zardari must have done something reeeeally stupid to suddently lose the support of a region that had been pro-Pakistan)

-Rehman “[Zardari] has never called the legitimate aspirations of Kashmiris an expression of terrorism, nor has he undermined the sufferings of the Kashmiri people."

What identities are created?

-Individuals: Zardari, Geelani (prominent separatist “fighting for an end to Indian rule in Kashmir”), Rehman (spokesperson for Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP))

-Collective identities: “Muslim protesters” (we assume these include regular people as well as would-be terrorists? It’s left very very vague WHO is protesting Zardari – the people he calls terrorists, or the people who live and get along with the “terrorists”

“Islamic militants” are they or aren’t they terrorists? Freedom fighters?

-“India” and “Pakistan” identities as nations

-Kashmir, identity disputed region

-Wall Street Journal – represents whole of U.S. media/government

-nominalizations

“Comment” is the number one nominalization!!! The article is all about what the comment has done. Others include “reaction”, “our democratic government”, “the country”, “suspicion”, and “relations.”

What relationships are posited?

-India and Pakistan in conflict with each other. “Pakistan has supported anti-Indian militants and fought two wars with India over Kashmir,” are at a “faltering peace” right now; India as a “threat to Pakistan’s existence”

-Muslim protesters against Zardari

-Zardari in league with American government/media

-American government and media are equivalent

What is excluded?

-Why was the curfew in place? (I think it was there because there was supposed to be a giant protest Monday and the government was trying to keep things under control)

-Why did Zardari refer to Islamic militants for independence as “terrorists”?

-What was the context of Zardari’s comment to the Wall Street Journal?

-What have the actions of the militants been? Have they engaged in acts we would call terrorism? (all we get is alleged “human rights abuses” – very vague)

Presuppositions

-That “terrorist” is really bad and should only be applied to certain types of groups. Protester, separatist, and militant are much more innocuous.

-People of the region would rather Zardari didn’t agree with America (don’t like America, don’t like America butting into their business)

-that Kashmiri wants Pakistan to support the freedom fighters