Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) Vol. 38, No. 1 (2018), pp.40-61 Reportage of War on Terror by Pakistani Print Media: With Agenda setting perspective Aasima Safdar, PhD Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan, Pakistan Adrian M. Budiman, PhD School of Multimedia Technology and Communication, University of Utara Malaysia Norsiah binti Abdul Hamid, PhD School of Multimedia Technology and Communication, University of Utara Malaysia Abstract War on terror that was started by the Bush administration in response of 9/11 attacks, received immense media coverage all over the world. The previous literature showed that the Western media gave enough coverage to the war. However, the present study would provide the Easter and Muslim perspective regarding the reportage of war on terror. It analyzed the editorials of Pakistani English newspapers ‘The Dawn’ and ‘The Nation’ about war on terror. The study explored the dominant news agendas of Pakistani newspapers regarding the war. For answering the research questions, the present study conducted thematic analysis of the editorials of Pakistani newspapers from September 12, 2001 to September 11, 2003. It was found that Pakistani press discussed the agendas of Pak-US relations, terrorism, role of Pakistan in war on terror, prisoners of war, US interests in the Middle Eastern region, and the Muslim unity. It was noted that Pakistani press adopted critical stance against the war and significantly stressed on antiwar agenda. Introduction After 9/11 attacks America launched the war on terror and in its first phase, Afghanistan was attacked on October 7, 2001 by US and coalition forces (Rose, 2002). The objective of the war was to combat against Al-Qaeda and Taliban who were considered as the guilty party of 9/11 atrocity. As well as, during the second phase of ‘war on terror’ America moved towards invading Iraq. On March 20, 2003, US with its coalition partner, Great Britain attacked the city of Baghdad in pursuit of Saddam Hussein who was projected as global threat by having mass destruction weapons. 41 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) Vol. 38, No. 1 (2018) There was no doubt that the struggle against terrorism got immense media attention. Therefore, Wolfsfeld (1997) correctly commented that events established the amount of media coverage for any particular issue. Nonetheless, journalists played a significant role by elaborating these events into their visual and press coverage. Thus, it can be said that journalists opened a “window on the world” (Tuchman, 1978, p. ix). During the initial hours of 9/11 attacks the American news channels (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) gave extraordinary coverage. Additionally, their reporters assumed the role of experts and social commentators and used anonymous sources, reported rumours and even included personal references (Amy & Barnett, 2003). During the coverage of Afghanistan war 2001, the US media highlighted government policy towards war while ignored the alternative view points (Barrett, 2003). Additionally, the US media justified military action against the perpetrators of September 11 attacks (Amy & Barnett, 2003) and moreover the audiences were also alarmed by exposing negative images of Osama bin Laden as an evil genius or insane (Winch, 2005). The coverage of Iraq war was also supportive of government policies by US media (Aday, Cluverius & Livingston, 2005; Bennet, 2003; Bennett, Lawrence, & Livingstone, 2006; Dimitrova & Stromback, 2005; Groshek 2008; McLane, 2004). In the long run, the role of American media was pro government and also helpful, publicizing its war agenda among the masses of United States. However, the present article looked at how Pakistan newspapers gave coverage to the war on terror and what agendas were promoted by them. Agenda setting Agenda setting theory proposed that there was a strong link between the media agenda of a particular phenomenon and the audiences’ acceptance of those agendas (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). It was observed that public gave considerable importance to the issues that were frequently focused by the mass media. Similarly, the people noticed the incidents, events and personalities included into mainstream media discourse (Shaw, 1979). In day-to-day life, people came across with different kinds of media, namely, newspapers, magazines, television, and radio but these media could not present all information to their receivers. Therefore certain issues were selected by the media and the rest of the information was excluded. The way, in which the media organized, arranged and emphasized issues, the public followed suit (Shaw, 1979). Similarly Zhu and Blood (1997) denoted that agenda setting was a process that facilitated the public in identifying the imperative issues or objects. Likewise Cohen (1963) argued that press “may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about” (p. 13). According to agenda setting theory, mass media made certain issues more easily approachable for their receivers either by repetition or their placement in print media. People easily remember them, and it influenced public standards of Aasima Safdar, Adrain M. Budiman, Norsiah Binti Abdul Hamid 42 assessment about any political candidate (Price & Tewksbury, 1997) or any other issue. Figure 1.2 elaborated the relationship between media agenda and its impact on public: Issue 1 Transferring Media Influencing Issue 2 specific Agenda agenda to public setting public by opinion mass media Issue 3 Figure 1.1.Agenda Setting: The figure elaborates that media transfer its agenda to the public which consequently affects public opinion. Source: Price & Tewksbury (1997) However, there were certain similarities in agenda setting and media framing approaches. Both focus on how issues were presented in media and which news story was played up or played down. There were some characteristics that differentiate them from each other. Price and Tewksbury (1997) noted that agenda setting selected a particular issue that captured public attention towards that issue while framing not only focused on issue selection but also emphasized the portrayal of the news story. Figure 1.2 explained the conceptual framework of the study. It was depicted that agenda setting role of media stressed upon particular issues by giving it more coverage which consequently established media agenda. For example, Pakistan press might give more coverage to the violation of human rights in Afghanistan. The reporting on particular issues consequently set the media agenda. 43 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS) Vol. 38, No. 1 (2018) Transferring Agenda setting particular War on Terror by Pakistani media agendas press towards public Figure 1.2.Agenda setting process The figure 1.2 explained Pakistani press reporting the issue of “War on Terror’. The Pakistan newspapers promoted particular issues and agenda through their coverage. Coverage of war on terror The previous literature on the war on terror noted that after September 11 attacks, the US media incorporated the themes of public mobilization through patriotic and war expressions, the criticism on offenders, extraordinary support to President Bush, inclusion of contradictory arguments, uncritical approval of ‘official’ point of view and the adoption of censorship policies (Barrett, 2003). The media facilitated the government projecting its military intentions in Afghanistan and later in Iraq which successfully persuaded public opinion in favour of US government (Friel & Falk, 2004; Kumar, 2006; Miller, 2004). Similarly, Haes (2003) conducted a comparative study about the coverage of September 11 attacks by US and German news media. He observed that both countries equally gave huge coverage to the terrorist attacks but US media was more inclined towards patriotic evaluation of the incident. Conversely German media underlined the need of international collaboration for tackling the threats of terrorism.The frame of war on terror led by the Bush administration was accepted uncritically by the American media. It appeared to be more supportive and positive towards official perspective. In fact the war was covered by the US press having more dependence on official sources (McChesney & Nichols, 2005). Such as, in the case of Iraq invasion 2003, Rich (2006) pointed out the media’s disinclination to Aasima Safdar, Adrain M. Budiman, Norsiah Binti Abdul Hamid 44 pose a critical stance towards President Bush’s rationalization for military assault. His study suggested that reporters’ reliance on official resources prevents them to adopt critical approach. Subsequently, the U.S media focused on the “victory frame” following the fall of Baghdad and eluded the severe realities of war, for instance the scandal of Abu Gharaib prison (Aday, Cluverius & Livingston 2005; Bennet, Lawrence et al., 2007). It was also noted that the countries which supported the war on terror, the media also followed the official stance of their governments. For instance, Ottosen (2005) investigated the coverage of war on terror by Norwegian media with special reference to Norwegian military presence in Afghanistan. He studied how Norwegian media framed the ‘War on Terror’ when their army was supporting and participating with the US military in the battle field. The results indicated that Norwegian media projected US view point and particularly relied on Western sources about the coverage of war. Moreover, Norway was presented as a potential victim of future terrorist