By Agha Iqrar Haroon
The genres of analysis and opinion provide a reasonable space for a writer to manipulate and sometimes rewrite the historic facts. However, it should not provide authority to distort historic facts.
Building narrative and even false narrative by using one historically true premise while using the second as desired and creating a logically true but factually untrue syllogism is also acceptable — rather a new norm in the sphere of propagation. The Global North media is already under criticism for building false narratives, and the Gaza Genocide has truly exposed the power of the soft weapon of media that can weave and map ‘reality’ that is needed to bomb any country and ‘have reason to believe’ that hospitals are used to host ‘terrorists’.
As a student of media and practitioner for the last 38 years, I have high opinion about media giants such as Washington Post, though sometimes pieces such as the one written by Amit Seru push me to think otherwise, as they are contrary to historic facts but are still published by the Washington Post.
An opinion piece titled “There’s a reason India and the U.S. aren’t better friends” written by Amit Seru, published on August 12, says: “The 1998 nuclear tests triggered U.S. sanctions and outrage, despite being a logical outcome of a security environment that included a nuclear China and Pakistan.”
This paragraph has at least two major historic errors. When India went for a nuclear test, by that time Pakistan was not ‘nuclear’ as Pakistan tested after India did in 1998. Moreover, India was not sanctioned by the United States when it tested Smiling Buddha in 1974. Another historical missing information is that Pakistan was also sanctioned by the United States, although Pakistan tested in response to the Indian test.
I can dissect the whole piece, which is full of adjectives, negative metaphors, and locally true but historically untrue information. Without commenting as a ‘rejoinder’, I leave the piece to readers but have reason to indicate these historically untrue pieces of information to the Editorial staff of the Washington Post to review the piece professionally for avoiding such historic errors.
Moreover, the opinion says:
“India is no longer a slow-moving socialist state but a $3.7 trillion economy brimming with tech talent and geopolitical ambition.”
This is also factually and historically untrue. India has never been a ‘socialist state’.
Again, the writer tries to add ‘untrue’ information in this piece while stating:
“In May, terrorists launched coordinated attacks in Kashmir, killing civilians and targeting Indian security forces.”
Instead of engaging in debate about whether it was a false flag launched by India and what it was, one thing is clear: in the Pahalgam incident Indian security forces were not targeted. Even India did not mention that in the Pahalgam incident attackers targeted the Indian forces.
Then the writer says that:
“The Modi government responded with precision strikes on what it identified as militant infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied territory.”
The world knows that India attacked Pakistani cities including Bahawalpur, Lahore, Rawalpindi, and Rahimyar Khan, which are of course not in so-called “Pakistan-occupied territory.” They are in the province of Punjab and inside the international border, and they are neither close to the “Line of Control” nor part of the ‘working boundary’. Is it not amazing that the Washington Post published such laughable information?
The writer says:
“India is now the world’s fifth-largest economy and home to the largest youth population on Earth. It produces over 4 million STEM graduates each year, more than the U.S. and China combined. Its digital economy is projected to surpass $1 trillion by 2030.”
Do we have connotation and denotation of such a “projected economy” that, according to the writer, will surpass $1 trillion?
I can write that Pakistan’s economy will surpass $2 trillion by 2023. Will it be published by the Washington Post?
I have no desire to critique the Editorial staff of the Washington Post because it is an independent, famous, and giant media hub, but I just want to indicate that the Editorial staff may have the responsibility to check historic facts because millions of readers such as myself trust the Washington Post, and their trust is the asset of the newspaper. Thus, such pieces can create a deficit of trust between the readers and the Washington Post.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article/Opinion/Comment are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk (DND). Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk.
