In her new book,Afghan refugees, Pakistani media and the state: peace lostIn her new book, The Pakistani Press: A Crisis in Pakistan (Routledge, 2024), Ayesha Jehangir explores how Pakistani media have covered Afghan refugees, drawing on the framework of “peace journalism.” Jehangir, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Media Transition at the University of Technology, Sydney, notes that stereotypical narratives portraying Afghan refugees as a “threat” and a “burden” have become “almost standard practice in everyday reporting.”
Prior to entering academia, Jehangir worked as a journalist in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Germany, and Australia. In the interview below, which has been lightly edited for length and clarity, Jehangir discusses the dynamics of the Pakistani media’s “war” on Afghan refugees, how news framing can be weaponized, and peace journalism efforts to amplify the voices of marginalized communities.
In your book, you claim that the Pakistani media is at war with Afghan refugees. Can you explain why?
There have been constant attacks against Afghan refugees in Pakistan, and narratives have been published that portray Afghan refugees as enemies of the state, security threats, burdens, or other stereotypical portrayals. This has become almost standard practice in daily reporting. Afghan refugees have been politicized, oppressed, marginalized, and denied access to activities and education. According to international refugee law, refugees have certain rights, and depriving them of these rights amounts to oppression.
This situation began in the late 1990s but intensified with the use of Afghan refugees as collateral in the Pakistan-US “war on terror” that began with the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, Afghan refugees have been caught up in someone else’s wars and politics, and I would argue that the Pakistani media is at war with Afghan refugees.
Given the divide between civilian and military institutions in Pakistan, how has this politicization affected the role of media? How have these two institutions influenced media reporting?
It is well known that Pakistan’s civilian government largely functions as a puppet, with real power resting with the military, which is the most powerful organisation, and which bans journalists from talking about certain topics.
As a former journalist in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I have seen journalists restricted from covering certain topics. The military and intelligence agencies dictate how certain topics should be covered, as they link them to national security. This perception of national security threat is created to control public opinion.
In media framing studies, framing refers to how information is presented from a particular perspective. In Pakistan, the framing of political issues is constructed by the government, political elites, the military, and intelligence agencies. Journalists are not allowed to exercise their independent judgment or responsibility on sensitive issues such as the forced repatriation of Afghan refugees, the rights of Baloch people, and relations with India.
This politicization also poses threats to journalists’ safety and job security.
Afghan refugees are frequently used by the military as a bargaining chip against Afghanistan, as evidenced by the recent wave of Afghan refugees that occurred after the Taliban took power in August 2021. Refugees have also been used to exert pressure on Afghan authorities, especially during the term of President Ashraf Ghani.
How does media politicization and media framing threaten press freedom in Pakistan?
To understand the role of framing in the media, we need to consider its stages. Framing involves how an issue is presented to the general public. There are three stages of framing: frame construction, which is controlled by political actors who choose how policies and images are presented; framing, which has to do with the role of journalists to implement this agenda, including incorporating dehumanizing elements; framing, which speaks to how Afghan refugees are presented in the media; and finally, framing effects, which show how the general public is affected by this framing over time.
Framing does not happen overnight but is a long-term process. When a narrative is repeatedly presented to the public as reality, it becomes ingrained in people’s minds and is accepted as truth. In my book, I elaborate on the “truths” proposed and constructed by power. The role of media is crucial in this regard as it shapes public perception and controls the agenda. In Pakistani media, certain issues such as Afghan refugees, the issue of missing persons in Balochistan, and relations with India are heavily framed by the political elite and military establishment. My research shows that 60-80 percent of the framing is dictated by these elites.
What is peace journalism, and how can it amplify the voices of marginalized communities like Afghan refugees?
Let’s take a closer look at peace journalism, a concept first coined by Norwegian peace scholar Johan Galtung in the 1970s. Peace journalism is centered around prioritizing peace over conflict in reporting. Peace journalism seeks to shift the focus away from the elite narratives prevalent in Western media and elevate the voices of ordinary people. In doing so, it confronts propaganda with truth and advocates for the public interest rather than a political agenda.
This form of journalism challenges the misconception that peace is the absence of war. It distinguishes between negative peace, characterized by the absence of violence, and positive peace, which involves justice, happiness and social welfare. Peace journalism therefore redefines the role of journalists, asking them to serve the people rather than maintain the status quo.
In conflict zones, peace journalism encourages critical thinking and context-sensitive reporting. It invites audience reflection, encouraging them to question and analyze information rather than passively consuming it. This approach requires journalists to conduct thorough research and go beyond simple narratives to offer nuanced perspectives.
Moreover, peace journalism values empathy and action. It recognizes the difference between sympathy, which arises from shared experience, and empathy, which motivates action and advocacy. By amplifying the voices of marginalized and oppressed people, peace journalism empowers communities to shape their own narratives and advocate for change.
Aren’t the concepts of empathy, sympathy and objectivity in the media contradictory?
Well, it’s interesting, because this debate is happening right now in most Western media, especially with regard to the coverage of the Israeli war in Gaza. One of the criticisms of peace journalism is that it advocates for peace. And that’s true, because peace journalism advocates for an end to war, for listening to ordinary people, for ethical and active listening. It’s not that we want to watch a documentary or read the news and then ignore it.
Objectivity is a relative term, especially in conflict zones. Peace journalism does not ask journalists to abandon objectivity and become activists; activism is not journalism. Peace journalism reminds journalists to be both objective and subjective towards the truth, especially when human suffering is involved.
Peace journalism is not your ordinary journalism. It is about peace, war, conflict and human suffering. Being 100% objective in peace journalism means not questioning the status quo. Journalism started with small magazines quietly published by members of certain groups or communities to inform the general public about the abuse of power by some groups in society. Over time, journalism became a money-making business and so did the idea of remaining objective.
Although journalists should be objective and not take sides, especially in reporting on wars and conflicts, peace journalism is not for everyone. In peace journalism, journalists must stand for the truth at all costs. Peace journalism does not expect journalists to be activists, but it does require journalists to be clear about which side they take.
Peace journalism ensures that the roles of victims and perpetrators are not taken lightly. Definitions of journalism made by the Global North and colonial media should not be applied to journalism in the Global South. The changing media environment with the rise of social media and digital platforms requires a reassessment of traditional notions of objectivity. It is crucial to adapt how journalism is practiced in different contexts.
Your book examines the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban in August 2021. How is the Pakistani media currently covering Afghanistan? Can you briefly share your perspective?
The narrative is consistent, but the agenda fluctuates depending on the politics of the region. From my limited research over the past year, it is clear that journalists have limited access. In late 2023, after a new round of forced returns began, when Afghan refugees were sent to the Torkham border near the Durand Line, journalists were not allowed to go beyond a certain point. They could not even engage directly with the refugees.
As a result, most of the images we see come from social media, which poses a big challenge for peace journalism, but also creates the possibility of transferring information from one platform to another. I am currently looking at ways to increase accessibility, and drone technology could be one of the solutions. However, most journalists cannot afford such technology.
