Skip to footer

The Malala moment: 6 Pakistani views on the girl shot by the Taliban

4. Malala tragedy 'used to build cheap ... emotionality'

  • By Ben Arnoldy Staff writer

Criticisms of how Pakistan's elite media handled the Malala story were not limited to social media, however. The right-leaning Nation ran a column arguing that Imran Khan's earlier march against US drone strikes was downplayed by Pakistan's journalists, while Malala's story was being hyped.

The public response to the peace march and to the tragedy in Swat clearly spoke for the nation; it was a clear no to the terror of US drones as well as the militants. The question is: who are the celebrity media pundits speaking for? ...

Have you ever wondered why only computer-generated graphics are shown on TV channels every time a drone strikes? ... Why do we never find out more about the identities and lives of those killed, and those they leave behind? ... So why has it virtually brushed the mass murder of Pakistani citizens by CIA under the carpet? Why is the drone programme targeting our territory and killing our people treated as if it is happening in some Latin American country? More importantly, when a party does take a risk for what it believes in, and ventures into an area too dangerous for our media celebrities, why would they be upset? Is it because [Imran Khan's party] PTI reminded them of their professional responsibility? ...

...the Malala tragedy was cruelly used to build cheap film songs-filled emotionality around a nation’s genuine prayers for the injured schoolgirl, and to bring the debate around drones and the so-called war on terror back to a false power-driven framework that has no room for real people.

4 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.