When the edifice of American capitalism, New York’s mighty World Trade Centre collapsed on September 11, taking with it more than 6,000 lives, amid the acrid pall of smoke and the mountain of rubble lay scattered the ashes of another major casualty: objectivity.

            The staggering dimension of the human tragedy is a story written as much in the blood of the innocents who were felled in the brutal, blitzkrieg attacks, as it is etched in the haunted faces of those who have been relegated, irrespective of ideological persuasion, by virtue of a careless US Presidential diktat, to the wrong side of the divide: “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”

            The speed and fury of a million tons of brick and mortar hurtling to earth were matched only by the barrage of rhetoric emanating from the corridors of power in Washington and echoed in newsrooms around the western world.  Both were equally loud, equally fierce.  Before the dust had settled, culpability, Oaklahoma forgotten, was a prophecy foretold: “Islamic terrorism.”  Suddenly, terror had a creed, a colour, even a language. 

            Raged Bush, “a war” had been declared against the “civilised, free world” by “evil-doers” and “barbarians, by “a new type of animal… an enemy that likes to burrow in and hide,” symbolised in the person of Osama bin Laden.  He vowed to “hunt them down,” to wage a “crusade.”  And as the administration debated legislation to resanction “political assassination” by the CIA, banned in 1976, George Bush II, master of the mixed metaphor, unilaterally stated in reference to Bin Laden, “In Texas there is an old poster.  It reads ‘wanted’ dead or alive.’”

            Political expediency, with coalition concerns and cooperative Islamic states an imperative, gradually muzzled the American President.  Official and administration spokespeople attempted damage control to quell the rising tide of anti-Muslim sentiment that erupted across America and parts of the western world.  But the tone had been set and emulated by a hysterical US media that played judge and jury in the early days following the attacks. It was a case of too little, too late.

            How could a token gesture of solidarity with the ummah, or a studied understated call for “restraint” withstand, for example, the vitriol spewed in an op-ed column  by political analyst Ann Coulter: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianty.”  Or how else but with a battle cry would quintessentially insular middle America react when confronted by the CNN image of a WTC “terror attack” widow saying, “if my husband were alive, he’d want to go himself and take revenge.”

            Having established the “enemy” – with still not one known shard of concrete evidence – at least in the minds of the American public, assorted analysts proceeded to attribute motive.  In the simplistic analysis rendered by Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institute, “The terrorists have a pathological hatred of the west.”  Another analyst, Franklin Graham stated “Islamist groups are bent on destroying the US because of our Christian faith.”  Henry Kissinger added to this chorus.  He wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the attackers “were motivated by a hatred of western values so deep that its representatives are prepared to face death and inflict vast suffering on innocents, threatening the destruction of our societies.”  He advised that “retaliatory blows against the perceived resources of this attack are necessary… half measures are more likely to do harm than good.”

            Time magazine’s Nancy Gibbs noted how the prevailing general perception of suicide attackers had been shaken.  “Suicide bombers are supposed to be 17-year-old zealots with nothing to live for but the hope of a martyr’s welcome by 72 virgins in paradise.”

            A myriad other statements of similar hue were aired on endless television and radio networks and recorded for posterity in print.  Even the comparitively balanced and analytical BBC aired extremist views at times.   On several Hard Talk programmes, Tim Sebastian often seemed to be wearing his bias on his sleeve rather than merely playing devil’s advocate.  A prime-time example was in the segment featuring Steve Simon, former advisor to the US National Security Council, and octagenarian, former Labour MP, Tony Benn.  Sebastian appeared perfectly willing to hear Simon pontificate on “the maniacal mass murder” of September 11, committed by individuals “propelled by a deep hatred of the west” and “stemming from a particular religious orientation,” but gave short shrift to the exhortations by Benn that the west should exercise caution, “find out why it happened,” and to recognise that religion was not the motivating factor in the attacks, just as it was not when “Zionist terrorism” was used to create a Jewish state, and just as the Palestinians’ battle is motivated by their desire for a homeland, not by religion.  Sebastian disagreed, voicing his dissent, cutting Benn short.  It was not the only time, prompting Benn to remark more than once,“if you will not allow me to speak, I will leave.”

           In two other segments, one with former British PM John Major, the other with British peer Lord Nazir, Sebastian dispensed even with the pretense of civility – not to mention ethics or objectivity.  Referring to the American President’s decision to lift sanctions against Pakistan, Sebastian ascerbically questioned why the west should cut “shabby little deals with shabby little nations?”  And with Nazir he virtually frothed at the mouth when discussing Pakistan’s role in the current situation.

           It was not just the American and British media that reflected raw subjectivity.  Some European newspapers, in fact,  demonstrated outright crassness.  French newspaper Paris Match, for example, labelled the perpetrators of the attacks “Allah’s lunatics.”  And while many western media personnel visibly laboured to appear objective, certain almost unnoticeable slips by a few indicated just how flimsy that veneer of objectivity was.  Dilating on the Arab-Israel conflict from Islamabad, Gulf war media star, CNN’s Christiane Ammanpour stated, “Israel and Palestine, or what they call Palestine”…

           Not unexpectedly, the situation, with Pakistan edging closer to the US and becoming a frontline state in the “battle against terrorism,” yielded a jingoistic media frenzy in neighbouring India, and there was little doubt about who the “enemy” in this attack was.  Said official government spokesperson Nirupama Rao, “Pakistan is trivialising the global approach we are trying to build against terrorism.”  Even while US administration officials and the American media tacitly acknowledged that bin Laden was largely a creation of US policy in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion of the country, Indian political “expert” on South Asia, Dilip Hero emphatically maintained on CNN, “The Taliban is a creation of Pakistan’s ISI, not the Americans.”

            On various television networks in India and internationally, Indian analysts, journalists and administration officials demanded that Pakistan be awarded the same treatment as Afghanistan.  “You cannot apply one logic to Afghanistan and not the same to Pakistan,” stated an analyst on CNN.  “The US must force Islamabad to dismantle its large terrorist infrastructure.”  Indian intelligence sources meanwhile, generously donated footage of a film made of an alleged terrorist training camp in Afghanistan to CNN, replete with an “interview” with a former “mujahid” who had, the report contended, spent six years in one of these camps.  The prodigal Indian son waxed eloquent about his internship in the camp, and about the standard drill: ‘America is responsible for all evil.  You must hate America.’  The film was repeatedly aired but no effort was made to establish how authentic it was, or how genuine the claims of the former self-professed “mujahid.”                       

            But in the process of attempting to malign its neighbour, the Indian media did its own nation a huge disservice.  All protestations of ‘non-alignment’ and independence rang hollow against the backdrop of the country’s nakedly desperate attempts to clamber on to the coalition bandwagon, prompting commentator on political and military affairs, Brian Cloughley to write in his column, “India has been anxious to prove its devotion to the US by offering staging facilities.”  Pleaded an Indian journalist on CNN, “India is a very close friend of America’s.  It has given America a blank cheque to use its air bases, share intelligence, etc. but there has been no response.  It is miffed because it has been left on the sidelines.”

            Hysteria was not confined to the foreign press.  Pakistan’s self-styled Taliban launched their own crusade against the ‘evil empire’ and received headline coverage in a section of the vernacular press.  The Afghan Taliban regime’s obdurate refusal to expel bin Laden and its official statement on the issue parallelled Bush’s ‘us or them’ rhetoric.  In effect it said, ‘Anyone who is America’s friend is an enemy of Islam.’  The gauntlet thrown, Pakistan’s zealots hit the streets in nation-wide demonstrations against the US and the Musharraf government which had unequivocally thrown in its lot with the States, and exhorted the faithful to join the call for holy war.

            The crusaders’ zeal was manifest in statements in assorted Urdu newspapers: Said Al Hilal “It is haram to cooperate with America.”  Qaumi Akhbar stated, “If Bush talks about a crusade, the Muslims will find themselves a Saladin.”  Screamed another, “A rain of fire once again in America – a Jewish conspiracy.”  And Jang maintained, “America will attack in the dark of the night.  It will rain cruise missiles.”

            The victims of the press war on either side of the  chasm which had little to do with ideology and a lot more to do with realpolitik and deeply entrenched biases, were, and given the hostile environment, remain, Muslims and Arabs in the United States and across Europe, and the men, women and children of Afghanistan who are already the victims of Talibanisation.  As the people of the faith became the western world’s favourite whipping boys, others were erroneously targeted because of the colour of their skin, their beards or the “diapers on their head,” as US Congressman John Cooksey put it.  Among the American victims of the backlash were an Indian expatriate Sikh and an Egyptian Coptic Christian.

            Conspicuous by its absence in the mega blitz during the first week after the attacks meanwhile, was the crucial question: Why?  Why had the US become ‘Enemy No 1’ for much of the Muslim world?  What force was it that propelled 19 men in the prime of their life to suddenly and violently end it?  And why did the American public in the ‘world’s greatest democracy’ so blindly, obediently and unquestioningly allow its successive goverments through their policies to make it the biggest target of terrorism?

          Global developments combined with growing murmurs of dissent vented through ‘justice not retaliation,’ demonstrations in several countries in Europe and Asia, and even at home, resulted in a paradigm shift of, if not perception, certainly the tone of the rhetoric of members of the US administration, and the change was mirrored in the media, albeit less in the US than the rest of the western world.  Increasingly, voices of reason began to find time on mainstream television and cable networks and space in the print media.

          Tony Benn had led the charge of the enlightened brigade by his pleas for sanity and restraint: “Let’s be cautious, everyone is frightened and frightened people do silly, dangerous things… over two and a half million people have died in Iraq.  Do you think bombing them repeatedly without UN sanctions is okay – what has it achieved?”  

            And there were others.   Former Palestinian hostage in Beirut, Terry Waite cautioned against hasty action.  His personal experience as a victim of terrorism notwithstanding, Waite asked the US to “stand strictly on the rule of law and justice… we must understand where these people are coming from… killing innocent men, women and children is not the answer,” he stated on BBC.

            British Labour MP Dennis Skinner lambasted Tony Blair for his dogged devotion to the American cause, irrespective of opinion at home or national interest.  “There is a world of difference between standing shoulder to shoulder with the American people and the fight for justice and hanging on to the coattails of an American President whose first act when those firefighters were standing 10 feet tall amongst the rubble was to scurry off to his bunker,” he said from the floor of the House – a statement that was to be dutifully reported in several newspapers around the world.  British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd expressed a hitherto unexpressed sentiment when he stated “we’ve got to go to the root of it.”              

   A few American commentators echoed this sentiment, even going one further.  “Real grievances of Muslims do exist.  There is hatred we can understand and must address,” said former Clinton advisor on the Middle East, Robert Malley, on CNN.

            The French Le Monde advised the American President about the dangers of irresponsible speech.  “Governing people and not just governing Texans is first of all about governing your words.”

            Britain’s Guardian wrote about the “perilous ramifications that demand the attention of wise, responsible leadership,” and elaborated on how an attack on Afghanistan would “certainly produce civilian casualties,” but “may not produce Osama.”

            In The Independent Robert Fisk wrote about the inherent dangers of jumping the gun when attributing blame: “There is something deeply disturbing about the world’s habit of turning to the latest hate figure whenever blood is shed.”

           And there was a perceptible shift of focus to the causes of the carnage in New York and Washington.   In a column Richard Norton-Taylor discussed “the almost nonchalant arrogance of the world’s only superpower and its lack of engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

            Fisk wrote in the Guardian “this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days.  It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia paid and uniformed by America’s Israeli ally hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps.”

            In an amazingly forthright piece in The Mail on Sunday, Suzanne Moore wrote in an article titled ‘Tough, tough talk by a weak, weak man,’  “Terrorism grows out of desperation, out of poverty, out of the conditions that American foreign policy has created for many years in the Middle East.”

            “From the estimates of half a million Iraqis who have died because of lack of medical supplies due to sanctions we shamefully support, to the propping up of Israel as it shamefully massacres Palestinians, America is held responsible by many for untold misery… innocent Afghan women and children who did not elect the Taliban… their blood will be spilt to avenge America.  More Palestinian children will be shot with American weapons.”

Most remarkable is one of her closing paragraphs.  Moore writes, “when I heard the dreadful news I was in the swimming pool with a bunch of mothers and their babies… every one of them immediately murmured the word ‘Israel.’  This is the difference between the British and American public.  We do not condone the attack, but we at least have some idea of why it might have happened.”

            And Susan Sontag wrote in The New Yorker, “How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? and if the word “cowardly” is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others.  In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpertrators of Tuesday’s slaughter, they were not cowards.”        

            As the dreadful immediacy of the attacks abated, similar statements advising restraint, retrospection and introspection began to emanate from across the globe.   In a statement issued to the press a group of regional human rights advocates in Asia cautioned the US against “an indiscriminate unilateral military reaction – which has been a response to past terrorist acts – and which could result in more innocent deaths and a cycle of recrimination, revenge and terrorism.”

            And even while espousing and officially endorsing the US cause, German chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, stated that Germany was prepared to “take risks, but isn’t prepared for adventures.”  His French counterpart Jacques Chirac, another staunch US ally in the “war against terrorism” warned against “American unilateralism.”

            Most gratifying perhaps, especially for a Pakistani public, weary of the barrage of negative publicity, of suspicion, of the talking down and overt condescension of western officials, and the no bones vitriol from across the eastern border, and apprehensive of its position as a frontline state caught between the American rock and the Taliban hard place, were the scattered voices of reason that emanated from India.

            Wrote Indian social activists Swami Agnivesh and Rev. Valson Thampu in Dawn, “we could respond… [by] opportunism.  It could be turned to our advantage, say in reinforcing the case against cross-border terrorism, and manoeuvre the US into an anti-Pakistan stand with a beneficial spin-off for our Kashmir agenda.”  They resisted the temptation, debating instead the United States’ “moral right to lead a campaign against terrorism.”  And they cautioned, “There is a lesson in this for India as well.  Our precipitious haste in boarding the American bandwagon is clearly based on a naive over-exaggeration of the benefits that can be harvested thereby.” 

            Even as the media blitz continues, the divide between ‘friend and foe’ in the media community, marked by a bellicose knee-jerk reaction in the west and a defensive or angry response in the Muslim world in the early days after the terrorist attack, seems to have blurred significantly.  The deep distrust against the Muslim and Arab communities in the west may take a long, long time to dissipate, and some individuals may continue to wax hysterical.  Veils may be torn off Muslim women, mosques may continue to be set aflame, Muslim graveyards may be desecrated.  But for the first time in recent history the world has, courtesy a media that seems to have metamorphosed and matured through the ongoing crisis, been exposed to another side of the ‘them’ story – and of a faith hitherto universally feared.

            Ninety percent of America may support Bush’s ‘war against terrorism’ and the US administration may even attempt to muzzle the press as it did by blocking Voice of America’s interview with Mullah Omar, but the seeds of a new understanding have been sown.  Newsweek’s September 24 issue best reflects this awakening in the article titled ‘A peaceful faith, a fanatic few.’  It would be as much in America’s interest as in the rest of the world’s to allow such an understanding to take root.

            There can be no two opinions about the horrible enormity of what transpired on September 11 : it was a crime of epic proportions.  But the crime must not be compounded by hasty decisions, engendered by blind anger and misguided notions of who has the right to determine and occupy the moral high ground.  America’s cry for justice is justified.  But in its quest the very ideals of justice must not be sacrificed.  And the state would do well to examine why things have come to such a pass.  As one reporter succintly stated after the attack, “ the world will never be the same again.”

            In determining what shape it acquires, the media role, now more than ever, will be pivotal.