The Falklands War was fought in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the disputed Falkland Islands, but while the war was raging in the archipelago, the prime minister of the UK fumed at the BBC’s coverage and branded it treacherous. Margaret Thatcher’s political future depended on the result of the war, but the relationship between the Corporation and the government turned sour over its reporting.
The prime minister accused the BBC of “assisting the enemy” by discussing possible military developments before they happened. The BBC’s coverage of the Falklands War was perceived to be significantly less supportive as Mrs Thatcher thought the BBC was questioning her decision to even go to war at the time. The BBC refused to refer to British troops as “our boys” during the conflict, to the chagrin of the Iron Lady. She wanted the BBC to refer to the troops using “us” or “ours”. She expected the press to give a report favourable to the government, but the British media, including BBC, reported the war objectively. The prime minister thought the BBC had let down “the Army, the country”, and had “exaggerated the case of a few dissidents.” The BBC angrily denied the allegations of bias.
Home Secretary Willie Whitelaw was under tremendous pressure to take control of BBC and to direct what it broadcast, intending to boost the morale of the country and the troops. During the campaign, BBC was determined to maintain its editorial independence, declaring, “it is not the BBC’s role to boost troops’ morale”.
The Falklands War was not the first case where the government of the day wanted the press to report wrongly to keep up the morale of the public. That also happened during the 1971 war between Pakistan and India. During the war, a military junta ruled Pakistan. General Yahya Khan declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on 25 March 1971, and immediately imposed strict censorship on newspapers throughout Pakistan, forcing a complete blackout of news that differed from the official point of view. As a result, it was not possible to broadcast accurately and professionally.
Pakistan media kept the Pakistani public in dark during the war. The army lied to the people of Pakistan throughout the war and projected imaginary military victories
State-controlled electronic media, Radio Pakistan and Pakistan Televisionbroadcast news and programmes made to boost the morale of the public. They blared nationalistic anthems and patriotic songs, extolling heroics of the army. Half of the newspapers were owned by the government and followed government instructions. Journalists who criticised the government were denounced as traitors. Neutral reporting was dubbed as Indian propaganda. Anthony Mascarenhas was a Pakistani journalist who risked his life to report on the atrocities being committed in 1971. He knew he couldn’t publish the story without risking his life, so he got it published in the UK.
All the foreign journalists were expelled from the erstwhile East Pakistan. According to the Pakistan government regulations, anybody sending “inappropriate” or “hostile” news could be imprisoned for up to two years. The military censor checked all newspaper articles. Information that reached masses was based on handouts of the government or the Minister’s statements. The public was fed with misleading and biased information in “the national interest” and to instil a spirit of nationalism.
Pakistan media kept the Pakistani public in dark during the war. The army lied to the people of Pakistan throughout the war and projected imaginary military victories. It forced the media to report outrageous lies about the outcome of the war. The news considered to have the potential of causing subversion and disruptions were suppressed. The wholesale, planned defection of the Bengali soldiers from the Pakistan Army in the early weeks of the war was not reported.
The Morning News even editorialised that the armed forces were saving East Pakistanis from eventual Hindu enslavement. The government-controlled press played down the civil war as an uprising sponsored by the Indian government. During the period of active combat starting from late November, Morning News and Pakistan Observer projected an image of Pakistan as being in complete control of the situation. Both newspapers, till the very end of the war, kept on reporting on the advances of Pakistan’s troops, and the huge losses incurred by the Indian military.
While the Pakistan army surrendered on 16 December 1971, the daily Jang published a statement of Yahya Khan on 17 December, declaring that the war will continue, and we shall fight till victory is achieved. He had the gall to announce that the programme to form a “representative government” will not be affected and that a new constitution will be declared on 20 December 1971. On 18 December 1971, Pakistan Times brought out a scandalous lie that Pakistan accepted the Indian ceasefire offer.
Although the Pakistani press highlighted atrocities committed by Mukti Bahni against Biharis and non-Bengalis, brutality perpetrated by the Pakistan army was completely blacked out. No information about the massive migration of the Bengali population to India was reported.
The Pakistani press did not report the destruction of the Karachi harbor, the sinking of PNS Ghazi in the Bay of Bengal, and enforcement of the naval blockade of the Arabian Sea. However, the destruction of Indian ship Khukri by Pakistani submarine Hangor received prominent coverage. By maintaining the naval blockade, the Indian army was able to prevent dispatching reinforcements or evacuating by sea.
After the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre, the US State Department asked the US-funded Voice of America not to air an interview with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar. State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher said that broadcasting the voice of the Taliban was not right. However, the VOA charter also calls for accurate, objective and comprehensive news and a broad spectrum of American thought and institutions.
Truth is the first casualty of any war. Other victims are suppression of freedoms of press and expression, and right of free assembly. In some sense, this is understandable because war breeds fear and fear breeds oppression in the corridors of power. Rulers strongly believe, especially in times of war, that freedom of press is subservient to patriotism and nationalism. The tension between patriotism and free press is neverending, but it is heightened during war or crisis. It is believed that censorship is necessary to protect the public from the effects of enemy propaganda. Besides, they think that the morale of the public must be boosted, even at the cost of stifling the press and allowing broadcast of misleading and biased information. Reporters are expected to hide inconvenient truths and always portray the country in a positive light. It is only over the past forty years that the civilised world has embraced the notion that the press can openly and freely criticise the government in peace or wartime.
History sheds light on the experiences of journalists who opposed the war or dictatorial regimes. During World WarI, The Masses, a revolutionary journal, took an anti-war stance, so the Postmaster General of the US stopped its circulation. The publishers and editors of The Masses were prosecuted and sentenced to prison for their criticism of the war. Moreover, among the 2,000 individuals and organisations prosecuted under the Espionage and Sedition Acts were dozens of editors and publishers.
Bertrand Russell and others openly opposed the WWI from the beginning; in 1916, Russell authored a pamphlet opposing conscription. He was subsequently sentenced to prison under the Defence of the Realm Act and fined £100. That conviction led to Russell’s dismissal from his lectureship at Trinity. Later, he spent nine months in Brixton prison for his outspoken pacifism.
William Dudley Pelley, journalist and activist, accused Roosevelt of being a warmonger and advocated isolationism. He opposed WWII and was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
The political future of governments depends on the victory or defeat in war. In Argentina, the military government led by General Galtieri was suffering criticism for its oppressive rule and economic mismanagement. In a desperate attempt to prop up his beleaguered government, General Galtieri planned the invasion of Falklands. After the humiliating defeat against Britain’s armed forces, Galtieri was forced to resign in the wake of a large-scale public protest. Elections were held, and a civilian rule was restored.
On the other hand, the military victory gave a clear fillip to British patriotic feeling and national pride that had dwindled since the failure of the 1956 Suez campaign. Margaret Thatcher’s popularity soared after the conflict, and her Conservative Party won a landslide victory in 1983 parliamentary elections. She felt empowered to press ahead with her economic readjustments popularly known as Thatcherism. After the surrender of 90,000 Pakistani troops in East Pakistan, and the creation of the new state, Bangladesh, a group of angry army officers forced General Yahya Khan to resign and hand over power to Bhutto. He was then stripped of his service honours
and put under house surveillance for most of the 1970s. After being released from those restrictions in 1977, he died in Rawalpindi in 1980 in disgrace.
The writer is Chest specialist in San Francisco