By Qamar Bashir
The Bahawalnagar incident serves as a prime example. Despite an otherwise successful media campaign, a significant flaw was the unwarranted escalation of the incident in traditional media, which initially emerged on social media and should have been contained within that platform.
Let’s explore why the Bahawalnagar incident should have been contained within social media. The posts, including footage, views, analysis, and commentary shared by social media activists regarding the incident, were initially perceived with skepticism by viewers due to their informal nature and the general lack of credibility and authenticity associated with social media content. However, when
official media managers injected this incident into traditional media, they inadvertently lent credibility and authenticity to these potentially concocted social media posts by associating them with the more trusted and established traditional media channels. This shift in platform allowed misleading or unverified information to gain unwarranted credibility, which could have been avoided by
keeping the incident within the sphere of social media.
Furthermore, social media influencers often lack access to traditional media
channels, which limits their ability to amplify messages with credibility.
Conversely, official media managers possess the capability to inject a counter-
narrative by leveraging their access to social media platforms, thereby generating
traffic and engagement in a controlled manner. This strategy avoids the
unnecessary amplification of virulent propaganda against the country’s two most
important and indispensable institutions in traditional media. By focusing on strategic and controlled communication through social media, the impact of misleading narratives could have been effectively managed and mitigated.
Furthermore, state institutions possess an overwhelming advantage in having
access to actual and factual information compared to the informal and laymen
social media posts. This advantage empowers official media managers to
effectively counter misinformation or propaganda with accurate data, evidence,
and explanations. For instance, in the mentioned incident where social media users
were spreading misinformation through fabricated videos or pictures lacking
context or evidence, the optimal response would have been to consistently provide
factual information with equal frequency and reach. This approach could have
swiftly addressed and debunked falsehoods within the same digital space where
they originated, without inadvertently legitimizing the misinformation in
traditional media channels and amplifying it by exposing the incident to a broader
audience that may not have encountered it initially on social media..
The second significant mistake made by the official media managers was their lack
of preparedness when using traditional media to counter the false propaganda.
Their statement was vague, lacking in facts, figures, and context, and it failed to
provide legal backing or support. The official narrative failed to address crucial
details about the incident, leaving important questions unanswered. For example,
there was no clarification on why a police contingent ambushed the house of a
serving army man, what information they had to justify the raid, whether they
possessed a search warrant, or if they had obtained the necessary approvals from
competent authorities. Additionally, details such as the presence of a female police
officer during the raid, any arrests made, or the registration of an FIR against the
serving army man or alleged illegal raiding party were conspicuously absent from
the official response.
Furthermore, the official response failed to address critical gaps in the narrative,
such as the circumstances surrounding the alleged army contingent raiding the
police station. Key questions left unanswered included: Who authorized the raid?
Who led and executed the raid? What were the mission and objectives of the raid?
What legal rules or procedures empowered the army to conduct a raid on a civilian
police station? What actions were taken during the raid and what objectives were
achieved?. These omissions in the official account contributed to a lack of
transparency and raised further doubts and questions among the public.
The official communication also failed to specify the legal basis under which the
army and police officers reached a compromise. Critical details were left
unanswered, such as who the negotiating officers were, what specific points of
agreement were reached, and whether the agreement was documented in writing or
solely verbal.
Instead of addressing these vital questions, the official response shifted the burden
to an inquiry team composed of officers from both agencies, seemingly aware that
the involvement of police and army officials as parties in the incident necessitated
an independent third-party investigation. Ideally, the matter should have been
adjudicated by a trial court with relevant jurisdiction to ensure impartiality and
transparency in resolving the issues raised as per law of the hand.
The official media managers may have overlooked the critical consequence of
failing to provide essential information through traditional media channels.
Without this information, the public may dismiss the narrative, leading them to
seek answers from social media. Unfortunately, social media influencers seeking to
boost their ratings and profit may exploit this gap by filling it with persuasive
rhetoric and concocted, distorted, or skewed facts and figures to craft compelling
but misleading narratives.
As patriotic Pakistanis, it is essential that we all uphold and support our country's
key institutions responsible for external and internal security—the army and
police—by fostering public trust and respect towards them. To achieve this, it is
imperative that the official media managers of both the army and police collaborate
effectively, presenting factual information supported by laws and rules to convey
their narrative or counter-narrative. It is crucial that they refrain from sharing
incomplete or half-baked narratives on social or traditional media until they are
fully prepared with comprehensive and accurate details. Additionally, they should
employ public relations tools professionally and effectively to manage and de-
escalate any issues, incidents, or developments without resorting to the use of
force. By prioritizing transparency, professionalism, and strategic communication,these institutions can enhance public confidence and strengthen their relationship with the people of Pakistan.
