Marketing the war on terror
Anyone reading US newspapers or even the international press might be tempted to believe that the middle east crisis is many times more important than the bomb blast in Bombay. The best coverage that the Bombay blasts could manage was some front page photos in a few newspapers and a few editorials here and there (with the honourable exception of WSJ which keeps focusing on the issue). On the other hand, the kidnapping of 2 (yes 2 compared to the killing of 200 in Bombay) Israeli soldiers was viewed as the event of the week - at least the terror event of the week.
I don't grudge other victims of terror the support they get. The lessons that the Indians have to learn is one of PR - the terror in Bombay is in no way less serious. It has equal worldwide import. But the media is in the business of providing people what they want to read and it looks like people would rather learn what is happening in the middle east.
The reasons are easy to guess - religion, region and oil. There is more money at stake in the middle east than in India. So, the fact that Bombay was up and running (the BSE sensex actually went up, prompting the comment that it reacts to bottomlines not headlines) in a day is, in a perverse way, counterproductive. If there is no day to day impact on the rest of the world, there is much less worldwide coverage (easy to reduce all of India's problems to the Kashmir issue) and hence, less worldwide support.
Therein lies the lesson to all of us. The amazing efforts of ordinary Indians to lead a normal life over the last two decades of terrorism has to be marketed well as a frontline fight on behalf of the rest of the world. Note that even to counter the usual anti-India marketing - terrorists are actually misguided youth that the Indian system has antagonised (choose any prefix to system - caste, religion, poverty, etc.) - we need to market the Indian war on terror much better.
I don't grudge other victims of terror the support they get. The lessons that the Indians have to learn is one of PR - the terror in Bombay is in no way less serious. It has equal worldwide import. But the media is in the business of providing people what they want to read and it looks like people would rather learn what is happening in the middle east.
The reasons are easy to guess - religion, region and oil. There is more money at stake in the middle east than in India. So, the fact that Bombay was up and running (the BSE sensex actually went up, prompting the comment that it reacts to bottomlines not headlines) in a day is, in a perverse way, counterproductive. If there is no day to day impact on the rest of the world, there is much less worldwide coverage (easy to reduce all of India's problems to the Kashmir issue) and hence, less worldwide support.
Therein lies the lesson to all of us. The amazing efforts of ordinary Indians to lead a normal life over the last two decades of terrorism has to be marketed well as a frontline fight on behalf of the rest of the world. Note that even to counter the usual anti-India marketing - terrorists are actually misguided youth that the Indian system has antagonised (choose any prefix to system - caste, religion, poverty, etc.) - we need to market the Indian war on terror much better.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home