Abstrict

This study is a content analysis of Op-rd from US, Chinese, Indian and Pakistani press. It is based on the war journalism frame and peace journalism frame devised by John Galtung. Convenient sampling method was used and each paragraph was taken as a unit of analysis. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 20.0. The study checked the overall inclination of a country’s press with the perspective of war and peace journalism. The study analyzed the data from three year and found the significant results. It was observed that press of almost all countries are doing war journalism in sizeable measure. The global press has given stories with a war journalism frame in more quantity than the peace journalism. The study found that global press has given notable importance to the issue of terrorism between India and Pakistan. The statistical analysis and Chi-Square test of the data also gave significant results.

Keywords

War Journalism, Peace Journalism, Terrorism, India, Pakistan, Indo-Pak Conflict

Introduction

Noor (2007) maintains that relationship between India and Pakistan is in worst condition due to the territorial disputes. The continuing dispute and rivalry has given birth to so many other contentions and cross border terrorism is one of them. Incidents in the recent past has germinated terrorism as a separate and bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Mohindra (1993) establishes that India considers Pakistan as responsible for internal instability, uprising and spreading dissatisfaction among the ranks of India.

Polgreen (2009) found that terrorism has become an important issue between India and Pakistan. It is the issue of terrorism that is halting peace process between both countries and is viewed as biggest enemy for both countries. In 2009, Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani and Indian Premier Manmohan Singh took an important step in resolving this dispute. India agreed to deal with all issues independently and not to link border issue with terrorism. 

Wade (2010) noted that India has refused to restart the peace process initiated by Pakistan. According to Pakistani officials, 5366 citizens have been killed while 13000 have been seriously injured in terrorist attacks in Pakistan. Pakistan also had evidence to prove India’s involvement in terrorist activities in Pakistan.

Ahmad (2010) noticed that Indian government claims to have confirmed news of Pakistan’s involvement in Mumbai attack. They claim that Pakistan has planned to threaten Indians by supporting terrorist to enter Indian Territory. This dispute is believed to be flaring up other issues between India and Pakistan that is, Kashmir issue. On the other hand, Pakistanis believe that India is putting up efforts to internally de-stabilize Pakistan. It is evident from India’s involvement in Baluchistan province for the purpose of fanning separatist voices. India’s involvement in Afghanistan is perceived as a tactic of Indian officials to manipulate Afghan government to get strategic depth against Pakistan. Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik claimed to have proof of India’s involvement in terrorist attacks in Pakistan and India’s abetting in separatist movements in Baluchistan. 

Labott (2009) noticed a decline in terrorist attacks around the globe as per the report of State Department. But in Pakistan, terrorist attacks have increased in the same period. It was reported that along with the number of attacks being increased, there occurred frequency of attacks and a high level of coordination among terrorists.  

Raman (2003) analyzed that the terrorist threats India is facing since independence are different from latest methods of inflicting harm. The major attacks Indian people faced were from Hindu sectarian group against government. India faced terrorism in bordering states like Kashmir and Punjab while its inner states like Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and Oddisa were also not free from such threats.

In last decade, there have been a number of terrorist activities in both countries:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Chart 1: Comparison of terrorist attacks as casualties between India and Pakistan (Source: Wikipedia)

Rationale of the Newspapers

Two leading English language newspapers from the four globally important countries is selected, Daily Dawn and The Nation from Pakistan, The Hindu and Hindustan Times from India, South China Morning Post from China and Washington Post and New York Times from the United States of America. Their selection was done on the following basis:

Statement of Problem

Puddephatt (2006) noticed that mass media often plays two types of role while covering any conflict. Either the media takes an active part in the conflict and plays a role in increasing the violence, or stays independent and out of the conflict, thereby playing a role in suggesting a solution of conflict and alleviation of violence. The role of media takes during and after any conflict depends upon many factors. These factors may include the relationship the media has to actors in the conflict and the independence the media has to the power holders in society.

Oppen (2009) found that world has recognized that media can play a vital role in provoking the conflict. Media can aggravate the conflict or suggest a peaceful resolution of a conflict only through the reporting and presentation of facts. This has led many researchers to inquire how media can play a constructive role in a conflict. But the issue this, should media stay detached and report constructively, even when horrific events unfolding around them. But to play a constructive role, the reporters must be responsible and reflexive about their role in the conflict. The reporter is as moral witness overlooks the specific responsibility of the reporter as secondary who witness to the conflict.

Thompson and Price (2003) observed that the Balkan conflicts are the best example of how the media played its role in shaping and developing the conflict on the ground. The local media aided and abetted the destruction of Yugoslavia by irresponsible reporting. Media reports strengthen the extreme nationalism and forged the conflict between groups of people who had lived together peacefully all their lives. It was a dreadful example of how irresponsible use of media disintegrated the society and spread fear among masses. Media was in the hands of those unscrupulous enough to wield it as a destructive weapon. local media played an important role in preparing the ground for war in Yugoslavia, by ensuring public opinion was at support of the different participants in war. Media campaigns between rival media groups laid the foundation stone of the war itself. As regional communist leaderships mutated into nationalist’s fraternity and they took the various media as important instruments of policy and were prepared to use them as a tool for preaching the nationalism and spreading hatred among their followers.

Koven (2004) found that In the contemporary era more and more attention is being diverted toward peace in the world and role of media in it. Media is considered as a force that can aggravate a conflict or can help in peacemaking and peacekeeping. Press of different countries is thought to be following their national or regional agenda and trying to engineer the desired image of a country by giving a specific angle to her issues and conflicts.

Literature

Norris, Kern and Just (2003) found that media gives significant and very quick coverage to terrorist and terrorism activities. This promotion given to violent activities of Al-Qaeda by western news media built an immediate reaction of the people against the suspects. The global converges of 9/11, suicide bombings, violence in Chechnya etc, caused serious threats to international politics and political relations among different nations.

NY Times (2017) stated that different countries use media to shape up public opinion according to their agenda. This method is not only being used by large countries but also by the smaller states. “The Oxford researchers said social media was increasingly being co-opted by governments to suppress human rights, discredit political opponents and stifle dissent, including in countries like Azerbaijan, Zimbabwe and Bahrain”. It was found during the investigation that Russian operatives trained the Mayanmar soldiers for disinformation campaigns. Most government-linked disinformation efforts were focused on domestic issues or rivals. But at least seven countries were found to influence views outside their borders: China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

Rizvi (1994) found that both countries have tried to sit at a table in order to draw some solutions from 1984 to 1997 but all in vain. The officers from both countries tried to convince one another from time to time by arranging meetings and preparing different resolutions from time to time but it never got passed to its final stage. The reason behind all the failures were lack of motivation, trust and hatred between the two countries. Massive bomb explosions and terrorism did not decrease killing thousands of innocent lives at the border and within cities. At the same time, struggles to lower these cases went on side by side with no results at the end.

Javaid (2006) said that being in a neighborhood and a front line of America, Pakistan helped America but the statements from the White House have spread much ambiguity about its relation with Pakistan. And due to the increase in the number of actors in Afghanistan, political affiliations of groups have become difficult to access.

Javaid (2013) said that Kargil crisis unveiled the potential threat of a nuclear war to the peace and stability of South Asia and this threat was barred by the efforts of the United Nations. This changed the mindset and urged the UN to convince both countries to solve their conflicts through dialogues. State to state and people to people connection was enhanced to make the environment more suitable for negotiations.

Mazhar & Goraya (2014) established that adequate defense and sovereignty are the main requirements of a nation-state and every state tries to make its security invulnerable for the others. State does not only try to protect its boundaries and institutions but also the people who represent the state. In South Asia, political turmoil is most obvious and target killings, assassinations and terror attacks have a political nature. Pakistan has suffered severely due to this terrorism as “War on Terror” was fought in Afghanistan and due to this Pakistan had to face very grim political, economic and social consequences of this war. And Pakistan as compared to the actors in Afghanistan had to bear very severe and serious consequences.

Rizvi (1994) also found that to make the conditions worse, Kashmir dispute elevated the already present hatred and misunderstanding between them. Three wars of 1948, 1965 and 1971 along with many other attacks like Pathankot incident have caused many risks and security threats after partition. India had preferred abilities as compared to Pakistan. But things turned out to change after the nuclear test in 1998 which made Pakistan a nuclear power. Indian government and institutes adopted a pragmatic approach towards the dispute of Kashmir and issues.

Research Question

RQ1: What importance, in term of a number of stories is given to terrorism issues by the global press?

Hypothesis

H1: It is likely to be that Indian press is doing war journalism on terrorism issue.

H2: It is likely to be that US press is doing war journalism on terrorism issue.

H3: It is likely to be that Chinese press is doing Peace journalism on terrorism issue.

H4: It is likely to be that Pakistani press is doing Peace journalism on terrorism issue.

Method

It is a content analysis of 752 stories overall from Indian and Pakistani press on conflicts between India and Pakistan. The study covered the period of Three years, from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016. The units of analysis were a single paragraph and Op-Ed writing. Basically, the study is supported by framing theory specifically, war journalism frame and peace journalism frame. Galtung (1986, 1998) devised the two method of reporting namely” War Journalism” and “Peace Journalism”. John Galuting’s classification (see Kempf, 2003) is used to compare the framing in media coverage of cross border terrorism conflict between India and Pakistan. Thus, two categories were followed as given by Galtung (1986,1998) and the content not falling into these two categories were ceded as “Neutral”. All Categories collectively was coded to answer Research questions and hypotheses. The frames coded into the categories were based on 14 indicators, 7 each for war and peace journalism as defined later. 

Population

All the Op-Ed contents published on Indo-Pak conflicts by the elite US, Indian, Pakistani and Chinese press

is the population of study. 

Sampling

It is a census study as all the Op-Ed on the topic of Indo-Pak conflict of terrorism, is taken for analysis. 

Unit of Analysis

Every paragraph of editorials forms the unit of analysis. 

Variables

Based on the classification of war and peace journalism by John Galtung, following variables are derived for the study,

Peace Journalism

• Paragraphs containing hidden effects of violence.

• Paragraphs based on peacemaking efforts of all.

• Paragraphs presenting people who are taking initiatives for peace making.

• Paragraphs in which violence is condemned and solution is demanded.

• Paragraphs revealing truth but also presenting the opinion of both parties.

• Paragraphs showing sufferings of people and voicelessness. 

• Paragraphs depicting the perpetrators of conflict as foes.

War Journalism

• Paragraphs giving just a situation of conflict.

• Paragraphs in which justification of conflict or violence is given.

• Paragraphs showing only apparent facts of issue.

• Paragraphs highlighting the elite peacemakers.

• Paragraphs in which efforts of peacekeeping are kept hidden.

• Paragraphs presenting conflict as win/lose game.

• Paragraphs conveying the views of only one party involved in conflict.

• Paragraphs showing party as responsible for conflict.




Neutral Frames.

• The paragraphs which do not fall in any category of war or peace journalism are included in this frame. 

Results

2016

Content Analysis of 2016 data gave significant results. While studying the issue of “terrorism “, it was found that total of 228 stories were given on cross border terrorism by the global media.

Table 2. Cross Tabulation Between Countries for Terrorism Conflict

Terrorist incidents in Pakistan width="62" rowspan="20">   width="216" colspan="4"> Terrorist incidents in India

Year width="117"> Number of incidents width="41"> Deaths width="43"> Injuries width="29"> Year width="105"> Number ofincidents width="41"> Deaths width="41"> Injuries

2017 width="117"> 190 width="41"> 1260 width="43"> 1,021 width="29"> 2017 width="105"> 1000 width="41"> 470 width="41"> 702

2016 width="117"> 23 width="41"> 1,086 width="43"> 1,337 width="29"> 2016 width="105"> 1025 width="41"> 467 width="41"> 788

2015 width="117"> 22 width="41"> 1,606 width="43"> 1,847 width="29"> 2015 width="105"> 884 width="41"> 387 width="41"> 649

2014 width="117"> 17 width="41"> 2,412 width="43"> 3,395 width="29"> 2014 width="105"> 860 width="41"> 490 width="41"> 776

2013 width="117"> 13 width="41"> 2,874 width="43"> 5,768 width="29"> 2013 width="105"> 694 width="41"> 467 width="41"> 771

2012 width="117"> 32 width="41"> 2,783 width="43"> 4,264 width="29"> 2012 width="105"> 611 width="41"> 264 width="41"> 651

2011 width="117"> 64 width="41"> 1,655 width="43"> 2,638 width="29"> 2011 width="105"> 645 width="41"> 49 width="41"> 730

2010 width="117"> 144 width="41"> 1,695 width="43"> 2,961 width="29"> 2010 width="105"> 663 width="41"> 812 width="41"> 660

2009 width="117"> 101 width="41"> 1,487 width="43"> 3,541 width="29"> 2009 width="105"> 672 width="41"> 774 width="41"> 854

2008 width="117"> 67 width="41"> 1,184 width="43"> 1,876 width="29"> 2008 width="105"> 534 width="41"> 824 width="41"> 1,759

2007 width="117"> 51 width="41"> 1,406 width="43"> 2,343 width="29"> 2007 width="105"> 149 width="41"> 626 width="41"> 1,187

2006 width="117"> 16 width="41"> 314 width="43"> 669 width="29"> 2006 width="105"> 167 width="41"> 722 width="41"> 2,138

2005 width="117"> 11 width="41"> 150 width="43"> 296 width="29"> 2005 width="105"> 146 width="41"> 466 width="41"> 1,216

2004 width="117"> 19 width="41"> 304 width="43"> 671 width="29"> 2004 width="105"> 108 width="41"> 334 width="41"> 949

2003 width="117"> 8 width="41"> 119 width="43"> 181 width="29"> 2003 width="105"> 196 width="41"> 472 width="41"> 1,183

2002 width="117"> 14 width="41"> 105 width="43"> 331 width="29"> 2002 width="105"> 184 width="41"> 599 width="41"> 1,186

2001 width="117"> 5 width="41"> 109 width="43"> 265 width="29"> 2001 width="105"> 234 width="41"> 660 width="41"> 1,144

Total width="117"> 1059 width="41"> 21144 width="43"> 34224 width="29"> Total width="105"> 9754 width="41"> 9893 width="41"> 19027

> > > > > > > >

Terrorism * Country Data 2016 Crosstabulation width="42" rowspan="4"> Percent

Count

width="300" colspan="4"> Country width="78" rowspan="2"> Total

Pakistani Press width="66"> Indian Press width="48"> US Press width="72"> Chinese Press

Terrorism width="60"> War width="114"> 71 width="66"> 50 width="48"> 32 width="72"> 6 width="78"> 159 width="42"> 69.7%

Peace width="114"> 26 width="66"> 6 width="48"> 10 width="72"> 2 width="78"> 44 width="42"> 19.3%

Neutral width="114"> 12 width="66"> 2 width="48"> 10 width="72"> 1 width="78"> 25 width="42"> 11.0%

Total width="114"> 109 width="66"> 58 width="48"> 52 width="72"> 9 width="78"> 228 width="42">

Percent (Coverage) width="114"> 47.8 width="66"> 25.4 width="48"> 22.8 width="72"> 3.9 width="78">   width="42">

 

Among the total, 159 (69.7%) were covered in War Journalism fashion, whereas 44 (19.3%) stories were reported in peace journalism style on the issue of terrorism covered (see table 4.2). On the other hand, only 25 (11%) stories were having a neutral frame.> >Table 3. Pearson Chi-Square Test of Terrorism Issue in 2016

> > > > > >

Chi-Square Tests

width="67"> Value width="67"> df width="127"> Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square width="67"> 21.795a width="67"> 14 width="127"> .083

Likelihood Ratio width="67"> 26.185 width="67"> 14 width="127"> .025

Linear-by-Linear Association width="67"> .655 width="67"> 1 width="127"> .418

N of Valid Cases width="67"> 228 width="67">   width="127">

a. 14 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .44.

 

The statistical test of Pearson’s Chi-square was conducted by employing cross tabulation technique in SPSS. The results revealed that the difference of coverage on water issue by subject countries is statistically significant (x2=12.950, p=.044). 



Figure: 1 Frequency Analysis of Showing the Coverage of Terrorism in 2016

In addition to this, frequency analysis revealed that numerically and statistically Pakistani press and Indian press have given significant importance to this issue (see chart 2). Pakistani press has given 109 (47.8%) stories and Indian press has given 58(25.4%) stories on this issue. Importantly US press has given a significant importance to the issue of terrorism between India and Pakistan, giving 52(22.8%) stories. The numerical analysis also uncovered that the issue of terrorism between India and Pakistan is not given epochal coverage by China, covering only 9(3.9%) stories.

2015

Content Analysis of 2015 data gave some important results. While studying the issue of Terrorism, it was found that total of 290 stories were given on cross border terrorism by the global media.

Table 4. Cross Tabulation Between Countries for Terrorism Conflict in 2015

> > > > > > > >

Terrorism * Country Data 2015 Crosstabulation width="59" valign="top">

Count width="59" valign="bottom">

width="316" colspan="4"> Country width="56" rowspan="2"> Total width="59" rowspan="2"> Percent

Pakistani Press width="79"> Indian Press width="64"> US Press width="86"> Chinese Press

Terrorism width="65"> War width="86"> 45 width="79"> 81 width="64"> 20 width="86"> 20 width="56"> 166 width="59"> 57.2%

Peace width="86"> 31 width="79"> 5 width="64"> 9 width="86"> 11 width="56"> 56 width="59"> 19.3%

Neutral width="86"> 32 width="79"> 7 width="64"> 10 width="86"> 19 width="56"> 68 width="59"> 23.4%

Total width="86"> 108 width="79"> 93 width="64"> 39 width="86"> 50 width="56"> 290 width="59">

Percent (Coverage) width="86"> 37.2 width="79"> 32.1 width="64"> 13.4 width="86"> 17.2 width="56">   width="59">

 

Among total, the coverage of 166 (57.2%) was tilted towards War Journalism, whereas 56 (19.3%) stories on the issue of Terrorism were reported in peace journalism style (see table 4.7). While only 68 (23.4%) stories on the issues of Terrorism were categorized as neutral frames.

 

Table 5. Pearson Chi-Square Test of Terrorism Issue in 2015

> > > > > >

Chi-Square Tests

width="67"> Value width="67"> df width="139"> Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square width="67"> 53.065a width="67"> 6 width="139"> .000

Likelihood Ratio width="67"> 57.749 width="67"> 6 width="139"> .000

Linear-by-Linear Association width="67"> .551 width="67"> 1 width="139"> .458

N of Valid Cases width="67"> 290 width="67">   width="139">

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.53.

 

The statistical test of Pearson’s Chi-square was conducted by applying a cross tabulation technique using SPSS software. The results disclosed that the difference of coverage on the issue of terrorism by global press is statistically significant (x2=53.065, p=.000). 





Figure 2: Cross tabulation Between Countries for Terrorism Conflict in 2015

In addition to this, frequency analysis discovered that numerically Pakistani press has given more stories 108(37.2%) than Indian press 93(32.1%) (see chart 6). unexpectedly, in 2015 Chinese press dealt issue of terrorism between India and Pakistan with more focus, publishing 50(17.2%) stories. Interestingly, US press has taken the bilateral issue of terrorism more seriously and given 39 (13.4%) stories.

2014

Content Analysis of data from 2015 op-ed gave some important results. While studying the issue of Terrorism, it was found that total of stories were given on cross border terrorism by the global media.

Table 6. Cross Tabulation Between Countries for Terrorism Conflict in 2014

> > > > > > > > > >The analysis of total stories in 2014 revealed that the 126 (53.8%) stories were categorized as War Journalism. whereas 45(19.2%) stories on Terrorism issue were reported in peace journalism mode (see table 20). Whereas 63 (26.9%) stories on the issues of Terrorism were categorized as neutral frames which is a significant ratio. > >Table 7. Pearson Chi-Square Test of Terrorism Issue in 2014 align="center">

Terrorism * Country Data 2014 Crosstabulation

Count

width="312" colspan="4"> Country width="72" rowspan="2"> Total width="42" rowspan="2"> Percent

Pakistani Press width="78"> Indian Press width="66"> US Press width="78"> Chinese Press

Terrorism width="44"> War width="90"> 53 width="78"> 57 width="66"> 13 width="78"> 3 width="72"> 126 width="42"> 53.8

Peace width="90"> 25 width="78"> 6 width="66"> 8 width="78"> 6 width="72"> 45 width="42"> 19.2

Neutral width="90"> 20 width="78"> 15 width="66"> 18 width="78"> 10 width="72"> 63 width="42"> 26.9

Total width="90"> 98 width="78"> 78 width="66"> 39 width="78"> 19 width="72"> 234 width="42">

Percent (Coverage) width="90"> 41.9 width="78"> 33.3 width="66"> 16.7 width="78"> 8.1 width="72">   width="42">

> > > > > >

Chi-Square Tests

width="96"> Value width="78"> df width="108"> Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square width="96"> 50.478a width="78"> 14 width="108"> .000

Likelihood Ratio width="96"> 56.634 width="78"> 14 width="108"> .000

Linear-by-Linear Association width="96"> 18.129 width="78"> 1 width="108"> .000

N of Valid Cases width="96"> 234 width="78">   width="108">

a. 8 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.35.

> >SPSS software was used for Pearson’s Chi-square statistical test by employing a cross tabulation technique. The results unveiled that the difference of coverage on the issues of Terrorism by global press is statistically not significant (x2=2.406, p=.879). 





Figure 3: Cross tabulation Between Countries for Terrorism Conflict in 2015

Unlike the statistical analysis, frequency analysis was significant and revealed that numerically Pakistani press has given more stories 98(41.9%) than Indian press 78(33.3%) on the issue of Terrorism. In 2014 Chinese press again dealt issue of Terrorism between India and Pakistan without a significant focus, publishing 19(8.1%) stories (see table 4). On the other hand, US press has taken the issue of Terrorism with some considerable focus and given 39(16.7%) stories.



Conclusion and Discussion

Research Question

RQ1: What importance, in terms of number of stories, is given to terrorism issues by global press?

The analysis found that issue of terrorism was given a significant importance in terms of number of Op-Ed on the issue. In 2014 total Indian and Pakistan gave a sizeable coverage to the issue because both the countries are directly affected by the terrorism. Pakistani press gave 315 (41.8%) Op-Ed stories on the issue and Indian press gave 229 (30.4%) stories on issue of terrorism. US press gave 130 (17.2%) stories on the Indo-Pak conflict of terrorism. On the other hand, Chinese press did not cover the issue with significant importance and gave only 78 (10.3%) stories on the conflict in three years.

Test of Hypothesis

H1: It is likely to be that Indian press is doing war journalism on terrorism issue.

On the issue of terrorism, Indian press has given 229 stories from Jan, 2014 to December, 2016. In the year 2014, Indian press has given 78 stories and from these stories 57 (73%) were having war journalism frame. From total of 93 stories of 2015 by Indian press, 81 (87%) stories were having war journalism frame. In 2016, from a total of 58 stories on terrorism, Indian press gave 50 (83.2%) stories using war journalism frame. From this coverage it is found that Indian press used war journalism frame in of 188 (82%) stories and this figure proves the H1 hypothesis.

H2: It is likely to be that US press is doing war journalism on terrorism issue.

US press has given total of 130 stories in three-year study period. In 2014, there were 39 stories in US about the terrorism and 13 (33.3%) were having war journalism frame. In 2015, US press gave 39 stories on the issue of terrorism and out of these stories, 20 (51%) were with war journalism frame. On the other hand, US press gave 52 stories on the issue of terrorism between India and Pakistan in 2016, and out of these stories, 32 (61.5%) stories were having war journalism frame. This result establishes that US press has used war journalism frame in 65 (50%) stories and peace journalism in 27 (20%) stories (See table 2,4 & 6). This result proves the H2 hypothesis.

H3: It is likely to be that Chinese press is doing Peace journalism on terrorism issue.

The press of china has not shown much interest in the coverage of issue of terrorism between India and Pakistan. There are only 78 stories in the Chinese press about the issue of terrorism between India and Pakistan. In 2014, there are 19 stories covering the issue of terrorism and 3 (15.7%) were having war journalism frame, 6 (31.5%) were with peace journalism frame. In 2015, there were total 50 stories and 20 (40%) with war journalism and 11 (22%) with peace journalism frame. Chinese press gave only 9 Op-Ed stories on issue of terrorism between India and Pakistan. Out of these, 6 (66.6%) stories were with war journalism frame and 2 (22.2%) with peace journalism frame. The result proves that there is a total of 29 (37.1%) stories with war journalism frame and 19 (24.3%) stories with peace journalism frame. The result shows that war journalism is in greater measure and it disproves the hypothesis. Hence H3 is a null hypothesis.

H4: It is likely to be that Pakistani press is doing Peace journalism on terrorism issue.

Pakistan is a nation that is party of the conflicts with India. Overall, there were 315 stories about the issue of terrorism with India in Pakistani press. In 2014 there were a total of 98 stories and out of these 53 (54%) stories were with war journalism frame and 25 (25.5%) stories with peace journalism frame. In 2015 there were a total of 108 stories about the issue of terrorism, out of there 45 (41.6%) were having war journalism frame and 31 (28.7%) stories with peace journalism frame. Pakistani press gave total of 109 stories about the conflict of terrorism between India and Pakistan in 2016. Out of this a total of 71 (65.1%) stories were with war journalism frame and 36 (23.8%) stories with peace journalism frame. This shows that Pakistani press has given 169 (53.6%) stories with war journalism frame and 92 (29.2%) stories with peace journalism frame. This result disproves the H4 hypothesis and it is a null hypothesis.

Discussion

The results of the study are important but not very surprising. The countries involved in the conflict were doing war journalism, obviously. As the criteria for testing the frame was taken from john Galtung’s model, so it can be assumed that any journalism without professional or social consideration, would fall into war journalism. As the model of John Galtung considers it a war when the reporter reports material loss, peace efforts of elites, win-lose construction we-they construction and so on. These few constructions are very abundant and “routine” for the conflict reporters. The peace journalism is an uncommon but practical criterion for the reporters to become part of the solution not the problem.

The issue of terrorism was given significant importance by the global press and a sizeable number of Op-Ed contents was given on the topic as found by Norris, Kern and Just (2003). This much coverage also gives the hint of agenda of global media. The media follows the agenda of their nation and seems to be following the journalistic norms with very casual attitude. The cross-border terrorism is a conflict that is affecting both countries, India and Pakistan. The figures were alarming that in the last twenty years, Pakistan has faced more than 34000 casualties, that include armed forces, children, women and foreigners. On the other hand, India has faced more than 19000 deaths reportedly.

Limitations

• This study is a content analysis, but a mix method could reveal more in-depth findings.

• News stories along with Op-Ed could also yield important results.

References

• Ahmed, I. (2010). Retrieved on 23/2/2010 from
  http://www.voltairenet.org/article163897.html
• Galtung, J. (1998). Peace Journalism: What, Why, Who, How, When, where, paper presented at the workshop. What are Journalists for? TRANSCEND, Taplow Court, 3-6 September.
• Galtung, J., & Vincent, R. (1993). Global Glasnost - Toward a new world information and communication order? Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press
• Lee, S. T., & Maslog, C. C. (2005). War or peace journalism? Asian newspaper coverage of conflicts. Journal of communication, 55(2), 311-329.
• Javaid, U. (2013). Security concerns in South Asia, Lahore, University of the Punjab.
• Javaid, U. (2006). Peace and Security in South Asia: Issues and Challenges. Lahore, Pakistan Study Centre, University of the Punjab.
• Koven, R. (2004). An Antidote to Hate Speech: Journalism, Pure and Simple. Source:
  http://india.gov.in/knowindia/television.php?pg=2
• Labott, E. (2009). Report: Terror attacks up in Pakistan, Afghanistan retrieved on 3/2/2010 from
  http:// www.cnn.com /2009 /WORLD /asiapcf /04/30/terrorism.report/index.html
• Mazhar, M. S., & Goraya, N. (2014). Post-2014 Afghanistan: Reflections & Off-Shoots. Lahore: University of the Punjab, Lahore.
• Noor, S. (2007). Pakistan-India relations and terrorism. Pakistan Horizon, 60(2), 65-84.
• Mohindra, S. (1993). Terrorist Games Nations Play (New Delhi: Lancer Publishers, 1993), p. 16
• Norris, P., Kern, M., & Just, M. (2003). Framing terrorism. Framing terrorism: The news media, the government, and the public, 3-23.
• NYTC (2017).
• Oppen, Karoline von (2009) Reporting from Bosnia: Reconceptualising the Notion of a ‘Journalism of Attachment. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 17:1, 21-33, DOI: 10.1080/14782800902844669
• Puddephatt, A. (2006). Voices of war: Conflict and the role of the media. Report of International Media Support (IMS 2006). Available at:
  http://www.i-m-s.dk/files/publications/Voices of war.pdf
• Polgreen, L. (2009). retrieved on 3/1/2010 from
• Raman (2003) retrieved on 12/12/2009 from
  http://www .rediff.com/news/2003/apr/03spec.htm
• Rizvi, G. (1994). India Pakistan and Kashmir problem 1947-71 (ed.) Perspectives on Kashmir by Dr. Kaniz Fatima Yousaf, Islamabad: Pakistan Forum
• Thompson & Price. (2003). Intervention, Media and Human Rights Mark, International Institute for Strategic Studies.
• Wade, M. (2010). retrieved on 26/2/2010 from
  http:// www. smh. com. Au /world/india-pakistan- talking-but-little-progress-on-terrorism-fight-20100226-p92i.html