It is absolutely difficult to chalk out the truth

Malik Zaeem ul Hassan

10 December 2023

In a world overshadowed with personal animosities coupled with disinformation, it is absolutely difficult to chalk out the truth. According to the words of Harari a world deluged by irrelevant information, clarity is the sole power. Nation states have been offering their citizens this sense, keeping in view their national interests and integrity. The era of 5th generation warfare, where propaganda and disinformation are the war tools, developed states often have a strict surveillance system in place to curb any personal or organization diverging away from the state narrative. Contrarily the developing countries go through a hard time in face of similar checks and balances.

Smear campaigns are a trending tactic used to damage reputation of an individual, organization or country through spread of false or misleading information. Social media has become a popular medium for such campaigns in recent years, as it allows a rapid broadcast of information to a large audience. Let’s look at how social media can be used as a proxy to launch smear campaigns against a country’s armed services, as well as potential ramifications of such attacks. If recent trends are any indication, it is easy to conclude that a concerted attempt is being made to discredit Pakistan Army and its officer corps. This can include creating fake social media accounts or manipulating existing accounts in order to propagate false or misleading information about the armed services. The usage of hashtags and posting information on social media can also help to increase the reach of the campaign. Fake news can take many forms, from fabricated stories to material that has been misrepresented or taken out of context. Because it is difficult for the average social media user to distinguish between legitimate and fake news, bogus news can quickly spread.

In yet another show of managing the media, States in US have recently passed laws targeting a range of actions that may be exploited to tie lines contrary to the state narrative. Recent media coverage of this trend has tended to characterize such laws as a response to the Black Lives Matter protests that followed the murder of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. The vandalism in these protests and slogans against the state institution prompted the legislatures to pass such laws from where the integrity of the state can be secured. While state legislators did introduce—and sometimes enacted—a flurry of anti-protest bills in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter protests. These laws were only the latest, most prominent example of legislative backlash against popular protest movements around the country. Methods to curb these protests have lately been tackled through a new coined term called Lawfare, which has been used by states predominantly to suppress anything that dare to target national integrity and harm national interests going contrary to state narrative.

Developed countries have coined these new-found methods in order to take preemptive measures for getting the in line with state narrative instead of carving out disruptive tendencies among masses. To implement the strategy, at first, they are given warnings, and if any institution, organization or personal still chooses to go astray, the state resorts to legal methods to put things straight. Any entity that deems to have interests contrary to the state, even under the garb of humanitarian ideals, is deemed detrimental to the national security this facing tough time through various legal means.

State institutions in developed world are usually autonomous, but their autonomy is always in line with the national interests of state. Such developed states also issue a guideline to other private institutions who are deemed as independent and unbiased. These guidelines tend to give them a path to tree which is in line with the state instead of carving a separate way of their own which collides with the national interest of the state. An example is when over a dozen US state attorneys generals signed a letter directed toward media outlets like the New York Times and CNN, encouraging them to follow law when it comes to coverage of Israel-Hamas conflict. This was further followed by putting them on watch terming their reporting to provision of “material support to terrorists abroad.” The letter was spearheaded by Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and signed by 14 state attorney generals, and was sent to the leadership of Media entities like CNN, The New York Times, Reuters, and The Associated Press on Monday. The letter further narrated that authorities would continue to follow their reporting to ensure that media organizations do not violate any federal or State laws by giving material support to terrorists abroad.

Contrary to what is happening in the developed states, circumstances in developing countries are completely opposite. Absence of control over media and retaliation to exerting any by the state results in Journalists being seen cashing in on the trends by spreading disinformation. This in addition to a blatent trend of trying to undermine the security interests of the country to pacify the vested interests of enemy proxies is on the rise. The checks and balances on such organizations and personal are weak, because of the hoax of freedom of speech taken from the western idols, while obliviating the checks and balances that comes along with it. Chaotic circumstances are seen as a result when such practices are applied to the already delicate fabric of society in underdeveloped states, resulting in challenging of governmental writ and creation of chaos.

All these tactics challenge integrity of the state, if not held accountable. It is high time that developing countries should understand and formulate effective policies to curb those elements which infringe the national security imperative of the state. As it is an established fact that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but is always subordinate to popular sentiment.