LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: 02/09/25

Sunday, February 09, 2025

Class notes

DAWN

The writer is a journalism instructor.

I AM back in the classroom, teaching a news media literacy course at a university, and after two classes, I feel hopeful. Since I began teaching journalism and news media courses eight years ago, there are many changes I’ve been happy to see: more women enrolling in the degree or class. They are always smarter (sorry guys) and more inquisitive, but also sadly, more reluctant to join the news industry.

There are other observations I’d like to share, which I hope will help news media managers and owners with audience insight.

When I last taught this course in fall 2023, I saw glimpses of a post-Imran generation, a large pocketful of students disenchanted by his promises of a Naya Pakistan. This time, however, the sentiment against all politicians, including Imran, is more pronounced. That disenchantment isn’t just limited to politicians. For example, we reviewed an old poll about Pakistanis’ trust in institutions where the army and Supreme Court ranked at the top and the class said they doubted this would hold true today. The media fared poorly then and now.

“It’s because the media only shows negativity,” one girl said.

Were they up for the task of changing?

In a bid for them to understand how the news works, I ask them to create the front page of a newspaper. It is always their first assignment. If we’re so bad in the news media, how would you do it differently? The goal is simple: your front page must inform audiences of news you deem important. Students have to choose five stories for their paper’s front page. They do it as individuals and then, in the next class, in small groups where they inevitably differ among themselves on which stories to place. It is a really good introduction to news value and judgement. Later in the class, we revisit the exercise but this time with the intent to sell newspapers.

If we’re so bad in the news media, how would you do it differently?

It’s a fun exercise because we learn there is no one-size-fits all editorial judgement. Their responses are always full of surprises and tell you a lot about what they’re thinking, where they’re coming from, and about their — and their family’s — habits. As the years pass, I’m encountering more students whose families do not subscribe to newspapers unless they have grandparents; parents, too, consume news on mobile devices. Almost everyone’s family still watches the news on TV but it’s no longer the only source of information. TV for breaking news followed by YouTube for analysis. My students do not watch news on TV though they may come across it on their feeds.

It is against this backdrop that I felt hopeful about their front pages. Many ran with Imran’s conviction as their top story, but they explained they had to do so because audiences had to be informed. Several students ran the devastating story about the seven-year-old boy’s body discovered in an underground water tanker in Karachi as their top story. This, they defended, was more important than everything else. The violence in Kurram and stories about the economy figured in their lists too. Only one student had a story about Balochistan and he said he specifically chose it because the province was ignored. An equally important story, by their standards, was PIA apologising for their ad about resumption of flights to Paris.

Each student chose at least one, if not more, story that showcased empathy for the vulnerable, which included the environment. Almost everyone had the resurgence of Covid in their top three stories. I’d forgotten just how impacted this group was by the pandemic. Finally, they each chose a story that represented hope or something positive, something to feel good about, as they said. One student was horrified when I said one motorcyclist’s death on Karachi’s Sharea Faisal did not qualify as important; they said my desensitisation was the problem. Sometimes you have to take a stand, another said. Their assignments showed they were standing up for the voiceless.

When I pointed out they were more political than they claimed, more aware about their surroundings than they admitted, I felt there was a collective nod. I’m sad how politics has been reduced, in their minds, to the content on our prime time shows, which they don’t even watch.

Of course, this is not representative of an entire generation. As I stated up front, these are observations of a small urban group, whose families are relatively well-to-do; they are aware of their privilege and access to power. They know right from wrong but they do not trust the media to help inform them. Many told me they’ve signed up for my class because they want to understand how the media works and I hope they will teach me how it can work effectively. We need this generation to shape our future.

X: *LedeingLady*

Published in Dawn, January 26th, 2025

Writing on the wall

Anjum Altaf

DAWN

The writer is the author of Pakistan: Clash of Ideas, Aks Publications 2024.

MOMENTOUS political events have been occurring in the region — Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Syria. Much has been written about each one of them in isolation; very little about what they represent collectively. This oversight can cause us to miss some essential insights into the contours of the emerging world.

Despite their individual dynamics, one can discern some obviously common features in these independent events. Consider all the above-named countries except for Myanmar; in each one of them the rulers were compelled to make last-minute escapes into exile by forces opposed to their authoritarianism. In three of them the rulers had been well-entrenched for years and seemingly impregnable — Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh for 15 years, the Rajapaksas in Sri Lanka for 20, the Assads in Syria for over 50.

Consider also the speed at which the changes occurred when they finally did; a few months in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, a few weeks in Syria. It also did not matter how well or poorly the countries were doing economically. There was near collapse in Afghanistan but remarkable achievements in Bangladesh, which had outpaced its neighbours according to many standard indicators. Economics and politics had become quite disconnected; people had unmet aspirations that went beyond material gains.

Oppressive rule reinforces popular resentment that cannot be suppressed forever.

Of course, the change did not materialise out of thin air; it was building up over time largely unnoticed and seemingly under control. For the rulers, it was always a few ‘miscreants’ creating trouble or some foreign hand that would be dealt a crushing blow. This was palpably untrue, but a fiction that was sustainable as long as some key region remained loyal to the regime. When dissent breached that zone of support, it was as if an invisible tipping point was crossed and the defensive walls crumbled rapidly and almost without resistance.

Even significant differences within the countries point clearly in one direction. External forces were indeed involved in Afghanistan and Syria, but that was not the case in either Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. This suggests that external intervention is not necessary for the overthrow of authoritarian and unpopular regimes; purely internal dynamics can be sufficient to remove regimes lacking legitimacy. Oppressive rule reinforces popular resentment that cannot be suppressed forever. An implosion is inevitable, only a matter of time.

One might note that of the countries mentioned above, none except Myanmar was under military rule. It could be argued that this might explain why their rulers were overthrown without prolonged conflict. But even in Myanmar the military is on the defensive, continuing to lose ground to rebel forces. This suggests that the military can delay the inevitable but not necessarily foreclose the outcome.

This conclusion is readily borne out by history. There was a period not so long ago when military rule was common — across Latin America, in Africa, Turkiye, and South Korea. Now it is an endangered species. It survives in a few holdouts like Neanderthals must have done before they became extinct. Or like dinosaurs whose small brains prevented them from negotiating the increasing complexity of their environment. In either case, to those with open eyes, the writing is visible on the wall.

What matters is not how long autocratic regimes survive but what they leave behind. Progressive forces survived in Sri Lanka despite the purges of the Rajapaksas; Bangladesh had an iconic individual around whom the opposition could come together. Afghanistan, Myanmar and Syria appear a lot more chaotic. They are like a few other holdouts, yet to witness change, where progressives have been decimated and there are no individuals left with the stature to command universal respect and trust. In such cases, descent into prolonged civil war — as in Sudan — or takeover by fundamentalist groups — as in Afghanistan — remains a very real outcome.

The conclusion one can derive from these case studies is that change is inevitable; nothing can last forever if the aspirations of the people are denied or crushed beyond a point. It is also clear that some forms of rule are outdated and harmful and destined for the dust heap of history. What remains unknown is the shape authoritarian rulers will leave the polity in before they are forced to board the plane. What is less to be doubted is that the longer they last the worse would be the outcome.

At the same time, it is equally clear that autocrats would fight to the last to protect their privileges, even at the cost of breaking up their countries and pushing them into darkness and ignorance. Those who gratuitously advise them to reform should reflect on the lessons of history to realise their naivete.

Published in Dawn, January 25th, 2025

Trudeau Caught on Hot Mic Revealing Trump’s Plans for Canada

Joey McFadden
Fri, February 7, 2025

DAILY BEAST

Nicholas Kamm / AFP via Getty Images

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told business leaders that U.S. President Donald Trump’s interest in annexing Canada was a very real plan aimed at controlling the country’s vast mineral resources.

Trudeau was caught on a hot mic giving his assessment of Trump’s threat to take control of America’s northern neighbor.

“I suggest that not only does the Trump administration know how many critical minerals we have but that may be even why they keep talking about absorbing us and making us the 51st state,” he said. “They’re very aware of our resources, of what we have, and they very much want to be able to benefit from those. But Mr. Trump has it in mind that one of the easiest ways of doing that is absorbing our country. And it is a real thing.”

These remarks were made after Trudeau ushered the media out of the room. He continued to talk about his “conversation” with Trump, then realized the mic was still on, and ordered a staffer to turn off the recording device.

Canadian Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne believes Trump’s tough talk about annexing Canada is a negotiation tactic. He says Canada is not changing its strategy around critical minerals.

“They need us more than ever. They understand, particularly the military guys, they are very worried about strategy in terms of being their partner, in terms of critical minerals, yeah,” he said. “I would say this is a great leverage for Canada, because the military folks understand that they cannot rebuild their industrial base, their defense, military industrial base, without Canada.”

Unifor President Lana Payne, a union leader concerned about annexation and tariffs, says she is “taking everything seriously right now because I have a lot of members whose jobs are at stake in this climate of chaos and instability.”

Trudeau says Trump is serious about wanting to annex Canada

Leyland Cecco in Toronto
Fri, February 7, 2025

THE GUARDIAN

The Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, speaks to business and labour leaders amid the looming threat of US protectionism in Toronto on Friday.Photograph: Carlos Osorio/Reuters

Donald Trump’s recent fixation on absorbing Canada is “a real thing”, Justin Trudeau has told business leaders, warning that the US president wants access to his northern neighbour’s vast supply of critical minerals.

The outgoing prime minister was in Toronto for a hastily called summit of business and labour leaders, seeking to coordinate a response Trump’s looming threat of a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports.

Earlier this week, Trump backed away from tariffs that would have devastated Canada’s economy, granting one of his country’s largest trading partners a 30-day reprieve for further negotiations.

Related: ‘Buy Canadian Instead’: businesses vow to fight Trump’s tariffs across the border

But he has continued to mock Canadian sovereignty, repeating his description of the country as the “51st state” on social media and repeatedly calling Trudeau “governor” instead of prime minister.

Friday’s summit included discussions on stemming the movement of fentanyl, security at the border and the challenge of interprovincial trade, but Trudeau later told an audience that the president’s threats of annexation – often viewed as a negotiating tactic – were serious, and should be taken as such.

“I suggest that not only does the Trump administration know how many critical minerals we have but that may be even why they keep talking about absorbing us and making us the 51st state,” Trudeau reportedly told attendees.

“They’re very aware of our resources, of what we have and they very much want to be able to benefit from those,” he said. “But Mr Trump has it in mind that one of the easiest ways of doing that is absorbing our country.”

Canada is rich in minerals considered critical to the green energy transition, including lithium, graphite, nickel, copper and cobalt, and has sought to position itself as a trusted and stable supplier of the commodities to allied nations.

Trump’s threats, which have upended the longstanding relationship between the two countries, have dramatically reshaped federal politics and ushered in a new era of patriotism. With an election looming, all parties are scrambling to portray themselves as patriotic and ready to defend the country’s sovereignty.

In Quebec, where provincial sovereigntists have experienced a surge in popularity, the number of people calling for a referendum on the province’s secession has dropped. Between December and February, people in Quebec who said they were “very proud” or “proud” to be Canadian increased 13 points from 45% to 58%, according to an Angus Reid poll.

Related: In this Trump era of shakedown diplomacy, everything has a price

On Friday, federal cabinet ministers sought to reassure attenders.

“Our American friends understand that they need Canada for their economic security, they need Canada for their energy security and they need Canada for their national security,” the industry minister, François-Philippe Champagne, told AFP.

The trade minister, Anita Anand, said there would be “no messing” with the border.

“Canada is free. Canada is sovereign,” the employment minister, Steven MacKinnon, told reporters. “Canada will choose its own destiny, thank you very much.”