VOL-II, ISSUE- II (Fall 2009)

August 19, 2003 bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad, 10 bombs exploded on Madrid city’s computer transit system on March 11, 2004 and four suicide bombers struck in central London killing 52 on July 7, 2005 are some of the example of international and terrorism. With the reference of Wikipedia (2009) the researcher discusses a few major terrorist strikes especially in Pakistan from 2006-2009.
                          

August 26-31, 2006	Nawab Akbar Bugti (Balochistan)
November 8, 2006	42 Pakistan Army Soldiers North West town of Daragi.
January 26, 2007	Marriott Hotel (Islamabad)
October 18, 2007	Attack on Benazir Bhutto’s Convoy (Karachi)
December 27, 2007	the assassination of twice Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
March 11, 2008	Twin suicide bombings in Lahore
August 21, 2008	Pakistan Ordinance factory (Wah, Cantt)
August 23, 2008	Swat valley bombing
September 20, 2008	Truck bomb exploded outside the Marriott Hotel (Islamabad)
March 3, 2009	Sri Lankan Cricket Team (Lahore)
March 27, 2009	Jamrud Mosque attack
March 30, 2009	Lahore Police Academy attack

           

The media has played a vital role to enhance the panic among the people after each and every terrorist strike. Silberstein (2002) analyzes that the main purpose of terrorists is to harass or scare the people on a large scale. She further says that terrorism is aimed at the people watching, meaning the people watch, more the terrorism breed.
            November 26, 2008 to November 29, 2008 Mumbai attacks had the same effect on people of India and the residents of the other countries. The panic create by the media was greater than the fear at the actual terror spot and such type of panic generates hopeless thoughts and rumors among the people worldwide. The victims always blame their rivals or anti-groups around them and the media play up these blames and rumors at a large scale. Murthy (2008) describes the Mumbai horrible night of terror and he is of the view that no one can blame Pakistan particularly because a group identifying itself “Deccan Mujahedeen” has claimed the responsibility of these attacks. “Deccan” is an area of India and “Mujahedeen” is the plural form of a Muslim participating in jihad. It is more likely to be the work of “Indian Mujahedeen”, an Islamist group that has claimed responsibility for other attacks in India and they wanted to release some of their partners from the custody of Indian investigation cells.
            Shah (2009) criticizes Pakistan government as the international community, UN and Indian Govt. believed the involvement of ISI and Jihadist group in Mumbai attacks, Pakistani Govt. also responded positively by banning the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, freezing their bank accounts and arresting their leaders. She wants to say that Pakistan is proving itself the root cause of this carnage. Hamid (2008) wants to highlight some crucial facts about terrorism in front of the people and government of India and Pakistan as well as in front of the world. He explains that the terrorists know very well about the history of Pakistan and India and they want to create a fuss between these two countries again with the help of such mourned terrorism. He further relates the conditions of the residents of Mumbai and Islamabad after the Mumbai attacks and the prolonged stand off at Islamabad’s Red Mosque respectively. He admits that Pakistan and India are not the same but the parallels are remarkable, like rivers, language and history, terrorism ties both countries together. He suggests that wisdom lies however in realizing that India and Pakistan are united by sorrow and unity between these countries from this mourned terrorism.
            Burke (2008) beckoned towards an important point that the tactics and style of attack shacked the minds of experts or analysists, as they were rather different from Al-Qaeda’s method. He also says that the range of culprits is large but the chance of homegrown insurgency is larger than the external links. Sanghvi (2008) digs out three preliminary points of Mumbai attack. Firstly he blames the worst intelligence services, which had no idea that an attack was being planned. He suggests that one of the country’s spymaster should have offered to resign. Secondly he mentions the principal targets were the American and British passport holders and the Israelis and Jews, which signify the continuing global Jihad. Clearly these terrorists were funded armed and trained by global jihadi forces. Thirdly, the terrorists wants to realize the world that they can go everywhere an can do anything in the world. Striking at the heart of prosperous and largely peaceful America is equal to striking the heart of India, it had seems India’s 9/11.
            Phares (2009) raises few points in his global analysis as part of a panel held in the US. Congress to review Mumbai attacks. First of all, he talks about the “Architecture” of the attack, he says that perpetrator used the name of “Deccan Mujahedeen” referring to the previous attack by the “Indian Mujahedeen”. An Indian statement indicated that there are a large number of Indian Mujahedeen still on the loose after the arrests of October 2008. He is of the view that the perpetrators used the name of that specific group/region to blame its future, if there will be any atrocity occurring again, as the misuse of Al-Qaeda’s name. But on the other had evidence shows the link to Islamabad. Secondly, he says that it scams to be a home grown terrorism but if you project the operation indicators, it would lead you to the logic that a great strategic “war room” had been involved and it was not just a task of local jihadist but the international terrorism agencies were involved in it like Taliban and Al-Qaeda, while the execution was perpetrators by the Lashkar-e-Taiba.
            Due to the long Run Goal as he raised it at the third point, he elaborate two main goals of the attackers that want to worsen the Indo-Pak relations and to capture the attention of the world towards other issues like Kashmir and Waziristan. Taliban stated in a press release we will defend Pakistan from an attack by India Meaning to ashamed Islamabad to discontinue its operation in Baluchistan, and it might be the atrocity of Lashkar-e-Taiba to relieve Kashmiries from Indian brut ness by realizing India’s govt. that how much Kashmir is bleeding, as Mumbai was wounded on November 26, 2008. He further stated that some of the US intelligences have dismissed an involvement by Al-Qaeda, He says Al-Qaeda was not fully involved in these attacks but it was strengthening the back of terrorists. Corera (2008) analysis the methods or scale of Mumbai attack and meets to a consequent that they were totally changed from the previous attacks like bomb explosion / explosive of public places. He tells that a group named “Deccan Mujahedeen” has claimed that responsibility but a very little community know about it Corera raises another point that the prey of terrorists were the elites and the tourist specifically. They specially targeted five star hotels, pubs, Orthodox Jewish Center, hospitals, and station, as they wanted to create panic especially in such elite society the authorities have pointed the finger at the students of “Islamic Movement of India” or little bit confused about the “Hindu Nationalist Group”. He is of the view that if India does point the finger at Pakistan then major diplomatic problems could ensure.
            In an interview with Newsweek’s Tom Watson, Fareed Zakaria, editor of News Week International and a Mumbai native, speaks about the attacks and the political and social landscape in which they occurred. He believed that there will be a lot of Indians involved and that this will generate a lot of domestic outrage. He also mentioned that there were many more distinctly American targets (in the city) but the terrorist chose only Indian five star hotels and public places which shows the complexes and inferior of Indians Muslims or Indians only (lower class or minorities of the state), This proves a lot of Indians were involved in these attacks. He further told that Muslim population has not shared in the boom, which the country has enjoyed over the past decade. There is still a lot of institutional discrimination and many remain persecuted, It seems to be a home grown activity or more probably it might be the wreath of Kashmiries as they have ravaged by India.
            Roggio (2008) analyzed the previous international terror strikes with the recent Mumbai attacks and he met the result that these attacks are uniquely different from the past attacks. He says that the attack of this nature cannot be planned in one day but requires proper training, scouting, financing and a support network to aid the fighters. India is of the opinion stated that Pakistan is a hub of Jihadist activities in South Asia that’s why it is fully involved in this atrocity. Witness as have described that fighters entered by the sea side, fair skinned and tall wearing jeans and jackets, and used automatic rifles, hand grenades and some machine guns, as well as several car bombs have showed their proportion. Police official admitted they were “overwhelmed” by the attacks and unable to contain the fighting. 200 national security guards, commandos, a number of elite Naval commandos, as well as the unknown number of Army forces were deployed to Mumbai and they successfully controlled this assault after a long operation.
            A report indicates that one of the jihadis made a call to a news station demanding Jihadis be released from the prison in exchange of the hostages. His actual words were we want all Mujahedeen held in India released and only after that we will release the people. He is of the view that Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan fully supported the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Harkat-ul-Jihad al Islami to destabilize India and wage war in Kashmir.
            Kingsbury (2008) finds lessons from the deadly Mumbai attacks to overhaul the Indian security services / forces specially the police force as initial news reports told that some armed police officers hid rather than shot at the attackers others were simply outgunned and they failed to free the hostages after two hours of attack. He further explains another reason of these attacks that it might be the atrocity of Indian politicians as it is a common tactic used by different political parties near the elections and propagate the ruling government.
            Kingsbury tells that sometimes the response is more important than the actual incident or assault and therefore attacks aroused the public, televised designed to force the Indian people to demand a response from their government to stop the violate of rights of minorities or Muslims of India and Kashmir. Chomsky (2004) suggests, “Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism, well, there’s a really easy way; stop participating in it”.
            Tellis (2009) wanted to the world realize world that the bloodbath of 26 November 2008, in Mumbai was not the assault of home grown militants. He clearly raises the finger at Pakistan and Kashmir, specially pointing out the Lashkar-e-Taiba whose wider goals threaten not only secular India but also the west and even Pakistan itself. A report indicates that these fighters hijacked a fishing trawler (the Kuber) on the high seas with the help of “Pakistan Marine Agency” upon reaching India’s territorial waters, transferred to inflatable speedboats, which landed at a different location than the city shore from where the assaults began. Tellis finds a reason that achievement of India of becoming a peaceful, prosperous, multi-ethnic and secular democratic state is a big hurdle in the way of Islamic preaching and jihad against non-Muslims. India’s collaboration with the US and war on terrorism is the root cause of these attacks. As he quoted the words of (LET’s) Lashkar-e-Taiba’s leader Hafiz Saeed “Lost Muslim Lands”, their purpose is to search pure Muslim and Muslim states in the world. He says that it is an attempt to cripple India’s economic growth, and destroy national confidence in its political system. He further found that violence is emphatically not directed at remedying the grievances of India’s Muslims or resolving the dispute over Kashmir.

           

                   STUDIES RELATED TO THE CULTURAL DIFFERENTIAL THEORY

Elfenbein, Ambadly (2003), discuss the different cultures that the member of same culture can easily judge the emotions of each other as compared to the different culture group. People of different culture while watching the media/movies of another culture, can easily understand much of their original feelings, and perceive much negative things as media has shown. They further say that the expression of emotion is largely universal but there is subtle difference across culture that can create a challenge for effective communication.
            Galtung (1992), examines the geographical and cultural effect on international news coverage in US media. He finds that media have a power to change the public opinion according to its own policies, about the different regions in the world. Malik (2006), tells another fact that the dough/raw of the reporters or editors rises from their own societies and they portrayal different regions or countries according to their own tradition, policies or ideology at mass level. Griffin (2006), explains that mass media have a power to maintain the image or culture of powerful people and countries and spoil the poor and powerless.
            Baran (2004), highlights the fact of labeling natives of specific region with special words, due to the negative portrayal by western media like “extremists, militants etc (If Muslim). These labels will conjure up stereotypes in the minds of those who use and hear it. Cultural difference theory is more focused on the microelements of people lives and communities and Bolima (2009), reveals in her article “context for understanding: Educational learning theories” that Erickson (1976) used the term “micro ethnography” to describe technique of situation specific analysis and with the help of this technique he examined “naturally occurring interaction” in public.
            Van Dijk (1996) says that uses of emotional words, sentences & phrases reflect the ideology or culture of reporters and broadcasters in their articles and coverage’s, which illustrate the ideological biasness of the media.Said (1997), explains that the orthodox representation of Islam/Pakistan by western media and portrayal it extremist, fundamentalist is a keen example of culture difference. Mughees (1995), is of the view that the western media is trying to create a conflict between Islam & Christianity by representing Islam as a non-tolerate religion and Christianity as a tolerant one.            

                                                 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study explores how the international magazines portrayed the image of Pakistan after the 26/11 terrorist incidents in Mumbai 2008. The literature review establishes that the orthodox representation of Pakistan by Western media is based upon the culture difference, as people know about Pakistan as a hub of militants, extremists and brutality, the international media reconsider it in same manners.
            However Pakistan has been playing a vital role against terrorism after 9/11. With this is mind, it is possible that Pakistan may be presented favorably or it may be portrayed unfavorably due to the stereotype or it may be neutral. The above literature led to the development of the following question.

                                                       RESEARCH QUESTIONS
RQ1:   How Pakistan image was portrayed in Newsweek, The Time & The Economist after Mumbai attacks 2008?
RQ2:   What was the stance of these magazines towards Pakistani image after Mumbai attacks 2008?

                                                                HYPOTHESIS
To answer these questions, the following hypothesis is advanced, based on what is known from the literature review about the cultural difference theory.
Ho: Newsweek, The Time and the Economist portrayed Pakistani image positively after Mumbai attacks November 2008.

                                                                   METHOD
This study is primarily a content analysis, examining the image of Pakistan’s in the Newsweek, the Time and the Economist after Mumbai attack Nov 2008.
            Articles play an important role to make communication effective. Western media use this tool for opinion making of public, high officials and policy makers. The data of this research study includes all articles of three selected magazines from November 26th, 2008 to February 15th, 2009. The database provided 6, 3 and 9 articles for the Newsweek, The Time and The Economist respectively, given the small number of articles and census was conducted.
                                                                 Coding Unit
Each paragraph of the article was coded in terms of slant paragraph which indicates positive changes and development in war on terrorism nuclear non-proliferation, religious harmony, domestic or international politics, economics, art culture, peace promotion activities, initiative taken for peace process with India and signing agreements with other countries leading to peace an progress, were coded as favorable. On the other hand, paragraph which reflected non-cooperation in war on terror, reluctance in peace promoting efforts, involvement in supporting terrorist activities, natural accidents and disasters, nuclear proliferation, religious disharmony/conflict, infiltration and militancy in Kashmir, Chaos and Anarchy, and political, economic and social unrest and conflicts were coded as unfavorable. Paragraphs, which did not depict either favourable or unfavourable slant, were coded as neutral.
 
                       RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE THREE MAGAZINES
According to the Wikipedia Newsweek, the second largest American weekly magazine distributed throughout United State and internationally, published in four English languages and 12 global editions. As of 2003, the circulation of Newsweek is more than 4 million, including 2.7 million the U.S.
Having 3.4 million circulation/year The Time is similar to the Newsweek, an American Newsmagazine having same fame and significance internationally.
Since September 1843, The Economist targets highly educated reader and claim an audience containing may influential executives and policy makers, having 1.3 million circulations per issue according to 2007.

                                                                     FINDINGS

In this study, there were 19 articles analyzed, 6 (31.5%) in the Newsweek,
4(21.05%) in The Time and 9(47.3%) in The Economist, about the Pakistani image after Mumbai attacks November 26th, 2008.
The international press has been chosen as a sample to study the Pakistani image in the international world. Hypothesis Ho suggests that the Newsweek, The Time and The Economist portrayed Pakistani image positively after Mumbai attacks November 26th 2008.

Distribution of slant in selected magazines 

Magazine	Favorable N(%)	Unfavorable N(%)	Neutral N(%)	Total N(%)
Newsweek	0 (0%)	2 (33.3%)	4 (66.6%)	6 (100%)
The Time	0 (0%)	3 (75%)	1 (25.3%)	4 (100%)
The Economist	0 (0%)	3 (33.3%)	6 (66.6%)	9 (100%)
Total	0 (0%)	8 (42.11%)	11 (57.89%)	19 (100%)

      

The findings of the study showed that the international press did not have soft gesture, towards Pakistan. In Newsweek there were total 6 articles studied during the given time period, in which 2(33.3%) were negative towards Pakistan and 4(66.6%) were natural. The time magazine published 4 articles about the issue in which 3(75%) was negative towards Pakistan, 1(25%) neutral and not a single one positive to Pakistan.
            The economist published total 9 articles in which 3(33.3%) negative to Pakistan 6(66.6%) neutral and no one positive.
            The study described that these entire three magazines had a highly negative stance towards Pakistan. They had harsh attitude towards Pakistan side and supporting arguments for India. In this regard findings of the study do not support the hypothesis.            

           

RQ1: How Pakistani image was portrayed in Newsweek, the time & the economist after Mumbai attack 2008?
Generally, the Pakistani image was portrayed negatively in Newsweek, the time and the economist in the context of Mumbai attacks. The international media was not willing to accept even listen Pakistani point of view. They used hard language to tarnish Pakistani image. The negative statement of Indian officials was given more weight age but on the other side the Pakistani point of view was not heard by internationally.
RQ2: What was the stance of these magazines towards Pakistani image after Mumbai attacks 2008?
The language and the stance of the magazines were not supportive towards Pakistan. Pakistani image was propagated in negative manner. Not a single article was written in these magazines to support Pakistan. It seemed that entire international press had turned negative towards Pakistan.
The overall results depicted that there were total 19 article analyzed in Newsweek, the time and the economist and there were 8(42.11%) negative, 11(57.89%) were neutral and no one was positive towards Pakistan.

           

                                                                      DISCUSSION
            It is proved by several research studies that cultural difference can easily distress someone’s image whether it is a nation or a country. As reviewed by researcher media have a power to make or distort the image of anyone (Galtung, 1992; Malik, 2005; Griffin, 2006; Said, 1997; et. Al). This study finding proves the cultural difference theory.
            International media generally portray third world countries negatively by focusing on stories on crime, disasters, conflicts and failure of governments. The image of Pakistan is highly affected by international media after 9/11 although the former president of Pakistan Parvaiz Musharaf struggled desperately to survive his country’s image but due to the cultural difference the international media have been portraying Pakistan as a “foe” of ach every religion/country. Since 9/11the results of the study are more often covered neutrally than unfavorably and more often framed as a “foe” than a friend, because of the writers, which belongs to the different cultures. Their dough rises from their region, in other words. They are forced by their orthodox beliefs. Which are already exists inside them. Obviously when they want to write something, the negative impression about Pakistan comes first in their minds and they don’t have a soft corner for Pakistan.
            Most of the international writers of this sample are Indians and rest of the British and Americans. Due to the cultural difference their stance towards Pakistan is more over neutral and then negative.
            Most of the negative words and impression used by those writers for Pakistan are “Distrusted place”, “Attackers came from next door-Pakistan”, “International migraine”, “The most dangerous country in the world”, “Launch pad for militants”, Islamic fundamentalist state.
            And specific words for Muslims are “dire people”, “Cynical handlers”, “Illiterate fanatics”, “Extremist group”, “Islamic warrior force”, “Fundamental guerrillas”, “Brutality of Muslims”. The frequent use of such polarizing language in the articles examined suggests a stereotypical mindset.
            More often the results show neutral stance, after studying the sample its quite evident that the Indian politics might be the root cause of this atrocity. Politicians have been using these tactics for centuries to degrade the running government, its policies and progress. Sample as it might be the Indian opposition party, which exaggerated and distorted the facts and added fuel to the fire to win the votes from public for the upcoming elections that would be held on May 2009. They showed running Govt. incapable to fight against terrorism. Some of the writers blamed the current Indian policies. Weak security and armed forces and some blamed Indian intelligence services, which they want to resign from their designations.
            A few evidence shows that it might be the insurgency of “home grown militants”, but the Indian high officials deny them. They directly hit the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) for this siege. They also blamed the Jaish-e-Muhammad and Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JUD), the Islamic religious groups that have banned by the former president Parvaiz Musharaf after 9/11.
            Indian Govt. clearly blamed Pakistan for this strike but some of the so-called efforts by America pressurized India to change his views, that it may be the “enemy” of the whole world.
            Overall the findings support the cultural difference theory advanced by (Galtung, 1992; Malik, 2006; Griffin, 2006; Said, 1997; et. Al). The results indicate a general bias against Muslims and Pakistan by international writers.

                                                                    REFERENCES

Abbas, Hassan. (2002), ‘Musharaf is best bet for the United States”. Association of Pakistani professionals. Reterived on 2/14/2007 from www.aopp.org/globe-ha1.htm

Adeney, Katharine. (2008), “Bad News Makes Headlines: Security challenges posed by Pakistan’’ ISBN. Institute of Public Policy Research Retrieved on 3/4/09 from http:// www.ippr.org/publications and reports/publication. asp? Id=582.

Baran, Stanley J. (2004), Introduction to Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture. 3rd edition. New York:  Mc Graw Hill Company

Bolima, Donna.(2009),  “Context for understanding Educational Learning Theories.” Retrieved on 4/22/2009 from http://staff.washington.edu/saki/strategies/101/new_Page_5.htm

Burke, Jason. (2008), “What do the Mumbai attacks means globally” Daily Times, Friday November 28.

Chomsky, Noam. (2004), Power and Terror, Post 9/11 Talk and interview. Lahore: Vanguard Books (Pvt) Ltd.

Clifford, Geertz. (1973), The Interpretation of cultures. Basic Books, New York.

Corera, Gorden. (2008), “Mumbai attacks show tactic changed”, Daily Times Friday November 28th.

Encyclopedia Britannica         3. Retrieved on 2006-08-11.

Elfenbein, Hillary Anger and Ambady, Nalini. (2003), Universal and cultural Difference in Recognizing Emotions.  Blackwell Publishing Inc.

Ernst, Carl W. (2000), American Media and Islam. Business Record.

Galtung, J. and Vincent, Richard C. (1992), Global Glasnost-Towards a New World. Information and Communication order, New Jersey: Hampton Press. Inc.

Griffin, Em. (2006), A First Look at Communication Theory. New York: Mc Graw Hill Company

Hamid, Mohsin. (2008), “India and Pakistan are bound by sorrow,” Dawn Lahore, Sunday November 30.

Harris, M. (1983), Cultural Anthropology New York: Harper & Row.

Hess, Stephen and Kalb, Marvin. (2004), The Media and the War on Terrorism. Oxford University Press.

International Crisis Group-Pakistan (2009), retrieved on 3/4/2009 from www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1267&1=1

Jamil, Fariha. (2008), “Elevating Pakistan’s Global Image through International Events”. Instablogs Retrieved on 3/4/2009 from http://farha.instablogs.com/entry/elevating-pakistan-s-global-image-through-internationals-events.

Karim, K.H. (2000), The Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence, Montreal: Black Rose Books.

Khan, Dr. Sultan. (2004-05), A study of International Relations Page 497. Famous Books Lahore.

Kingsbury, Alex. (2008), “Five Lessons from the deadly Mumbai Terrorist Attacks as suspicions focus on Pakistani group, new conclusions arise about effectiveness of low-tech plots”. US News and World Report Retrieved on 2/28/2009 from http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/12/01/5-lessons-from-the-deadly-mumbai-terrorist-attack.htm ? Page Nr = 1.

Malik, Mustafa. (2006), “Covering Islam Begins on op-ed page”, Masthead, 58 (2), 10.

Mugess-uddin. (1995), “Image of Iran in the Western media cited in Noshina, Saleem  (2007), “US Media Framing of Foreign Countries Image: An Analytical Perspective”, Canadian Journal of Media Studies, 2 (1), 130-162 Retrieved on August 12, 2007 from http://cjms.fims.uwo.ca/issues/02-01/index.html.

Mumbai Attacks-Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2008), retrieved on 2/12/2009 from http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_attacks Murthy, Raja (2008), “Mumbai’s night of terror”. The Post, November 28.
Nazarul, Dr. Islam. (2005), Islam 9/11 and Global Terrorism. Islam Viva Books Private Ltd. New Delhi Mumbai.

N.S. Gehlot and Satsangi, Anu. (2004), Twist and Turns from Partition to Agra summit and beyond. Deep Deep publication Pvt. Ltd.

Phares, Walid. (2009) “Strategic analysis of the Mumbai attacks: Few points to project”. CounterterrorismBlog Retrieved on 03-31-2009 from http://counterterrorsimblog.org/2009/02/strategic_analysis_of_the_mumb.php.

Rafique, Najam. (2006),“Pakistan US Relations since 9/11 chronology of events”. Retrieved on 03-26-2009 from http://www.issi.org.pk

Roggio, Bill. (2008), “Analysis: Mumbai attack differs from past terror strikes”. LongWarJournal Retrieved on 02-28-2009 from http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/11/analysis_mumbai_ata.php.

Said, Edward W. (1997), Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine. How we see the rest of the world, New York: Vintage Books.

Sanghvi, Vir. (2008), “Worst Intelligence Failure”. The Nation, Sunday November 29.

Shah, Faiza. (2009), “Hope Amid the carnage”, News Line, January.

Silberstein, Sandra. (2002), Language, Polities and 9/11 War of words. Routledge publishers.

Sloan, Stephen. (2006), The present threat in context terrorism. Berg publication.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. (2000), 4th edition. Houghton Miffin Company.

Van Dijk, T. (1996), Opinions and Ideologies in editorials, International Symposium of critical Discourse Analysis, Language, Social Life and critical thought, Athens.

Webster’s Dictionary (1975)

Zakaria, Fareed. (2008), “I doubt the involvement of Al-Qaeda in Mumbai attacks”. Daily Times, November 28.

 

                                                                 ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Muhammad Ashraf Khan, (PhD) is the Chairman of the Department of Mass Communication, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan

Fatima Imran, is Research Associate in the Department of Mass Communication, Bahauddin Zakariya University,  Multan, Pakistan.