onflict, disagreement and ultimately war are known to give an adrenaline rush to the media. During these challenging times, factual information becomes the most critical commodity. These situations are considered to be of major news value, utmost public importance and interest due to their security implications. Hence, journalists like me find war irresistible. For some, this is the time to thrive and make a mark.

Ever since the Kargil clash of the late 1990s, war has been brought to our homes directly. For both the Pakistani and Indian media, it was their first experience of covering a real war. Paul Virilio, a French cultural theorist, architect and aesthetic philosopher, suggests: “The history of battle is primarily the history of radically changing fields of perception.” This is the more important realisation that has dawned on our rulers. Wars today are first fought on screens then anywhere else.

In our case, hysteria comes before the actual war. The Pahalgam attack vividly reminded us of this, again. India, led by a hardline Bhartiya Janta Party, wanted blood in revenge. Their media followed suit. Guns were pointed from that day on through the media. Pakistan had no other choice but to be on the defensive. Media in both nations fell in line with their official narratives. There was hardly any option for the media and they did not bother looking for any. Neutrality is hard to find these days.

On a lighter note, war hysteria, ironically, seems to be good for some people’s mental health. For some brief remit in such uncertain times, people get more focused, more united. They forget many internal ills, forget our perennial problems, indulge less in divisive politics and get united against the perceived enemy: in Pakistan, this was India. The national media also looks away from the astronomical climbs of the stock exchange; the falling prices of commodities and the ongoing efforts to cleanse the country of war-ravaged Afghans and other immigrants. War was what we feared, tried to avoid and ultimately had to face over the last few weeks.

War, no doubt, is a dirty scary business. War hysteria often involves exaggerated language, dramatic imagery and emotionally charged rhetoric, designed to evoke fear and alarm in the public. “We ran our new army war song on all Indian digital channels, despite the Indian ban. We are winning the information war,” claimed a beaming Federal Minister for Information Atta Tarar, on the floor of the National Assembly, ahead of the bloody clash. It felt like oversimplified warfare. For once, getting to run a propaganda song was considered a resounding success.

But the idea of a communication war before any actual fighting should be to make the nation mentally ready, not confused, drained or scary. Constant hysteria in the media can have detrimental effects. It can lead to heightened anxiety and annoyance and create a sense of fear. In some cases, it may lead to boredom, so that people do not comprehend the magnitude of the problem.

With media both in India and Pakistan taking a sensational nationalistic stance, a rational discussion about possible solutions becomes daunting. In fact, we have made the possibility of war a comical theme for our memes. The possibility of war then dilutes amid this fun-seeking constant mayhem.

Constant hysteria in the media can have detrimental effects. It can lead to heightened anxiety, annoyance and create a sense of fear.

TV news channels in Pakistan and India, too, have mostly failed to develop a niche for themselves by narrowing on their unique focus or utility. Hence, more than 40 news channels all look the same. They all harp the same tune. One-package official reports fed to all TV channels cause confusion and erode public trust in TV channels. Hardly any original news coverage is seen. Media gets dependent on spoon-feeding and doesn’t strive for its own excellence.

The media in both countries focuses on immediate events and potential dangers but neglects the broader context and long-term implications of a conflict or its solution. When public opinion is dominated by fear and negativity, it becomes harder to find creative and collaborative solutions to conflict. All stakeholders – whether the government, military or politicians – should communicate a consistent message to avoid confusion and speculation. In Pakistan, the main opposition party, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, is almost mute. This has deprived the people of a second opinion. The only message that is clear is that: war is coming and we are ready. But what afterwards?

The general perception here is that, God forbid if at all, it will be a brief skirmish. Irish writer and journalist Robert Lynd once wrote: “The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions.” What if, unfortunately, it gets prolonged? Are we ready for it? What would it take to be ready for both short and long wars?

Media leaders in both countries are already fighting their own wars to regain lost trust. Sensationalised reporting and bias can undermine public trust at this sensitive time. All government resources are, however, being spent on what officials think needs to be told in their bizarre un-journalistic way. Propaganda is an art. Tailoring messages to resonate with different demographics can enhance effectiveness while minimising backlash.

Electronic media needs to regain its independence, both financial and editorial. It mostly thrives on government funding, but it now needs to be wholly transparent. Taxpayers should know who is being paid, for what and what the amount is, so they can then question the coverage. Ideally, the civil society should undertake such oversight.

The European Media Freedom Act, slated to come into force this year, provides a model. It includes transparency requirements for aid distribution, obliges member states to guarantee the editorial independence of newsrooms and mandates safeguards against political pressure. Other countries, such as Canada, have also established frameworks combining tax credits and subsidies while ensuring editorial independence.

By prioritising truth, encouraging balanced perspectives and promoting ethical standards, propaganda can be used as a tool for positive change rather than division. In the context of Pakistan, where tensions can escalate quickly, thoughtful management can contribute to a more peaceful and united nation.

Parting thought: Any war is violent enough. So why does every breaking news have to be announced in an aggressive tone? Why can’t bad news be broken in a civilised manner? How can adding more noise make the news more appealing? The only apparent reason is the competition for more eyeballs.

The writer, a journalist for 33 years, has been an editor at the BBC in Pakistan for over two decades. Currently, he is the managing editor at Independent Urdu