The Malala moment: 6 Pakistani views on the girl shot by the Taliban

3. 'We are not Malala, we may be the Taliban'

While the English-language media in Pakistan unified around Malala, some push back bubbled up across the country's social media. Conservative religious parties have grown more sophisticated at seeding strident – and sometimes purposely deceptive – viewpoints over Facebook, Twitter, and SMS that would never make it past the journalistic elite. But some Pakistani media watchdogs are also getting better at publicizing and shaming some of the vitriol.

An excellent example is this roundup of social media commentary on Malala:

Within hours of the attack, a select group of Pakistanis started creating the ideological space that allows terrorists the upper hand. It would be hard to imagine how a counter narrative could be built around the gunning down of a child, but there it was, coming from our politically charged youth, our parties, our ultra-nationalists and religio-political parties, our extremist/banned organisations and yes, our relatives, peers and friends.

The writer posts numerous screenshots from Facebook of the "counter narrative." Some of the screenshots draw a comparison between Malala and Aafia Siddiqui, a terrorist suspect sentenced by the US to 86 years in prison for trying to kill her interrogators.

The case enrages many Pakistanis who believe she's an innocent, faithful Muslim. In one image, an arrow points from Dr. Siddiqui to an open Quran and another arrow pointing from Malala to President Obama. The text reads: "Dr Aafia’s ideal and Malala’s idea – Obama. Which one would you pick? Aafia’s or Malala’s? Think and answer, it’s a matter of faith."

The author also claims there's a coordinated effort among political parties to pin the blame on the CIA for the shooting, rather than the Taliban.

3 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.