Did the media fail Akmal Shaikh?
Two cousins of a British man executed by Chinese authorities have accused the UK government and media of failing to come to his aid. Akmal Shaikh received a lethal injection on Tuesday, sparking outrage and disgust across Britain after it was revealed that the North Londoner suffered from bipolar disorder. But the letter sent by Shaikh’s relatives to the Guardian uncovers a startlingly inconvenient truth: little was done to help Shaikh until his final hours.
Amina and Ridwan Shaikh believe their cousin could have been saved were it not for the tepid response from the UK government in the lead-up to his death. They also say that the media ignored Akhmal’s case until it was too late.
They told the Guardian: “We were shocked that apart from Sky News, his case received only sporadic media attention during his two years in prison. Only when news was released of his imminent execution did it get the coverage it deserved. Wouldn’t more media attention at an earlier stage have applied more pressure to the Chinese authorities? Wasn’t this lack of coverage an injustice in itself?”
The incident draws on a number of questions about the role of the media. Should the press function as an international pressure cooker? Was it the media’s job to publicise Shaikh’s case from the moment of his arrest? And would this have forced the hand of the British government?
In April 2009 at the London G20 protests, it was chiefly the work of one investigative journalist, Paul Lewis, who brought to light the inconsistencies surrounding the controversial death of Ian Tomlinson at the hands of the Metropolitan police. Were it not for the pressure applied by the Guardian in the case of Tomlinson, it is unlikely that the full extent of the police crackdown would have ever reached the public. But despite these efforts, there is also little evidence to suggest that much will be done differently in protests to come.
It is difficult to measure with any certainty the power wielded by the press to evoke policy change, and whether this is in fact the media’s responsibility at all. As ‘neutral’ observers journalists are not activists. Agenda-driven journalism poses the threat of skewing the reality presented to the public. And networks that are brazenly ideological (ahem…Fox news) soon lose their credibility.
But this argument has little bearing on whether or not the information should be distributed. The arrest of Shaikh was certainly a matter of public interest in Britain, and postponing coverage until a few days before his execution arguably reflects a failure on the part of the UK media to fulfil its obligation to the public.
There is nothing to suggest that the media would have changed the course of events; as with the arrest of Charter 08 activist Liu Xiaobo it is becoming clearer by the day that an economically confident China has no need to bow down to western pressure . But this is not the point. There is no reward system in the thankless task of journalism, there is only responsibility. And failure to act on it carries with it far more worrying implications than the failure to achieve results by doing so.
Tags: Akmal Shaikh, Amina and Ridwan Shaikh, Britian, China, execution, Guardian letter, Ian Tomlinson, London G20, media, Paul Lewis, press, public interest
