{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028366150404988646, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011183786898024198, 'mean_word_length': 4.938418192795331, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pakistan as Frontline State in War on Terror: Framing Analysis of the New York Times

• Abstract • Introduction • Objectives of the Study • Research Questions • Methodology • Analyzing Focus Group Data • Conclusion • Recommendations • References Abstract: In 2001, the world witnessed the historical event of 9/11. For Counter terrorism, Pakistan fully supports the US after the incident of 9/11. Previous research studies have shown that most events in favor of US Policies portrayed by Western media, mostly the US media. They highlighted the perspective of the US government, war justifications and planned military campaign, while the implications of the war on terror were given a small amount of attention. This research, therefore, focuses on the analysis of the role of Pakistan in the war against terror by British and US newspapers and how the international media framed Pakistan's image. This research study is carried out to evaluate the role of international media, particularly the print media played during the war on terror from 2011 to 2015. It applies the content method to obtain the result. The editorials were retrieved using Lexis Nexis.


Introduction
The world's political structure was jolted by four synchronized attacks on the United States on 9/11, and it experienced a drastic transition and a new aspect of affairs. On 20 September, 2001President George Bush make a speech to the US Congress and said, "we are a country awakened to danger a1112 and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution". He said that America had no more faithful acquaintance than Britain. He blamed these attacks on Al-Qaeda and vowed to wage war against terror. In addition, he also promised it would be a long one, too (Ali, 2011). A broad alliance against terrorism was established by the United States. The primary goal was to kill Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The US and NATO launched a massive invasion against Afghanistan's Taliban government on October 7, 2001, gaining fresh momentum (Atiya & Shahzad, 2015). Under the circumstances, Pakistan was significant because of its geographical position. Pakistan also shares a long border with Afghanistan, a landlocked nation. It related the war's success to the support of Islamabad, including the capture of fugitives from Al-Qaeda. For all sorts of assistance, the US pressurized Pakistan. President Musharraf of Pakistan, at the time, readily agreed to provide all kinds of assistance, and Islamabad joined the US-led alliance. Pakistan agonized severely in this battle (Noshina et al., 2013).

Literature Review
It is a fact that in order to protect its vested interests, Western Media adversely propagates against its enemies and even friends. Several studies have shown that it biases the role of the western media towards Muslims. As we are familiar with, in framing public opinion, the press and electronic media play a key role. This provides a foundation for policymakers. Wanta, Golan, and Lee (2003) say Washington favors any nation that is mostly covered by the US media (Wanta, Golan, & Lee, 2004). Two leading Newsweek and Times magazines reported negatively in a study by Ali (2012) that dozens of Muslim countries had less than negative coverage and positive coverage Ali (, 2012). Schwalbe (2006) states that photojournalists are rescued forces showing such images to support the US government and its soldiers, especially in Iraq (Schwalbe, 2006).
Media of the US forms content with a specific viewpoint to form public opinion and observation of various issues, as Abrahiman (2003) discovers that the majority of US media reported issues that were focused on Islam and culture. After September 11th, it overlooked key clashes comprising Palestine (Abrahamian, 2003). On an international level, the media is meant to construct and cultivate a nation's image. It is a very sensitive job to report on foreign culture because people are involved in viewing or reading and rely on media outfits because the issue is not personally faced by them. Any fake reporting has a deeply negative effect, so it should be given to impartial reporters to report on other nations and cultures (Saleem, 2007).
Newsweek and The Economist, two leading US media houses, portrayed Pakistan's negative role. After the Salala episode, they named their ally in the war against terrorism as a rival of their nation. Even the media's content framed Pakistan as a danger to Washington to its readers (Khan, 2014). It is observed that in conflict zones, the media portray situations to support US policy. In order to back Washington's official tone, news magazines published images of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the US (Griffin, 2004).
The media of developed countries has a greater impact when compared to less developed countries. With style, it cultivates its narrative to influence the global spectators in favor of the decisions of its governments. Indeed, framing is not a unilateral process, but there are more consequences for countries with more media resources. Western media are negatively demonstrating the superiority of their culture and society in third world countries (Tarasheva, 2014). Investment is interlinked with a country's batter mage. As soft roles and investments are intertwined with each other, the nation matters a lot. More and more investment may be attracted by the better role. The creation of portrayals is a composite media procedure, and numerous countries are trying to improve their image in the world. This is why nations use the media to represent peace in order to enhance their appearance (Kunczik, 2001). In their articles about "War on Terror", The US. Time tarnished the portrayal role of Pakistan in the war against terror and The Economist newspapers. This established that in all the press articles, the American strategies were detectable. In addition, the daily Economist highlighted not only the "War on Terror," which created space for other issues related to Pakistan's Global Mass Communication Review (GMCR) military. Fighting with the Haqqani Network, the Judicial Crisis, and the Memogate scandal are the problems. The other issues highlighted in the paper conclude that the war on terror has not been effectively managed (Zafar & Zareen, 2014).
The attitude of the Western media against developing countries is fatal and can damage reform efforts. It covered Uzbekistan from its perspective and, for twenty hours, ignored the complete picture of that country. In their reports and articles, the media in Europe and the US show a lack of objectivity. However, positive events in Uzbekistan were reported by the Asian media (Alimov, 2016). Adversarial perception creates obstacles to conflict resolution between developed and less developed regions because action on mass media input is being taken at a global level. In order to create a positive global representation, news channels are important stakeholders (Mohammadi, Robert & Ugboajah, 1985).
In light of Islamabad's recent security force operations against terrorists, a research study discusses Pakistan's position in the US and Chinese news media. In shaping people's views, the news media is repeatedly said to serve as a dominant regulator. The events occur in other countries where the most public, such as foreign affairs, do not have prior knowledge. It is also recognized that by publicizing the public interest, the doubt factor over the controllability of events prevails in the news network by campaigners and the government. For example, the US media provided Israel with favorable coverage, although Jerusalem remained in the news on a regular basis owing to violence and turbulence in the Middle East. The image of Israel is positively and sympathetically projected by the US media. On the other side, the sympathies of the European Union are linked to the Palestinians (Salman, 2015).
In her writing Global approaches to Terrorism, Yasmeen (2004) describes that the incident of 9/11 places Islamabad at the center of international geopolitics. Pakistan appeared in the war as a midpoint of strength for the US-led coalition. Resulting, Pakistan received international, political, and economic support, which ended Pakistan's isolation instead of a failed state. This book explained the internal resistance of Pakistan's government to join the hand in the war on terrorism. The government of President Gen Pervez Musharraf ended its support of the Taliban regime and joined the US-led team. Based on changed realities in Afghanistan, the Pakistan government re-adjusted its foreign policy. However, the Islamists' simmering anger has created some risks that undermine Pakistan's stability (Yasmeen, 2004).
Because both sides of the media focus on bilateral ties and the nature of understanding, image building is two-way traffic. The press also plays an important role in Pakistan in influencing public views regarding rivals and friends. Rafique (2013) found that Pakistan's top four Urdu and English newspapers advised readers that the United States is an enemy rather than a comrade of Islamabad's (Muhammad, 2013). To consider other nations as friends and rivals, the US media works to pursue the administration's views. A study examining the content of "The New York Times" and "Washington Post" found that Pakistan's positive position is played by these two key US media outfits and is justified in promoting the views of US media officials to shape opinions (Shabir, Hussain, & Iqbal, 2014).
A post-9/11 study explores the theory of media conformity about the US role in Pakistan's elite daily editorials. It found that the media commonly pursues the foreign policy of a state and complies with it. Following the acquisition of the non-NATO alley status, it is proposed that Pakistan take a pro-US stance. In the post-9/11 scenario, the research fundamentally examined the US's portrayal of Pakistan's influential dailies. The study explores Pakistan's cooperation with the US against terror and how the Pakistani media reacted. The results of the study show, in the circumstances after 9/11, that Pakistani newspapers framed America's negative position. The finding does not agree with the concept of media enforcement here (Ashraf & Aasma, 2010).

1.
Whether and to what extent New York Times covered the war on terror in their editorials? 2. How did "The New York Times" portray Pakistan's engagement in the war on terror? 3 How the newspaper reflected the sacrifices of Pakistan's security forces?

Research Method
The method applied in this thesis is the technique of content analysis. That is a social phenomenon's scientific investigation. Walizer and Wiemer (1978) defined it as a systemic method intended to analyze the quality of recorded records, while Krippendorff (1980) defined it as an analysis methodology to render relevant data references (Javid, 2014). In this analysis, in New York Times editorials, the researcher discusses keyframes in the war coverage on terror. A five-year period from January 2011

Themes
Editorials on the war on terror have been reprinted four times to recognize the main themes regarding the role of Pakistan in the war on terror and to tackle research issues.

Unit of Analysis
"The unit of analysis is the item that was sincerely attempted. It was the smallest amount of a content examination. However, it remained an important part of the research. In published content, this unit may be referred to as a symbol, a subject, or complete" (Wimmer &Dominick, 2013). Paragraphs in all articles on Pakistan's issues and the war on terrorism have been calculated and reviewed. The study considered these editorials to be a study unit.

Universe
As the nature of this study work, editorials published in "The New York Times " on "War on Terror" happening from January 01, 2011, to December 30, 2015, was studied.

Sample
It is often referred to as a segment of the population that can reflect the whole population distinguished by occupation. It can sometimes demonstrate population sampling. The sample saves time, energy and resources (Yousaf, 2012). "The New York Times" selected to represent the powerful nation. Its editorials and notes have an international bearing on lives and viewpoints.

Sampling Technique
In editorials, whether the term war against terrorism or similar was included at once in the editorial, a preliminary sampling approach was used to research and examine the topic of nature as a sample.

Time Duration
A detailed analysis of written editorials was chosen for five years between 1 January 2011 and 30 December 2015 in " The New York Times." 2011 to 2015 remained the peak time of war on Global Mass Communication Review (GMCR) terror. Several key incidents occurred during the time.

Content Slant
The study adopted three slant categories to observe the editorials content of "The New York Times."

Favorable/Negative
Any paragraph is considered "Favorable" if its content remained positive about Pakistan's USled war on terror.

Unfavorable/Positive
The unfavorable section is considered if it portrayed the negative role of Pakistan in the war on terror.

Neutral/Impartial
The impartial editorial is considered if it reveals a balanced portrayal and not being specific nor against Pakistan's role in the war on terror.

Framing analysis of The New York Times
In any newspaper, the editorial has a central role. Sober readers are drawn to it. Editorial Compiled on a hot or burning issue. It publishes the editorial views of the publisher or editor. The editorial is considered a newspaper's voice" (Javid, 2014). "Colonel Robert W". McCormick describes it as "a newspaper is an entity and not a limb of a greater organization. Editorial is the product of an organization rather than the work of an individual" (Shabir, 2014). The researcher adopted both qualitative and quantitative method to analyze the articles of "TheNew York Times" from 01-01-2011 to 31-12-2015 published about the role of Pakistan in the war on terror. While for qualitative analysis, coverage was analyzed in term of slant, including favorable, unfavorable and neutral towards the role of Pakistan in the war on terror. For the quantitative part, the selective editorials were thoroughly reed out four times to identify the key themes of the editorials.

Discussion and Data Analysis
The New York Times provided enormous room for terrorism after the 9/11 episode. The study looked at the daily editorials on "War on Terror." The overall results are based on the agendasetting and framing analysis of 41 publishers every day.

Frequency of Published Editorials on War on Terror
During

Editorials Slant
In terms of neutral, positive and negative/unfavorable, all editorials printed about Pakistan's "War on Terror" stance is viewed as being negative/unfavorable. The researchers treated the editorial's entire story as a coding unit. A particular slant against Pakistan's participation in this war was given to the WoT issue. The soft policy of Pakistan to some Taliban groups was ridiculed by the media.

Figure 2: Slant of Editorials Regarding Pakistan's Engagement in WoT
Figure 02 indicates that 28 negative/unfavorable editorials were framed by "The New York Times" against "Pakistan's role in the war on terror." The daily contributed space to 10 unbiased editorials, while in support of Pakistan, it painted just 3 editorials. It is stated that the editorials in favor of the daily did not recognize the position and sacrifices of Pakistan. But it framed the words, "Pakistan now seems to be supporting Afghanistan's peace process" "The Pakistan government has tried broad countermeasures, including a mandate that is departing travelers be vaccinated at anti-polio stations along its borders" and "The recent talks, held in Pakistan, reportedly were positive" (Talks between US and Taliban).   The overall 68.30% unfavorable and critical editorials replicate the aggressive stance of the New York Times regarding Pakistan's involvement in this war.

Framing Analysis
For the qualitative part, 41 editorials were thoroughly read out four times on the war on terror to identify the key themes about Pakistan role in the terror war. A valuable data set to become available with the following major themes were identified by the researcher in addressing the research questions.

Pakistan Not a Trustworthy Ally
One of the key theme identified from the editorials during the study published by the New York Times framed "Pakistan a Faithless Ally". The daily quoted some Congress members asking"why the United States should continue to provide billions of dollars to such a faithless ally (Pakistan)". The daily criticized Pakistan that "instead of vowing to find out which officials were behind the scheme, (Bin Laden in Abbottabad). Pakistani's leader's military and a civilian have tried to deflect all blame and stoke more anti-Americanism". The daily reported that Pakistan is playing a dual game with the United States. Pakistan accepted American "counter-terrorist" assistance while also "sheltering and enabling some of the worst anti-American extremists".
The editorial categorically blamed that Pakistan has permitted Osama bin Laden on its soil. The daily reported that there are more terrorists in Pakistan while leaders of Pakistan publically rail against US drone strikes. The editorial also quoted a Pakistani journalist story published by the Daily Dawn as an example. "Could the self-appointed custodians of the national interest themselves be the greatest threat to national security?". The New York Times also quoted TV journalist Kamran Khan declared, "We have become the biggest haven of terrorism in the world". The editorial further urged the Obama administration "to take a harder look at military aid to Pakistan. The daily also showed concern over resolution adopted by Pakistan parliament condemning "the unilateral attack on Bin Laden as a violation of sovereignty and threatened to close American military supply route to Afghanistan if drone strikes are not halted."

Dubious Role in War on Terror
The daily directly blamed Pakistan that Osama bin Laden was sheltered in Abbottabad. The editorial stated that Pakistan's leaders welcome American "counter-terrorist" assistance while still sheltering many of the anti-American extremists and allowing them. However, we never believed that Osama bin Laden would be hiding in plain sight, a short distance from the top military academy in Pakistan and an hour's drive far from the capital city of Pakistan, Islamabad. Since then, Pakistan's conduct has only added to the anger." It is said that Osama Bin Laden was able to hide in Pakistan for so long."The daily framed "Bin Laden's death should be a warning to Taliban leaders and fighters that the United States is not giving up. The daily termed Bin Laden's death is an extraordinary moment for Americans and all who have lost Global Mass Communication Review (GMCR) loved ones in horrifying, pointless acts of terrorism". The daily, in its editorial "The Latest Ugly Truth about Pakistan", claimed that Pakistan's secret agency (ISI), Inter-Services Intelligence played a direct part in helping rebels who assaulted the American Embassy in Kabul, killing sixteen civilians. Furthermore, the daily reported that "with ISI support, the Haqqani network of terrorists planned and conducted an earlier truck bombing on a NATO outpost that killed 5 people and wounded 77 coalition troops, and other recent attacks." The New York Times asked Washington to suspend military aid to Pakistan. The daily reported that Pakistan is playing a double with the US in the war on terror.
In another editorial, it is said that "Pakistan has ignored the Obama administration's pleas to crack down on militants who cross from Pakistan to attack American forces in Afghanistan." The daily said that "General Allen demanded that Pakistan act against Afghan militants given safe haven by its security services, especially the Haqqani network, which is responsible for some of the worst attacks in Kabul". The New York Times stated in another editorial that "ending all military aid would be a grave mistake." This country has tried that with catastrophic results before. Washington was incensed by Pakistan's illegal nuclear program in the 1990s and no longer worried about post-Soviet Afghanistan, cutting off almost all support. The military of Pakistan and the rest of the country are still bitter about this. The newspaper categorically stated that the Pakistan army continues the double game. The daily said that Pak-Army accepted money from America while allowing the Afghan Taliban and the politicians remain paralyzed. It is said Pakistan received billions of dollars of aid from the US to conquest Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan.
Another editorial has declared that "the army has long played a double-game, taking American aid while supporting and exploiting various Taliban groups as a hedge against India and Afghanistan, and ignoring the peril that the militants have come to pose to Pakistan itself. The extent of cooperation among those groups in the tribal areas has made that game even riskier; the Pakistani military has long provided support for the Afghan-focused Taliban, even while trying to fight the Pakistani Taliban in recent years. Intelligence experts say the army is still collaborating with the Afghan Taliban in fighting the government in Kabul".
The New York Times was categorically in framing "Pakistan Fans the Flames" over the issues of the Salala attack by NATO that left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead. The newspaper stated that "Pakistan is refusing to help calm public fury or help figure out what led to a NATO attack". The editorials blamed Pakistan that "it has rejected American requests to participate in a joint investigation". The daily also criticized Pakistan decision to boycott a Global Conference in Bonn that laid strategies for the future of Afghanistan. The daily framed the moves as "self-defeating

Authoritarian Regime
The daily framed Pakistan political system is rising ever more dysfunctional. The editorial "Pakistan's Besieged Government" claimed that "Pakistan's civilian governments are typically short-lived and cast aside by military coups. This disastrous pattern could be repeating itself as the current civilian government comes under increasing pressure from the army and the Supreme Court." The daily quoted, "the standoff hardened when Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani fired his defense secretary, Naeem Khalid Lodhi, a retired general and confidante of the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and replaced him with a civilian, Nargis Sethi. Infuriated military officials said they might refuse to work with the new secretary and warned vaguely of serious ramifications with potentially grievous consequences after Mr. Gilani publicly criticized them in an interview." The editorial further said that "this sort of byzantine infighting is hardly uncommon in Pakistan. But a stable Pakistan is critical to America's interests in the region. The army should focus on what it can do best: fight the militants working to bring down the state and destabilize the region. For its part, the civilian government needs to deal with Pakistan's severe economic troubles and repair a political culture in which voices of moderation are increasingly snuffed out." The daily portrayed that unusual situation in Pakistan "would further polarize society, weaken the fragile democratic institutions and strengthen a powerful military. Which says it wants to be out of politics but has regularly staged coups and otherwise sought to control civilian governments for three decades?"

Pak Nuke Status as a Threat to Peace
In another editorial New York Times stated Pakistan Nuclear weapons as a threat to peace. They reported that "the ultimate nightmare, of course, is that the extremists will topple Pakistan's government and get their hands on the nuclear weapons." The editorial claimed that "American intelligence agencies believe Pakistan has between 95 and more than 110 deployed nuclear weapons, up from the mid-to-high 70s just two years ago." The daily suggested that "Washington could threaten to suspend billions of dollars of American aid if Islamabad does not restrain its nuclear appetites. But that would hugely complicate efforts in Afghanistan and could destabilize Pakistan". About Pakistan Army; the daily reported that "the army claims to need more nuclear weapons to deter India's superior conventional arsenal. It seems incapable of understanding that the real threat comes from the Taliban and other extremists". The newspaper framed Pakistan as "a dangerous country in a region with the world's fastest-growing nuclear weapons program. Over the past decade, the distrust between the United States and Pakistan has grown so deep that the Obama administration reportedly stepped up its surveillance of Pakistan's nuclear program".

Conclusion
In this study, the researcher examined New York Times framing techniques towards Pakistan's position in "War on Terror." To achieve this purpose, all the relevant editorials in "The New York Times" were analyzed during the study period from January 2011 till the end of December 2015, which included 41 editorials. The result of the study found various themes during the period from 2011 to 2015. The main themes found from editorials about the portrayal of the role of Pakistan in the terror war are that Pakistan, not a Trustworthy Ally, Dubious Role in War on Terror, Authoritarian Regime and Pak Nuke Status as Threat to Peace.
The first research question was: to what extent New York Times cover the "War on Terror" in their editorials? The result indicates that the newspaper was actively involved in the "War on Terror." In total, 21399 words were granted space by "The New York Times". It indicates that the matter of the war against terror persisted as the highest issue in the newspaper's agenda-setting. During the highest period of war or hot, scorching, and recent growth, the daily contributed more. The outcome indicates that the "War on Terror." has been granted tremendous attention.
The second question said, "How did The New York Times" depict the role of Pakistan in the war against terror"? In this respect, the research study originates that the newspaper's Global Mass Communication Review (GMCR) posture towards Pakistan remained hostile. It was highly critical of the role of Pakistan in the "War on Terror" that Pakistan is playing, not a Trustworthy Ally. The daily said that Islamabad is an ally of Washington, but on the other side, it cares about Haqqani's networks and TTP. The newspaper transcribed that Pakistan has many more extremists hidden there. On December 5, 2011, in its editorial on the NATO attack in Salala, the New York Times described the story with the caption: "Pakistan Fans the Flames." In plain words, Pakistan's questionable position in the war on terror. "Pakistan is refusing to help calm public fury or figure out what led to a NATO attack that left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead. It has rejected American requests to take part in a joint investigation. On Monday, it boycotted an international conference in Bonn that laid plans for Afghanistan's future. Both moves are self-defeating" (The NYT, 2011).
On 20 Feb 2011, the daily issued editorial heading, "Pakistan's Nuclear Folly" Theme Pakistan Nuke Status as Threat to Peace. "The ultimate nightmare, of course, is that the extremists will topple Pakistan's government and get their hands on the nuclear weapons. We also don't rest easy contemplating the weakness of Pakistan's civilian leadership, the power of its army and the bitterness of the country's rivalry with nuclear-armed India" (The NYT, 2011).
On 2 May 2011, the editorial, entitled "The Long-Expected News," was written. The news about Osama bin Laden was followed and assassinated by US forces provide us with a great sense of relief and all American people. The reports of the discovery and breach of Osama bin Laden's lair in Pakistan, the years of intelligence gathering, and the concentrated preparations for this raid all remind us of how hard this work is and how much vigilance and consistency matter. (NYT, 2011).
The third question is, how the newspaper reflects the sacrifices of Pakistan's security forces? As a result, the newspapers have disparaged Pakistan's military seriously, instead of praising its sacrifices. They accused Pakistan's military of funding and using Taliban as a way of controlling Afghanistan. It is said that Pakistan's army does not cooperate seriously with America in this terror war. "The New York Times" cites the news article that the military of Pakistan uses the judiciary to undermine or even overthrow the Zardari government before the 2012 Senate elections. The newsletter "Pakistan's besieged government" is published in daily. It also claimed that civil regimes are usually short-lived in Pakistan because of military coups. They said, "America is fed by Pakistani military leaders' duplicity by working with insurgent groups against the USA." These newspapers have published no story helping Pakistan's wartime victims of terror, while Pakistan has sacrificed more than 70 thousand, including security personnel.
The study shows that the New York Times helped its own country openly in the battle against terror. The daily remained tough and defended the foreign policy of his country.