With the recent spate of terrorism and violence in Pakistan and the ongoing media coverage, we revisit an article by Afia Mansoor on the state of the Press in Pakistan and its implications:
Free press is a crucial pillar of the state. Pakistan is fortunate to have a free press despite the quagmire it is currently in. However, is the free press enabling society towards mature decision making? That is the question to ask.
The freedom of press interestingly came about during the military dictatorship of General Musharraf. Several news channels were given license to operate in a country that was until a decade prior to this had access only to the biased state controlled media. With the ensuing political, economic and social turmoil, journalists showed admirable strength and courage in reporting thus securing a loyal following with the public.
The TV channels flourished and soon competition within the electronic media industry became cut throat. The media industry eventually started compromising on its values in a bid to hold onto the reducing slice in the pie. However, the question that is now being raised by social observers and even journalists is that some laws must govern the Pakistani press that has shown gargantuan growth in recent times.
It is intriguing, that in Pakistan the highest viewership ratings are for news channels. People are hooked onto live news channels more than entertainment programmes. That is understandable in a country which experiences some devastating tragedy virtually every day at the hands of terrorists and extremists. It also shows what an incredible responsibility the press and media has in reporting ‘things as they are’ and ‘giving everything its due’.
What we see however is by and large, with the exception of a few news channels, an abuse of this responsibility. The electronic media in Pakistan has begun to realize its power over public opinion. What it largely misses out is the responsibility that comes with power. If watching explicit coverage of bomb blast victims, bitter dog fights between politicians, ominous analyses of doom and despair consistently evokes fear, resentment, helplessness and hopelessness in the public, then this reporting is hardly based on a benevolent intent to serve.
According to Schuitema, if an individual, an organization, an industry or a society is not value driven, it reverts to its programmed needs-driven behavior which is not articulated by benevolence. Here are a few manifestations of this need-driven behavior:
Expediency vs Appropriateness:
Many channels in a bid to be the first ones to break news often compromise on its veracity, comprehensiveness and appropriateness. There have been many times when reported bomb explosions were actually found to be accidental gas cylinder explosions or firecrackers at best. Some senior journalists have even started questioning as to whose interest the press is serving when it shows live coverage of commando operations in hijackings by terrorists.
The practice of breaking news blindly continues without realizing the psychological effect it has on the general public. Many people find it hard to forget how earthquake victims were shown in close-ups while they died, how the families of the victims of Lal Masjid operation were brought to camera and asked how they felt while the army operation wiped away their dear ones. It is a sign of a malevolent intent when presumption overrides appropriateness.
Negation vs Affirmation:
Stories with ghastly violence, dead bodies and pessimism reflect a malevolent inclination. Recently, when the International Islamic University was rocked with two bomb explosions, it was played, replayed and analyzed by news channels endlessly. What didn’t make into a big story was how a Christian janitor working in the university’s cafeteria lost his life in stopping one of the bombers. For all the reported misery out there, the goodness goes untold.
Uncouth Vs. Courteous:
Talk shows that feature verbal jousts and political mudslinging between various party leaders, who are otherwise colluding in the state of affairs, are now the prime time entertainment in homes across the country. The more bitter a fight is, the more a talk show is successful. The press fails to realize that this is cultivating a culture of hypocrisy and distrust. It is like a society eating itself out.
Rancour Vs. Fulfilment:
The energy crisis in Pakistan is always reported from a victim’s viewpoint. People are shown to be frustrated and bitter to the extreme. The focus is on what the public has failed to get rather than what it can give in the situation. With the exception of a single newsgroup, nobody focuses on how energy can be harnessed from natural abundance like sunlight, wind and water. Following the media’s stance, a nation that is endowed with great potential to devise and construct, is busy wallowing in despair. A typical victim mentality.
Dialectic Vs. Thematic:
To cover for long airtime, non issues are dissected and debated endlessly. Sometimes grave events are analysed reactively, without realizing the repercussions they can lead to. For instance, following the Mumbai terrorist attacks and ensuing hostility between Pakistan and India, the media (on both sides this time) spent huge amounts of money and time in debating the nitty gritty of the country’s capability to fight the other side. A war hysteria was literally being brought on by the media on either side. The aircraft strength, the naval fleets and the army units were being analysed by news programme hosts who had no strategic background.
The opinion of defense strategists who argued the possibility of war, was not given its due weight. Ironically, some media groups aired acerbic war commentary on their news channels while their entertainment channels continued to show popular Indian dramas and films in a bid to hold onto viewers for it was what ‘public wanted’. The war never happened thankfully. But the media apparently never learned anything from the event.
Fearful Vs. Courageous:
“A wave of terror swept through the area as soon as the bomb explosions were heard”. This is an oft repeated start to a news analysis of bomb explosions by terrorists. It reflects mediocrity. It also reflects the need-based behavior of the press to ride on public emotion rather than diverting that emotion to issues of higher concern like community organization, community policing and community development. The media insists that it shows what the public wants. That argument becomes a vile excuse when media’s stance is driven by a malevolent intent to secure higher viewer ratings, get a bigger share of the pie and in effect use the public as a means to attain significance.
First published Nov 6, 2009.