A new trend threatens journalists’ judicious editorial judgment and credibility. This is the trend of increasing demands from a long list of groups that want media space by hook or by crook. True, the afflicted souls in Pakistan have always turned towards the media to express their grievances and to seek justice. True also that protesting crowds and wronged parties have traditionally flocked to media offices in the hope of forcefully pleading their case. But the present-day situation is different: too many groups are asking for too much space, quite literally attempting to force their agendas down news-persons’ throats and running vicious campaigns in order to succeed.
Groups fighting the state in Balochistan top the list. They find the media space given to their demands as too little and want more. Militant groups are no less vociferous in pushing their claim for more time and space; those operating out of Fata offer a simple choice to local journalists: print our version or perish. In Karachi as well, there are similar demands on the media. Imran Khan’s party and his supporters are never happy with media coverage and are always petitioning for more. They get their dander up when told that their leader gets more media space than all other party-heads combined.
State institutions have similar leanings. They want to see issues of their choice highlighted in the manner they think is appropriate. The recent Siachen tragedy brought out deep-seated complaints against the media from state institutions. The outcry was witnessed in the shape of SMSs that started to circulate around suggesting that the media was wasting national time on trivia and should instead focus on the agony of the families whose loved ones were trapped.
Anecdotal evidence is poor basis for empirical analysis but at times it helps to capture reality. As these lines are being written, my BlackBerry firewall that blocks incoming messages other than those from known contacts has a mind-boggling number: 2,053 in 48 hours. The calls that came on my personal cell run into the hundreds. The message is the same: if you do not write about our plight or discuss our agitation you are working for the Sipah-e-Sahaba or the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. Other journalists and media persons have faced a similar situation.
There are dozens of others who want to grab the media by the neck and drag them to what they believe is the best editorial choice for a comment or a shining topic for a report. Those who do this include Sindhi and Hazara nationalists, laid-off workers, CNG organisations, traders, missing persons’ families, terrorism affectees, loadshedding victims, teachers, students, clerks, farmers, rape victims, members of the Hindu community protesting forced marriages, religious bodies vowing to protect these recent converts to Islam, Ahmadis, and of course Americans, NGOs, governments, courts and almost all political parties that are now positioning themselves for the upcoming elections.
This is beginning to have a deep, and in many ways devastating, impact on values of objectivity and neutrality that the mainstream media must maintain in order to preserve its professionalism. It is hard to tell whether our editorial judgment is really our own or dictated by someone who is peddling a line so aggressively (or threateningly) that to avoid it becomes next to impossible.
There is evidence to suggest that threatened by powerful groups and unprotected by state institutions and their employers, journalists are forced to pick sides for their safety. It is hard to document this quiet compromise but it is impossible to miss it from the tone and tenor and editorial line of reporting and analysis. Parochial identifiers (Shia-Sunni, Pathan-Muhajir) and political affiliations are becoming the calling card of practicing journalists rather than an adherence to the cardinal principle that there can and must be two sides to a story. The space for hard-nosed factual narratives has shrunk. Analysts either make enemies or friends, but seldom make arguments based on merit.
Why is journalism coming under so much pressure? What does it mean for the national debate? These and other questions will be addressed next week.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 15th, 2012.
COMMENTS (26)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The writer has a point to some extent, but he seems to be going overboard in presenting the media as a victim. He and other anchors, for instance, have never explained their criterion and method for choosing their topics and guests. Nor does the print media ever offer any such explanations to its readers.
There are indeed many pressures on the media, but I refuse to believe that talkshows are under a compulsion to always invite the same guests again and again. Surely, they can create some space for others too, even if to a somewhat limited extent. Similarly, as far as topic selection goes, who has forced the anchors to consistently ignore real systemic issues?
Lastly, when was the last time anyone watched a talkshow where people other than an elite group of journalists were invited to comment on the media? Shouldn't there be some room for voices from civil society in this debate also? Or do journalists think they have a monopoly on this subject?
So what should the working journos do in-order to save their lives and to tell the truth as well??
A well written article. We all make certain choices in life which define our character and itegrity. Claiming righteousness was never cheap, though faking it is the name of the game these days and relatively much easier to do as well with MULTIPLE wordly benefits.
"Why is journalism coming under so much pressure?"
i think ppl want coverage so their demands are met. When state institutions fail to provide services, ppl turn towards media, in hope that the authorities might listen coz now its on media. The same situation is with CJ sahab as well. Every other person requests CJ, instead of going to the official channel.
A good credible and performing govt can solve this problem.
The author has tried to paint media as some sort of victim under attack by various pressure groups and individuals. He failed to appreciate that he is living in an age of blackberry and is fortunate enough to receive a considerable amount of input and feed back despite the poor level of national literacy..His complaint appears to be utterly spurious when filters and blockers are available to avoid unwanted texts and calls.
Further the quality of editorial judgement and integrity of media persons is not always above board. I recall that at the eve of Bombay outrage this very author continue to prove day after day that Fridkot village is not in Pakistan and Ajmal was not a Pakistani.
Mr. Talat! what about other side of the story. Do, the electronic midea person in particular, put the public under presure or not? The news channels give more than 95 percent of their air time to either cirme or investigative reporting particullarly covering negative events about goverment or puclic sector functionaries. The anchers try to catch one word out of whole story of superme court or from speach of hours and rage it down for hours, days, weeks or months.
If the public is not tired of it at least I am surely. I try not to watch journalists, rather I will prefer to watch wrestling than to see a face of and listen to talk of renowned midea personality or their (Gisae Pitteay) expert like Hamid Gul, Gen. Qayum etc. Do they put poor soul like me under tremendous presure or not?
A Peshawary
Talat , I agree TV anchors should make their own editorial judgement,however,as a viewer my problem is that i am bored of seeing same faces in talk shows discussing new editorial subject.As somebody above correctly related talk shows with Sultan Rahi inanother film,time has changed ,viewer is looking for a change otherwise viewer will watch drama or comedy talk shows .Please bring some change to this formula of three chairs,three familiar guest who just recorded the show for another tv channel and are looking pretty bored and tired.Viewer is now more aware and intelligent and better equiped then 4-6 years ago.
Talat, all other things aside, PTI's gripe with the media (since a few months) has been about "news coverage" rather than the amount of time that Imran Khan gets (or has to get) on various TV talk shows. The former is based on an editorial judgement of the channels while the latter is based on ratings (and the ratings go sky high when IK is on a talk show). So I think we need to keep this distinction in mind.
Secondly, I think one of the issues people have is with the "secretive" editorial criteria that channels use to allocate time to various events and consider them as "newsworthy". I think this criteria should be more open.
I've mentioned this time and again, it's our media who has nurtured 'analysts' like Zaid Hamid and now they've turned them into uncontrollable Frankensteins. It would have been better if anchors had spent more time with nationalist and minority leaders.
The pressure the writer talks about isn't greater than the appetite for ratings our media has for political drama queens.
and what about the journalists who paid to do the dirty work? when will the media get rid of them?
Thanks Talat Bhae a great reality media in the hands of others. Media is also directed by many its a reality.
Talat Sb, what I don't understand is how you can put the massacre of minorities in the same 'bucket' as other trivial issues. Political leanings I can understand but what is I cannot is the blackout of the G-B operation where currently as many people are being massacred everyday as Karachi in a population less than one-tenth that of Karachi. What about Parachinar where a whole city is being held hostage by militants? If these issues are not of significant importance, I don't know what is. I'd go as far as terming this as much a State failure as is a failure of objective journalism.
Defined why Ahmadis ? There are dozens of others who want to grab the media by the neck and drag them to what they believe is the best editorial choice for a comment or a shining topic for a report. Those who do this include Sindhi and Hazara nationalists, laid-off workers, CNG organisations, traders, missing persons’ families, terrorism affectees, loadshedding victims, teachers, students, clerks, farmers, rape victims, members of the Hindu community protesting forced marriages, religious bodies vowing to protect these recent converts to Islam, Ahmadis, and of course Americans, NGOs, governments, courts and almost all political parties that are now positioning themselves for the upcoming elections.
Sure, media is under pressure from various agencies and in such situations journalists are always on the receiving end. Be it pressure from government agencies or from militant groups, journalists sometimes become martyrs in the line of work. But one thing i must say that, upon watching Indian media and Pakistan Media, Indian media is far more better than Pakistan media. Indian media, if anybody watches closely is always supporting their national interests, working for that and proceeding with great fervor. But Pakistan media is always in this race how to disgrace the nation which is very much disturbing. Now people will be advising "Truthfulness", "Honesty", "Social responsibilty", and blah blah blah. But one must keep it in mind that there is no such honesty and truth and socail resposibility than NATIONAL INTEREST.
The pressure group 'pressures' aside, then there's the matter of pedaling certain stories in ways to support once benefactors. It is widely known that enormous amout of money is being bantered around to various journalists and media houses. In a nation where everything is up to interpretation and nothing, or depending on the case, everything is 'confirmable', the power of media and journalists further inreases. Having said that, who is going to tame this beast? Of course not the government which is dirtiest of them all.
The media and journalists were never free, fair and impartial to begin with. All media groups and companies have vested interests. Some are even openly biased! The idea that there is or ever was some kind of judicious editorial judgement or impartiality is nothing but a FARCE! A big fat lie that journalists and editors keep on repeating all the time hoping illiterate and gullible masses buy it (which they do most of the time, btw.)
Since time immortal, journalists have taken money from governments, political parties, businesses, NGOs and other groups to skew facts and distort truth. So stop crying foul if it's all coming back to haunt you. You should have thought of that before you put yourself up to the highest bidder in the first place!
P.S. My comment is not aimed at any particular group or individual, rather at the industry/ profession in general.
Journalism should be objective , honest , truthful ,without fear or favor.
Imran Khan deserves such media coverage as NO other party head has courage to come in live programs and face tough questions.
Good advice for the leftist trolls, including ET.
Journalists and journalism are not unique in coming under pressure from such groups. Police, judiciary, doctors, electric company personnel, etc are all brought under pressure from different forces. The 'new' media in Pakistan has become powerful virtually overnight...anmd with great power comes great responsibility. The responsibility to be objective and truthful. Its easier to show facts on tv screens..its hard to tell the truth. You yourself covered 12th May shootings live, Did you openly name and shame the party behind this barbarism. I am sure it must have been difficult. Then, and even now. There are many other examples. the sudden freedom of expression has done us good but probaby we did not handle it well. The emergence of 24 hour news channels in Pakistan overshadowed the professional journalistic attitude and turned folks to into showmen (and women). Its the flavour of the week (or day) tv anchors are concerned about...and not sharing an objective overall analysis. I see frontline anchors choosing similar topics day in and day out for many years with same faces in their midst; its made me sick. And believe me I am not alone. The recent resurgence of tv drama in Pakistan is also a reaction against these pointless talk shows that we made our favourite pastime for years. As a professional group you need not look outside for explanation,, reflect on yourselves. Sultan Rahi (RIP) had his name in Guiness Book for most number of movies. Infact he made one movie and repeated it 500 times or thereabouts. Today;s tv anchors are the same. Consider shaping your tv shows to reflect true journalism with less of face to face tongue wrestling between politicians anf focus on real issues. While you risk losing some spice and rating, you'll get pressure off your back.
Very good analysis from Talat. The so called inqilabis will be worst rulers if they ever get chance. Dictatorship is in their mind. Why only Imran is chairman of his party for 15 years? What democratic norms are being used to appoint presidents and vice presidents? The language they use against opponents is democratic? Can we get clean water from dirty pool of lotas and musharraf lovers? Why young students are being fooled on the name of change.
This is not change, this is against change because the forces who have been against change are their biggest supporters.
“Muslim should be known for patience,Love and peace” but unfortunately we are the opposite. Simple litmus paper test is our driving ethics. “ Everyone is in hurry on road and slow in work place” . Talk shows no one is willing to admit mistake . Attitude toward Minorities is horrible. Many maids who work in the house are not allowed to enter kitchen( embarrassing ).
Only solution is to learn the teaching of Islam and try to practice. Media can play a role here. The way media has given political awareness to people same way media can give religious awareness. Its the strongest tool. People in pakistan need help.
A very informative piece. At the least, this challenge shows 2 positive things: One, that media is the new power contender that is creating deep shifts in institutional equilibrium. Secondly, society is beginning to realize benefits of legitimate channels such as media, legal recourse, and democracy to bring about changes and awareness in the society which is better than resorting to counter-productive tactics such as asymmetric violence.