Open media, closed minds
Pakistan’s future is threatened by domination of ‘politically conservative’ people within, connected with the media.
Before Pakistani media was liberalised, generations of Pakistanis depended only on a steady diet of state propaganda provided by state-run radio and television channels to satisfy their hunger for information.
The media’s sudden and exponential expansion in Musharraf’s era created tremendous space for those who wanted to air unofficial perspectives on issues of public concern. Private TV channels then emerged as a major source of information to a largely illiterate population. People who had previously been unable to read newspapers began to feel empowered as their ability to access information and opinion was improved.
Political talk shows dominated the airwaves, and the hosts of these talk shows became pundits and celebrities in their own right, adored by their devoted audiences. Unlike many countries where political programs on TV are often financed with money earned through entertainment programming, here the reverse is true. This demonstrates how deeply a people previously deprived of information care about state affairs and issues of governance.
But those who had blithely assumed that a free and open media would lead to the opening of minds were in for a rude awakening: a traditionalist and nakedly partisan agenda began to dominate political talk shows, which in turn depended on rhetoric rather than logic to get their point across. The politics of private channels, anchor persons and a specialised class of analysts became so obvious to viewers that people started to associate various private channels with different players in the Pakistani political scene.
The validity and credibility of information disseminated by various channels is consequently now being questioned and the media is quickly earning the reputation of being partisan. The nature of contemporary electronic media can be understood by analysing the economic and political background of those who own and run prominent media groups. Mainstream electronic media is controlled by business groups who take full advantage of cross-media ownership. These businessmen are essentially driven by commercial interests. As a result, TV channels constantly change their stance on issues of national interest in keeping with the perceived shifts in public opinion. Campaigns to repeal the Hudood Ordinance and to restore the judiciary should be viewed within the same context. Those who fund the media appear to be busy translating economic power into political power.
Interestingly, the Pakistani media is powerful in a third way: TV is practically the only space where the political leadership can engage with its constituents due to the threat of terrorism. Politicians frequently clash with ‘civil society’ on TV, but these debates, which could have led to insightful and inclusive conclusions, are distorted by prejudice. Instead of allowing a wide range of views to be aired onscreen, the media actively promotes certain ideologies and mindsets that support the status quo.
Observe a typical ‘discussion’ program on any given day and you will find that guests who subscribe to a more traditionalist, conservative mindset are given more time to air their views than their more liberal counterparts. The latter’s views are often trivialised and projected as a minority view. There are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between.
Another dangerous trend we witnessed during the Lal Masjid saga, and at the time of the Peace Deal signed with Sufi Mohammad, and now after the murder of Salmaan Taseer, is that sections of the media project criminals who take the law in their own hands as heroes.
Lal Masjid’s students, who forcefully occupied a children’s library, burnt music shops, kidnapped people, and threatened innocent women with acid attacks if they did not cover their faces, were hailed as heroes in the media following the Lal Masjid operation. No one came forward on TV and demanded to know how a veritable bunker had been created in the heart of Pakistan’s capital city. Before the operation actually took place, of course, the same media had been accusing the government of willful inaction. The irony is obvious.
Similarly, when the government struck a peace deal with militants in Malakand, the media started projecting the Taliban leadership as heroes who were fighting for the cause of Islam. Taliban leaders were invited onscreen for ‘discussions,’ and in the process they got the opportunity to propagate their views to an audience they could never have reached before.
Salmaan Taseer’s tragic murder is also being covered by the media in a manner that is causing confusion in the public. Instead of condemning a criminal act of murder unconditionally, the media is manipulating discussions in such a way that the crime is being justified. This is clearly seen by contrasting the amount of coverage of those who are protesting the death of Salmaan Taseer and the airtime given to those who are throwing rose petals on the murderer. Showing footage of a bunch of lunatic lawyers who are supporting the crime over and over again is a way of creating consent and sympathy for the murderer. The so-called religious lobby has also been given far more space on TV to try and justify the murder in an emotional manner, willfully exploiting the love every Muslim feels for the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Sections of the media are even coining new terms for tolerant and peaceful citizens, who are now labeled ‘liberal extremists,’ and are put on the same page as true extremists like Mumtaz Qadri. This juxtaposition neutralises the crime’s heinous nature.
Plainly put, Pakistan’s social and democratic future is being threatened by the domination of ‘politically conservative’ people within and connected with the media. The way our media tries to manufacture public opinion is a matter of great concern for progressive and democratic forces in the country. The way questions are formulated in current affairs programs on issues of national importance shows the partisan position of our media. Propaganda concocted by various TV channels forces people to form opinions based on a steady stream of misinformation rather than fact.
On the flip side, the media has taken some positive steps, like highlighting social evils such as human rights violations, violence against women, unemployment and poverty. However, these issues are often sensationalised, and are discussed without serious analysis. These ‘human-interest’ stories are not pursued with vehemence and end up being treated with indifference. The media makes little effort to create public awareness about these issues.
The media is a powerful tool which can change public opinion in mere instants. The state of our politically unstable country demands the presence of a socially responsible media that should create space for the pluralistic thinking that does exist in our society. Stakeholders in the media should limit their pre-occupation with political issues that concern only the political elite and focus on issues that matter to the majority of people — the powerless, the poor, women and religious minorities.
In the absence of an effective regulatory framework for the media, citizens must be critically aware of media politics and should be vigilant of media content. Monitoring of the media should be given priority by the progressive civil society organisations. Power without checks and balances can and will steer the country deeper into a spiral of extremism and intolerance. Time is running out, and we need to answer this all-important question now more than ever: who will watch the watchmen?
The writer is the Director of Gender Studies at Quaid-e-Azam University and is a member of the Awami Jamhoor
Forum.
Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine January 16th, 2011.
The media’s sudden and exponential expansion in Musharraf’s era created tremendous space for those who wanted to air unofficial perspectives on issues of public concern. Private TV channels then emerged as a major source of information to a largely illiterate population. People who had previously been unable to read newspapers began to feel empowered as their ability to access information and opinion was improved.
Political talk shows dominated the airwaves, and the hosts of these talk shows became pundits and celebrities in their own right, adored by their devoted audiences. Unlike many countries where political programs on TV are often financed with money earned through entertainment programming, here the reverse is true. This demonstrates how deeply a people previously deprived of information care about state affairs and issues of governance.
But those who had blithely assumed that a free and open media would lead to the opening of minds were in for a rude awakening: a traditionalist and nakedly partisan agenda began to dominate political talk shows, which in turn depended on rhetoric rather than logic to get their point across. The politics of private channels, anchor persons and a specialised class of analysts became so obvious to viewers that people started to associate various private channels with different players in the Pakistani political scene.
The validity and credibility of information disseminated by various channels is consequently now being questioned and the media is quickly earning the reputation of being partisan. The nature of contemporary electronic media can be understood by analysing the economic and political background of those who own and run prominent media groups. Mainstream electronic media is controlled by business groups who take full advantage of cross-media ownership. These businessmen are essentially driven by commercial interests. As a result, TV channels constantly change their stance on issues of national interest in keeping with the perceived shifts in public opinion. Campaigns to repeal the Hudood Ordinance and to restore the judiciary should be viewed within the same context. Those who fund the media appear to be busy translating economic power into political power.
Interestingly, the Pakistani media is powerful in a third way: TV is practically the only space where the political leadership can engage with its constituents due to the threat of terrorism. Politicians frequently clash with ‘civil society’ on TV, but these debates, which could have led to insightful and inclusive conclusions, are distorted by prejudice. Instead of allowing a wide range of views to be aired onscreen, the media actively promotes certain ideologies and mindsets that support the status quo.
Observe a typical ‘discussion’ program on any given day and you will find that guests who subscribe to a more traditionalist, conservative mindset are given more time to air their views than their more liberal counterparts. The latter’s views are often trivialised and projected as a minority view. There are exceptions to this rule, but they are few and far between.
Another dangerous trend we witnessed during the Lal Masjid saga, and at the time of the Peace Deal signed with Sufi Mohammad, and now after the murder of Salmaan Taseer, is that sections of the media project criminals who take the law in their own hands as heroes.
Lal Masjid’s students, who forcefully occupied a children’s library, burnt music shops, kidnapped people, and threatened innocent women with acid attacks if they did not cover their faces, were hailed as heroes in the media following the Lal Masjid operation. No one came forward on TV and demanded to know how a veritable bunker had been created in the heart of Pakistan’s capital city. Before the operation actually took place, of course, the same media had been accusing the government of willful inaction. The irony is obvious.
Similarly, when the government struck a peace deal with militants in Malakand, the media started projecting the Taliban leadership as heroes who were fighting for the cause of Islam. Taliban leaders were invited onscreen for ‘discussions,’ and in the process they got the opportunity to propagate their views to an audience they could never have reached before.
Salmaan Taseer’s tragic murder is also being covered by the media in a manner that is causing confusion in the public. Instead of condemning a criminal act of murder unconditionally, the media is manipulating discussions in such a way that the crime is being justified. This is clearly seen by contrasting the amount of coverage of those who are protesting the death of Salmaan Taseer and the airtime given to those who are throwing rose petals on the murderer. Showing footage of a bunch of lunatic lawyers who are supporting the crime over and over again is a way of creating consent and sympathy for the murderer. The so-called religious lobby has also been given far more space on TV to try and justify the murder in an emotional manner, willfully exploiting the love every Muslim feels for the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Sections of the media are even coining new terms for tolerant and peaceful citizens, who are now labeled ‘liberal extremists,’ and are put on the same page as true extremists like Mumtaz Qadri. This juxtaposition neutralises the crime’s heinous nature.
Plainly put, Pakistan’s social and democratic future is being threatened by the domination of ‘politically conservative’ people within and connected with the media. The way our media tries to manufacture public opinion is a matter of great concern for progressive and democratic forces in the country. The way questions are formulated in current affairs programs on issues of national importance shows the partisan position of our media. Propaganda concocted by various TV channels forces people to form opinions based on a steady stream of misinformation rather than fact.
On the flip side, the media has taken some positive steps, like highlighting social evils such as human rights violations, violence against women, unemployment and poverty. However, these issues are often sensationalised, and are discussed without serious analysis. These ‘human-interest’ stories are not pursued with vehemence and end up being treated with indifference. The media makes little effort to create public awareness about these issues.
The media is a powerful tool which can change public opinion in mere instants. The state of our politically unstable country demands the presence of a socially responsible media that should create space for the pluralistic thinking that does exist in our society. Stakeholders in the media should limit their pre-occupation with political issues that concern only the political elite and focus on issues that matter to the majority of people — the powerless, the poor, women and religious minorities.
In the absence of an effective regulatory framework for the media, citizens must be critically aware of media politics and should be vigilant of media content. Monitoring of the media should be given priority by the progressive civil society organisations. Power without checks and balances can and will steer the country deeper into a spiral of extremism and intolerance. Time is running out, and we need to answer this all-important question now more than ever: who will watch the watchmen?
The writer is the Director of Gender Studies at Quaid-e-Azam University and is a member of the Awami Jamhoor
Forum.
Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine January 16th, 2011.