Death of impartial journalism?
This sorry state of affairs certainly warrants a code of conduct
The writer is a senior correspondent of The Express Tribune in Islamabad
Staying neutral and impartial in the contemporary journalism in Pakistan is like being a rebel and revolutionary.
Impartial, unbiased, neutral are words that must be struck down from Pakistan’s dictionary. It may sound harsh and sweeping demand since some would argue that there are still saner voices in our media industry. Also the role of electronic media in shaping opinion and highlighting issues of public importance cannot be ignored. But, this does not mean their flaws must not be discussed and debated.
Today in Pakistan, the media industry is primarily driven by 24/7 news channels where impartiality and neutrally are hard to find, albeit a few exceptions.
Clearly, news outlets are divided into two extremes — one pro-PML-N dubbed by their critics as pseudo intellectuals and lifafa journalists and the other pro-PTI being portrayed by their opponents as so-called nationalists and establishment’s lackeys.
There is nothing wrong in taking position or supporting a certain ideology. The real issue is when being a journalist you distort facts or twist things in a manner to serve your own ends or organisation that you worked for.
Toeing a certain line may get you good ratings, but the impartial journalism is certainly the ultimate causality of this approach.
The fault lines and biased approach followed by certain media houses were exposed during the coverage of recent homecoming of deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif via the Grand Trunk Road.
For example, news channels that are apparently supporting or sympathetic to the former premier, termed the reception Sharif got and rallies he addressed historic. However, others, who are ostensibly backing the opposition camp, called it a total failure.
When 24/7 news channels saw mushroom growth soon after former military ruler deregulated the electronic media in 2002, TV networks found themselves struggling to cope with the challenge. There was dearth of skilled manpower and the process of transformation from print to electronic media was slow and painstaking. Serious flaws were visible when it came to the coverage of terrorist attacks or reporting from the battle ground. At the time benefit of doubt was given to news channels since electronic media was in its infancy and such shortcomings were natural.
No doubt, over the years, great strides have been made in terms of presentation, production, handling of big events, etc. But what has really impeded the progress is lack of content improvement and absence of adhering to journalistic principles.
Take the case of level of reporting on news channels. A reporter theoretically is there to simply narrate the facts. Unfortunately, hardly anyone remains confined to this basic rule.
What has further compromised the principle of impartiality is the role acquired by anchors beyond their prescribed mandate. Talk show hosts or anchors now consider themselves not just moderators but political players, who could make or break governments. It is internationally recognised journalistic practice that you always play a devil’s advocate. For example, if you invite an opposition guest, you are supposed to be the government and if the guest is from the treasury benches then your role is to act as the opposition. However, unfortunately many anchors and so-called big names forget that basic norm and clearly become party when moderating talk shows.
It can be argued that journalists are also part of society and naturally have biases and certain opinions. But when you are on a public platform then you are not representing a certain group or ideology but the cross-section of society, therefore propriety demands that his/her role must be neutral. If they are to become party then the best way is to handover the mike to members of political parties. At least this would give people the real perspective.
Another new and dangerous trend emerging is that many journalists and anchors now act in unison to support certain party and group. If someone objects to their stance, they launch coordinated attacks against their critic using the platforms of both TV screen and social media. Hence, leaving little or no room for healthy and objective debate, considered essential in any democratic society.
This sorry state of affairs certainly warrants a code of conduct that not only brings sanity but also promotes the fundamental principles of journalism. If that is not possible, TV channels or anchors should at least do us all a favour — publicly announce their allegiance to a party or ideology they espouse.
Serving personal agenda and vested interests under the garb of being neutral and impartial is not journalism but simply a way to hoodwink the viewers.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 20th, 2017.
Impartial, unbiased, neutral are words that must be struck down from Pakistan’s dictionary. It may sound harsh and sweeping demand since some would argue that there are still saner voices in our media industry. Also the role of electronic media in shaping opinion and highlighting issues of public importance cannot be ignored. But, this does not mean their flaws must not be discussed and debated.
Today in Pakistan, the media industry is primarily driven by 24/7 news channels where impartiality and neutrally are hard to find, albeit a few exceptions.
Clearly, news outlets are divided into two extremes — one pro-PML-N dubbed by their critics as pseudo intellectuals and lifafa journalists and the other pro-PTI being portrayed by their opponents as so-called nationalists and establishment’s lackeys.
There is nothing wrong in taking position or supporting a certain ideology. The real issue is when being a journalist you distort facts or twist things in a manner to serve your own ends or organisation that you worked for.
Toeing a certain line may get you good ratings, but the impartial journalism is certainly the ultimate causality of this approach.
The fault lines and biased approach followed by certain media houses were exposed during the coverage of recent homecoming of deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif via the Grand Trunk Road.
For example, news channels that are apparently supporting or sympathetic to the former premier, termed the reception Sharif got and rallies he addressed historic. However, others, who are ostensibly backing the opposition camp, called it a total failure.
When 24/7 news channels saw mushroom growth soon after former military ruler deregulated the electronic media in 2002, TV networks found themselves struggling to cope with the challenge. There was dearth of skilled manpower and the process of transformation from print to electronic media was slow and painstaking. Serious flaws were visible when it came to the coverage of terrorist attacks or reporting from the battle ground. At the time benefit of doubt was given to news channels since electronic media was in its infancy and such shortcomings were natural.
No doubt, over the years, great strides have been made in terms of presentation, production, handling of big events, etc. But what has really impeded the progress is lack of content improvement and absence of adhering to journalistic principles.
Take the case of level of reporting on news channels. A reporter theoretically is there to simply narrate the facts. Unfortunately, hardly anyone remains confined to this basic rule.
What has further compromised the principle of impartiality is the role acquired by anchors beyond their prescribed mandate. Talk show hosts or anchors now consider themselves not just moderators but political players, who could make or break governments. It is internationally recognised journalistic practice that you always play a devil’s advocate. For example, if you invite an opposition guest, you are supposed to be the government and if the guest is from the treasury benches then your role is to act as the opposition. However, unfortunately many anchors and so-called big names forget that basic norm and clearly become party when moderating talk shows.
It can be argued that journalists are also part of society and naturally have biases and certain opinions. But when you are on a public platform then you are not representing a certain group or ideology but the cross-section of society, therefore propriety demands that his/her role must be neutral. If they are to become party then the best way is to handover the mike to members of political parties. At least this would give people the real perspective.
Another new and dangerous trend emerging is that many journalists and anchors now act in unison to support certain party and group. If someone objects to their stance, they launch coordinated attacks against their critic using the platforms of both TV screen and social media. Hence, leaving little or no room for healthy and objective debate, considered essential in any democratic society.
This sorry state of affairs certainly warrants a code of conduct that not only brings sanity but also promotes the fundamental principles of journalism. If that is not possible, TV channels or anchors should at least do us all a favour — publicly announce their allegiance to a party or ideology they espouse.
Serving personal agenda and vested interests under the garb of being neutral and impartial is not journalism but simply a way to hoodwink the viewers.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 20th, 2017.