There is no point in pretending that all journalists, be they reporters or columnists, are dedicated to uncovering the truth and offering honest, untainted analysis. Everyone whispers, but few dare say aloud, that there are those who are in the pockets of what are euphemistically called ‘vested interests’. The paymasters can be the military or political parties; it really doesn’t matter. There is always the chance that what you are reading is tainted.
A columnist recently told me how to be on the lookout for those whose bank accounts receive direct deposits from the GHQ. Apparently, the most highly sought after are those who have built reputations as critics of the military and then slowly, thanks to the influence of the rupee, begin to change their minds. Certainly there may be those who have done genuine U-turns but the absence of integrity in one person makes everyone a target of suspicion.
I realise that outright bribery doesn’t fall within the definition of conflict of interest but it is important for journalists to recognise that it exists and to shun those who are guilty of it. And there are other ways that the government and the military, with the active connivance of journalists and editors, can create a conflict. It is common practise for journalists to receive paid trips to conflict zones, foreign countries etc. Quite apart from the fact that not disclosing when a trip has been funded by an outside source is misleading readers, the reporting produced is inherently suspect since the journalist has seen only what his hosts want him to see. The benefits of ‘access’, the weasel word used to justify all conflicts of interest, are outweighed by the inherent deceit in not mentioning that the trip was undertaken at the government’s or military’s expense.
When a trip is underwritten by official channels, the journalist is described as being embedded, when a multinational corporation foots the bill, it’s a junket. The conflict of interest is the same in both cases. It can be very hard to turn down what is essentially a paid vacation (if you want me to shill for you I’d like mine in a Western European capital) but once again it is betraying the reader’s trust when one fails to reveal when a piece of writing, even if it is for ‘less important’ sections of the newspaper, has been sponsored by someone other than the journalist’s employer.
The greatest threat to the freedom of the press may actually come not from dictatorial governments but from advertisers that encourage censorship and the true conflict of interest may be faced not by individual journalists but by the media industry as a whole. The media has done immense systemic damage to its credibility when it has given in to demands by corporations that they not be investigated. Furthermore, they have often indulged in self-censorship to attract more advertising revenue. And with both sides having financial reasons not to change the status quo, there is no chance that this conflict of interest can ever be rooted out.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 12th, 2011.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Pakistan's jouranlists have come a long way but they too are being tainted by the very corruption they purport to expose.
I too have been asked on this august site whose views I am "propogating".
For the record, no one's. I am retired and I owe no one a debt of any kind.
opinions in essence are subjective. the best ones are those that are less subjective.unalderated unabashed objectivity is rare
Apparently, the most highly sought after are those who have built reputations as critics of the military and then slowly, thanks to the influence of the rupee, begin to change their minds.
No Mr.Nadir, it can't be him he did a good job for 'Saturday Times' as editor.
This makes sense. However, it's hard to understand how else "access" can be facilitated. An acknowledgement of the facilitator could work, but then it could also colour the judgement of the readers. They tend to be dismissive of the media and its "vested interests" in any case.
Also, it stands to reason that overt promotion of particular development projects by direct stakeholders would be unethical. But isn't the term "op-ed" a disclaimer in itself, saying, "These opinions are my own?"
Murky, murky waters.
Nice write-up and a good discussion of the evils in journalism. The lunches, dinners, parties, trips can be a part of life even if they are paid by someone else. However, the main condition to avoid corruption and dishonesty is it should be open and up and up, not hidden or hush hush. The dinners, parties, golf outings, game tickets and small trips are common in the US businesses. However, everybody knows about that and there is nothing hidden from either side or from the employers. In all cases the employ is supposed to do the right thing and not be influenced by the outings. Openness, truthfulness and honesty are the key words here and of course bribes are absolutely no no in every society and are a crime.
@Sprite Mirinda Team You didn't get the joke, it was written obviously tongue in cheek. Learn to chill...
begging for a vacation in western europe in the excuse of an opinion piece isn't very dignified, innit?
When a bank is robbed - its name is never given it is merely mentioned 'as a bank' -That eliminates one W of news - 'Which or Who" . Which bank was hit? The name of the bank is never known, it leaves the people to speculate, till one gets a glimpse of a sign board on TV. I am sure that if all the Ws of the news are answered regarding the killings in Karachi - many things would become clear. Some one would have been arrested. Information is withheld and no one knows who the real killers are and who is financing them is ever conveyed.