The wages of right and wrong
Channels in question add to disunity, provoke intolerance, violence, too often exhibit remarkable display of stupidity
amina.jilani@tribune.com.pk
As some keep reminding those staunch upholders of freedom of the media the chaotic freedom that now prevails – freedom gone berserk – was gifted by a military dictator, an imperfect dictator, one General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, who now is one of the prime targets of that same freedom. Perhaps, in the present-day context, it was handed out too swiftly, it was uncontrolled, and as is the norm in this Islamic Republic when a free rein is given to any entity, advantage is leapt at and taken at will.
The press, at least the English press, by and large, is kept within proper bounds as in most cases, it has professionals at its helm who know what constitutes the responsibility that goes hand in hand with freedom – though of late, there have been deviations as, again the norm in the republic, unity within ranks is difficult to come by. After all, there is no unity of any sort within the entire country, not even when facing a common enemy. That the press groups and the electronic media have ‘family ties’ is a stumbling block as we have recently seen in the case of physical attacks upon members of the media by murderers acknowledged simply as ‘them’, without anyone in the government or media being able to define who ‘they’ are. This has been happening for years and is not only lamentable, but ridiculous.
Of course, even more ridiculous was the latest attack on a media man when ‘they’ were in double quick time said to be ‘him,’ the General heading the ISI – an accusation made without any thought behind it in the most unprofessional manner by a media group that should have had to sense to realise that sensationalism not only has a blowback effect, but in this case, makes a fool of the country’s media in the eyes of the international community. Also, it cannot be very helpful to the unfortunate victim.
Some sections of the electronic media is a loose cannon. Its news channels in most cases are downright dangerous when it comes to preaching to a largely illiterate audience. They are controlled and peopled by far too few professionals and far too many cowboys. The channels in question add to disunity, provoke intolerance and violence and too often exhibit a remarkable display of stupidity. Musharraf unleashed a pack of hyenas, which eventually mauled not only him, but whoever it sets its sights on.
The government, as with past governments, will neither divulge who ‘they’ and ‘them’ are, but it will also not do anything tangible –– it might make noises –– about coming to the aid of a beleaguered media. There is no protection for the 190-odd million citizens of the country who are remorselessly blown up, shot and maimed by various groups of militants acting in the name of religion (sometimes a chunk of politics thrown in for good measure), so how can the media expect to be shielded from ‘them’ and ‘they’? To add to this is the lament from an editorial in this publication : “[H]ow can we hope for anything from the government when our own industry doesn’t stand up for us.”
But then things might have well been worse had Musharraf not appeared on the scene. In March 2000, Nawaz Sharif could have pushed his Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment through the Senate, thus virtually ensuring the Talibanisation of the republic, building on the legacy of Ziaul Haq and giving the federal government the authority to interpret Sharia and personal laws, allowing one institution to interpret what in its mind was ‘right’ and forbid what in its mind was ‘wrong’. Confusion would have been worse confounded, further dividing the country. The judiciary would have been ‘fixed’, undermining whatever supremacy it had (remember the storming of the Supreme Court). And the media, where would it have been? Definitely not a very happy camper.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 26th, 2014.
The press, at least the English press, by and large, is kept within proper bounds as in most cases, it has professionals at its helm who know what constitutes the responsibility that goes hand in hand with freedom – though of late, there have been deviations as, again the norm in the republic, unity within ranks is difficult to come by. After all, there is no unity of any sort within the entire country, not even when facing a common enemy. That the press groups and the electronic media have ‘family ties’ is a stumbling block as we have recently seen in the case of physical attacks upon members of the media by murderers acknowledged simply as ‘them’, without anyone in the government or media being able to define who ‘they’ are. This has been happening for years and is not only lamentable, but ridiculous.
Of course, even more ridiculous was the latest attack on a media man when ‘they’ were in double quick time said to be ‘him,’ the General heading the ISI – an accusation made without any thought behind it in the most unprofessional manner by a media group that should have had to sense to realise that sensationalism not only has a blowback effect, but in this case, makes a fool of the country’s media in the eyes of the international community. Also, it cannot be very helpful to the unfortunate victim.
Some sections of the electronic media is a loose cannon. Its news channels in most cases are downright dangerous when it comes to preaching to a largely illiterate audience. They are controlled and peopled by far too few professionals and far too many cowboys. The channels in question add to disunity, provoke intolerance and violence and too often exhibit a remarkable display of stupidity. Musharraf unleashed a pack of hyenas, which eventually mauled not only him, but whoever it sets its sights on.
The government, as with past governments, will neither divulge who ‘they’ and ‘them’ are, but it will also not do anything tangible –– it might make noises –– about coming to the aid of a beleaguered media. There is no protection for the 190-odd million citizens of the country who are remorselessly blown up, shot and maimed by various groups of militants acting in the name of religion (sometimes a chunk of politics thrown in for good measure), so how can the media expect to be shielded from ‘them’ and ‘they’? To add to this is the lament from an editorial in this publication : “[H]ow can we hope for anything from the government when our own industry doesn’t stand up for us.”
But then things might have well been worse had Musharraf not appeared on the scene. In March 2000, Nawaz Sharif could have pushed his Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment through the Senate, thus virtually ensuring the Talibanisation of the republic, building on the legacy of Ziaul Haq and giving the federal government the authority to interpret Sharia and personal laws, allowing one institution to interpret what in its mind was ‘right’ and forbid what in its mind was ‘wrong’. Confusion would have been worse confounded, further dividing the country. The judiciary would have been ‘fixed’, undermining whatever supremacy it had (remember the storming of the Supreme Court). And the media, where would it have been? Definitely not a very happy camper.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 26th, 2014.