The writer is a lawyer and a member of the law faculty at LUMS. She is a graduate of the University of Cambridge
Throughout the last week the electronic media, in its characteristic sensationalism and flare for drama, flashed images of the break-up of the (fairly recent) Khan couple to the tunes of sad romantic melodies. The headline focus drifted from the damage to life and property caused by the earthquake that hit Pakistan a few days earlier, to the marital woes of this celebrity couple. Newspapers, in like manner, carried the story as front-page news.
The usual speculations made the rounds: was it her political ambitions, his commitment issues, or the interference of the in-laws? Stories from the couple’s past, broadcast 10 months earlier were replayed. News channels were airing somewhat of a real-life soap opera. When Mr Khan, however, rebuked the media for its fixation on his private life, media houses retaliated with greater fervour against the PTI chairman, further politicising what is a personal matter.
To convince our ‘marriage obsessed’ media with the merits of Khan’s argument may be difficult. The preoccupation with marriage, typical of our contemporary television serials, now seems to have made its way to political talk shows and national news bulletins. We were all familiar with the young-girl-ready-to-be-married plot characteristic of most TV plays or the endless marriage-centric discussions on morning shows. Yet when it comes to the Khan marriage, the more serious segments of our media tasked with the coverage of current affairs and news, appear to be equally obsessed. Earlier this year we had explored the details of the menu at the Khans’ intimate wedding ceremony in Bani Gala, speculated on the colour of the groom’s sherwani or the name of the bride’s make-up artist. Ten months hence we are again picking apart the couple’s marriage on national television in an attempt to find an explanation for their separation.
The media’s obsession is pretty much a reflection of our society’s preoccupation with marriage. We have all, at some point in our lives, been victims of (or have partook of) such obsession. Of the “12 silly things most Pakistanis are crazily obsessed with” doing the rounds on social media today, marriage quite rightly figures at the top. Marriage talk clearly sells; the media merely cashes in on it.
The business imperative driving media houses has meant misplaced prioritisation of news items, such that more pressing and real issues — the earthquake for instance — are shelved off the bulletin to accommodate juicier happenings. The ratings war incessantly being fought between channels intensifies the pressure to broadcast what sells. That a particular channel first broke the story of the Khan divorce itself becomes a reportable item on the hourly news bulletin.
This race to continuously run breaking newsfeed has rendered objective, balanced and ethical reporting a secondary concern. Existing codes of conduct and ethics, issued by regulatory bodies, carry little or no value, disregarded with ease by media houses. The “Ethical Code of Conduct” of the Press Council of Pakistan provides that print media must in its reporting respect the privacy of the home and family, uphold standards of morality and avoid biased reporting and sensationalism. Such directions are echoed in the Pemra Code of Conduct, 2009 pursuant to which broadcasters are prohibited from airing programmes that are against basic cultural values and good manners, and the sanctity of home, family and marital harmony.
The media frenzy surrounding both Imran Khan’s marriage and divorce seems to have entirely ignored these rules of conduct. Instead, television anchors have vehemently defended prying into Khan’s private life on various grounds. It is argued that in showcasing his marriage as a public affair, Khan himself opened his private life to media coverage. Or that the lives of public figures across the world are not protected by general standard of privacy — Nicolas Sarkozy and Bill Clinton serving as examples. The first argument fails to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual disclosure of information. The second, summed up in other words as ‘well the West does it’ is unsound and cannot justify violation of mandatory rules of media conduct or principles of propriety. The media has tasked itself with the responsibility of holding the state and public figures accountable to stands of morality and ethics. This media must also engage in a self-reflective exercise and question the ethics of its own conduct.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 10th, 2015.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (4)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ