Shoot the messenger
November 19, 2008
The writer is an Islamabad-based security analyst
Salvos are routinely fired at the media. The sources are plenty, including parliamentarians, politicians, ambassadors, militants, security men and even sections of society.
They don't like the questions the media asks, nor the objections and arguments. Here is what the media asks on the arrest of money-changers: Were laws followed? Why arrests? The State Bank and not FIA is the regulator. Where is the illegality? Didn't the society want an answer to these questions? Why sell the Qadirpur gas fields? What is the basis of important appointments? Why a large cabinet? Why the reinstatement of 7,000 employees, and how? Why doesn't the government do its homework? Why is backtracking on writing a letter to the Indian prime minister over the water issue? When will the constitutional amendments be put forward for action? The why and the who of the JUI land?
When they can, the powerful media critics muffle the media's voice by blocking channels, by attacking journalists, by labelling them as anti-state, by even killing them. The government takes quick action to unblock when channels are blocked. But still no culprits responsible for blocking channels are identified and penalised.
Their long charge-sheet against the media holds the media responsible for destabilising the country, for undermining people's peace of mind, for embarrassing the country abroad, for trivialising serious and sober issues related to security and economy, if not eulogising and promoting violence, reporting insensitively when covering violence, sensationalising issues that require serious analysis.
These questions must be addressed. They should be checked for validity. For example, if the media reports that foreign currency accounts will be frozen, and that spreads panic; when they report on the hour the deteriorating value of the dollar. In both cases the complaint is that the media has contributed to capital flight from the country and it spread panic among the investor and the dollar depositors. Obviously investors and depositors react not exclusively to media reports, they imbibe the broader environment too. But to the extent that the media is the society's "eyes and ears" the society will look to it for signals on where policy is headed in difficult and challenging time.
Recently a friend calling from Australian complained that in Australia the currency lost 40 percent against the dollar in a few weeks, but the media stayed calm about it. The depreciation was analysed by the media and ways of responding to it were identified by independent economists and the officials. There, my friend claimed, the media was reporting only what was confirmed and analysed it sympathetically. Here, in the rush to be the first to "break news," the unfounded fear of freezing of accounts and bank lockers plus a run on the banks at this crucial time can screw up a lot more than just banks, or even the economy
While there is substance in the criticism of televising unconfirmed news which would have concrete and negative impact on the economy, while a serious and challenging situation of the kind Pakistan has been experiencing since the last two or three months requires greater sense of responsibility by the media which is the eyes and ears of the society, it undoubtedly calls for greater pre-emptive planning by the government.
Should the government not have pre-empted the rumour mill and made it clear that freezing accounts or safes was not even being contemplated.
To the extent that the media must be holding the government accountable, it must ask the right questions on issues that are of public interest, on issues that relate to exercise of authority and to use of resources, on issues that
The media, as a key pillar of democracy, shoulders immense responsibility, in two areas in particular: one, in providing facts, not fiction, to society and, two, in promoting pluralism and tolerance by providing the forum for an informed public discourse.
If the media has such a key role to play, then it must also have some standards set for itself. For example, some obvious ones would be presenting all sides of any issues. But all sides would mean bringing in views of those who know the subject. That alone makes for an informed debate. The media needs to set clear standards for what constitutes "breaking news." Two valid questions would be one relate to the reliability of the information upon which the breaking news story is put on air. The second important question would be what news content constitutes breaking news. The prerogative must be the media's alone and some of the questions that need to be asked is, what will the news achieve? Will it inform the public? Will it make the viewer more aware of key developments in her/his context? These are standards that need to be set more rigorously.
The media is clearly aware of all these issues. An internal debate within the media has already begun. In August two concrete outcomes of this debate led by the Pakistan Federation of Union of Journalists (PFUJ) were the 26-point Code of Ethics and a proposal for setting up of a Media Complaints Commission (MCC). The public will be able to come to the MCC to file its complaints against those within the media who will violate any of the 26 points. The draft for the MCC has been completed and sent to bodies representing the editors, owners and broadcasters. After a go-ahead from these three, work will begin on making the MCC functional.
Even on the "breaking news" bit the fact is that when the media broke the news around August last year that Musharraf was imposing an emergency it did contribute to an environment which forced Gen Musharraf to back-track.
Also, the criticism of the media as being a party to the cause of the restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan needs to be examined. A section of the media has cheered on for the Chief Justice's restoration.
The restoration issue is deeply linked to the question of genuinely accountable democracy, an independent judiciary, to the strengthening of institutions and to ensure sturdier deterrence against the judiciary moving in to support another military intervention in the doctrine of necessity. The validity and significance of the support for all of these issues flows from a key fact that all these issues, in turn, flow from the Constitution of Pakistan. The media is a partner of the society in its struggle to see genuine constitutional rule in Pakistan.
The media does not exist apart from society. While it must be responsible in carrying out its duty of being a conveyor belt of information to society and from society into the public sphere, it will also function as a conscientious section of the Pakistani society with an awareness that without genuine accountability of the powerful even a democratic society cannot progress and prosper.
Email: nasimzehra@hotmail.com
Salvos are routinely fired at the media. The sources are plenty, including parliamentarians, politicians, ambassadors, militants, security men and even sections of society.
They don't like the questions the media asks, nor the objections and arguments. Here is what the media asks on the arrest of money-changers: Were laws followed? Why arrests? The State Bank and not FIA is the regulator. Where is the illegality? Didn't the society want an answer to these questions? Why sell the Qadirpur gas fields? What is the basis of important appointments? Why a large cabinet? Why the reinstatement of 7,000 employees, and how? Why doesn't the government do its homework? Why is backtracking on writing a letter to the Indian prime minister over the water issue? When will the constitutional amendments be put forward for action? The why and the who of the JUI land?
When they can, the powerful media critics muffle the media's voice by blocking channels, by attacking journalists, by labelling them as anti-state, by even killing them. The government takes quick action to unblock when channels are blocked. But still no culprits responsible for blocking channels are identified and penalised.
Their long charge-sheet against the media holds the media responsible for destabilising the country, for undermining people's peace of mind, for embarrassing the country abroad, for trivialising serious and sober issues related to security and economy, if not eulogising and promoting violence, reporting insensitively when covering violence, sensationalising issues that require serious analysis.
These questions must be addressed. They should be checked for validity. For example, if the media reports that foreign currency accounts will be frozen, and that spreads panic; when they report on the hour the deteriorating value of the dollar. In both cases the complaint is that the media has contributed to capital flight from the country and it spread panic among the investor and the dollar depositors. Obviously investors and depositors react not exclusively to media reports, they imbibe the broader environment too. But to the extent that the media is the society's "eyes and ears" the society will look to it for signals on where policy is headed in difficult and challenging time.
Recently a friend calling from Australian complained that in Australia the currency lost 40 percent against the dollar in a few weeks, but the media stayed calm about it. The depreciation was analysed by the media and ways of responding to it were identified by independent economists and the officials. There, my friend claimed, the media was reporting only what was confirmed and analysed it sympathetically. Here, in the rush to be the first to "break news," the unfounded fear of freezing of accounts and bank lockers plus a run on the banks at this crucial time can screw up a lot more than just banks, or even the economy
While there is substance in the criticism of televising unconfirmed news which would have concrete and negative impact on the economy, while a serious and challenging situation of the kind Pakistan has been experiencing since the last two or three months requires greater sense of responsibility by the media which is the eyes and ears of the society, it undoubtedly calls for greater pre-emptive planning by the government.
Should the government not have pre-empted the rumour mill and made it clear that freezing accounts or safes was not even being contemplated.
To the extent that the media must be holding the government accountable, it must ask the right questions on issues that are of public interest, on issues that relate to exercise of authority and to use of resources, on issues that
The media, as a key pillar of democracy, shoulders immense responsibility, in two areas in particular: one, in providing facts, not fiction, to society and, two, in promoting pluralism and tolerance by providing the forum for an informed public discourse.
If the media has such a key role to play, then it must also have some standards set for itself. For example, some obvious ones would be presenting all sides of any issues. But all sides would mean bringing in views of those who know the subject. That alone makes for an informed debate. The media needs to set clear standards for what constitutes "breaking news." Two valid questions would be one relate to the reliability of the information upon which the breaking news story is put on air. The second important question would be what news content constitutes breaking news. The prerogative must be the media's alone and some of the questions that need to be asked is, what will the news achieve? Will it inform the public? Will it make the viewer more aware of key developments in her/his context? These are standards that need to be set more rigorously.
The media is clearly aware of all these issues. An internal debate within the media has already begun. In August two concrete outcomes of this debate led by the Pakistan Federation of Union of Journalists (PFUJ) were the 26-point Code of Ethics and a proposal for setting up of a Media Complaints Commission (MCC). The public will be able to come to the MCC to file its complaints against those within the media who will violate any of the 26 points. The draft for the MCC has been completed and sent to bodies representing the editors, owners and broadcasters. After a go-ahead from these three, work will begin on making the MCC functional.
Even on the "breaking news" bit the fact is that when the media broke the news around August last year that Musharraf was imposing an emergency it did contribute to an environment which forced Gen Musharraf to back-track.
Also, the criticism of the media as being a party to the cause of the restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan needs to be examined. A section of the media has cheered on for the Chief Justice's restoration.
The restoration issue is deeply linked to the question of genuinely accountable democracy, an independent judiciary, to the strengthening of institutions and to ensure sturdier deterrence against the judiciary moving in to support another military intervention in the doctrine of necessity. The validity and significance of the support for all of these issues flows from a key fact that all these issues, in turn, flow from the Constitution of Pakistan. The media is a partner of the society in its struggle to see genuine constitutional rule in Pakistan.
The media does not exist apart from society. While it must be responsible in carrying out its duty of being a conveyor belt of information to society and from society into the public sphere, it will also function as a conscientious section of the Pakistani society with an awareness that without genuine accountability of the powerful even a democratic society cannot progress and prosper.
Email: nasimzehra@hotmail.com
