wedding takes place in paradise where everyone is invited and where the military is the bridegroom and the media’s soul is the bride – the crisis has already given us a lot to reflect on with certainty.
One thing that strikes us in this affair is what the liberal Marx saw as the rise of the child over man in much of the Media and elsewhere. The child has a remarkable fascination with things seen in isolation from each other. The child does not know the ‘invisible’ thread that links different parts of a whole. The child does not go beyond sensuous perception.
So here we are, the children of the Media. On the misery of the missing we think only of misery and the missing, on the matter of Musharraf we consider only the matter of Musharraf, in a Media house under threat we see only a media house under threat, in Hamid Mir we have only a headstrong and emotional journalist who named names after he was shot. (Of course his plight has moved us and we pray for his long life – with a few ‘professional’ and ‘ideological’ ifs and buts).
Now the child, as we all know, is a sweet little selfish creature and the instinct of self-preservation is natural to all. So maybe our rush back to childhood has something to do with the fear that a coherent narrative linking the parts and making an analytical chain can be a very costly affair for both the owners of the Media and the Media men and women.
Maybe the owners fear that an already tough competition will come to be seen as a rebel with a brave cause. Maybe some journalists have the same fear of a fellow journalist whose near-death and its aftermath sparked the whole crisis. Competitiveness that does not go beyond one’s nose and non-creative jealousy are also the hallmark of the child.
But all this still remains within the realm of the professionally explicable. And that is why it does nothing to explain those sections of the ‘Media’ that have, in this affair, embraced the gutter like there is no tomorrow. Theirs has turned out to be a field we should not name.
Out of our respect for the innocence of the child, and out of our respect for the dignity of the Media, we will exclude these sections from our definition of the Media and call them the opponents of a free Media and a free society. For the sake of decency we have still given them a far nobler title than they deserve.
Though they appear to be baying for the blood of one particular section of the Media, the actual content of their attack is a hybrid of bigotry, xenophobia and obscurantism that has often been used to arouse the savage in human beings. Once the beast is aroused it seldom dies with what it was meant to kill. It wants to thrive. One should not have to say more on this point in a society that already qualifies as a horrid example of such brutalisation.
There is another and very consequential difference between the Media under the rule of the child and the opponents of a free Media. The opponents have the advantage of what Marx termed a ‘pathological emotion’, a ‘passionate partisanship’ to propel them. Their fight and their cause are real because their passion is real. The opponents are in love with what they are doing and love themselves for doing it. Their narrative has verve because it accords with the true logic of their existence.
The child in the Media is unsure and vague. The limitations inherent in seeing things in isolation from each other present the child only with the spectre of the media under attack and not with the spirit that threatens the Media. It has no ‘real relation’ to what sometimes it has to be seen as defending. Its narratives are punctured with ifs and buts.
The Media’s reversion to childhood is its escape from its freedom. The problem with Media freedom is that it can never be a gift which the Media should not look horse in the mouth. Freedom as a gift from above is a Trojan horse out of which – when the time is ripe – emerge lickspittles and town-criers who pave the way for the beast that spares none.
Media freedom is sustained only by being constantly tested against other kinds of freedom that are rampant in a society that is not free yet. To choose only a few: freedom to abduct, torture and kill, freedom not to account for what is happening, freedom not to be named in allegations, freedom to perform political and social puppetry and produce ‘patriots’ out of your pocket, freedom to pose a threat in the national interest, freedom to decide what is that interest, freedom to shut the Media down if it is seen erring on the side of ‘free’ judgement while struggling to balance the stark truth with the defined national interest etc etc.
This freedom versus freedom in an un-free society is not a ‘professional’ choice but a choice of profession. The freedom of this profession is only as real as the extent to which it is able to address the ‘real’ contradictions behind freedom versus freedom and expose the free interests thriving on the un-freedom of others.
When the media is shut down to let court-jesters have a field day without being challenged, it is time for the Media and the Media men and women to see the true content of the conflict, to detect the threatening thread. It is no time for escape into childhood.
The writer is editor oped, The News. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
First, the conservatives struck down New York’s requirement for gun owners to prove why they should be allowed to...
Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, the Rev Al Sharpton last week suggested that the left was as much to blame as...
Although women comprise 48.54 per cent of the total population in Pakistan, their perspective is missing in national...
I came to Germany in the first week of June, thanks to a research fellowship awarded by Germany’s prestigious...
We are in the most unfortunate age of Pakistan’s political history where every political entity is trying to appease...
With his targeting of the US government , Imran Khan has set the bar for behaviour that is deleterious to Pakistan’s...