The many ways media is being managed
Dear All,
As a journalist I am very aware of what a dangerous profession this is. Not just for reporters dodging bullets in a battlefield but for any editor or columnist who is committed to truth and editorial integrity. The military dictator General Zia ul Haq banned publications and had any protesting members of the press corps publicly flogged during his regime. Strict censorship was imposed and publishing houses were pressurised through financial means (threats of withdrawing advertisements or else of refusing applications for new publishing licences) or through simple threats. Journalism was criminalised. The images of newspapers with lines of text missing (blocked out by the censor) that appeared during this era of repression are a poignant reminder of the battle that was fought for the control of the news narrative.
That battle continues to this day -- not just in Pakistan but in the developed world: in countries with democratic systems and an awareness of human rights. Thus it is that the US government, the Pentagon in particular, insist that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are traitors, even though many consider them heroes for their role in exposing the excesses of the surveillance state and the war machine. And in the 21st century, the security state has become ever more powerful in its intimidation of those sections of the media who refuse to tow the official line.
The problem now is that much of the media simply chooses to look the other way when other parts of the press are intimidated or censored. There are still networks working to produce independent journalism and campaign for issues of independence, investigative excellence and so on, but by and large the market, in Pakistan, is dominated by organisations who regard journalism as a business, not a mission. To an extent, this has always been the case but in the past the difference was perhaps that the journalists -- especially the editors -- who worked for these businesses were much more aware of the importance of sanity, integrity and accuracy than in the present day.
A complete lack of editorial clarity is the hallmark of most mainstream media outlets in the present landscape. The only thing that is clear is the clamour and the kalei doscopic look of their output. But underneath all -- the colour, the pictures, the varied subject matter, the slick self-promotion and extensive advertising campaigns lies a dirty little truth: acquiescence. The media has agreed to the constraints of the security state narrative, it receives spin as real news and often rejects real news as ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘not news’.
Even more unsettling is the lack of awareness regarding this ‘pliability’ and lack of imagination.
It’s not all bad news though: with such a multiplicity of TV channels a lot of public interest programming has been made possible and there have been pioneering exposes of malpractices affecting public health and wellbeing. TV cameras and intrepid reporters have documented all sorts of scams and brazenly fraudulent practices through filming and naming and shaming.
Yet the news agenda is almost uniform across channels and the top story is almost always some variation of the ‘corrupt politician/ belligerent India/ problematic neighbour/ noble Defence/America says’ narrative. Most new editors appear never to question whether a story actually merits being the lead and there is a shocking disregard for establishing the facts, or sifting through the minutest details, of any news story. What is worrying is that spin or official narrative is now being spewed forth in the guise of news analysis (with a sprinkling of ‘planted’ anchors and analysts, and reporting that uses all the prescribed vocabulary) and loud declamatory bulletins. This can be terrifying.
More terrifying by far than the sight of those martial law era newspaper front pages with their visible censorship…
Best wishes