Neck and neck with the lop-sided blogging community is the inexperienced, sensation-driven tabloid style media that has swept the nation. We seem to think that a free press means the right to air anyone’s opinion, regardless of the consequences.
On one hand, you have conservative newspapers that are so late with the news, they may as well analyse it for a monthly. On the other, you have TV channels bending over backwards to get the news across first – with only one or two exceptions, neither media offers any form of responsible substantive journalism to their audience.
Countless times, I have seen corrupt politicians sitting on TV and pointing fingers at their opponents, accusing them and defaming them without a shred of proof. I have never heard a host or commentator on TV ask for proof, or verification of their statements, nor a challenge with counter facts. No member of the media ever comes back with research refuting or accepting the claims made by these politicians. No member of the media ever offers background or context to the stories they present on TV, or the statements made in the press. No member of the media ever takes up any of these claims and investigates it themselves (it’s called Investigative Journalism – look it up).
Much of the May 12 uproar is a result of unedited, unchecked footage aired on all the channels. Interviews were taken when people were trapped in the midst of gunfire, and statements were made that later were found to have no foundation. One TV channel claimed to be under massive attack during the episode, and the scars of this ‘massive attack’ were later found to be a few stray bullets that were probably ricochets or wayward gunfire from the actual fight – not at the channel. This fact was pointed out much later, but like retractions in a newspaper, which are printed on an inside page, far away from the headlines, any retractions for statements and allegations made in the heat of emotion will go largely unnoticed. Any truths of the situation will be unheard, because the violence of the moment has clouded the issue. Who will believe anyone now?
In the same vein, throughout the unrelenting publicity offered to the Chief Justice, no newspaper, channel or magazine analyzed the history of Judicial struggle in this country, the limitless corruption within the judiciary itself, or the impact of the Lawyer’s strikes on common people looking for justice for their own, “less important” problems. No newspaper, channel or magazine actually investigated the allegations against the CJ to see if they were, in fact, baseless. None of them could see beyond the issues raised by the CJ’s lawyers, and while they aired many opinions, none of them actually offered the Constitution itself for analysis on this matter. Instead, we saw a steady stream of politicians, mostly opposition members, acting like children in a playground fight, where might is right, and the person with the louder voice wins.
For every person invited on BBC or CNN, even Al-Jazeera, the channel researches that person’s background, has relevant, up-to-date information on them, and is ready with counter-arguments or counter-experts (in the case a guest is appearing as an expert on a subject) to air on the program itself. Even for current affairs, a foreign channel offers history, relevance, analysis and balanced views from all sides. Rarely does a news item consist solely of a statement from a deposed Prime Minister (as is the norm here) unless it is part of a bigger story. What constitutes “news” in fact is not simply politics, but events that shape our policies as a nation, as a government and as a member of the Opposition.
We seem to think a good talk show means calling people in and letting them take over. Newspapers print entire versions of a story without offering any alternative views. The damage done by these headlines, most often to honest people, is immeasurable. It seems the only source of news in this country is what people say (and that too, people with no history of integrity, and in some cases, no intellect to speak of) - is it too much to ask that a channel or paper research the circumstances behind a statement and then decide responsibly whether that statement should be aired or not? Consider this; every second you offer to a politician on TV is a second less of airtime they would have to buy in order to gain that much publicity. Isn’t it about time our media dumped the Fox News formula and learned how to run a real news channel, a real newspaper? Instead of giving free publicity to our depraved ex-leaders, learn how to do real news stories.
Musharraf did a great thing by giving us Freedom of the Press. Now I want to know, who will give us a Responsible Press?
If you liked that post, then try these...
Clerical Islam by sm on July 8th, 2007
Weblogs and Mainstream Media on the Israel/Lebanon War by sm on August 26th, 2006
WHY? (Freedom to De'press' II) by sm on July 6th, 2007
Judiciary Above Suspicion by sm on March 21st, 2007
3 Comments
As a reference to a previous story about our bloggers, here’s one who considered the one-sided coverage of the Chief Justice issue by our media ‘outstanding’: Pakistan Media
Don’t know which tree you are barking up at - but you fail to understand that free media means, it is the freedom for people to raise their voice - Free media provides YOU the opportunity to here all sides of the argument leaving you as an individual to decide what is right and what is wrong.
Responsible media is the PTV variety the scripted form - where you get filtered content as per the appropriate guidelines - I feel you are educated enough to realize that you cannot take the face value of every statement without appreciating the underlying content (in between the line) once you analyze the argument presented you must exercise your power of logical reasoning and hope to come up with a balanced point of view that is perfect in your mind
Blogging is like wise another form of free media but in textual form - understand the difference and you will get over your barrage on blaming the free media for a conspiracy against Pakistan
Accept also the fact that I may have an opinion which may be right or utterly wrong but you have the right to argue in attempt to convince me of your point of view.
Perhaps YOU need to revisit the concept of a Free Media. You are confusing it with Freedom of Expression. Nowhere in the world does Free Media translate to saying whatever you want, whenever you want. If your idea of responsible journalism is PTV, then you have the wrong end of the stick, and I suggest you go back to school on this one.
To illustrate my point, you’ve cheerfully picked out what you feel is relevant to you from my post and ignored the rest - people hear and see what they want to hear and see, and the press have known that much longer than any of us. To offer isolated events up as news is as irresponsible and sensationalist as it gets, and we certainly don’t have a public educated enough to glean the truth out of anything they see on TV or in the papers. As you yourself have said in a previous comment, even our bloggers are incapable of analyzing situations against any context whatsoever.
And if it were really that simple (see it, shoot it air it), any moron could become a journalist. Really. Look it up. Freedom of the Press vs. Freedom of Expression or Speech. They’re two different things.