|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Editorial
— Media on media
viewpoint laws In
public view Over
to the whistleblower The media in
Pakistan does not yet qualify to be subjected to a Leveson-like Inquiry. Or,
perhaps, it does. The Malik Riaz-Dr Arsalan scandal has brought the media at
the centre of the controversy. Indeed, it was and is very much part of the
story. Ironically, this time it
got involved not for breaking the news but for not breaking it and keeping
its silence. Obviously, this was not without reason. Soon everybody and
their aunt put two and two together. Unluckily, that wasn’t
the end of the episode. Soon again, in fact only a day after Malik Riaz’s
exclusive interview with one private channel, a video of what went off air
during the interview was ‘leaked’ on YouTube. All hell broke loose and
people even forgot the contents of the interview or what triggered it (was
this the intention, one can’t say with certainty). The virtuous mediapeople
conducting ‘planted’ interviews! Now this was an insult to the common
people’s intelligence — to say they got to know about an interview being
‘planted’ on television for the first time. Television viewers are
intelligent enough to see through the planted content they are fed day after
day. It was the act itself, the evilness of the whistleblower’s mind, that
gave them a kick and they watched and watched it. Those who have been at the
receiving end of the pious media watched it too — with a sense of
cathartic relief. This time the media became the spectacle itself instead of
showing it to the people. But the vested interest is
stronger than we think. Soon the entire discourse about the original scandal
and the involved media was all about ‘victimhood’ and
‘conspiracies’. The social media that played the whistleblower’s role
gave in to the dominant narrative too. In today’s Special
Report, we have tried to discuss the role of media because media, we think,
has the potential to set a direction, while maintaining its commercial
interests intact. We have focused more on the electronic and the social
media because their influence in an illiterate society like ours is huge. We
have focused on them because somehow they choose to reinforce ignorance. We have also tried to
raise the question whether news television qualifies as journalism or should
we redefine it. Truth is that the way the programming is designed, it is
impossible to maintain the ethics that guide journalism in general. Whereas
it is easy for a print journalist to maintain his distance from his sources,
a television anchor may find it a job requirement to interact with the
politician or businessman or industrialist, especially if they are all
rolled into one. What was projected as a ‘planted’ interview after the
off air leaks could in old parlance be called a ‘scoop’ for the anchor. All said and done, some
media ethics will have to be followed if the media wants to remain credible.
The way people jumped at and believed in the PTI-sponsored fake list of
‘corrupt’ journalists and anchors is a wake-up call for all mediapeople.
As for what has been actually happening, perhaps we do need a Leveson-like
inquiry but, unfortunately, an impartial Leveson may be equally hard to
find.
The News on
Sunday: As media, especially the electronic media, continues to grow in
Pakistan, its negative as well as positive sides have come to light.
Comment. I. A. Rehman: We are in a
transitional phase. We have no consensus on where we are headed or what kind
of society we are going to become. In this situation, everybody is free to
interpret what is ‘national interest’. Secondly, the media,
particularly the electronic media, is way too young and immature to meet the
required standards. Having said that,
regardless of what’s happening in the media, I believe media is
responsible for two things: a)reporting what is worth reporting, and
b)helping the people formulate proper views on different things. Now, since
everything is topsy-turvy in Pakistan, people do not know how to view these
things. We understand that in a
society like ours, there can be a ‘motivated media’. Individuals such as
TV anchors can have their own ideas that suit their interests. But there are
interests of the proprietors. Their expectations depend sometimes on gains
from a party or a group. On the other hand, the people should also
understand the difficulties of media. Partisan roles are played everywhere
in the world to run down certain groups, parties etc. They are selective in
many things they do. For example, the media instantly picks on anything
happening anywhere in which the government is thrashed by the judiciary. In
Philippines, a chief justice was removed by the parliament; the news was not
repeated. TNS: Do you think media
reporting and conduct are appreciable? IAR: Our media does a fair
job of reporting but sometimes it is not accurate. It is also not always
straightforward and it doesn’t bother taking the point of view of the
other side. When I began in journalism, we were told not to report the FIRs
(First Information Reports) because they are merely an allegation and
accusation, and allegation damages the reputation of the person who may
eventually be declared innocent. Similarly, with regard to
the role of the judiciary, we were told that until a petition is submitted
we cannot publish it. Today, we see petitions are published in newspapers
even before they have been filed in the court. The best way to tackle
such stories is to present all possible viewpoints together. I think most
people in the media, especially those who conduct talk shows, come to work
with a particular mindset on an issue and they try to get likeminded guests
on the show. I call these promotional shows. TNS: Do you think the
media should have a proper code of conduct? IAR: First and foremost,
every organisation should have its code of conduct/ethics. The media persons
should not be party to falsehood. Secondly, they must investigate a story
properly. And, when they have investigated it, no one should be allowed to
meddle with it. Last but not the least,
one should accept the responsibility for what one writes or says in the
media. Big organisations should
ideally have an ombudsman office. I am sure there is a code of conduct
already in place for the media but it is not implemented. It can be
implemented and accepted only as competition grows. Presently, there is little
competition on quality; the competition is on ‘novelty’. So, what
happens when the novelty wears out? I have yet to see in electronic media
that someone apologised or admitted their mistakes. TNS: Is print a better
medium? IAR: In print, there is a
process of thinking and rethinking — a kind of a built-in corrective
mechanism. This is not so on TV. You can edit recorded programmes but not
live shows and the element of thinking and rethinking lacks completely. We
need to be more careful when doing TV journalism, because it leaves little
to the imagination. In print media, the reader
is expected to have a level of understanding and literacy. In TV, you do not
need that, as everybody from a child to an illiterate person is watching it.
TNS: Do you think the
situation demands a review of the existing media laws? IAR: Laws should only be
about crime. If a crime is committed it must be brought under the purview of
law. The propagation of hatred and crime is not permitted. We cannot
regulate things except when a crime is committed. We need self regulation
and respect of public view, though. Defamation also falls in
the jurisdiction of crime. I am opposed to any special media laws. Crime in
media should also fall in the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
If somebody tells lies, defames or incites someone in the media, it is a
clear offence. Hate speech is also a
criminal offence. I am opposed to regulating media with certain laws. Also, the social capital
of a society is reflected in the media. Unlike India, our social capital is
limited. Since we have a small social capital, our media is immature. TNS: How do you see the
social media? Has it assumed the role of the whistleblower? IAR: There are good as
well as bad aspects of the social media. The good part is that people
express themselves and share information. It can be a small pressure group
only. The bad part is that many times they do it without any thought or
consideration. This media is also related to our social maturity. The
society is declining and the values are going down. The words that were
considered bad and were never used in public are now openly used. This
social decline has also affected the media. To improve such media,
there is a need to improve the general discourse in our society. Weak
discourse can be corrected by a healthy discourse. But we lack discourse. TNS: How to hold the media
accountable to the public? IAR: Increase in social
capital will automatically lead to media accountability. People will start
analysing things being shown on TV. There can be accountability only of
crime in media at this point. The other will come through evolution. Until
then, we as a society will have to pay for that. There is a role for
educational institutions, parliament and civil society to play, in order to
form public opinion. In an underdeveloped
society, the anchorpersons, just as the common people, have not gone through
the mill. Our pool of talent is small and limited; we need to increase it.
The sphere and base of the society is small. Since talent is lacking, things
are uneven and monopolised. There is no healthy competition. The internet
industry competition is very low. TNS: Does media lack
training? IAR: Yes, media needs to
train itself properly. But it must be remembered that only media training
cannot improve things. It all depends on social development and this will,
definitely, take time.
laws It was back in
2009 when this scribe was working in a US newspaper as part of a fellowship
programme that a news about racial discrimination against some government
employees made headlines. The next day there was no follow-up at all.
Perturbed, I called the reporter to know why he had not filed a follow-up to
such a big story. The reply was simple. He
said: “They were not comfortable with some facts we reported. So they
hired lawyers, and now they are untouchable. We don’t want any
confrontation.” Compare the situation with
that in our country. One can write or say whatever one wants to, without
even confirming the facts or contacting the parties involved. Journalists
who have worked in Pakistani newsrooms know how their supervisors advised
them to use the word “allegedly” and get away with any doubtful
statement. The word works as a shield against any legal action the aggrieved
party can think of. One question that arises
here is whether there are any laws to tame the media or self-restraint is
the only option available. Even in the most advanced and civilised
societies, it’s the strict adherence to law which ensures discipline and
defines norms of decent living. Then why should one expect that media will
suddenly want to clip its wings. While different quarters
are talking about setting up a code for media, the fact that several laws
are already in place to act as a deterrent is quite relevant. Why they have
failed to deter is another story. As a case in point, the
Defamation Ordinance, 2002 and Chapter XXI of the Pakistan Penal Code relate
to defamation. Besides, Section 499, 500, 501 and 502 of the Pakistan Penal
Code (XLV 1860) spell out criminal penalty for defamation, printing or
engraving matters known to be defamatory and sale of printed or engraved
substance containing defamatory matters. Civil remedies and
penalties are provided in Section 9 of the Defamation Ordinance (LVI OF
2002). The laws are equally applicable to an ordinary citizen as well as the
media persons. Though the laws exist,
there is little precedent (court decision) available so far, says Aftab Alam
Advocate, an Islamabad based expert on media laws and regulatory affairs. Alam’s point is that the
courts — subordinate judiciary — seems to be less oriented about the
concept and the implication of the law. He says in most of the situations,
the issues are settled out of court, even before the filing of the case i.e.
upon sending the legal notice. Due to limited court
precedents awarding heavy damages under the defamation ordinance or
penalties under the PPC, people hardly care about the law. “The situation
is a reflection of the overall non-implemetation or least implementation of
law. This might be due to the fact that the majority does not know about
their rights and whether these laws exist. Hence, there seems to be a very
limited amount of litigation and decision thereon.” Besides, he says, the
Pemra laws are quite explicit on how to regulate the content. Section 20 of
the Pemra Ordinance clearly says what a licensee cannot do. Recently, the
Pemra prepared a draft on Content Regulations and purpose of the regulations
is to check such practices. “Just to make it clear that the Pemra can take
action only against its licensees. If an individual commits such things, the
defamation law will come in action.” Section 20(c) of Pemra
Ordinance states: “A person who is issued a licence under the Ordinance
shall ensure that all programmes and advertisements do not contain or
encourage violence, terrorism, racial, ethnic or religious discrimination,
sectarianism, extremism, militancy, hatred, pornography, obscenity,
vulgarity or other material offensive to commonly accepted standards of
decency.” According to Intezar Mehdi,
a Lahore-based lawyer of High Court, “The scope is unlimited as the phrase
‘standards of decency’ can entail anything present under the sun.” Is it difficult to
determine which broadcasts are against the standards of decency and which
not? he asks. “Playing film songs in the background and ridiculing the
political leaders can be declared acts in violation of this clause.” Lack of action on the part
of the government in such cases is taken as a tacit approval of these
practices, which in turn encourages the media to go a step further. Mehdi explains his point
of view saying that although he supports putting a code in place, he can
fight to the finish to ensure that the media is not suppressed and that it
remains free. “Media is people’s last hope which should never die.” The defences available
under the defamation laws also protect the media personnel in such
situations. They can escape the blame if they prove they have written the
truth or they did it by mistake and correct their version or tender apology.
Damages come after all
these stages are looked at, but hardly any complainant reaches this point.
“People are too busy earning their livelihood. Fighting endlessly for
damages is nothing less than a luxury,” says Aftab Alam. He says when the
objectionable material is in the form of print or video footage/audio
recording, it leads to libel and is easy to prove in the presence of
evidence. Whereas in case of slander, oral evidence is needed to prove the
charges which is difficult, the media people can get away easily. They
benefit from the reluctance of the aggrieved party to take legal recourse. Though there are many laws
which should be invoked there are those which have luckily not been
enforced. Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code is one example as it
talks about sedition. Under the said section, “Whoever by words, either
spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise,
brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts
to excite disaffection towards, the Federal or Provincial Government
established by law, shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which
fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to
which fine may be added, or with fine.” Following the
scandalous video leak of two anchorpersons of a private television channel,
and the campaign to defame certain journalists accusing them of getting
money and favours from the real estate tycoon Malik Riaz, the public’s
faith in media has shaken. What about media’s own accountability, they
ask. In a society where there
is no access to information and little acknowledgement of the right to know,
media was considered the ‘teller of the truth’. The public never saw the
faces behind the screen the dark side of the anchorpersons and hosts of the
current affairs programmes and talk shows on TV, sometimes spreading
information and sometimes indulging in propaganda to manipulate public
opinion. “The off-the-air scenes
of Dunya TV a few days ago have actually exposed the media,” says Muhammad
Imran, a university student in Lahore, adding, “The younger generation is
inspired by such anchorpersons but now we have started realising that
whatever they say may not all be true.” He urges that like other
institutions and the pillars of the state, the media should be held
accountable to the public. Imran also says such
footage “is disgusting but it makes us realise media persons are as
corrupt as any other people in the country.” “Our perception of media
is gradually changing with such eye-opening scenes and scandals which makes
us rethink and analyse what it disseminates to make public opinion,” says
Saeed Khan, in his thirties, a small businessman living in town. “It
appears that there are many black sheep in the media as well. They become
stooge of big businessmen, political parties, certain big politicians and
sometimes intelligence agencies and rather than telling truth to public they
propagate certain agendas.” Shahnaz Bibi, a housewife,
blames the media for spreading misinformation and sensationalising
information. She says she has stopped watching talk shows on TV, thinking
that whatever the anchorpersons say will mostly be fabricated and
propaganda. Shahnaz calls for media
accountability. Though, she believes they have contributed positively by
highlighting several issues of national import, most of these anchors are
“very annoying. It’s hard to listen to them through the entire length of
a show.” Islamabad-based Muhammad
Nasir, a young professional working in the energy sector, says: “As I see
it, the media in Pakistan is completely unregulated. It follows no SOPs.
Anyone who wants to become an anchorperson becomes an anchorperson. And,
everyone’s an analyst. For instance, this one gentleman whose credibility
has lately been exposed, was no alien to controversy — he was also a
minister in the Musharraf regime. Yet, he was entrusted with the task of
anchorpersoning this primetime talk show.” Nasir also talks about
“the language that is being used [in the media], the images being shown,
this is an age of information. All media is good. The days of official
information are over. But there ought to be some sort of regulation of the
media. Especially, because today’s media is constantly fighting for TRPs,
which gives rise to a lot of unhealthy, unethical trends. There is no
serious discussion on the shows. Besides, the choice of topics is also very
limited. I’ve never seen a show on Health or Agriculture.” “The politicians as well
as the media persons on TV screens think they can fool the public. My
message to them is, we are not stupid,” says Aftab Ahmad, 40, an
uneducated man who drives a rickshaw in the city. “We are watching
everything and analysing whatever is being said in front of us. We have our
own independent opinion. We can tell who is speaking the truth and who
isn’t.” Sardar Hussain, a young
academic, says: “Over the last few years, we the people had developed
faith in the word of the media. We had begun to look at the TV anchors as
messengers of truth. But after the recent media scandal, it has become clear
that the media champions are also part of the very corrupt system they set
out to expose. We stand hopelessly disillusioned.” Hassan Mujtaba, 33, quotes
an example, saying that recently there was chaos in the Punjab Assembly when
a ruling party member passed uncouth remarks about the women MPAs. The
speaker ordered to expunge those words from the proceedings but the media
aired them repeatedly. “This is an unethical and unhealthy trend. The
media should have a code of conduct and abide by the law. They are no sacred
cow.” — Waqar Gillani
Social media is at
the heart of the Malik Riaz-Dr Arsalan scandal and is difficult to ignore
even if it is closely tied to the role of the mainstream media. Three
crucial disclosures were made all on the social media, reinforcing its
whistle-blowing role in a society where the other media may feel constrained
for a host of reasons. On June 4, senior
journalist Shaheen Sehbai broke the scandal on the newly-launched Washington
Beat channel on YouTube. Thereafter, the mainstream media (or, to be
precise, the anchors who had reportedly met Malik Riaz) felt compelled to go
public with the same sketchy evidence that it claimed had stopped it from
doing so in the first place. On June 14, a day after Malik Riaz’s
exclusive interview with one private channel, a leaked video of what went
off air in the ‘planted’ interview was released also on YouTube. With
the media’s role being called into question, it was a matter of hours that
a fake list of journalists receiving bounties from Malik Riaz went viral,
again on the social media (that a majority of social media consumers took
the list as gospel truth and refused to question its authenticity should be
an eye-opening moment for all media practitioners, in or out of the list). It may be an opportune
time to assess whether the social media and the anonymity it provides are an
advantage. Should there be some ethics to govern this side of the media too,
what is its impact, what is the level of debate and is it adding to the
general level of awareness are all worth-asking questions. Raza Rumi, an
award-winning blogger, thinks social media has emerged as a powerful venue
in Pakistan’s information space “since it allows citizens and
journalists to express without fear. The holy cows of Pakistan i.e. military
and judiciary are no longer so. Similarly, issues of Balochistan and the
games of security establishment are now openly debated on the social
media.” But what about the
limitation of social media in terms of its minimal outreach? Rumi’s view
remains optimistic since “at least 20 million Pakistanis have internet
access and the spill-over effect of social media debates can be seen in the
mainstream politics and reporting. You can see most political parties are on
Twitter and Facebook and there is new platform for citizen engagement.”
But he concedes that it unfortunately remains elitist so far “as internet
connections are restricted to urban and peri-urban areas — around 40 per
cent of the country”. About its vulnerability as
a whistle-blower and the advantages of anonymity (on say YouTube) Rumi says:
“The whistleblowers have little protection anywhere in Pakistan including
social media but anonymity gives some advantage. However, anonymity is also
abused as there are several websites which are condemning liberals or other
minority groups and inciting violence against them.” Somehow, this condemnation
of liberals and incitement to violence that Rumi mentions in passing is a
major concern for senior journalist Nusrat Javeed who is equally active on
the social media. Javeed is cynical, to say the least. “Yes, off and on,
it [social media] does play the role of a whistle-blower but, generally, the
discourse on the social media is overtaken by forces of bigotry, people who
want to malign each other, the frustrated elements. It is dominated by
immigrant Pakistanis, the social left-outs in their adopted countries, who
are using the social media to vent their anger and frustration.” Rumi and Javeed may also
have opposing viewpoints on the relationship between social and mainstream
media. In Rumi’s view, old media has a formidable rival “in the form of
social networking sites which critique and point out the fallacies of the
media; the recent episode of journalists and holier-than-thou anchors
falling from grace is a good example of how things will shape up.” Javeed
thinks the real source of information remains the mainstream media
“because our profession thrives on attributing everything to a source.
Owning whatever you are saying with a sense of responsibility is what makes
the information authentic. So, social media cannot be a replacement of
mainstream media.” Both, however, agree that
social media cannot be regulated. Javeed thinks the reason
why the old media did not make the Riaz-Arsalan scandal public for months
was because “it was a policy decision. They were scared of the Supreme
Court.” But that does not make him
happy with the social media either. The overall discourse on the social
media, he thinks, was negative and in the ultimate analysis benefited Dr
Arsalan. This is how he deconstructs the discourse: “Malik Riaz, the evil
man who is also a friend of Asif Zardari, has hatched this conspiracy
against the honourable chief justice.” What ought to have been
asked of Dr Arsalan was to how did a doctor wanting to be an FIA inspector
become so rich in a span of three years when others businesses in the
country complained of recession, says Javeed. “Obviously, there were
people trying to oblige the son of the chief justice, even if his father was
not giving them the required relief. But these questions were not raised on
the social media.” The current scandal apart,
Rumi is hopeful. “Notwithstanding the ideological fault-lines,
socio-political transformation will be abetted by technology. The Arab
Spring experience in the Middle East, for instance, entailed the strategic
use of social media to publicise and organise protests.” But, as someone rightly
said, there were people using the social media to bring about an Arab
Spring. Likewise, the thought process of people who are using social media
in this country will determine the kind of change we hope to see. For the
moment, cries of conspiracy mar independent investigation on media of all
kinds.
|
|
