'We must understand that this is the nature of the beast'
-- Syed Talat Hussain, Executive Director, News & Current Affairs, Aaj TV
By Usman Ghafoor
The News on Sunday: Electronic media in Pakistan has lately witnessed a phenomenal rise, especially the news channels that are also commonly accused of playing on popular emotions, especially in talk shows and live, minute-to-minute coverage. What is your take?

Three Ds
Like other institutions of the country, media also requires a rigorous internal critique and professional retrofitting
By Amjad Bhatti
Three Ds best describe our country's rule in the past nine years: dictatorial, decadent and divisive. Recent revelations by the former ISI chief provide evidence to the argument that an unrepresentative syndicate was orchestrated to govern the country in previous years. At best, an aura of insecurity and a relationship of adversity, if not enmity, between people and the state was bred and nurtured by the outgoing regime.

The maiden session of the new parliament was decidedly a 'television' story. It appeared that those sitting inside that august National Assembly building on March 17 realised this too; the agenda was thus well thought out even if not well-rehearsed, the oath was smoothly followed by points of order, again smoothly followed by members' signatures before the session was called off for the day.

The role of the new media, or television for present purposes, is not just restricted to live coverage of events. In our context it has helped shape events and opinions and affected outcomes. The new media is said to have played a significant part in the last elections that determined the complexion of the present parliament.

It is this 'undoing' power of the media that has evoked serious concerns. If the charge sheets against the sitting parliaments in the decade of democracy were largely based on reports [read scandals] appearing in the press (print media), it is feared that this time the job may be done by the electronic media and perhaps quicker than before. The outgoing politicians who see in media freedom their nemesis now secretly wish a similar treatment for the newcomers.

But the issues run deeper than this superficial reading of media's role in politics. Television is a reality that we all have to learn to live with. Syed Talat Hussain wants us to understand the medium as essentially different from the print and that should suffice to soothe our anxious nerves, he says. Agreed but television should still be ready to listen to the voices of criticism. The purpose here is not to claim superiority of one medium over the other because we do not want to presume that print journalism in Pakistan has achieved the pinnacle of perfection and is thus best placed to advise television on what to do and how. Media, like all else, is in a process of constant learning. Television attracts more attention because it is young and merits a Special Report because it wields power and influence.

Media critic Khaled Ahmed in one of his articles talks about the futility of the 'politicised' debate where talking to 'protagonists of the country's political scene' hardly matters. He is of course talking in the context of Pakistan not being a 'sovereign and equal state'. Since, in his view, we do not have any political scientists or experts in think-tanks, he poses the question: "who should then speak to the people over the media?" Khaled Ahmed does not want television to allow uninformed or downright ignorant political analyses and he is obviously perturbed by the nationalistic rather than neutral face of television. Retrogressive and contradictory views expressed by so-called religious experts on these channels must also be put a stop to, Ahmed holds.

A lot of this criticism is justified, though from an ordinary man's perspective, there is a lot more happening on television that needs to be explained. The live coverage of violence, the frenzied tone of television itself, the showing of blood and gore in real time, and a mike before an injured man minutes after a tragedy to get his views is sometimes just too much for the common man's sensibility. Meanwhile there is almost consensus on the fact that the centre of entertainment has shifted from drama and film and music to news and talk shows: A sign of unusual times indeed.

Talat Hussain talks about the democratic nature of the talk shows where differing points of view are put face to face with each other -- both sides of the story told -- as opposed to print which he says is written in 'first person singular'. This tradition of public debate and discourse is indeed welcome. While we try to avoid the one-is better-than-the-other approach, it will only be fair to state and understand that television, because of the nature of the medium, may not be able to attempt a nuanced, mature and detailed analysis that is possible in print.

Electronic, like all other mediums of communication, is accused of always going with the tide of viewership, the yardstick for which remains advertising. But where is the editorial policy that balances the advertising concerns with professional ethics and responsibility? Do we have enough people in the profession who know where to draw that fine line? How much of news and talk shows do we actually need? Will this ever expanding sector not be pushed to create and generate controversies to fill up the time? These any many other questions form the subject of this Special Report.

Media pluralisms have steadily grown in Pakistan since the country decided to open up the airwaves for private ownership in 2002. However, 2007 will be regarded as a watershed year in the way the state's near-monopoly over information flows was nullified and the radical shift from a largely information-controlled country to a society where real-time information is available -- and demanded -- is the norm, was crystallised. This shift became more pronounced as each of four major events rocked Pakistan and were broadcast live into people's living rooms making politics a staple daily diet for millions of homes -- the first of two sackings of the chief justice, the Lal Masjid military operation in Islamabad, the imposition of the state of emergency and the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

The bruising crackdown on media as part of the 'emergency' measures of President Musharraf and the media's spirited resistance as well as the subsequent parliamentary elections ensured that media became one of the major political stakeholders in the country rather than only a bit player on the margins. The Feb 2008 general elections were the country's first in the presence of private broadcast media. Leaders of both the largest parties in National Assembly -- Asif Zardari of PPP and Nawaz Sharif of PML-N -- in their first post-electoral victory press conferences specifically acknowledged that media played a key role in their being able to defeat the incredible odds stacked against them.

The evolution of independent media in Pakistan and its impact is itself becoming a major political story; one can get the impression at times that the media is now almost insisting that it has a right to influence events and that its ambit goes beyond the traditional framework of informing and educating. Take the February elections; sure enough local language media resulted in local priorities and local coverage -- with the result that the election results have thrown up four different political parties in all four provinces in Pakistan: Bhutto's secularist PPP in Sindh, Wali's nationalist ANP in NWFP, Sharif's centrist PML-N in Punjab and Musharraf-backed conservative PML-Q in Balochistan although the last one is more an anomaly than a popular outcome.

As local governments woo the local media to consolidate their political gains and keep a line of direct communications with their electorates, particularly private TV and radio, a uniform 'national' policy will be difficult to articulate for the federal government. Thanks to this more 'localised' media coverage, Pakistan will now be ruled collectively by parties with separate strengths in each province and who agree on a minimum agenda to fight terrorism, reduce inflation, get the army out of politics and strengthen civilian institutions like the judiciary. The media certainly managed to portray the Islamists in a negative light for their failure to offer policies that could resolve their problems and resulted in a rout of religious forces.

The media is strongly against Musharraf -- they have survived brute, crude attempts at browbeating in the wake of the controversial state of emergency and have lived to tell the tale, a sense of newfound confidence that they are likely to repeat in their treatment of the new government. This can mean more tensions. Or it can, on the flip side, be good for Pakistan that media becomes a demonstrated (as opposed to a theoretical) institution of effective accountability.

The private sector media's newfound self-confidence and assertiveness will surely be tested in the coming weeks as by the very nature of its function, it has to keep the government and other state institutions under the accountability microscope. The litmus test will be the issue of terrorism, which will allow little time for a honeymoon. Media's coverage of terrorism will remain of a matter of concern to the new governments at the federal and provincial levels as much, if not more, as it was to the Musharraf government. This is particularly so because there is pressure from the US and Europe on the incoming governments to continue the 'war on terror' policies of Musharraf while even the incoming nationalist-secular coalition government in NWFP, which has replaced the Islamists, considers this a 'war of terror' and likely to rethink strategies. This may mean varying degrees of continued restrictions on coverage of terrorism related issues.

Also, the restrictions notwithstanding, the media has emerged as one of the key stakeholders on the political scene and by the sheer experience of having survived draconian measures by a military ruler means that it will be a much more aggressive player in the presence of the more vulnerable political governments. This will likely promote a tendency to 'fell the giants'. The coverage of the Lal Masjid episode last summer is a case in point when the media, for most of the time, allowed itself to become a part of the story as opposed to merely reporting it. Some channels had both the leaders of the government and the militants holed up in the mosque negotiating with each other on live TV!

The expanding media space and pluralisms have clearly affected political landscape in Pakistan. When the Musharraf regime unplugged the TV channels and radio stations in Nov 2007 to disrupt real-time news and information flow, people in their millions turned to the Internet where these channels continued broadcasting. Also, the 80 million cell phone users meant that people who either could not afford satellite dishes or Internet connections, contacted their friends and acquaintances who could, and therefore, largely, still managed to keep abreast of what was going on through uninterrupted TV broadcasts.

Live coverage of the lawyers' movement to protest sacking of the top judge of the country and the landmark operation against Taliban and al Qaeda-backed militants at the Lal Masjid meant that politics in Pakistan from there onwards would be very personal and very public as opposed to elitist, as in the past. No wonder Musharraf had to crack down hard on the media to stop the emergence of another major player on the national political scene that could challenge his authority when even the elected parliament or the judiciary could not. Not that the crackdown helped a great deal, in the end. What the media in Pakistan needs to guard against is letting quantity stump quality (see box item on the right).

• INCREASED MEDIA SPACE: As many as 40 private, Pakistan-owned TV channels, 170 FM stations

• ENHANCED CITIZEN INTEREST: Viewership/listenership increasing as well as interaction

• HEIGHTENED POLITICAL ENGAGEMENT: Citizens participating on issues (elections, judges, terrorism, economy, etc)

• GREATER AWARENESS OF CENTRAL ISSUES: Role of military, politics of coalitions, foreign & domestic policies

• VIBRANT DEVELOPMENT SECTOR AND HIGHER PUBLIC PROFILE for civil society sector

Weaknesses

• MEDIA EXPANSION IS TOO RAPID: Professionalism, standardisation, audience profiling is lacking

• MEDIA CONTENT: There are problems of relevance, quantity and quality

• OVER-FOCUS on electoral politics and political wheeling-dealing could lead to 'politics fatigue'

• FIERCER INTRA-MEDIA COMPETITION may lead to sensationalism as a 'ratings' solution. For example, the footage of an FIA guard being run over by a suicide vehicle in Lahore

Opportunities

• MEDIA PLURALISM: TV (national, regional and foreign), radio (potential of 650 FM stations, according to PEMRA), print (3m newspaper circulation -- only 15m readers)

• INTERNET: 5m users, falling prices, faster speeds

• MOBILES: 80m handsets and growing

• MEDIA GOING LOCAL: TV, radio in local languages and, therefore, focusing on local issues. This can help evolve local consensus and local solutions

Threats

• NON-INSTITUTIONALISATION OF PUBLIC-INTEREST INFORMATION: Culture of secrecy within government offices continues

• NO INSTITUTIONALISATION: We end up with talk shows as a substitute for information-based programming, case studies and human interest stories that humanise issues

• ISSUES WILL REMAIN ABSTRACT/philosophical and not citizen-centric

• NON-CITIZEN STAKEHOLDERS, not citizen groups keep largely dictating news agenda

--Adnan Rehmat

The News on Sunday: Of late, media has come under fire for its tendency to display a sensationalist streak in its news and information content. What mechanism do you have to check this tendency?

Imran Aslam: If you are a mass media, there will be a tendency to try and get to the largest number of viewers. A news channel in a Pakistani context has to give different people different kinds of stories that would interest them. The idea is to try and bring more people into the arena of awareness. And sometimes, obviously we make mistakes and end up dumbing down news. This is also because we all are in our infancy at the moment. We will learn with time. Eventually, the idea is not to standardise the news, like PTV did at one time. There must be an effort to create interesting, informative and entertaining news. I will use the word entertaining, because that's what the market is all about, since we are a commercial channel.

I do not agree with the accusation that media has become totally tabloid. However, we may be going in that direction and it's time to correct ourselves. Right now, a lot of channels are firing in the dark. Once they find their target audience, we will hopefully move towards the path of niche channels that would cater to specific markets.

As far as checking sensationalism is concerned, every channel has a mechanism. You have your own gut, to start with. Then there is editorial discretion, viewers' feedback, focus group and ratings. These are the mechanisms. We follow all of them. If we don't, we are dead in the water.

TNS: So, essentially it is the market that determines your media/information products?

IA: Market is not just viewership and advertisers. It is a combination of factors. You can lead the market, create opinions and change the way people think. One can even force people to re-adjust their so-called time schedules. Airtime for advertisements is no longer restricted to specific times only. They can sell at any time when there is breaking news. The viewership is bound to go up when there is a big story. So who is determining this? The viewers!

We are living in a very fast-paced environment. I would not advocate the page 3 or tabloidisation culture. However, even the best newspapers/newsmagazines in the world have undergone transformation over the years because it's the time of big sell.

Productification of information will happen if we are in a commercial domain. A commercial broadcast channel has to depend on advertisement revenue This is what makes the case for a public broadcast system, which is financed by the state and paid for through license fees. There are no advertisements. This was the beauty of PTV, which offered quality productions in drama, music and folk music; in areas where nobody else treaded. And this consolidated national integrity.

TNS: While a lot of emphasis is laid on viewers, isn't it a fact that media-viewer is essentially a one-sided relationship? It is media that enjoys the power and authority to decide the nature and quality of their output. Viewers can only give feedback and that too after the media product has been delivered to them.

IA: Television is not necessarily an interactive medium. It is not customised. So we (the producer of media content) decide what to show, I admit. At the same time, viewers' relationship with the channels cannot be dismissed. People do view channels and they have options now. They have a remote control and if they don't like a certain thing, they will move. And hopefully that democracy is good.

One of the best things that the proliferation of mass media has done is that it has converted our people from the race of individuals scared of speaking into a confessional state. They have clear opinions about issues and they are not afraid to express them. Whether you call it commercialism, tabloidisation or anything, the fact is that thodi si zabaan khuli hai.

TNS: But the element of responsibility cannot be brushed aside. Everything cannot be left at editorial discretion alone. Given media's own reluctance to talk about itself and its performance, don't we have a solid case for a regulatory body that can ensure that media freedom is not abused?

IA: We need facilitation and not regulation. Eventually, if one looks at it, nobody is free to just do anything and get away with it. There is an immediate impact of everything we do.

Regulation can be done in a nice way, too. The first thing that the government should do is to give us the freedom to access information. When freedom to information is blocked, then obviously there will be rumours and speculations. So first, they should help us get there; only then they can talk about regulation.

We get a lot of feedback on the content we present. Some argue against showing of dead bodies after a bomb blast; others say that the society should not be desensitised. Some people felt that our coverage of May 12 violence prevented more deaths. Some are of the view that the earthquake coverage helped mobilise people and funds. So a line has to be drawn and this is where editorial desecration comes in. If editors make a certain decision just for the sake of sensationalism and winning the battle against the next competitor, then it is certainly a bad decision.

TNS: Another criticism on the media is about its position during last year's political and judicial crisis. Media appeared to assume the role of a party on several occasions. Comment.

IA: Media did face criticism about its role in the Lal Masjid crisis. People felt that the media became a party in the crisis, arranging negotiations between the two sides. I keep repeating, sometimes we have to do that. When everybody else is abdicating their responsibilities, the media does end up becoming a player.

At the same time, this is unhealthy. I don't think anchors and reporters should have too much of an opinion or prejudice. And if they do, they should be clear about it, as it happens in the West where media persons take clear political positions. We have it a bit ambiguous here, which I think, will change with time. People will understand and learn to differentiate between objective and subjective opinion.

TNS: Another criticism on the media relates to its lack of independent position when it is reporting on violence, tension in the tribal areas or other important developments. It is said to be too quick to adopt the official line, especially regarding terminologies. The 'Shaheeds' and 'Jihadis' are declared instantly without any respect for neutrality.

IA: When there is terror without an overt reason, it is very difficult not to call terrorists terrorists. We do deal with such issues on a case-by-case basis, but yes there is a tendency in the media to fall into the trap. It is also a very lazy way. However, we do have internal debates and some guidelines are pushed through that debate. Generally speaking, the idea is not to romanticise too much and make heroes out of events. We also make the effort to try and understand the reasons behind any given incident/event.

TNS: There are also concerns about the media's tendency to disenfranchise certain voices and opinions. Apparently, only a few leading names -- especially in the field of politics -- are seen to dominate the airwaves.

IA: This is such a tragedy. One of the important things that all channels need to do is to create more personalities/experts. Again there is certain laziness that prevents them from doing that.

The News on Sunday: Electronic media in Pakistan has lately witnessed a phenomenal rise, especially the news channels that are also commonly accused of playing on popular emotions, especially in talk shows and live, minute-to-minute coverage. What is your take?

Syed Talat Hussain: See, you don't pick trends; technology does it for you. If you were to bring in technology through which you could broadcast live and you were to do it 24/7, then obviously, there has to be a minute-to-minute coverage. You can't tell the DSNG (Digital Satellite News Gathering) not to do it for you, unless of course you have decided early not to cover an incident or event.

We should, first of all, understand the nature of television news. It has to be fundamentally different from print news. Therefore, minute-to-minute coverage, while it may not be giving you comprehensive news, unfortunately, is news. Look at India, US or anywhere else, and this is exactly how they do it. A child goes missing, so the camera is focused on that kid, competition kicks in, and it's big news all around. I think we should not worry too much about live coverage and people's emotions being exploited. We have to understand that this is the nature of the beast.

TNS: You don't think the media sometimes indulge a bit of sensationalising?

STH: I think you're using the print barometre here. My submission is that you should use the television barometre to assess what is sensational and what is not. Once you begin to do that, your anxious nerves will be soothed, because you'll realise that we're not doing anything out of the ordinary, and that this is the way television is done all over the world.

See, we are used to reading intros. For instance, 10 people were killed and 20 injured and two reporters were beaten by the police and their cameras snatched. Now, that is a news that you are getting after the incident has happened. TV gives you news as it is happening. So, for every sentence that flows out of anybody's pen, television will show you the actual act -- in this case, that of the reporters being thrashed and their cameras taken away. TV will air it for you right there.

So, I don't think TV is giving you anything that didn't happen. My problem with TV would begin when it starts to create fiction instead of news.

TNS: So, you have absolutely no complaints/issues with the way things are handled in television?

STH: The people who are employed in television are those who were earlier working for mainstream newspapers. They are your journalists. I don't understand why a columnist who writes for, say, The News, is regarded highly as a journalist but if he goes out in the field with the TV technology, you start finding faults with him. These people have not descended from Mars. If there's anything that has descended from Mars, it's the technology that we are finding difficult to relate to.

TNS: Today, one finds a whole new crop of news analysts that are swarming the various channels. What do you have to say about their credibility?

STH: Look, I am motivated enough to always strive for higher standards of journalism, be it in print or electronic. I think we owe it to the viewer and the reader to be skillful in what we do and to be able to handle our subject in a manner that is professionally commendable. But, at the same time, I also know that journalism or media market will always have different shades and grades. You will never have the same quality of analysis towards the lower end of the market as you find towards the higher end. The same goes for every poor analyst who pops up on the screen. I can show you ten column writers who have existed in print for a long time even though they have zero credibility. They are armchair analysts. And, mind you, these are not my self-created distinctions.

Here I can recall George Orwell's brilliant piece on the grades of media where he talks of the intelligent press, the popular press, the populist press and the sensational press. Now, this sensational or 'gutter press' is to be found everywhere in the world. Though, their quality may be different and also the quantum of analysis that they do.

Having acknowledged that the media market will always be unfortunately shaded and graded, we cannot let the matter rest there. We have to constantly strive for a higher level of competence. But, this will happen in due course of time.

See, this is a competitive market where anything that is lightweight or fluffy will not be able to sustain for long. The bad product will always get filtered out. I have faith in the market.

TNS: What is the best thing you find about today's media?

STH: The new generation. Period. I mean, look at the new faces, the enthusiastic people. Look at their energy level. It's ok if they lack competence or whatever. They will get there in time. For me, it's like an adrenaline rush through my bloodstream when I look at the kind of dynamism that these people exhibit. They may not be falling within the parametres of what we believe is truly ethical behaviour, but, mind you, Pakistan's TV journalistic environment is very tough today. In fact, it is deadly.

TNS: It is said that our talk shows (and their hosts) have taken over the popularity of the entertainment channels because they are never short on the element of 'drama'. Comment.

STH: Every medium has its own requirements. I believe, and this is something I am always debating with my friends Ayaz Amir and Khaled Ahmed also, that whatever drama you see in these shows is at least democratic. I can say this because I myself come from the print media. So, I tell them if they ever wrote something negative about me in their columns, meri toh ek line bhi nahin jaae gi, because they will have written in first person singular. To me that is the most non-democratic and tyrannical way of doing journalism. Those who think that we create conflict or drama in our talk shows should understand that we adopt the very democratic method. Here you find people from both sides, don't you? The fundamental principle of journalism is that both sides of the story have to be told.

As for fights and clashes, let me tell you these have become considerably fewer. Our talk shows are more mellow nowadays.

TNS: Whatever caused this mellowing?

STH: Firstly, the market forces. Earlier, it was the requirement of the time; the people wanted to actually fight in front of the camera. Now they want to just argue and debate. The atmosphere was tense earlier. What else would you expect when you put Imran Khan and Niazi together? Wouldn't they pick a fight? They would fight even in private meetings where they cannot be caught on camera.

TNS: Do the private TV channels follow any internal policy, besides the PEMRA rules?

STH: It's all done in a very scientific sort of a way. The market itself determines the viewership of a product. If you're showing dead bodies or blood-and-gore scenes, you will have to consider the viewers' feelings, whether they are being turned off. Secondly, the advertiser tells you about the trends. And, then, we must not forget that most of our mainstream TV channels are being run by serious journalists. They aren't some ignorant people with no knowledge of editorial policy or no sense of news. They have been managing the print industry for a very long time.

Three Ds best describe our country's rule in the past nine years: dictatorial, decadent and divisive. Recent revelations by the former ISI chief provide evidence to the argument that an unrepresentative syndicate was orchestrated to govern the country in previous years. At best, an aura of insecurity and a relationship of adversity, if not enmity, between people and the state was bred and nurtured by the outgoing regime.

After a long struggle laden with sufferings, the people of Pakistan have voted for change. How the political leadership will stand up to the powers-that-be is rather too early to be analysed, but the conflict- and power-driven media is always in a haste to break the news of radical reversals or political confrontations. Quite intriguingly, a kind of pre-mature victimisation of political forces has already been unleashed by a section of media, particularly the electronic media.

In most press conferences, addressed by the political leaders after the Feb-18 elections, young and enthusiastic journalists were found asking questions that were largely inspired by conflict theories. In an unreported event, the head of Awami National Party (ANP) was grilled by a TV reporter to the extent that the party leader got mad and hooked off the collar mike. It transpired that the reporter was representing and articulating the political agenda of the Punjabi establishment through his 'ill-informed' questioning.

Conflict, by its very nature, is one of the most juicy components of a news story, package, beeper, ticker or a sound-bite. It is to be questioned as to how the media's overemphasis on 'conflict' serves the interests of non-representative lobbies in our own political context. Indeed, media is setting the agenda for negotiations and dialogue between political forces, quite impatiently though, by looking through a narrowly linear lens. According to some analysts, this would give a lease of life to the crumbling forces and they would be able to sharpen the latent conflicts between political forces as their survival strategy.

It is feared that the media could potentially be used as an unsolicited tool by the regime-on-run. Perhaps, the media needs to maintain a certain level of reflective distance with political transactions and let the political leadership be accountable for their political wisdom or naivety. Let's not be the self-appointed brokers. As a late journalist friend of mine said, "We are not history makers, but we can say that we were there when history was being made and we reported it."

In hindsight, this reminds me of a recent piece of news-item published some two months ago in an English language daily. This was a three-column news story with a byline of a prominent reporter saying that because of one of his published stories, an MNA was awarded party ticket by the then ruling party, PML-Q. The story was charged with excitement of influencing a political decision. No doubt, media-power relations and interests are intricately interwoven and this is a tricky point where ideally a working journalist needs to resist the temptation of a power-trap. Is the Pakistani media cognisant of this sensitivity? What media ethics teach our opinion makers? Is there any effective system of gate-keeping of information in our booming media (read content) industry? How media entertains the popular perspectives and how it treats the pressure and power groups are professional as well as political questions in the current scenario.

Discrediting political forces to feed into the corporate demand of scandals and sensations of the information market would contribute in reversing the political discourse -- which is just in its embryonic stage. It does not mean to withdraw the proverbial role of watchdog by the media; rather it seeks a greater social responsibility from media in informing the public opinion and influencing the public policy. The institutional, political, administrative and psychological legacy of the three Ds mentioned above poses a serious threat to the political management in post-Musharraf regime. It is assumed that media can reinforce the existing biases as well as it can reverse the stereotypes through a more informed and balanced reporting.

It need to be recognised that media faces serious gaps in competence and credibility. Like other institutions of the country, I beg to say, that media also requires a rigorous internal critique and professional retrofitting. Media critics suggest that it needs to question not only the assumptions of others but also question their own assumptions. Melissa Baumann of South African Media Peace Centre stresses journalists to watch out for the words they choose or the label they attach as words could do tremendous damage perpetuating stereotypes and divisions in a conflict scenario. Some studies also suggest that the market-driven expediencies of corporate media could potentially lead to committing a 'language laundering' -- similar to the money laundering. By deploying and encouraging instigative, emotive and sensational expressions it might make a good-sell copy but it does not give quality and depth to the political mediation and neither has it bred an informed public critique on political choices. The crisis of media industry becomes more visible with its mushroom growth and expanding outreach. Media corporations are not investing enthusiastically in enhancing the capacity, skill and understanding of working journalists rather a substantial emphasis is laid on infrastructural expansion. Media related trade unions also have not adequately discharged the role of imparting professional training to its members on media basics and ethics.

Media, on the other hand, is a favourite fish for the establishment -- both as a victim as well as a beneficiary or a partner. Prof Noam Chomsky has suggested that media tends to mainstream the hegemonic narratives and interests and the realpolitic of today makes media, military and market an intriguing triangle. The embedded journalism in war and conflict zones has successfully served the international metropolis in marketing the messages of arsenal might and power to the global audience. It has tried hard to sell the 'war on terror' to its viewers. But it has not been able to flash the humanitarian crisis caused by the military strategy to counter a complex and reactionary militancy.

Pakistani media also faces almost the same challenges in current scenario. Multiple narratives are the existential realities of diverse societies like Pakistan. Which narrative gets the editorial priority is a political choice of media professionals. In the current context it would be a challenge for the Pakistani media to either entertain the multiplicity with a greater sense of proportion or continue looking through the linear lens. May be the media formulas like 'bad news is good news', 'if it bleeds it leads' and 'kill the news but don't kill the source' need to be questioned and revisited by the news establishments themselves.