I think what needs to be done is a careful presentation of the facts in a balanced way. Stop being so aggressive and interrupting everyone on the show. When you shout and speak more than the guest, you are projecting your prejudices and blocking the other point of view. If you believe that someone is hiding or misrepresenting the facts, then your calm and pointed questions will indeed expose him or her and the viewers will understand. Your aggression puts the viewer off. An anchor’s calm creates the benchmark for the tone of discussion. Please realise that viewers have already been educated, thanks to your efforts. Now they expect more. They look for an analysis of the situation. They want a dispassionate, thought provoking appraisal and a way forward. They expect public opinion to be motivated for short-term and long-term solutions. One anchor interviewed a Sindh ‘nationalist’ leader and probed his reservations about the present scheme of water management. Some positive thinking emerged. This was an example. While the nation has experienced this colossal natural tragedy and is prepared to avoid a recurrence, we need to focus on acceptable planning. If the civil government fails to rehabilitate, reconstruct and plan for the future, the media must take it to task.
Anchors have the power of communication beyond the reach of anyone else. It is the nature of your job that it is burdened with social responsibility. If you appreciate the good work of the armed forces, highlighting it is the right thing to do, but also encourage those who are sincerely mobilising. Build role models. Look at the causes and hold responsible those who have neglected the proper need for water management. Focus on developing a consensus on future strategy. Of course, expose corruption, mismanagement, apathy and incompetence. But be a role model yourself — of character, knowledge, investigation and decency.
Outside Zardari’s appearance at the PPP rally in Birmingham, England, a crowd of protesters gathered to express their opposition to the president and his message. Inside, crowds chanted their support for the president. But there was another story that was missed by the press altogether.
This is a perfect example of how even reputable foreign and Pakistani news services can misreport stories about Pakistan when they do not receive the facts from the Pakistani media. Also, it shows how all media sometimes miss important facts when reporting a story.
BBC released a video about the protests at President Zardari’s rally, and noted that it was indicative of the political divide in the Pakistani public. The video featured a couple of men speaking in English and saying that they think that the president would have been better to stay in Pakistan during the floods, and a clip of Bilawal fundraising for flood victims in London.
But that wasn’t all.
The video shows scenes from the protests outside the rally filled with signs that say, “Save Pakistan from America” and “Khilafah Only Way to Stop America”. One might ask, what does America have to do with Zardari speaking to a PPP rally in the UK, or with the floods that are devastating the country? In fact, several shots from the video clearly show protesters waving Khilafah flags.
Jihadist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir protesting Zardari in London
A commenter on this blog recently asked “Do the British Broadcasting Corporation and The Guardian not check simple verifiable facts that they report…And what possibly makes you think that these news services rely on Pakistani media sources, without any verification?”
Actually, there is a quite simple explanation. Many Western reporters may not be aware of such concepts like caliphate or even of organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Even our own reporters get caught up in a particular narrative – “People protesting Zardari decision” – and miss the evidence that there is perhaps another story there.
The fact the protests outside the rally were largely organised and manned by members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir was largely overlooked by the press, despite this organization being banned by a large number of countries including Egypt, Turkey, and Bangladesh. The group was banned in Pakistan by Gen. Musharraf until a decision by the Lahore High Court reversed the proscription.
In fact, Hizb-ut-Tahrir has orchestrated protests at previous appearances by President Zardari since he was elected, arguing that Pakistan’s government should be overthrown and replaced with Khilafah.
So while there is certainly a story about Zardari’s decision to attend diplomatic meetings in Europe during the flood crisis – a story that President Zardari himself has addressed – there is another important story that was largely missed by both the foreign and Pakistani media: The protests outside Zardari’s speech in Birmingham largely had nothing to do with Zardari’s decision to attend the rally, but more to do with a highly controversial jihadist group that opposes the concept of democracy and is working to overthrow the Pakistani government and install a new Caliphate.
In the aftermath of an unspeakable tragedy, there have been countless columns written deploring the awful state of media and news reporting in the country. Intelligent and civilized people have spoken clearly and eloquently about the irresponsible and unethical treatment of the tragedy by major news corporations. The best memorial to the tragic loss from the Airblue crash would be a lesson taken to heart by media corporations and a permanent improvement to reporting standards.
The government and the owners and managers of media groups (including the one this newspaper belongs to) need to come up with a policy on media ethics. Attempts to do so are usually taken by the media as a curb on its freedom. But would it rather have complete freedom to do whatever it wants to the point that the government ends up thinking that such freedom is too much and then the plug is pulled — as Musharraf did when he was power, or would it rather adhere to some kind of standard? The Five Rupees blog asks a question that needs to be answered in light of the crash: do we “prefer a free and irresponsible media over a sedate but muzzled media?” If it is the media that has gotten us used to sensationalist journalism, the media alone can rectify this. But it has to be a unified decision, just one or two channels changing their ways won’t help.
Nonetheless, this episode, amongst others, has really made me think. It goes without saying that on balance, I’d prefer a free and irresponsible media over a sedate but muzzled media. But that’s a false dichotomy. I’d really like to hear from various Pakistani journalists — I know some of you read this blog — and see what you think can be done.
The most obviously unfortunate thing is that when a channel does behave relatively responsibly and calmly, it gets absolutely no ratings. Remember good old Dawn News? Okay, the English language thing didn’t help, and neither did the Shah Mahmood Qureshi-wannabe accents, but I would also say that they weren’t nearly sensationalistic and loud enough for the Pakistani palate. Ultimately, we as consumers bear as much of the blame.
The outrage when such a tragedy is treated so glibly by our media is indeed warranted. But when will we see the same level of outrage about the poor quality reporting on politics, current events, and society? Is this not just as much outrageous? Just as much an affront to our national sensibilities?
Getting to the point of the post, I would argue that class really matters here. The type of person who is likely to die in an Air Blue flight, socio-economically speaking, is very different from the type of person who loses their family in flooding in KP. I’m sorry, but that’s just the truth, and anyone pretending otherwise is just being silly.
I would further submit that that distinction matters when deciding upon the coverage given to this. Ask yourselves this: do you really think Dawn would’ve buried this story that low down if the floods took place in Karachi in Gulshan or Nazimabad, or God forbid, Defence or Clifton or KDA? (assumie that Karachi had a river running through it). For the types of people who read (and work for) English newspapers, a plane crash simply resonates more than a flood in a relatively sparely populated province, and that seriously affects how the balance is struck between the two tragedies in terms of coverage. Mind you, I’m not arguing it’s a conscious decision — I’m just saying that the ability to feel empathy for a certain type of victim really matters, even if it’s under the surface of our cognitive faculties.
This is the same type of bias that results in “reporting” rumours and innuendos and accepting as “truth” that Zardari or Nawaz or any person is corrupt or terrible without having any proofs or evidence to back it up. How often do I hear people tell me that they just know that this person or that person is corrupt? They don’t have any way of knowing if such is true, but their biases take over their reason.
This same problem is more apparent to us with tragedies like Airblue or KP floods. But let us not lose the lesson of these tragedies for journalism. Reporters, editors, and publishers must take responsibility to act ethically and not report what is not evidence based facts. And when evaluating what is important, they must also evaluate their own class and provincial biases to determine if it is their own prejudice influencing the reporting.
Yesterday’s issue of The News included a column by Tariq Butt that crossed the line between questionable judgment and irresponsible journalism. The column in question, “The demolition squad gets another ‘educated’ Awan”, is a vicious political hit piece and nothing more.
From the very introduction of the column, it is clear that the author has no intention of presenting a factual report, but is only filing a vicious attack.
Sardar Assef Ahmed Ali has found a role model, not someone to be proud of though, in the fake degree holder Babar Awan. Both are now the assigned demolition squad leaders to crush national institutions. One did the NAB, the other is after HEC.
Both these state organizations are designed to catch the thieves, fraudsters and cheats which for obvious reasons the present PPP government does not like or cannot afford. The demolition squad got its assignment directly from President Asif Ali Zardari to put these organisations to bed as they have become the main hurdle in the way of implementation of the government’s agenda of protecting the corrupt and the immoral.
It is not necessary to reproduce any more of the column. Suffice it to say that the entire piece is filled with accusations, conspiracies, rumours, and innuendo. What is entirely missing are facts, evidence, and reason.
Over the past week, The News has published contradictory conspiracy theories, multiple opinion columns as news reports, and even a vicious political attack that belongs in gutter politics, not on the pages of a respectable newspaper. As such, we have great concern about whether there are any professionals in charge at The News.
We hope that Mir Rahman, as Editor-in-Chief, has the decency to discipline his employees and requires Tariq Butt to either show solid evidence backing his claims or, if he cannot do such a thing, a public apology and retraction. The legitimacy of his newspaper as a source of “News” is quickly coming into question.
The recent drama surrounding the Punjab Assembly’s resolution criticising the media has been nothing short of a farce. But while neither group comes out of the drama looking like a mature or sensible institution, there is a good opportunity to learn from the fiasco and improve for the future.
While possibly not the best way of airing its frustration with media, the original language of the resolution was not exactly worthy of the response it received from the media community. To borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, “The media doth protest too much.” After five days of loud and disruptive protests by media, though, the PA turned around and passed a resolution praising the media. What has been the result? Both the PA and the media look childish.
Criticism is a highly specialised job and people unless qualified, intrinsically at least, should refrain from engaging in it as it can harm more than the intended good. But, after the advent of the electronic age in Pakistan, our 24/7 news crazy media jumped onto this bandwagon and thus criticism turned into entertainment. Now, every day, willingly or unwillingly, we are compelled to absorb a daily dose of criticism in the form of TV news shows.
Here it is worth mentioning that almost all TV show hosts invite the same sharp-tongued politicians, retired generals, bureaucrats and pseudo-intellectuals to hold a debate on critical issues being faced by the country, irrespective of whether the invited guests possess or do not possess any influence on public opinion or party policy making.
During these TV shows, a majority of the show hosts, instead of facilitating such debates towards a conclusive and logical end such as highlighting the weakness or absence of a tangible policy to handle a particular issue, providing suggestions and seeking commitments from the guests to address these issues, prefer the unnecessary grilling of their invited guests. In such an exercise, guests belonging to rival groups accost them. This unnecessary grilling has become a trademark of all such TV shows and the rating of shows and show hosts are now being based on their degree or height of grilling their guests.
Perhaps, then, we need not be surprised that in response to the PA resolution criticising the media, journalists and media representatives responded similarly to their regular program behaviour – yelling.
The media held countrywide demonstrations against the parliamentarians and political parties involved in the episode. During these demonstrations, effigies of the movers of the resolution were burned and they were cast as villains. Similarly, the electronic media dedicated regular shows in solidarity with their community and started making fun of the involved parliamentarians.
The media has overcome immense pressure and censorship from governments in the past, so it is understandable that journalists will be sensitive to official government resolutions that criticise them. But suffering censorship in the past is not a license to act recklessly and irresponsibly, nor does it mean that you are exempt from criticism for such.
Media should be setting an example of maturity and reasonable criticism, not engaging in street politics to intimidate those who dare to criticise them. If everyone is yelling only, how should we expect anyone else to react? Better to be rational and honest. If you want others to respect your criticism, perhaps you ought to consider if there is any truth to theirs as well.
Media is coming under fire for its double standards, poor research, and ill-informed shouting matches. Dawn reports that the MPA were right to loudly criticise journalists for their reporting on the issue of degrees.
On Wednesday the Punjab MPAs rightly pointed out that the media needed to be careful in reporting on the subject — as it should be careful in its work generally. They were absolutely right in complaining that they are often singled out for flogging by the media while some others are considered too holy for criticism.
The Dawn editorial goes on to offer some relief to journalists, saying,
“…at least in this case, the media was not the principal investigator or the initiator. It can hardly be expected to not report what it sees, just as it is duty-bound to listen to the other side and report it fairly.”
But shouldn’t the media take care not to be used as a political weapon by operatives who are peddling information with a particular goal in mind.
With over 80 channels, the majority being so called “news” channels, the Pakistani viewers should be spoilt for choice. Except they are not. Far from it. Most of the “news” channels are miserably short on original content and high on opinion masquerading as reporting, bias dressed as analysis, and rabble rousing substituting for impassioned debate. The multiple political talk shows resemble clones of each other, with standardised sets and unoriginal formats for nightly shouting matches between the political egos that appear as guests. There are of course a couple of notable exceptions where solid research and in depth analysis are presented in an informative and intelligent manner. But, by and large, what is offered is an ungainly assortment of “anchors” browbeating their guests, who themselves are regulars, often appearing simultaneously on multiple channels thanks to pre-recording. The end game is to encourage, cajole or instigate by any means necessary, a cat fight amongst the handful of politicians offered up for the evening. With the majority of anchors gunning for the government of the day, the result is a shouting match — the television equivalent of a neighbourhood backyard argument laced with scurrilous allegations, name calling and low blows.
But Mahreen is not here to bury the media, but to save it. She points out quite eloquently that TV talk shows, by attempting to appeal to the ‘lowest common denominator’ of viewer are driving people away and reducing the quality of their programmes. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Okay it’s not all bad — yes the news/current affairs media has played a constructive role on some issues, most notably in the change in public opinion towards those who commit acts of terrorism on our soil. The self-imposed code of conduct has worked fairly well and stemmed the horrible trend of showing carnage and panic in the aftermath of tragedy, of sensationalising terror acts by adrenaline fuelled breaking news. But the electronic media is crucial for shaping public opinion on key issues, especially in a largely illiterate society and has a much greater duty. Yet the vast majority of these shows are compromising content quality to suit the lowest common denominator rather than raising standards and providing viewers with informed discussions.
I shall resist making appeals to sense of duty, since that has a poor track record for results. So let me exhort self-interest instead. Most news channels are losing ground and revenue due to the downward trend of viewership, so they should take action to avoid losses. Anchors are turning people away from the news/current affairs genre and losing audiences to entertainment — just witness the increase in TV drama productions and ratings in the past year. And, most of all, politicians are damaging their own (little remaining) credibility by taking part in these verbal brawls, so they need to take a stand by opting to not to appear on shows which openly disrespect and lower the tone of our political discourse. The viewers are already voting with their remote controls. They have had enough of this mindless media-ocrity.
Sadly, as long as the CEOs of giant media corporations continue to give more importance to the billions in advertising income that line their pockets rather than to the betterment of the nation and the people, it will be hard to convince some of them to do the right thing.
Perhaps these ‘media moguls’ will recognize the warning signs and take the advice offered to create quality programming that attracts viewers and helps better the country also.
Ahmed Quraishi’s latest column is a laughable conspiracy theory that is a natural follow up to his foolish (and quickly disproven) claim that an American city government had posted anti-Pakistan signs. It seems he is willing to believe anything, no matter how ridiculous. This latest story claims that Husain Haqqani and Rehman Malik were part of a conspiracy to get the ailing Gary Faulkner into the country to hunt Osama bin Laden because they mistakenly thought he was CIA.
According to Ahmed Quraishi, Haqqani and Malik let this old man with poor health and a criminal record into the country because they mistakenly thought he was a top-secret CIA agent. Here is an interview with this man that supposedly Husain Haqqani and Rehman Malik mistakenly believed was a spy:
The man is clearly mentally disturbed. It is sad really. But how are we supposed to believe that anyone mistook him for a CIA agent?
Ahmed further claims that “only a few months ago Ambassador Haqqani faced accusations he issued visas to tens and possibly hundreds of US citizens without verifying who these visa applicants represented.”
Where is the evidence for this? This is a very serious claim for Ahmed Quraishi to make. If he has some evidence that this is a fact, he should present this to the government. If he has no evidence, is this anything but slander?
Despite what Ahmed Quraishi might want to believe, an Ambassador does not usually issue travel visas personally. Actually, there is an entire Embassy staff to review visa applications and grant a stamp of approval.
Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States said yesterday that three Pakistani men arrested in New England last week as part of the investigation into the attempted Times Square bombing do not appear to have any involvement in terrorism.
Husain Haqqani, who has been briefed by Pakistani officials, said that law enforcement cast a wide net during the investigation and that the three men were only taken into custody because alleged immigration violations were discovered while they were being questioned.
“For all we know, there will be no connection at the end of it,” Haqqani said during a telephone interview. “I’m a little critical of law enforcement who ran to the press first, because you can actually destroy people’s lives. So far, there is nothing that implies anything of a terrorist nature.”
When Ahmed sums up his argument, it is laughable.
Moral of the story is that Pakistanis can rot in US jails but a US citizen who is in clear violation of Pakistani laws will always be promptly released by a pro-US government in Islamabad.
Except that this is not even close to true. Does Ahmed not read the news? Is he so disconnected from reality that he is living on another planet? Let me provide a news clipping from the USA today: “Americans Get 10 Years in Pakistan in Terror Case”.
A Pakistan court sentenced five young Americans from the Washington, D.C., area to 10 years in jail for plotting terrorist acts in the country after they connected with an al Qaeda-linked jihadi via the Internet.
…
A State Department spokesman said embassy representatives have followed the case closely and ensured the defendants’ rights were protected.
“We have met periodically with each individual and have not seen any evidence of mistreatment,” said the spokesman, P.J. Crowley. “We will continue to…support them during the appeals process.”
It turns out that Ahmed Quraishi is once again incorrect. Americans can rot in Pakistani jails just the same. He won’t admit this, though, because he is not a real journalist but a propagandist only.
Let’s be realistic, please. If Ahmed Quraishi really believes that a “50-year-old ex-con and construction worker with ailing kidneys” could be mistaken for a CIA agent, he needs to have his head examined. More than likely, though, Ahmed Quraishi thought this would be a clever way to plant a new conspiracy theory. Problem is, his theories have gotten so silly that they don’t even make sense to people who want to believe them.
Following up on Chris Cork’s excellent column in The News last week, we received by email the following piece by Salman Masood for The Express Tribune. With all of this outcry against TV’s inanity, will the producers finally pay some attention?
One of the by-products of the Musharraf era are television talk show hosts. Far from the new sensation, this lot has degenerated into sensationalistic, populist and deluded evangelists who are high on self-righteous pretence. Often they open their shows with teleprompter-driven debate like monologues, full of hyperbole and exaggerations. With an inflated air of self-importance, they proceed to denigrate and belittle guests, provoking and testing their patience with taunts and backhanded insults. More often than not, this tactic works: guests take the bait as they fume and froth and indulge in ugly verbal sparring.
Millions then sadistically enjoy the spectacle.
There is no sense of balance. Objectivity is conveniently forgotten and put aside. Political agendas and motivations are sugarcoated as analysis. Emotionalism and cheap sentimentalism is presented as something intellectual and profound. Emphasis on factual accuracy is absent.
All this is justified in the name of ‘ratings.’
Talk show hosts and politicians have become strange bedfellows. Both loathe each other but need one another badly.
If anchors indulge in excesses, politicians don’t lag far behind as they lay bare their shortcomings and deficiencies in utterly foolish displays. Shouting down their opponents in a crude and ruffian manner is a regular feature on such programs. There is almost no debate on policy or vision for the future. ‘In the moment’ kind of shows dominate the airwaves — their importance as ephemeral and transient as the passing moment.
Callers are also a unique feature. Every second caller forgets to or ignores turning down the television volume but remembers to praise the talk show host in absolute and grandiose terms. These callers prop the anchors not just as media celebrities but more as ‘messiahs’ and ‘harbingers of change’ who should feel the weight of the nation on their shoulders. And most anchors have already started to act as if only they know the cure to the malaise that ails the nation. Anchors act or seem to want to act, less like media-journalist types and more like politicians, bureaucrats, diplomats and policy makers. Public impatience with the incumbents is usually short but these media crusaders are now prompting such emotions to run extremely high. Demands for action in any sort of a situation are urgent and instantaneous. Any sort of delay is portrayed as a conspiracy or apathy of the highest order.
But what panacea are they offering?
These talk shows are only inducing and moulding the public to prefer sensationalism to rationality and reason. In the garb of awareness, they are promoting extreme ideas, oversimplification of often complex and multifaceted issues and above all: superficiality.
Some time back, I had a conversation with a female talk show host. She was concerned about another rival anchor having the same time slot. She wanted input about her show but was not particularly concerned about improving the quality of content. Her rival seemed to have a knack of inciting and instigating his guests, many of whom had left the programme in the middle, storming out of the studio after throwing down the mic in protest. Her producer wanted her to ‘spice things up’ and she was psyching herself to do so. “Do you see yourself as shouting at the guests or conducting your show like your rival?” I asked. “Its not that I can‘t do it,” she replied.
Expediency and showmanship is the winner on the screen.
I remember the first time I got a small job at a newspaper and wrote my first article. I was proud of it and certain that it would shake things up. One of my heroes was Bob Woodward, the American journalist who broke the ‘Watergate’ story about corruption in the White House. I imagined myself being loved by the people and feared by corrupt politicians and businessmen. The Bob Woodward of Pakistan! When my editor summoned me to his office I was certain he would praise my good work. Instead, I found the opposite.
“What is your source for this information?” he asked. I was stunned. Everybody knew the rumours. It was common knowledge. “You can’t just go around making such claims about people without some very solid evidence! If you are wrong, you will look like a fool and I will look like a fool also!” He was irate. My piece never ran. And a good thing it was, too – I had accused the wrong man.
This taught me a very important lesson about reporting. Sometimes reporters get a little bit caught up in a story. It becomes hard to separate yourself and see the facts objectively once you are sure that you have your man. You actually become part of the story yourself – the hero reporter who exposes corruption.
This is where the editor has a vital job. It is his responsibility to look at the story, judge it based on the sources and the evidence, and decide if it is fit to print. At least, he should. It seems that too often our editors today are falling asleep on the job and letting any Tom, Dick or Harry run whatever wild story they want. We need our editors to please do their job.
Chris Cork, a British social worker who has settled in Pakistan, is tired of watching adults on TV act like petulant children and wonders when TV is going to grow up. He writes this in a column for The News today that gets to the heart of a real problem: The way people act on TV news programmes not only reflects on our society, it influences it as well. When all we see are people yelling and talking over each other and acting like children, this is how we begin to behave ourselves.
There were two men and a woman on the panel and they yelled and shouted at one another as if they were on a street corner – which is all very well if you are on a street corner but perhaps not the best way to comport yourself in front of the viewing public. But then I thought a bit more deeply about what I was looking at – which was street-corner politics but transferred to a TV studio. These were people who felt no constraint by virtue of being ‘on the telly’. They interacted as they do in real life. In real life, sans cameras and producer and anchor, if they disagree they bellow and yell, interrupt, wave shoes and hurl insults at one another.
Then I considered the audience, and came to the conclusion that those watching would have expected the panellists to behave like this because that is how politicians behave; certainly at the grassroots and not infrequently in the various parliamentary chambers.
The sense of outrage that those of us in the chattering classes may feel or express is not mirrored by the majority of the viewing public. I took a quick and unscientific survey within my own household. Nobody thought that the people on the TV were doing anything that was inappropriate, and they were happy to see their elected representatives scrapping like cats in an alley.
Mr Cork is concerned that perhaps there are too many channels and that causes each of them to dumb down their content to get guests and appeal to the widest audience. Whether or not that is true I cannot say. But whatever the cause, his solution is correct: “please -we’ve dumbed down far enough, let’s not get any dumber.”
Naeem Tahir offers some excellent advice for TV anchors in his column for Daily Times today.
