جناب طاہر ملک اپنے روزنامہ وقت اخبار کے کالم میں ایک بہت ضروری نقطہ پیش کرتے ھیں۔ ھم اپنے اس قاری کے شکرگزار ھیں جس نے وقت نکال کر ھماری توجہ ملک صاحب کے کالم کی جانب دآئر کی۔
طاہر صاحب اپنے کالم میں اینکر حضرات کی سچائی اور موقف کا جائزہ لیتے ھوئے اس بات پر زور دیتے ھیں کے عوام کے جزبات پر کھیلتے ھوئے صرف اپنی ریٹنگ بڑھانہ ایک نہایت گری ھوئی بات ھے اور اینکر حضرات کو وہ سوالات کرنے چاھیں جو کہ اب تک نھیں اٹھائے گئے ھیں۔
طاہر صاحب کے کالم کے دونوں لنک نیچے ملاحظہ فرمائیے
Talat Hussain, a man who has (or should I say had) a reputation for being at least bearable among the insufferable lot of TV anchors, has done it again. The anchor, on his struggling-for-rating program “News Night with Talat” recently attacked Husain Haqqani, ambassador of Pakistan to US questioning the ambassador’s loyalty and motives.
He took a couple of Haqqanis quotations out of context from Bob Woodward’s book “Obamas Wars” and directly attacked Haqqani saying that these types of comments should make us reconsider the type of people representing us. Talat Hussain has picked up two things that Woodward has quoted the Ambassador as saying in the context of Pakistan and US relations; one where the Ambassador talks about “carpet merchants” and the other where the Ambassador talks about the need to “woo a woman” and importance of giving an engagement ring.
The first quote which Talat talks about out of context as directly taken from Woodward’s book, is as follows:
He [Haqqani] also warned that the Pakistanis would always ask for the moon as a starting point in negotiations. He compared it to the salesmanship of rug merchants. “The guy starts at 10,000 and you settle for 1,200″ Haqqani told the Obama team. “So be reasonable, but never let the guy walk out of the shop without a sale.”
It is important to mention here that ambassador Haqqani was talking about how people and nations negotiate. Each side always starts with a long list of issues and then as you keep discussing and negotiating you come down to the bare essentials. And what is important, as the Ambassador emphasizes, is that you need to know what it is that you want. One also needs to make sure that you never let the negotiations break down so much that you have to let go of the one or two absolutely essential items that you need out of the negotiation.
If you’ve ever been on the streets of Saddar where rug merchants are trying to sell their merchandise, you can see that they start their sales pitch from an outrageous price and come down to a much more reasonable one. That is what the norm traditionally is for selling rugs. It is a noble and respectable profession that helps people provide for food and shelter. Talat Hussain was not only taking Haqqani’s words out of context here but was also belittling rug merchants by implying that selling rugs was beneath any respectable individual and that using such an example is shameful.
The second quotation that Mr. Talat Hussain talks about clearly out of context, from Woodward’s book where the ambassador talks about “wooing a woman” is:
Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani, a key go-between, tried several times to explain to the Obama administration how to court Pakistani leaders, comparing the dynamic to “a man who is trying to woo a woman.” “We all know what he wants from her. Right?” Haqqani said in a meeting with Jones, Deputy National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and the NSC’s Gen. Doug Lute. “But she has other ideas. She wants to be taken to the theater. She wants that nice new bottle of perfume,” Haqqani told them. “If you get down on one knee and give the ring, that’s the big prize. And boy, you know, it works.” Haqqani said the “ring” was official U.S. recognition of Pakistan’s nuclear program as legitimate.
It’s actually quite clear that the ambassador was explaining Pakistan’s complaint against US and using an example Americans can understand. Did you notice how Talat partially explained the ambassador’s statement and left out the part about presenting of the “ring” to the woman being wooed and the part where Husain Haqqani says that the ring represents America’s public acceptance of Pakistan’s nuclear status? The ambassador was defending Pakistan’s nuclear program and trying to help Americans understand how important it is for Pakistan’s security and existence and that Americans need to accept it and learn to live with it. Listening to Talat Hussain, though, a viewer would come away with a different impression than the truth.
Talat Hussain conveniently pulled out the complete opposite meaning of what the ambassador was trying to say and started implying that Pakistan is a woman and US is a man, bringing forth his sexist nature, trying to rev up his listeners emotions without real reason.
On Hillary Clinton’s latest visit to Pakistan, our ill-informed anchor who was working for Aaj TV at the time, wanted to embarrass Hillary by proving that she was wrong and U.S did not give Pakistan enough money compared to Kyrgyzstan. He kept insisting that U.S. was paying Kyrgyzstan $640 million as rent for a military base in that country. Hillary corrected the self-righteous anchor but Talat Hussain insisted he was correct. Hillary Clinton remained polite and did not pursue the whole debate further but as it turns out, Talat was incorrect and had little regard for facts.
It is also important to point out that not too long ago Talat Hussain in his column in the Urdu daily Express News targeted the famous Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie in his shameful effort to attack the present civilian government of Pakistan. He caused an uproar among most of those people who read it not because of the just the message he was trying to get across, but in how he viciously maligned Angelina Jolie’s character to build his case. His article was condemned by majority of his readers and what he actually ended up doing was show to the public his own bigotry, his sexist attitude and his own racism (he actually called Jolie’s children as “rang barangay yateem bachay” or multi-colored orphan kids). He also showed how some hypocrites in the media write in one style for the Urdu-reading public and maintain quite a different persona for the English readership.
Playing the Machismo card to rouse the emotions of viewers is the strategy of drama serials, not series news programmes. And playing fast and loose with the statements of government officials is a style of ‘hit-and-run journalism’ that may score a short-term boost in ratings but does long-term damage to national security by giving other nations the impression that we do not even respect our own representatives so why should they. All of this together suggests a disturbing trend in Talat Hussain’s reporting – a willingness to sacrifice the truth for some cheap ratings.
Mr Nadir Hassan brings a bit of levity to the discussion of media with his article for today’s Express Tribune, “10 things I hate about TV news“. Some of his observations made me laugh out loud, but at the end of reading I also thought, ‘it’s funny because it’s true!’
1. The dunce on the street. You know the guy; he’s being interviewed only because he was in the vicinity of something producers consider news. His insight, such as it is, consists of saying “you know” a lot and plastering a massive I’m-so-excited-to-be-on-TV grin on his face.
2. The Mini Me analyst. News anchors are supposed to be objective so any time they want to slip a bit of political commentary in, they’ll invite an analyst-for-hire, someone who will say exactly what the anchor wants him to say. But we can trust him; he wears an expensive suit.
3. The apocalyptic teaser. “Are you aware that you might die tomorrow? Join us after the break and we’ll tell you how.”
4. The dancer in the background. There’s always this one jerk, usually lurking in the shadows, who likes nothing better than to add a bit of flavour to a beeper by gyrating madly. He is to the dunce on the street what Bonnie was to Clyde.
5. Important hair. You know why there’s a dengue epidemic in the country? All the spray that should have been used to fumigate our cities is keeping up the hair of vain anchors.
6. Casual racism. You will never see a dark face on news channels. After all, the survival of Fair and Lovely depends on it.
7. The vague Pakistan connection. Never fear, news channels will find the cousin of a Pakistani citizen who was shopping at a mall three blocks away from a fire in Michigan.
8. The child-like fascination with technology. This particularly materialises during elections. Anchors get so aroused by their BlackBerrys, touch screens and other assorted thingamajigs they can barely contain themselves.
9. The illegible ticker. News channels have discovered a new font. It allows you to only read one out of every three words before disappearing from view.
10. The expert for all seasons. No matter what the topic, this chameleon will become an instant expert. He throws in a bit of jargon, comes to some sweeping conclusions and calls on the government to do more.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 21st, 2010.
Naeem Tahir offers some excellent advice for TV anchors in his column for Daily Times today.
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.
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.
Meanwhile, in the Express Tribune today, Mahreen Aziz Khan roundly criticises the declining quality of TV talk shows.
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.
Regular readers know that we are big fans of Nadeem Paracha. He represents what is good about journalism — being critical, but fair; being intelligent, but accessible; putting solid analysis before fantasy; and most of all, his willingness to take his fellow media personalities to task when they are ridiculous.
This week, of course, he takes aim at the response to the NRO verdict and the ‘hyperventilating’ that came from every famous TV anchor:
