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.

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.”

The following column by Dr. Syed Mansoor Hussain offers an important opportunity to discuss the TV talk shows and what role these play in our democracy. Are these shows even news? Often, they are uninformed and based more on speculation and rumour than actual facts or legitimate analysis. So, they are more a matter of entertainment. There is certainly a place for this sort of ‘info-tainment’ on television, but let us consider whether or not there should be some balance with actual reporting and intellectually honest discussion about pressing issues. No change can come without the participation of the people, though, so let us begin this discussion here.

Every so often I decide to watch some of the Pakistani TV talk shows. After my most recent foray into the world of incessant shouting and entirely illogical arguments I was forced to coin two neologisms for the talking heads on TV. For the smoother ones, it is ‘the Gliberati’ and for most of the rest it is ‘the Gibberati’.

Media in Pakistan, especially the electronic media, is going through its ‘growing pains’. In an interconnected world it seems that Pakistani TV anchors and talk show hosts are copying the loudest and at times the most incendiary styles of American TV. Chris Mathews of ‘Hardball with Chris Mathews’ is evidently the favourite talk show host to copy.

However, our own pundits quite forget that Mathews has a solid political background having worked with many powerful elected politicians, including a former speaker of the House of Representatives, has written a few books and has even contested an election himself. So, when he talks of politics he often just might know more about it than some of his guests. Yes, he is pugnacious and loud but he is also extremely well informed and experienced in the ways of politics and politicians.

I do not know of a single Pakistani TV talk show host that copies Mathew’s style but has even a fraction of his political experience. This does not mean that there are no serious hosts on Pakistani television; indeed some come to their programmes with considerable research and thought having gone into their questions and observations. But these are definitely an exception.

As far as the guests on these programmes are concerned, it is the same bunch of retired bureaucrats and generals that keep turning up in different shows. What is so amusing about them is that almost each one of them supported and worked for autocrats and dictators when in service but now seem to have become democrats with a vengeance.

As far as the politicians that turn up on these programmes, it seems that they are there for the sole purpose of exposing their ignorance about the issues. Now I have nothing against politicians that toe the party line — that is what they are supposed to do — but it seems that all of them are devoid of any political finesse.

TV news, whether we like it or not, is essentially entertainment now. The purpose it seems is not to inform or educate the viewing public but rather to amuse them. Even in the US, it is not the news shows that most young people get their information about politics from but rather from shows like Jon Stewart’s ‘The Daily Show’ on Comedy Central, or else from the internet and different blogs.

Being a strong supporter of freedom of the media I believe that every television channel and all the hosts have the right to say whatever they wish as long as it is within accepted societal norms of decency. When TV hosts and guests accuse politicians of corruption they are unfortunately often correct. Since very few politicians in Pakistan are known for financial probity, therefore almost every politician can be called corrupt. But the same is true of most politicians in the world.

Eventually, Pakistani media will evolve. At present there are no people in the electronic media that have established expertise in the political, judicial, economic or social spheres. For instance there is nobody on TV that can talk of environmental or health issues with any level of expertise. There is nobody that covers the superior courts regularly or for that matter has any demonstrated expertise in economic matters.

The media serves many important functions. It acts as a watchdog that keeps government honest, it informs the public about what is going on and it educates viewers about issues. As far as politics and politicians are concerned, they are often interesting and easy to talk about but without any meaningful polling data it is virtually impossible to discuss public perception of any government or political party.

What is badly needed is some serious discussion about the problems that confront Pakistan today. Healthcare, environmental issues, unemployment, the bad state of education, the ever present financial crisis, the energy crisis and so many other things. But even when some of these issues are discussed, the discussion predictably deteriorates into a shouting match between people with competing points of views with accusations of corruption flying around.

And it seems that a significant section of the media is obsessed with President Zardari. Indeed the US media is also obsessed with President Obama but the TV discussions are not about the man but rather about his policies concerning the war in Afghanistan, the economic stimulus package, the healthcare initiative, job creation and other policy initiatives that he is pushing forward.

On Pakistani TV, most discussions about President Zardari revolve around his past, his personal weaknesses and the expected date of his departure. Rarely, if ever, have I heard anybody discuss policy matters that he might have been involved in and what effect have they had on our present state of affairs.

Democracy is a messy business and politicians, like the rest of us, are neither angels nor superior human beings capable of getting things done that are impossible to accomplish even in the best of times. Things that have gone wrong over the last 60 years cannot be put right in a couple of years.

Pakistan is surviving and perhaps things will get better, but it will take time and effort on the part of all of us. All of us means not just the politicians, the judiciary, the army, the bureaucracy or the media but also we the people.

For the first time in our history a democratic system is in place that does not seem to be under perpetual threat from the army. So, let us give it a chance and see where it takes us.

Jamal Hussain is a retired Air Commodore, former director Centre for Aerospace Power Studies PAF Base Faisal, Karachi, and former Commandant Joint Services Staff College. With all of his knowledge and experience, one might also say he is an expert. But Mr. Hussain does not like to be called ‘expert’ when he appears on TV since he says that word has become so misused that it has lost all meaning.

In his column in today’s Daily Times, Mr. Hussain points to a troubling problem with media, and lists specific examples of where so-called ‘experts’ were influenced in their speaking by their personal biases. Far from saying that we should try to magically erase all personal bias, Mr. Hussain makes a more modest proposal, and one that would be an easy remedy: Simply have the TV talk shows reveal the bias of the so-called ‘expert’ before and after he speaks.

This way, the people can judge for themselves if the speaker is neutral or, if he has some bias, it can be considered with his remarks.

When an expert has a known political bias or an obvious political leaning, this should be mentioned in the introductory phase in all forums where politics or diplomacy is under discussion. To introduce them as independent neutral experts would be unfair to the audience

“And how shall I introduce you besides your rank?” asked my TV host as I settled down on a one-to-one live TV interview with him. It got me thinking. For the past thirty years, I had held imposing titles of either commander of some operational units while in active service or the director of a number of set-ups in semi-government organisations. My last appointment was as the head of a think tank on air power and when I finally relinquished the post after seven long years, I decided not to tie myself down to any nine to five assignments and instead indulge wholeheartedly in my latest passion — golf, a game I could still participate in despite my aching bones and one which I could now financially afford.

Being a late starter in golf, I have managed to qualify as an 18 handicapper. In the absence of any impressive sounding title that I could currently lay claim to, I suggested in jest that he might introduce me as a handicapped golfer. My host displayed a puzzled yet sympathetic expression as he dolefully enquired what physical handicap I was afflicted with. “Never mind,” I replied, and hastily added, “the handicap I refer to is my prowess or rather the lack of it on the golf course and not to any physical disability.” “Shall I introduce you as a defence expert,” he suggested. “No, a defence analyst may be more appropriate,” I replied. Having watched and heard so many experts on talk shows, displaying less than required expertise in their chosen fields, I was loath to be labelled as one.

The Musharraf decade had witnessed a mushrooming of private TV channels where, surprisingly, talk shows on political and defence-related issues became more popular than dramas and other entertainment programmes. Talk shows as a result proliferated and as the viewership soared, some of the more successful anchors achieved celebrity status. University professors, retired bureaucrats and military officers featured as experts in their respective fields. As the number of talk shows grew, the demand for such specialists rose exponentially and as my dear friend and a renowned columnist would write, “everybody and his uncle joined the party”. The expertise of the experts got diluted as a result. Here are three examples of some rather inane utterances of some of the so-called experts.

Immediately following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, a senior retired military officer appearing as a guest was explaining the war strategies the two sides had adopted during the conflict. “Saddam had opted for the suck in strategy,” he explained, and added, “Saddam Hussein withdrew his main forces from the border in order to suck in the aggressors deep inside his territory with a view to extending their logistics supply lines, and at the appropriate moment sever it through rapier attacks on their supply routes. Once the attacking forces were cut off from their main base, they will be engulfed and destroyed piecemeal.” The anchor remarked that Saddam’s grand scheme failed to isolate the advancing enemy because of their mobility, massive firepower and air domination, and instead his own forces were routed. Under such adverse operational conditions the “suck in” strategy was bound to fail. This was, therefore, a bad strategy in the given environment. “No,” emphasized the guest. “The strategy was good but it failed because of poor implementation,” he added. An interesting comment coming from a specialist on warfare, one might add. One thought that a good strategy is one that has taken into account all external and internal factors and will succeed in achieving the laid down objectives despite all odds. If it fails, it has to be labelled as a bad or wrong strategy. Period.

The rolling out of the first co-produced JF-17 Thunder combat aircraft from Pakistan Aeronautical Complex Kamra was a red-letter day for the nation and the Pakistan Air Force. In one of the talk shows, a senior retired officer of the armed forces was asked to compare the Thunder with the F-16. The gentleman pointed out that overall the F-16 had a slight edge over the JF-17 Thunder but then in a surprising burst of patriotism he added, “In some aspects the Thunder outclasses the F-16s but in all other areas it matches it.” What was that? Thunder then should be overall superior to the F-16. Perhaps the gentleman got carried away and momentarily allowed his patriotic fervour overtake his professional judgment.

The first two examples featured military men. Now a look at the exuberance of a bureaucrat would be in order. A heated discussion on the repealed National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) was in full swing where a retired ambassador who regularly features as an expert on political and diplomatic fields on the electronic media was one of the guests. Commenting on the NRO, he loudly proclaimed that the ordinance was a discrimination against the PPP as it affected only those criminal and corruption cases that had been registered during the 1990s. Since many of the cases during the 1990s related to the period when PPP was in power twice, hence it discriminated against the party, he maintained. The gentleman probably forgot that the restricted timeframe of the ordinance went in favour of the party rather than against it, as all criminal and corruption charges involving the politicians and bureaucrats during the period when it was in power were withdrawn. Perhaps His Excellency got carried away in the heat of the moment and committed the faux pas.

These are just three incidences that I have mentioned where the expertise of the experts fell short of the mark. They are but minor infringements when compared to numerous howlers one hears when politicians are on display. However, they may be forgiven to an extent because like the lawyers they have to defend their client/party position no matter what the truth may be or how ridiculous it may appear to unbiased observers. But from the neutral experts one expects better.

Let me conclude by making one small suggestion to the talk show producers. When an expert has a known political bias or an obvious political leaning, this should be mentioned in the introductory phase in all forums where politics or diplomacy is under discussion. To introduce them as independent neutral experts would be unfair to the audience.