Media ethics
Friday, 09 Apr, 2010
Sections of Pakistan’s electronic media need to take a close hard look at their priorities and the frivolous manner in which they sometimes operate.
Take, for instance, the tone and tenor of the coverage given to Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Malik’s impending marriage to Indian tennis star Sania Mirza. When the story was first confirmed by the two families it was flashed over and over again as ‘breaking news’.
Later, it was Ms Mirza’s successful attempt to secure a Pakistani visa that dominated the headlines on some television channels. And then came the field days — or appalling lows, depending on your viewpoint — when Mr Malik’s alleged previous marriage to another Indian woman became the news du jour. Coverage of the eventual out-of-court settlement ostensibly involving a divorce was just as sensational and an equally poor advertisement for Pakistani journalism.
In the race for ratings, media ethics, contextual significance and perhaps even common sense were thrown out the window. What we saw on our screens was tabloid journalism of the sort usually purveyed by the dregs of the profession. Media organisations are businesses of course but the ethos of journalism demands that ethics must not be sacrificed at the altar of the bottom line. Good taste also comes into it, though that is a more subjective issue. But consider this: in a country racked by militancy and terrorism, should a celebrity marriage dominate the news on a day when dozens are killed in suicide attacks? Should gossip about what is at best a footnote in the day’s events be deemed more important than the serious socio-political problems facing the country? News involves information, not sordid entertainment, and the line differentiating the two must be redrawn if the industry is to retain its integrity. It is not a news network’s job to titillate its audience or provide the kind of catharsis offered by film or channels dedicated to entertainment.
Yes, the Shoaib-Sania story is news, especially in the context of the strained relations between Pakistan and India. By no stretch of the imagination, however, is it headline news in a country that is struggling to make ends meet.
Historic
Friday, 09 Apr, 2010
They’ve done it. Proving all the naysayers wrong, dismissing all the conspiracy theorists, rejecting all those who would be spoilers, the National Assembly of Pakistan has approved a constitution that for the first time in decades will have the broad support of the people’s elected representatives.
Such was the bonhomie in the house yesterday that regular watchers of parliament may have rubbed their eyes in disbelief: was that really Chaudhry Nisar, leader of the opposition, the PML-N attacker-in-chief, a seemingly perennially angry man, praising the PPP co-chairman, President Asif Ali Zardari? Yes, it was. It was that kind of a day. A historic day in Pakistan’s parliamentary history, one that the MNAs deserve a heartfelt thanks for.
And yet the 18th Amendment is neither the panacea that its proponents suggest it is, nor will it transform Pakistan’s polity unless implemented with sincerity and purpose. There are four broad areas that this constitutional amendment package addresses: the repeal of the 17th Amendment; enhancement of provincial autonomy; the appointment process for the superior judiciary; and ‘other’ issues. That is a sizeable agenda and necessitated nearly 100 clauses of the 280-article constitution to be amended. But many big issues were never put on the table. For example, the Islamic clauses gratuitously inserted by Gen Zia in the constitution were not touched and the colonial-era status of Fata was not looked at. Perhaps the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms headed by Raza Rabbani should not be disbanded and should instead be allowed to work on the next raft of changes that are needed. Consider that the security threat that has radiated from Fata is unprecedented in the country’s history and yet the committee did not see fit to amend its constitutional status at this stage. In fact, even the relatively minor changes (allowing political parties to participate in elections, for example) promised by the president have not yet been signed into law by the NWFP governor. The security challenge in Fata has to be dealt with by more than just guns and money — the ‘wild west’ political status of the place is part of the reason that the area has become the greatest threat to internal security.
Democracies must necessarily be forward-looking. To suggest that more needs to be done at this stage is not to detract from the historic achievement of the present parliament. Mr Rabbani and his committee have done a phenomenal job — which is all the more reason to keep them together and set them to work on the next set of constitutional reforms. ‘Do more’ in this context is not a quibble; it is the essence of democracy.