[QUOTE=aphrodite;145110]The Pakistani media is being heavily funded by the US. The reason is very obvious- to control the thinking process of a Pak citizen. The easiest and the cheapest way is to set up 3-4 chairs and a table, hire a small time journalist, and market all of it in such a way that the journalist is catapulted to instant stardom and credibility, and Voila! A talk show has just been created. Now this talk show host will be armed with alot of rhetorics and dramatization, so that the masses go hooplah over the issue- grave or not. They follow the golden rule of the devil- even if you speak a fallacy, do it screaming and yelling and everyone will believe you.

So now it comes down to awareness about this and other vital issues governing us. When I read comments of many members on this discussion forum, I sense the same hammering as we see being done in the mainstream, commercial media. Unwittingly, they fall prey to the same ideas as the media wants to indoctrinate us with.

So then what is an alternative? I say, independent, online information sources are the best. However information from wherever it may come, has to be further analysed by none other than YOU! Dont trust a value-less man/woman sitting inside the idiot-box to analyse the situation for you correctly.

I know as a fact from sources inside the media, that these talk show hosts are regularly bought and sold as part of a wholesale package of the channel/newspaper etc. For example, many innocent citizens of this country have no idea that currently there is a deal going on between the PML(N) and Geo Tv, a deal regarding propaganda campaigning. Needless to say, if the PPP or any other party strikes a better deal, Geo will be theirs for taking. How so ethical. Sometime back the Chairman of Geo/jang group, actually stated that the PM for 2012 will be 'selected' by the Jang group. Hence the power of the media comes into play here and not the fallacy of democracy as is practiced.[/QUOTE]

I also heard from some1 that Justice Iftakhar Chaudri's campaign was sponsored by some invisible hands.Obviously there is no solid proof available in this regard but there are certain facts that support this view.

First our media don't observe any ethical and moral practices prevalent in civilized nations. Even it do not bother to follow the local legislation. for example

1- According to international practices, no single group can operate in both electronic and Print media. It may not be difficult for BBC to run a newspaper or for Washington post can to start its TV channel. What prevent them from doing so is ethical (or might be some legal ) restrictions. Running both the mediums jeopardize independence and impartiality of media.

2- Ownership and editorship of newspaper are kept separate in developed society. This practice prevent running of newspaper like a typical business concern. Theoretically separation of editorship from ownership ensure freedom and neutrality of media but But what happen in Pakistan ,owners are themselves editors and dictate the entire policy of newspaper. There are two Organizations ie APNS for owners and CPNE for editors but both of them are not more than puppets in the hands of tow strong media groups.

3- The relevant legislation require newspapers to not allocate more than 25pc of space on the front page to commercial adds. Same way News channels cannot run commercials for more than ten minutes during one Hour as per PEMRA regulations but these regulations are never followed by media.It is a common practice to dedicate more than 80pc of available space to commercials even on first page.

4- Media do not allow labor unions with in their organizations. It is gross violation of relevant labour laws.
5- Media always extended its support to dictators during the early period of dictatorship. It never struggled to strengthen the public commitment towards democracy and democratic norms.


In the wake of above mentioned facts ,one can realize that commercialism is driving force for media so how can it devote such a comprehensive coverage to Chief Justice Iftakhar Chaudhri with any commercial motive?

Media has brought wonders in this part of the land. It has given the confidence to the layman, the people are now more aware of the rights, and the happenings all around. It is also negating the enemies propoganda on differnt fronts and it is also having a check on the performance of the government. Rightly stated as a fourth pillar of state.

[B]@aphrodite![/B]

By levelling allegations and by defaming the TV channals will not sort out the problem. It is the ways and the methodology which forces everyone to glue at the TV, what is happening all around. Talk shows are informative and they are good in order to assess the things, to analyse the situation and it give you resolute approach in forming opinion. The most sensible thing is to hear others and think on your own. Its we who listen to the anchors and the whole blah blah.......... So whats the alternate????? Either abandon them who have their own motives and interests or to switch over to the foriegn media???

[B]@Saleeqa Batool![/B]

Goodness me!!! Well no doubt it is the media which played its role in bringing back the CJ, But dont you think it has the role to play nd rightly played. At least it is the Fourth Pillar of the state. CJ was not at all, at the mercy of media rather it becomes fruitfull both ways. The hidden hands by no means played the role, but the legal fraternity, the civil society and the People of Pakistan.

[QUOTE=maawan;145278]Media has brought wonders in this part of the land. It has given the confidence to the layman, the people are now more aware of the rights, and the happenings all around. It is also negating the enemies propoganda on differnt fronts and it is also having a check on the performance of the government. Rightly stated as a fourth pillar of state.

[B]@aphrodite![/B]

By levelling allegations and by defaming the TV channals will not sort out the problem. It is the ways and the methodology which forces everyone to glue at the TV, what is happening all around. Talk shows are informative and they are good in order to assess the things, to analyse the situation and it give you resolute approach in forming opinion. The most sensible thing is to hear others and think on your own. Its we who listen to the anchors and the whole blah blah.......... So whats the alternate????? Either abandon them who have their own motives and interests or to switch over to the foriegn media???

[B]@Saleeqa Batool![/B]

Goodness me!!! Well no doubt it is the media which played its role in bringing back the CJ, But dont you think it has the role to play nd rightly played. At least it is the Fourth Pillar of the state. CJ was not at all, at the mercy of media rather it becomes fruitfull both ways. The hidden hands by no means played the role, but the legal fraternity, the civil society and the People of Pakistan.[/QUOTE]

I think Saleeqa has a good point. She's nicely spotting on. Pakistani Media, perhaps, in its age of infancy, therefore, it has not yet attained maturity akin to the one that exists in developed countries.

Oh talk shows?? the less talk about talk shows, the better. Don't you see ad nauseam offense and politicians just pouring venom against one another? Talk shows really don't worth my time.

[B]@all[/B]

i agree with all of you. Media is not directing people its not taking them any where. All the TV channels always look for some appealing events and happenings in order to cash them and win-over its rival channels.

There are so many talk shows coming out every second day where there are huge discussions with no conclusion at the end. Anchors of the talk shows have now become celebrities they very rarely bothers to highlight the common problems that the society is facing now.

There is information overflow which has deeply contributed to the frustration of the society.

@Khyber,

I know the jugglary of words in talkshows sometimes seems the most funniest things happening around, but this is what People ranging from layman to the intellect has indulged themselves heavily from Khyber to Karachi.

@ newstudent
 

Sure. Saleeqa has already outlined the Judiciary issue for you (albeit [B]maawan's[/B] constant protests against it :)), and so I guess I neednt say more on that.

But one can think why the media went from being Pro-Musharraf to Anti-Musharraf in a matter of days? He was given the leverage for a good 8 years, from which atleast 5 years was the time span the media started becoming active, in his not-so-constitutional moves. I think USA wanted him gone for a reason that I know of, but havent confirmed. It had something to do with Musharraf trying to double-cross the Americans in matters of Afghan Talibans (and its not an unbelievable speculation btw). And so what did the Pakistani public see on media? Hamid Mirs and Kamran Khans and Talat Husseins harping on and on about a [I]dictator[/I], when it didnt even matter before. The CJP issue wasnt the first and only illegal move the man had made. Much before this, Musharraf was also responsible for the murder of Akber Bugti, but at that time, the media wasnt too vocal, even though they could have targeted him even then. But when his time came close, even such issues came into the limelight.

All the above was an anti-establishment course. When it comes to taking a pro-opposition course, the media endlessly harps about how Nawaz Sharif has done oodles for democracy and judiciary. They conveniently never [I]inform[/I] the public about his illegal measures during the 1990's. After all media is supposed to be impartial, and give out all the data- not information, which is data processed- to the public. How come nobody mentions how Nawaz Sharif was involved in Mehran Bank scandal, or kidnappings of journalists, victimization of political opponents and illegal loan terms from state machinary to fund his private businesses. Nobody asks him today where all that public donation went off to ( remember when he asked the poor Pakis to pay off foreign debt and the simpletons that we are, we scurried off to help the government in this holy mission).

Having established all the above, it comes down to [I]how[/I] the US and other such vested interests manage all this? Surely it never approaches individual media outlets. It works by way of deception, as in, pumps money required to do all the above, towards indirect channals. As a matter of fact, the people working for them may not even be aware. In this case for example US will hire its lobbyists around the world ( Saudis for one will be funded, and in turn that money will trickle down to Nawaz Sharif's party, who will be instructed to carry out certain measures as [I]advised [/I] by his Saudi Santas who in turn will be advised by their US henchmen).

In the end its not about what stance I take about an issue. Its about how some vested interests brainwash our minds into thinking [I]along[/I] their lines. And their lines, will never be the same as ours, as is evident from the Kerry-Luger Bill.

[B]@maawan[/B]

And so the above also answers your apprehensions.

Regards

[QUOTE=Saleeqa Batool;145266]I also heard from some1 that Justice Iftakhar Chaudri's campaign was sponsored by some invisible hands.Obviously there is no solid proof available in this regard but there are certain facts that support this view.

First our media don't observe any ethical and moral practices prevalent in civilized nations. Even it do not bother to follow the local legislation. for example

1- According to international practices, no single group can operate in both electronic and Print media. It may not be difficult for BBC to run a newspaper or for Washington post can to start its TV channel. What prevent them from doing so is ethical (or might be some legal ) restrictions. Running both the mediums jeopardize independence and impartiality of media.

2- Ownership and editorship of newspaper are kept separate in developed society. This practice prevent running of newspaper like a typical business concern. Theoretically separation of editorship from ownership ensure freedom and neutrality of media but But what happen in Pakistan ,owners are themselves editors and dictate the entire policy of newspaper. There are two Organizations ie APNS for owners and CPNE for editors but both of them are not more than puppets in the hands of tow strong media groups.

3- The relevant legislation require newspapers to not allocate more than 25pc of space on the front page to commercial adds. Same way News channels cannot run commercials for more than ten minutes during one Hour as per PEMRA regulations but these regulations are never followed by media.It is a common practice to dedicate more than 80pc of available space to commercials even on first page.

4- Media do not allow labor unions with in their organizations. It is gross violation of relevant labour laws.
5- Media always extended its support to dictators during the early period of dictatorship. It never struggled to strengthen the public commitment towards democracy and democratic norms.


In the wake of above mentioned facts ,one can realize that commercialism is driving force for media so how can it devote such a comprehensive coverage to Chief Justice Iftakhar Chaudhri with any commercial motive?[/QUOTE]

Saleeqa,

I want to straighten some facts here in your post!

Para No 1 is not correct; there used to be a restriction on the cross-media ownership in the past, which now has been relaxed in UK in 1996. But it is still effective in some European countries, also in the USA where cross-media ownership is forbidden in the same market (In the USA same market is defined as a market in same region, such as east coast or west coast, etc... Now the situation is that with the advent of Rupert Murdoch, UK and the USA both have allowed the cross-media ownership, but it is still not free for all (the way it is in Pakistan). Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Scandinavian countries, France, Germany are those countries which have not allowed cross-media ownership.

The basic argument against the cross-media ownership is that if it is allowed it would decimate a plurality which is sine a qua non for a democratic system. But those who want cross-media ownership say that in the internet world where the difference between different forms of media has almost disappeared, the restriction on the cross-media ownership has lost the sense. However, the fact is that cross-media ownership always creates monopolies which are definitely not good for society; if it is allowed society becomes hostage to some powerful media groups, which is now happening in the West as well as in the developing countries. Therefore, now the west is allowing gradually the cross-media ownership, but it's not a good example to follow. Societies like ours should keep restrictions on the cross-media ownership.

General Musharraf was stupid; he was merely trying to appease some big media groups in Pakistan when he was making media laws in Pakistan. In the original laws, there was a restriction on the cross-media ownership, but that restriction was lifted in a very sloppy manner, just on the demand of big media conglomerates of Pakistan.

Against the Para No 2, it also now seems redundant, because now the owners in the western world have also started becoming editors-in-chief of their media organisations. In some organisations, the owners themselves do not become editors, but the process of making editors is too much slavish that an editor knows that he would always follow the dictum of the owners. There used to be a powerful institution of professional editor who would decide editorial decision independently. Now it's no longer in vogue; compromises on principles have become an order of the day even in the west, thanks to growing commercialism and the rise of people like Rupert Murdoch!

Regarding Para No 3, I'm not aware of any legislation that put some restrictions on the front page use for advertisement. However there are some legislation in some of the European countries, but not in all Western countries, which put some sort of quota on the contents, which means, some portion of time or space in a media outlet should be allocated to education, minorities, women, culture, etc.

With regard to Para 4, yes many of the media organisation even do not give job to a journalist if he participates in a journalists union. Long time ago, in 1987, a journalist, Haider Rizvi, had to resign from The Nation, because he was elected as joint secretary of PUJ! Jang group allow unions, but has kept it ineffective. Dawn is relatively a better group vis-à-vis journalists unions.

On Para 5, I would say that it is a seeping statement, because some media did resist, some struggled, and some made underhand deals with the dictators. But overall, Pakistani media is owned by those people who subscribe to the rightist ideologies or are on the right-of-the-centre of the political divide of Pakistan. General Zia purged most of the leftist or liberal working journalists from public media organisations. Now the APNS, the newspaper owners’ organisation, is dominated by rightists and extremists! People like Najam Sethi and Sajjab Bokhari of Musawaat, etc. are exceptions! However, a large majority of the working journalists always opposed the dictators. In 1978, Pakistani journalists launched a unique struggle against the Gen. Zia when several newspapers including Musawaat, were shut down for over nine years. Three journalists were flogged by the military courts, while over 400 hundred journalists were incarcerated during that movement.

In the end your conclusion is not wrong!

@ khyber
 

nice and informative analytical post.

but one question arises in mind. as you mentioned in your post about the monopoly of the large cross-media groups and the influence of the owners of the media group on the policies of their newspaper or tv channel, isn't very disappointing that these elements are killing the true purpose of journalism and commercialized journalism is only in the favor of the owners of the media groups and in the interest of those agencies who can buy owners and journalists for making public opinion only in their favor.

regards,

Zobia

[QUOTE=islah_G;140076]i also agree with all of u to the extent abt the issues u pointed out and of course many more.

the main reason for all this is the tv channels are busy in making money and popularity....thats why they dnt give due weightage to the important issues but give most time to something breaking and exclusive.

the state of pakistan is facing great problems as some of them higlighted by a member...our media need to bring those issues to the plateform for discussion so that at least some action be taken.

thanx.[/QUOTE]
media is like a person who is cutting the same branch on which he is sitting
on the name of freedom of expressions and emotions.its really seems irresponsible and uncontrolled ........
media should be more responsible wd having patriotic approach which reflects
+ve pakistan

[QUOTE=housefull;171497]media is like a person who is cutting the same branch on which he is sitting
on the name of freedom of expressions and emotions.its really seems irresponsible and uncontrolled ........
media should be more responsible wd having patriotic approach which reflects
+ve pakistan

[/QUOTE]

i totally agree with u... media highlights the problems, not for solution but to destroy the image of Pakistan... they r given free hand and they r exploiting it... to be realistic is very good but proceeding with positive approach is the best... reality is that there are many problems in Pakistan but we need to go ahead with positive approach and find the solution to the problems... media can play its role but.... very sorry to say that they r doing nthing fr Pakistan...

[QUOTE=Zobia Samreen;171378]nice and informative analytical post.

but one question arises in mind. as you mentioned in your post about the monopoly of the large cross-media groups and the influence of the owners of the media group on the policies of their newspaper or tv channel, isn't very disappointing that these elements are killing the true purpose of journalism and commercialized journalism is only in the favor of the owners of the media groups and in the interest of those agencies who can buy owners and journalists for making public opinion only in their favor.

regards,

Zobia[/QUOTE]

yes it is... the essence of journalism is dying day by day.... for example, when there is any bomb blast in any part of Pakistan... a race begins in dfrnt chnels that who broke the news first... it is ridiculous.... it is nt journalism.