Interview: The Media Divide

“In some of the major channels, we see individuals who are biased and openly sympathetic to the cause of extremists and militants”
– Amir Zia,
Director News and Current Affairs, Samaa

Newsline; December 2008

Q: Should there be a code of conduct/ethics that should shape the function and role of the electronic media?
A: The electronic media is still evolving in Pakistan and is far from perfect. Yes, we do need a code of conduct to ensure that our media organisations stick to the basic standards of journalism, which include being factual, impartial and fair in our coverage. At present, most of our channels often tend to be sensational, brazenly partial, and too opinionated. Many of our media persons behave more like activists rather than professionals. Therefore, not only is a code of conduct a must, we also need effective libel and defamation laws in the country to ensure that people who are being wronged by the media can get justice. This is a practice in all civilised countries. And we should also try to move in this direction.
Q: Should this code be devised by the government or by media persons?
A: All the stakeholders including the government, journalists’ groups, owners, editors and academia should help formulate the code of conduct. Already, recommendations have been made, but there is a need to build consensus and ensure that once such a document is formulated, it gets implemented. The media organisations should also prepare their in-house code of conduct. This is practiced the world over. The journalists should know the dos and don’ts of their trade.
Q: Do you feel that some of the media channels are biased towards the militants and, in some way, sympathetic of their cause?
A: In some of the major channels, we see individuals who are biased and openly sympathetic to the cause of extremists and militants. They manage to use these channels to propagate extremist and conservative ideas, tell half-truths and come up with bizarre conspiracy theories because of the lack of editorial control. And it is not just militants [they support]. We find many anchors and reporters openly supporting this political party or that, and toeing a particular political line. This bias and partiality was at its worst during the Lal Masjid crisis and the lawyers’ movement.
Q: Is it true that Samaa – unlike the other channels in their coverage – was pro-Musharraf?
A: The very approach that you have to be either pro- or anti- someone as a media organisation remains unprofessional. We were neither pro- nor anti-Musharraf, as an institution. In the same way as we are neither pro- nor anti-government today.
As journalists, we should remain impartial and tell the story as it unfolds, without lacing it with our opinion or distorting facts or exaggerating incidents or developments. We have to be objective – at all costs. That’s the basic tenet of journalism; that you have to give both versions of a story and try to remain balanced. Yes, there were channels which were staunchly anti-Musharraf. But Samaa did not join the bandwagon. We did not get carried away by sentiment. We remained impartial. Our policy is to stick to facts, provide undiluted information and serious analyses, rather being sensationalist and subjective. This is what we did during the Musharraf era and that’s what we are doing now.
Q: In your opinion, what is the role and responsibility of a talk show host, and are the current talk show hosts fulfilling that responsibility?
A: Obviously, the target of any discussion or an interview should be to leave viewers better informed and aware about an issue or development. Talk show hosts can do this by asking probing questions, providing facts and relevant background. Their job is to lead the discussion, without giving an impression that they are taking sides or are committed to any ideology. Unfortunately, many of our anchors are using their programmes to fan emotions. They follow their political agendas and blatantly take sides. Some even use television as a jumping-board to get government slots or other favours.
Then, there are those who take pride in the fact that they have become wheelers and dealers, carrying messages from one politician to another, giving them wanted or unwanted advice – both on camera and in private. There is little editorial control on content. The task of editorial control becomes more difficult when an anchor also holds a senior management position.
Haven’t we seen anchors trying to broker a deal between the government and militants during the Lal Masjid crisis? A few of them even became loudspeakers for the militants, while some tried to get governments changed through their programmes. A handful of television hosts behave as if they are judges, giving verdicts and sermons about everything under the sun. It is certainly not a journalist’s job. We are here to tell a story, not to become a part of it. We are not actors and should not try to become one.
It is good that now, questions about such negative practices are being raised even within the media, though it is making some media personnel angry and unhappy. However, we should excercise self-accountability. The media criticises everyone – because it is our job. But there is no harm in being self-critical as well. It will help us improve and become professional. Self-criticism in no way endangers press freedom, which can never exist without responsibility.
Q: Is it acceptable to show violence, dead bodies and suffering victims on TV?
A: No responsible newspaper or television channel shows bodies, blood and victims’ sufferings. It is a practice the world over – even in those nations which are seen as beacons of press freedom and expression. How many bodies of the September 11 victims were shown on television? Did we see any victims of the July 7 London bombings? We do not see any international channel showing the dead or the wounded of Afghanistan and Iraq. In Pakistan, however, most channels hardly exercise any self-restraint. They do not know where to stop. At hospitals, we see cameramen, photographers and reporters hampering the treatment of victims of violence, terrorism or accidents in their zeal to get footage, photographs or an eyewitness account.
In today’s context, suicide bombers and terrorists achieve their targets not just by staging attacks, but by gaining publicity, which remains their prime motive. They want to terrorise the people and create insecurity. The media has to rethink as to how they should report these events without the help of these desperate elements to achieve their ends. We should think about those who are sitting in front of their television sets. They should get information, not suffer at our hands. At Samaa, we do not show bodies, blood and victims as a matter of policy. -- ENDS