by Dr. Khalil Ahmad
Regardless of the nature of governments, be they civil or military, liberal or fascist they sometimes resort to blocking information to protect their rule and authority. While it is often the first measure military governments resort to, for civil and liberal governments it is the last desperate measure. In Pakistan, this scheme does not work in this order. Here, both types of governments may take advantage of the situation. If their rule and authority runs smoothly without any hurdles, they allow the media to make use of freedom. Otherwise, the story is different. Norms, principles, values, and fundamental rights do not carry as much weight in some governments as in others.
In the wake of the imposition of emergency on November 3, Pakistan suffered some setbacks. The news channels had to learn to survive one way or the other. After about a fortnight, they too fell victim. We know what happened to TV channels like Geo, Aaj, and ARY. There was a time when the same government took pride in its policy of giving the freedom of press to the nation. What happened later? Is it the media that is to blame for all that happened later? It is high time that some of the clichés regarding the freedom of the print and electronic media that have become part of our political discourse, especially after March 9, must be analysed and broken apart. This may help realise the media's importance and understand its significance for our right to live a life of our choice. It is believed that the media should report objectively. In most cases, it is usually the government side that uses this argument aggressively. Many representatives of civil society believe in this point of view. They too argue in favour of objectivity on the part of the media.
Without going into philosophical details, it may be maintained that objective reporting is next to impossible. At the same time, even theoretically, it is against the objectives of reporting. Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, nullifies the notion of objectivity as impossibility. We humans always see things from some angle and report them by interpreting in our own way. Indeed, the mere act of reporting is but an act of interpretation. No doubt, we can count the participants of a lawyers' rally exactly objectively. But when we qualify this as a big or a small rally, the interpretation will be labelled as carrying some subjectivity.
So, there are only subjectivities, no objectivities. Popper defines objectivity as the inter-subjectivities. In addition, not everything that has happened in a particular rally needs to be reported, though it can be done in a detailed narrative. Then, who is going to sift out what is to be reported and what is to be left unreported? Thus, it should be the reporters' right or privilege to make a choice. Of course, they are influenced by their opinions while reporting. It must be, as Talat Hussain, a renowned TV host, once said in his talk show, their discretion to make informed opinion of what they observe and then report; no one can dictate to them.
Another cliché is that the media should be impartial, that it should favour none. Is it possible? Can a TV host say that both the persons in a dispute are right? Sure, that channel or anchor person will not go off the air, but certainly viewers will not watch him. This is the cost. Can a TV channel be asked to be impartial? Yet another cliché that hardly bears a semblance of rationality cries for constructive criticism. First, no one, whether he is a criticiser or the criticised, has any right to qualify the criticism because this amounts to controlling the opinions of others with ideas regardless of their quality.
Second, what other criticism will be more constructive than that which sees the situation from different angles? If taken in earnest, this lets one know one's faults and provides an opportunity to remove them and be constructive. Sometimes, this cliché implies that the criticiser must formulate proposals for improvements or alternate solutions. Doesn't this mean killing the ideas in the bud? Also, isn't a piece of 'negative' criticism without any proposal for improvement pregnant with a positive solution? Terming an act of parliament, such as the passage of the 17th amendment, as unconstitutional is saying in other words that parliament should act constitutionally. Hence freedom, be it that of the media or an individual, is not bound by safeguards.
Can the freedom that is given to the media under the watchful eye of a government be categorised as real freedom? In the past, during much of the eighties, Pakistani media has been under siege and threatened by blockades not only from the government but other powerful parties and groups also. Actually, giving someone freedom and asking him not to do this or that can be anything but freedom. Are we free if we are not free to make our choice? Philosophically, it's a contradiction in terms. Socially, it is intolerance. Psychologically, it is a symptom of fear of losing something. Politically, it is limited slavery.
Principally, no freedom is absolute. So is the freedom of the media. It is bound by law, such as defamation, etc. As no freedom should be exercised without responsibility, freedom of the media has its own responsibilities. It may manifest itself in self-responsibility such as ethical norms, or in legal responsibility. As one example of self-responsibility, the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) has recently constituted a Media Complaints Commission where violation of the journalistic code of ethics would be addressed. For making media legally responsible, an independent judiciary, not susceptible to any government or non-governmental influence, is a precondition. Every component of the media, be it print or electronic, should be free to follow the demands of their ethics and responsibility.
--------
Dr. Khalil Ahmad is associated with Alternate Solutions Institute, Pakistan’s first free market think-tank
This article appeared in The Post on November 27, 2007.
