Two points dominated the discussion at a recent seminar the Karachi Press Club hosted on the "Role of the Media in India and Pakistan." One was that the media was faced with threats; and the second, that they needed to act with a greater sense of responsibility than is the case.
Yet the nature of the threats and issues confronting the media in the two countries, as articulated by different speakers, are quite different. Which highlights the fact that the media only mirrors the society in which it operates.
As usual, people from this side reminded the visitors that the print as well as electronic media in Pakistan were much more vibrant than their counterparts in India, and that proper coverage was not being given to hotspots like Occupied Kashmir, Assam and Nagaland.
News organisations have been freer for much longer time in India than here, yet ours resonate with a lot more dissenting voices than theirs. Why, that may be is easily explainable. Like all established democracies there exists a consensus of opinion among the various stakeholders in Indian society on important security and foreign policy issues.
Hence barring minor exceptions here and there, when it comes to dealing with the outside world or radical elements within the country itself, New Delhi gets near complete media support. The same is true of other established democracies such as Britain and the US. Sad as it is, we have yet to settle the basic issues of national interest and governance.
Hence questions related to internal and external policies dominating our newspaper pages and television screens are reported and discussed with a great amount of cynicism shaped by our history. India has a different history and hence different problems. One of the seminar participants averred that the media in his country faced no threat from New Delhi.
There, he said, "internal factors" and "corporate interests" posed a danger to media freedom, dangers that are peculiar to developed societies. Until and unless we have a full-fledged functional democracy, these dissimilarities will remain.
Aside from holding governments accountable for their acts of omission and commission, the media must also play a responsible role regarding issues and concerns of public import. 'Internal factors' 'corporate interests' or narrow personal interests must not allow any compromise on such basics as accuracy, fairness and common decency.
Then there is the issue of sensationalism associated with sensitive stories that target weaker and disadvantaged sections of society like women, and religious and ethnic minorities, and promote hatred and violence, unleashing tyranny of the majority on the minorities.
Such stories in both Pakistan and India pose a major threat to minority rights, and point to the need for establishing an institutional system of oversight. Other countries have tried to deal with questions of accuracy and fairness through the institution of ombudsman.
Readers/listeners/viewers can approach the ombudsman, often a senior member of a publication or media outlet, to complain about whatever they deem wrong. This though works only when a newspaper, radio or TV channel is interested in following the highest standards of good journalism.
Indeed, in our situation most do remain objective in their portrayal of news and analysis. There is no dearth of those, though, who are least bothered about maintaining such standards. They must be brought within the net of accountability.
Which calls for the establishment of a general office of media ombudsman, supported by the print and electronic media's representative bodies, to ensure all members act with a sense of responsibility, and those who fail can be held answerable through an internal yet independent accountability system.
Comments
Comments are closed.