Is media a king-maker?

Eminent defence and security analyst Dr Ayesha Siddiqa, author of the groundbreaking work "Military Inc" has argued at a seminar on "Crisis of Governance," in Lahore that the military is only a part of the group of king-makers in Pakistan, and that the media has become a new "king-maker" by virtue of its ability to stabilise or destabilise governments. We beg to differ with the observation made by the celebrated scholar.
Categorising the media as a "king-maker," and putting it in the august league of such high-level players as the military, the top bureaucracy and the political elite would amount to stretching things rather too far, and putting a spin that is incommensurate with the ground realities. It would be more appropriate to liken the media to a mirror that reflects the existing ground realities in the country.
At best, the media serves as an opinion-maker, but its opinion-making capability too is linked to the existing ground realities, as it cannot, otherwise, carry credibility if the facts contradict the picture it projects. The media identifies the spots from where "smoke" is rising, so that those at the helm can douse the fire in real time, before it turns into an uncontrollable conflagration.
Its role as an identifier of present and possible future trouble-spots, if performed with professionalism and integrity, uninfluenced by machinations of the "real" king-makers, should not be criticised, because it is performing an invaluable national service. As a messenger, particularly of bad tidings, the media serves as the guardian of larger national interest.
It can serve as the eyes and ears of governments, if the drift of public opinion it reflects in news and opinion-coverage is taken in a positive spirit by those at the helm. Dr Siddiqa's dubbing of the media as a new "king-maker" (certainly an exaggerated description) may owe itself to the vast clout it has come to enjoy in society at large, thanks largely to the transition to democracy from stretches of extra-constitutional rule, though the military is largely seen as the real force.
She has argued that the military has always been in power in Pakistan directly or indirectly, and that political and economic instability does not dissuade it from taking over. While the print media has traditionally been in the vanguard of the struggle for good governance, the recent growth of satellite channels in our country has helped bridge the information gap that had formerly blocked access to information at the lowest rungs of society, due to an atrociously low literacy rate.
This has increased the media outreach, and hence its power as an opinion-maker, but not as a king-maker, which it never was. However, the perception Dr Siddiqa has gained of biased projection of issues in talks shows etc is true, but then, talk shows are opinion not editorial and opinion is always biased, as it tilts in one direction. In almost all third world countries, the media, particularly the electronic media, has taken on the role of an opinion-maker because of its growing outreach and clout at the grassroots level.
A major cause of why the media has had to take on the role of a "messenger" of bad tidings, particularly in the developing countries with fragile institutions is the negative "sub aacha hae" feedback bureaucracies and the sycophants in the corridors of power have tended to provide to political and non-political rulers. Bureaucracy's power, in even advanced societies, lies in its role as the implementer of policies, and also from what lies buried in the office files - far away from the gaze of the media or the public at large.
The media's role is thus diametrically opposed to that of the bureaucracy. However, with the strengthening of democratic institutions and the process of accountability through different mechanisms, the gap has gradually narrowed, which can prove conducive to the structuring of an open democratic polity, provided there is the political will. However, the trouble starts when the media allows itself to be manipulated by the real "king-makers" to conceal or distort the truth.
This explains the pressures the media is often subjected to in our country, as indeed in all other countries with systemic weaknesses. The solution to all our national problems lies in the strengthening the democratic institutions and mechanisms of accountability at all levels of governance. Some of Dr Siddiqa's arguments are indeed cogent.
She has quoted the instance of media propaganda against President Zardari as if he is the only corrupt person in the country, though the unsavoury reputation he has gained over the years cannot be easily washed away, unless the Supreme Court absolves him of all corruption and other charges.
She has also identified the structural problems of the political parties, which have made them opt for short-term objectives instead of pursuing long-term policies and goals. This seems to be due mainly to the adhocism that we have practised over the decades that has spawned many national problems. There is a need of undertaking systemic overhaul, backed by enforcement of genuine accountability and the rule of law, which is possible only under a genuine democratic set-up.