Media for society

Can public interest trump ratings?

Every time I have had occasion to talk to any media person I have asked them as to why topics such as education, health, poverty, unemployment, lack of access to basic services, lack of access to justice and so on do not figure more prominently in the media in terms of coverage, discussion, focus, outrage, anger and as a means of organising action? The stock reply is that these topics are not sexy enough, do not capture audiences, and do not draw the ratings needed. Is this really the case and is there an escape possible from the tyranny of ratings?

In newspapers there is little coverage of these topics. And if they are covered, they are seldom given prominence on the front page. A lot of reporters from concerned beats complain that their editors and/or desk people do not give their stories importance. Education, health and social sector beats are not considered the hottest beats, and there are clearly more perks in covering finance, politics, Supreme Court or even crime. There are seldom any stories from the districts, on these issues, on the main pages of the paper.

The tyranny of ratings seems to be a lot more binding in the electronic media. Some of our friends, anchors of shows at prime time, have said that they cannot think of doing shows on anything but the political happenings in Islamabad. It has to be on the political give-and-take between parties, the civil-military lack of balance, the doings of the Supreme Court and so on. Occasionally a bomb blast or another tragic incident might trump the political discussions but education, health, poverty and other social issues cannot do this. And the reason for this is: people switch to other channels if you offer them something as ‘boring’ as discussions on education/health issues. Whether this is true or not, whether ratings are as tyrannous or not, anchors say that and believe that as well.

How can Veena Malik or a weeping Firdous Awan trump discussions on why our schools do not work and how we can make them work, what sort of skill trainings should we be organising and why. Media is portrayed as the ‘fourth pillar’ of governance. It can, theoretically, be a powerful tool for ensuring transparency of government and creating pressures for accountability of state, government and all people in public space. But if Veena Malik can trump missing persons, are our talk shows really about news and discussions or are they about entertainment alone? Hybrids such as Hasb-e-Haal and Khabarnaak are definitely more on the entertainment side, but even the approach of more mainstream anchors, of making people confront each other, Jerry Springer style, points towards more entertainment than news and views. Maya Khan, if true, took this to new levels by employing actors for making it even more entertaining.

What is not understood by people, and this works in all ‘markets’, is that competition is a double-edged sword. It can improve quality in some conditions but it can also setup strong dynamics for quality deterioration in other situations. Look at how theatre and stage dramas have been hurt by competition, among other things, over time. From when families would go to see them and there was good humour in them, people introduced ‘juggat bazi’ and then dance and now we have come to a position where watching them, even in the relative isolation of YouTube, is a pain and quite embarrassing. But this is inevitable if each participant tries to appeal to baser instincts of the audience, and each player has to outdo the other to get the ratings, deterioration is inevitable. Are Maya Khans, Kamran Shahids, and even Azizis and Aftabs of Pakistan are guilty of setting up this negative dynamic and feeding it?

The radio space, especially FM channel space, seems to be a bit different. I have not listened to all channels but it does seem that most of their programming is for entertainment, and mostly music. But a lot of FM channels are quite local. Some do run paid programmes for local businesses even, so their air time is not likely to be very expensive. Can they be used, by civil society, to start debates and discussions on local social and political issues and their solutions? Could public action be structured through FM radios?

Is there a way to challenge this tyranny of ratings and quality deteriorating effects of competitive pressures? There are a number of ways of thinking about this. It is almost impossible for individual players to opt out of such dynamics. If, as an anchor, you are competing with Khabarnaak or Azizi, you will have to do ‘better’ than them. There is no escape from it. But a few media groups and/or channels together can definitely get together to set up a different dynamic. They can set up a floor (or a ceiling if you do not like the floor analogy) below which they will not go. It could be a rather basic agreement on standards and self-regulation. But the chances of this happening in Pakistan are very small.

The state could step in, in public interest, and try to regulate the media. They should definitely have some basic rules but expecting more from the Pakistani state, with the usual caveats of corruption, partisanship and sheer bloody-mindedness of our state, is going to lead to censorship and possibly death of ‘free’ media. So, this is not much of a solution. Even now the rumblings about impending media and internet restrictions are rightly raising eyebrows in civil society.

One possible way seems to be through much more active media monitoring by civil society. If groups form to monitor what is being covered in the media and how, report on these, and then a larger civil society puts pressure on the media to move in more positive directions, this could provide some counter to the tyranny of ratings. The state could also help if it could setup some channels and/or media organs that produce high quality content of public interest. CBC in Canada is an example. Other countries have similar examples too. But the big caveat here is that the state should set up degrees of separation from the media outlets to allow them freedom to work, but at the same time provide funding so that the tyranny of ratings can be loosened. Can Pakistan start channels, like C-SPAN, for education and social issues?

The writer is an Associate Professor of Economics at LUMS (currently on leave) and a Senior Advisor at Open Society Foundation (OSF). He can be reached at [email protected]