Those calling for Geo’s fall will find their own influence reduced too
The way media houses were working, Geo more than anyone else, this was bound to happen one day. The main responsibility lies with the owners of these houses. The journalists working in the empires who failed to put their foot down and demand that print and electronic media should be run professionally would have to share the blame.
The only factor that could have stopped the long standing Geo-ISI tiff from taking a nasty turn was a timely intervention by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. It suited him however to let Geo and ISI sort each other out. The intervention would however have only postponed the inevitable opening of the Pandora’s box
It is an irony that Geo, which has sold religion more than any other channel as an entertainment item is itself facing the charge of blasphemy. This only proves the adage that to rear a tiger is to court calamity.
In the case of Geo the responsibility lies with the media empire owner’s peculiar system of remote controlling the print and electronic media’s content from Dubai.
The owners of media empires in general have treated their channels and newspapers as lucrative business ventures. They forgot that media ownership also imposed social responsibility and required following a code of conduct. Unlike other industries a mishandled media can create far reaching problems for society.
The owners initially used the influence they wielded as molders of public opinion to expand their empire. As time passed they developed the illusion that they could act as king makers. They used the newspapers and electronic media under their control to support sometime one, sometime another political party, to humiliate powerful rivals and take revenge from adversaries. While pleasing themselves they sometime crossed the limits of decency or legality.
The owners of media empires in general have treated their channels and newspapers as lucrative business ventures. They forgot that media ownership also imposed social responsibility and required following a code of conduct.
Business rivalries between media empires took toll on whatever flimsy code of ethics media owners had ever recognised. Marketing competition stood in the way of lending support to rival groups when one of them was under attack. Appeals for help from journalists of the beleaguered paper or channel were ignored by fellow journalists who, basking in the reflected glory of their employers, dutifully followed the dictation from above. This tended to replace camaraderie with antagonism among media workers belonging to rival houses. Geo is thus reaping what it has sown. So will others who are presently throwing stones at it.
Geo owners managing their business from abroad have developed a unique system of commanding the flow of information and opinion. The arrangement does not require professional editorial control of either the papers or the channels. The arrangement has already led to enough mischief, the repetition of allegations against the ISI chief and the blunder in the morning show being only the latest examples.
Those dutifully running media houses at the owners’ behest have often no training in journalism and no concept of basic media ethics to guide them. They have thus frequently rushed in where angels fear to tread. The system allows critical error of judgment to take place too frequently.
While reporters, particularly investigative reporters, have to be in contact with political parties, government circles, extremist groups and intelligence agencies they are supposed to extract information rather than become the spokesmen of any one of those they meet in the line of duty. As newspaper columns and talk shows indicate there are worrisome developments. There are journalists who have an agenda of their own. Some deliver fatwas, calling those holding different opinions ‘foreign agents’, ‘anti-Pakistan elements’, and ‘traitors.’ There are others who work for mafias of all sorts.
Over a month long no-holds-barred infighting has considerably weakened the media. If the opponents of the Geo TV manage to get it banned as they are trying their level best to do, what they will achieve is a Pyrrhic victory where the victor also falls with the victim. Every media house, Geo as well as its opponents, will lose influence. They will have to work for years to regain the public prestige and the social clout they enjoyed before April 19.
The infighting has exposed the worst in the industry that many had tended to overlook on account of the support provided by media to popular causes at crucial times and for highlighting the issues so far considered taboo.
The infighting has exposed the worst in the industry that many had tended to overlook on account of the support provided by media to popular causes at crucial times and for highlighting the issues so far considered taboo.
The media aired round the clock reports of the struggle for the restoration of independent judiciary. The reports electrified civil society and mobilised lawyers, students and political activists. The reports were accompanied by newspaper columns and talk shows that exposed Mushrraf’s shenanigans. Both print and electronic media played a role in developing public consciousness regarding the need for an independent judiciary.
It goes to their credit that despite their unending hunch for a role in the game of thrones the media houses strongly supported democracy. Later they refused to be cowed down by threats from Pakistani Taliban.
How much of this was done out of a commitment to truthful reporting or attachment to democracy and how much because support to popular causes added to the channels’ ranking is of little consequence as in the long run it helped to strengthen democracy.
The media gathered more clout as it took up the issue of the missing persons and the injustices done to the Baluch. The 54 journalists who laid down their lives from 1992 to 2014 while fearlessly performing their professional duties also added to the media’s its prestige. Along with judiciary, media came to be considered as one of the two forces whose presence guaranteed the unobstructed continuation of democracy.
The infighting wherein recourse was made to most indecent tactics has compromised media’s credibility. It is widely seen to be a plaything in the hands of unscrupulous owners, intelligence agencies and religious fanatics. Democracy has thus been deprived of what many considered one of its two major safeguards along with judiciary.
