Watchdogs against each other
The media and government have complimentary roles in promoting the well being and progress of the society
The government and the security establishment have taken strong exception to a news report in one of the national dailies which with reference to the national security meeting insinuated difference of opinion between the two on the role of the banned militant entities and the Punjab chief minister telling the DG ISI that whenever action was taken against certain groups by civilian authorities, the security establishment worked behind the scenes to secure the release of the arrested persons. Reportedly the foreign secretary, when answering a question by DG ISI in regard to steps required to prevent isolation of Pakistan at the international level, said “The principal international demands are for action against Masood Azhar and Jaish-i-Mohammad, Hafiz Saeed and Lahkar-Taiba and the Haqqani network”.
The news story tended to imply that contrary to the claims of official circles the civilian and military establishments were not on the same page and that the proscribed militant groups continued to enjoy the patronage of the latter. In the prevailing circumstances when the enemies of Pakistan and forces hostile to it are feverishly engaged in rubbing in the same notion to isolate the country and portray it as a state still sponsoring terrorism, this kind of reporting is undoubtedly an unpalatable indiscretion on the part of the person who filed that story and the editor who allowed its publication. It could undermine the national interest as forces hostile to Pakistan could use it to reinforce their argument to malign Pakistan. It is also an act of grave irresponsibility by the concerned media outlet. The government and the security establishment are justified in showing their displeasure and annoyance over the news report. Professional journalists and editors are supposed to exhibit high standard of professional journalism wedded to good of the public and the country. Freedom of expression is surely essential for the development of a society and democracy. But there is no concept of unbridled freedom of expression anywhere in the world. The contrary view is a misconception about the freedom of expression.
The media and those associated with this profession are bound to follow internationally recognised codes of professional ethics. The first ever code of ethics for the media drawn by American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1930 recognised the fact that freedom of expression belongs to the people and media being representative of the society has to act in a responsible manner. Similarly, ethical and professional codes of conduct for media drawn up by UNESCO, International Federation of Journalists, media associations, press councils in the countries where self-regulatory arrangement is in place, Press Council Ordinance and CPNE in Pakistan, invariably espouse the principles of the Social Responsibility Theory, propounded by the Hutchison Commission.
Dr Robert Maynard Hutchison, Vice Chancellor of Chicago University, who headed Hutchison Commission formed in US 1942 to make recommendations on the freedom of expression and media’s obligations towards the society — in the backdrop of growing calls by the US public for government intervention to check the indiscretions of the media and attempts by the media to avoid incisive government regulation — remarked “freedom comes with responsibility:
The report of the Commission, submitted in 1947, is regarded as the Magna Carta of the modern concept of freedom of expression and media’s responsibilities towards the society. It unequivocally emphasised the need for media to provide accurate, truthful and comprehensive account of events, act as a forum for exchange of comment and criticism, present and clarify goals and values of the society and make sure that it projects a representative picture of the constituent groups of the society. The report also reiterated the fact that society and public have a right to expect high standards of performance and as such intervention can be justified to secure public good. Another very pertinent point that the media persons need to understand is that the freedom of the media is contingent upon the right of the people to know. Therefore, the media is under obligation to report nothing but the truth.
Judged on the touchstone of the foregoing, the media landscape in Pakistan presents a very dismal picture. While it zealously tends to maintain and protect its freedom, it is not showing the sense of social responsibility that goes with the freedom of expression. The media, regrettably, like the political polarisation in the country, is also divided into anti-government, pro-government, and rightist groups with each entity trying to rub-in its own skewed and partisan views on national issues and even resorting to smear campaigns against the government and state institutions. Consequently, truth and social responsibility have become casualties of this rampant media culture.
The fact of the matter is that nobody has the right or privilege to act in an irresponsible manner and use the freedom of expression as a license to misinform the public and portray the government and state institutions in a bad light on the basis of unsubstantiated evidence or proof. This kind of behaviour is not tolerated even in societies which boast freedom of media as a hallmark of their polity. In the USA where the first amendment in the constitution prohibits any legislation muzzling the freedom of expression, media is supposed to act in a responsible manner and any conduct contrary to this is not only resented but appropriate action is also taken. During the US elections in 2000, the bulk of the media relying on the data from exit polls and vote projections gathered by Voters News Service (VNS), a syndicate of ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC and AP and subsidiaries such as New York Times declared before the close of the polls mistakenly that Al Gore had won the state of Florida and thus the presidency. Later the same media claimed that George W. Bush had won. Following the elections, several members of Congress made veiled threats of government regulation but backed away after network executives vowed during congressional hearings not to project the winner until polls had closed. And in spite of an expensive overhaul of the computer system, VNS was disbanded. It was simply a case of wrong prediction.
The media in Pakistan is enjoying unprecedented freedom at the moment and it must be acknowledged ungrudgingly that the government has not only been doing its utmost to ensure and strengthen freedom of expression but has also shown remarkable level of tolerance in regards to frequent acts of indiscretion by certain media groups and media men and resisted the temptation to put curbs on the freedom of expression. It is hard to contest the point that it is basically the responsibility of the government to ensure that media operates within accepted parameters of professional and ethical conduct. The media and government have complimentary roles in promoting the well being and progress of the society. If media is a watch-dog against the government, the government is also a watch-dog against the media.