But, why shoot the messenger?
Imran Khan’s divorcing his new wife in less than a year was no surprise for me. I had, in the first place, broken the story in my television program DNA as well as in this newspaper only a few weeks earlier.
What was really surprising was the manner in which it took the whole media by storm. The story went viral all over. Especially the electronic media went to town on it.
I was in London on a private visit and the Friday before last was woken up early in the morning by phone calls from Pakistan about the divorce finally happening. Being the harbinger of the original bad news I was naturally the focus of attention regarding the background and sourcing of the story.
Of course Channel 24, which I head as CEO, had a field day celebrating their scoop. Apart from a few exceptions, other channels also had to reluctantly concede that it was our exclusive.
For me it was just another story that in the end analysis proved to be spot on. As I had earlier said in my television program, had it proved to be wrong I would still have been happy that at least a marriage was saved.
Nonetheless, this was not to be. As per apprehensions expressed by me, the Khan and Reham Khan’s differences were irreconcilable, and their short-lived union had hit a cul-de-sac.
Salacious gossip always interests the public; the media always ready to provide juicy details. The electronic media does this almost entirely for the sake of ratings rather than for any altruistic reasons.
For me it was just another story that in the end analysis proved to be spot on. As I had earlier said in my television program, had it proved to be wrong I would still have been happy that at least a marriage was saved
The divorce story has also generated a healthy debate in the media itself. I term it ‘healthy’ because media persons generally arrogate themselves to be sole arbiters of right or wrong. However they are rarely able to take criticism on themselves in good stead.
One point of view expressed by some prominent anchors and columnists and in the social media is that my act in first disclosing Khan’s marriage and then subsequently the divorce in my utterances and writings was somehow unethical. Their contention is that journalists have no right to poke their noses in private lives of politicians.
Some anchors and analysts working for other news channels sanctimoniously also claim that they always had the divorce story, but they deemed it unethical to disclose it. Perhaps it is a case of sour grapes?
However without attributing any motives, I take the criticism at its face value. But having spent more than four decades in active journalism has at least earned me the right to differ.
I have worked during the period as reporter, editor and have to my credit (or discredit) the launching of two English newspapers, besides virtually running a leading Urdu language daily founded by my late father Hameed Nizami. Being a multilingual journalist I write both in the English language as well as in Urdu.
Hence I am no spring chicken to journalism. In my view a story is a story. Once a journalist has incontrovertible sources it his duty to publish it rather than keeping it close to his chest, just because it might ruffle feathers.
Of course politicians have a right to privacy like the rest of the citizenry. However if their private life impacts upon their politics it no longer should remain private. If a particular politician makes a conscious choice to portray himself and his spouse (or vice versa) as celebrity then they should also be prepared to face the negative fallout if the relationship runs aground.
In the case of Imran this is what has happened. The PTI chief unnecessarily rubbed a journalist in Peshawar the other day, on the wrong side.
The reporter touched a raw nerve when he questioned Khan’s political judgment in the light of his personal choices. Instead of retorting that “those talking about someone’s personal life should be ashamed of themselves”, a simple “no comments” from him would have sufficed.
Another question being asked by media analysts is what public interest is served whether Imran is married or divorced? It seems the Khan himself thinks otherwise.
Whatever transpired between him and Reham within the confines of his Bani Gala house is none of our business. However when the PTI chief divorces his wife not only because his life with her had become “A Nightmare on Elm Street” but that she was also tarnishing his reputation as “ Mr Clean”, then media does have a right to report on it.
Apparently the financing of the film being produced by Reham proved to be the last straw that broke the traditional camel’s back. She was purportedly aggressively pursuing some big time party bigwigs and tycoons for bankrolling of the film project.
Another perception that became widespread was that Reham wanted an overt political role for herself while the Khan after initial dithering thought otherwise. Then there were those who believed that she was a “plant” who wanted to surreptitiously takeover the party.
In such matters it is usually difficult to sift fact from fiction. The bottom line is that the marriage that was announced in the media by the Khan last year with much fanfare was also annulled through the media by a cryptic presser.
Why shoot the messenger, as IK’s amateurish media managers are trying to do? The same spokespersons that were first strongly denying the affair with Reham and the impending marriage, and later the imminent divorce, are again on the job trying to deny the circumstances that led to the breakup.
Closer at home Benazir Bhutto shaheed’s marriage to Asif Ali Zardari was widely covered and speculated upon by the media. It was a mega event in the days when there was hardly any television. It was a political marriage with political implications
I have no qualms about doing my job to report, interpret and analyse. Whether the story is political like Benazir Bhutto Shaheed’s dismissal by President Ghulam Ishaq in August 1990 or Khan’s personal travails, in the end analysis it is the credibility of the journalist that is on the line.
Monica Lewinsky and president Bill Clinton’s “cigar rendezvous” in the Oval office, Lady Diana’s kiss and tell affairs, or more recently, the French president François Hollande being photographed by the paparazzi cheating on his mistress, are only few examples of media’s intrusiveness. Had it been left to the likes of our self styled moralists these scandals would never have come to light.
Closer at home Benazir Bhutto shaheed’s marriage to Asif Ali Zardari was widely covered and speculated upon by the media. It was a mega event in the days when there was hardly any television. It was a political marriage with political implications.
On the other hand there are politicians like Shehbaz Sharif whose divorce and subsequent marriage to Tehmina Durrani did not get much traction in the media as Sharif kept it strictly private. The couple never ever appears together in public. Hence the media respects their privacy.
PTI’s social media trolling under fake IDs had been condemning, sometimes using abusive language against me for spreading ‘rumours’ regarding the imminent divorce of Khan and Reham.
Some people insist that now they owe me an apology. I beg to differ: “If you can’t take the heat then leave the kitchen.” Well, I am not quite ready to do so.
