The Pakistani media is under siege. Sensationalism, a reminiscent of the yellow journalism of the late nineteenth century, has permeated the fabric of today’s media, leading to legal, ethical, and public policy concerns. The judiciary has stopped Dr Shahid Masood and Dr Aamir Liaquat from airing their shows for irresponsible reporting; thus, essentially, taking the teeth out of the tiger. As a result, victims of media sensationalism must turn to ethical and public policy standards for protection. As noted above, these standards have provided some relief. However, to combat the ever-increasing sensationalism in the media, stronger and more deliberate action must be taken. This action must culminate in journalistic accountability. Whether it takes the form of greater judicial scrutiny of court cases involving sensationalism or legislatively imposed fines, specific limits must be set with repercussions imposed upon violators. The law of defamation allows individuals, groups of individuals, companies or firms to sue for damage to their reputation. The cases of Masood and Liaquat illustrate the way that the courts are adapting; being innovative in the face of new technologies and behaviours. Thankfully, nearly all these changes are for the better. It is less hard now for companies and individuals to sue for libel. Code of conduct has now been extended to include scientific papers, news and views, talk shows, conferences and publications, which are not immune from being suspended and sued provided they operate their commenting system responsibly. These recent judgments in the courts illustrate the increasing importance of “journalistic responsibility” in defamation cases considered from the perspective of the right to freedom of expression. Where a TV talk show deals with a matter of proper public concern, a court must also consider these issues of responsibility and there will be a breach of the law if it fails to do so. On the other hand, even if a journalist takes proper steps to investigate the truth of a story, damages for defamation might still be appropriate if the TV channel misrepresents the facts, which have been established. All these cases deal with the issue as to whether a journalist who acts responsibly should be sanctioned for the presentation of allegations which turn out to be untrue. In the English libel law, this is known as the Reynolds or “responsible journalism” defence. The responsibility of the journalist particularly the steps taken to verify data are of crucial importance in assessing whether and when a story on a matter of public concern involves civil sanctions against the media and is in the breach of the Article 10 of the Convention. Even where serious defamatory allegations are made, there will be a violation of Article 10 if the judgment is given against journalists who have acted responsibly and taken proper steps to verify the truth of the allegations. Masood‘s case suggests that the court has a positive obligation to consider issues of journalistic good faith and responsibility and to consider evidence in relation to them. This obligation appears to arise even where the point is not taken by the parties. There are limits to the doctrine even where the content in issue concerns politicians. Sanctions will be appropriate if the contents televised “mispresents” the facts which have been verified. The jurisprudence of the Court of Human Rights in this area has developed along similar lines to the law of libel, making it clear that the proper balance between the protection of reputation and freedom of expression is established if the law does not sanction responsible media channel. This aspect of the Court’s case law is unlikely to be affected by the forthcoming Dr Aamir Liaquat’s case which will deal with privacy issues. Since it has already hit the air with the words in the talk shows, someone decided it was newsworthy. Critics maintain the position that it is not, and arguing this point is vital because labelling this as ‘news’ is only the latest in a series of dangerous attention grabbing headlines which serves no purpose other than making us dumber and meaner by providing fodder for gossip-mongering in the living rooms and tea stalls. It is a part of public knowledge now. That doesn’t make it decent, necessary or worthy of presentation because it serves no real informative purpose. The only possible reason behind presenting this information is to provide ammunition for malcontents to blast a public figure over an issue that has nothing at all to do with his professional service to the country or the credit or reputation. It is not even a fun feature story; it is diverting attention away from crucial discussions and problems for the well-being of our country and the manner in which we chose to govern ourselves. The federal minister may not be the most well-liked individual in the city, and he may have plenty of faults as a minister. But the fact is that this news has nothing to do with real burning issues. Meeting with senior military leadership, even if true, is not a crime, nor is it unethical or immoral. This is not a prostitution scandal and no cache of weapons or cocaine was found in the minister’s trunk. The story, in no way, improves the lives of community members or better informs voters of issues that should dominate news: manners by which taxes are collected and allocated, tectonic shifts in the manner by which we govern ourselves or major social trends. There is a difference between doing what is right and what is popular, and this should be the first question an editorial board asks itself before deciding whether to run a story, which lacks legitimacy just to get more Television Rating Point (TRP). The problem is, of course, that statements of opinion are absolutely protected they are premised on known and disclosed facts. Yellow journalism is a classic example of rhetorical flair that is self-evidently opinion because its application is based on issues of fairness and bias on which different observers will differ. Responsible editorial responsibility is another classic example; show a political news story to partisans of two parties and one will get two opinions on whether it editorialises. The media a time capsule capture our world in words and images as it is at this very moment. Today’s news channels tell us something about the world we live in, the national news captures the pulse of the country, and the radio shares the current headlines in between popular songs. The media not only reports the news to its current audience; it captures the moment for posterity. As it stands today, the media is in a position to maintain a distorted image of today’s events for our ancestors. With sensational headlines and inaccuracies, the media has become a less credible source. Speculation in reporting leads to a speculative audience, which, in turn, diminishes the reliability of the news. Thus far, efforts at self-regulation have failed to restore the media to its informative roots, necessitating renewed legal standards. If action is not forthcoming and effective, the media may be worthless in a short time; an occurrence that will have negative effects on all facets of society. The writer is a professor of psychiatry and consultant forensic psychiatrist in the UK. He can be contacted at fawad_shifa@yahoo.com 1Share