Daily Times

Switching channels is as easy as changing clothes for most anchors, if not easier. We observe them hopping from one television station to another like a thrifty old woman at the flea market springing back and forth from one stall to another looking for the best deal, screaming at the vendors, goading them to slash down prices but, in their case, to jack up their salaries.

So, it did not surprise me when they flocked to pay a soon-to-be-launched private television channel a visit once they got a call from the emerging group, the highest bidder in the market. The network’s administration was saying all the right things to lure them in: guaranteed editorial independence, partnership in corporate profits, transparency and mutual respect in the work environment, and a commitment to changing the culture of family owned enterprises where an employee is more like a personal servant, if not a slave. Their grievances notwithstanding, can we ignore that the change broadcasters wanted to bring first — before any legal, cultural or democratic change — was in their own financial status? And, to be honest, journalists are not alone in their yearning to have a decent and respectable job, a place where their self-respect is not compromised by a rich, arrogant employer on a regular basis. Almost everyone in Pakistan who is privately employed has to suffer the tyranny of his business owner. He wishes to leave and switch jobs too but he cannot. The market does not allow him to. However, the market let television anchors scuttle across the media sector, bouncing back and fourth like a rubber ball, raising expectations and the pay cheque every time.

As such, when they stepped into the office for an interview, they knew they were not going to settle for any less, not like an ordinary clerk or a police constable who sells his conscience for a few bucks and is derided by the whole nation as being corrupt and incompetent. Even though they knew the soaring competition had pushed their ratings down and had exposed their vulnerability a little, they still valued their product (opinions) to be the best just like a French fashion designer whose brand is a symbol of both prestige and style, or a Hollywood celebrity whose name guarantees success. Yes, they thought of themselves more as celebrities than journalists. And so they were determined to negotiate their packages from a position of strength and confidence, like a hawk with inside information that can ignite interest and generate enough revenue to justify his/her salary, not like a meek junior staff member, a dove fearful and sheepish that would work for a nominal fee to gain experience.

What did they have in mind in terms of compensation? Even the sky was not high enough: a seven (or even eight) digit monthly income, chauffeur-driven imported vehicles (company maintained), palatial homes in posh neighbourhoods, business class free air travel, private education for their children in exclusive schools, gyms, spas, health insurance for family and parents, life insurance, disability insurance and, above all, nationwide fame and respect. Just like the greedy parents of the groom demanding a long list of dowry from the bride, their expectations were unrealistic. Not only unrealistic, they verged on royalty. Can anyone afford this? Of course not. I know even Google, an internet giant that has topped the Forbes list of the best places to work in the US for the last three years cannot dream of providing such luxurious benefits to its employees. If it did it would go bankrupt in a matter of days. And I am sure that when it comes to cyber technology, no one beats Google!

Their bizarre expectations and offers aside, what surprises me is the wilful suspension of their curiosity, the fundamental requirement of their profession, the trade mark and the reason behind their pride. How could they not ask what the source of income of the company was before joining it? Were they really that naïve? Or was it not important enough to take seriously?

Meanwhile, the question they can ask me or many of us who did not interview, negotiate or join the private television channel is what we would have done had we gotten the job offer? Would we have not followed the same path? I understand hindsight vision is 20/20 and it is easier to claim piety in the absence of a real opportunity to make three times more money than the market rate. That is why I would not even venture to make such claims. However, what bothers me is the remorselessness of our journalists. I know I would have sent an unambiguous and precise apology as soon as the story broke, if I were involved. Nonetheless, they behave as if they have done nothing inappropriate or unprofessional. I agree that many of them may have not known about the department of the company dealing with fraudulent degrees but how could you not apologise to the nation for missing it?

Trying to draw a parallel, their situation reminds me of the position of Pakistan’s army after the raid in Abbotabad by US Navy Seals that killed Osama bin Laden: either you are an accomplice or incompetent, pick one. We picked the latter choice that, by far, is the safer one. I think most journalists would do the same. And, as far as we are concerned, we do not have a choice at all. In the case of the military, we had to defend it; after all, it is a matter of national pride and defence. Now, in the case of journalists, without any institutional action or the state’s admonition we will be at their mercy again like cattle ready to be butchered by their razor sharp tongues. Trust me, a few weeks from today, all of them will be back in action, perched on their comfortable chairs, peering at us through the camera, claiming professionalism and integrity.

The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com