Daily Times

The media, particularly the electronic media, has a lot of dirty linen to wash in public. This was inevitable because freedom without responsibility is a road to disaster. The group that moves fastest may overtake others for a short time but it also moves fastest to the end, i.e. disaster. I have written about the media and its issues before but most of my articles had specific pointers to help media decision makers rethink and revise their course of action. What should I say — ‘deaf ears’ or summun bukmun (deaf and blind)? Little heed was paid. The road to disaster continued to be followed. One major disaster has arrived, now more will come. Some serious thinking needs to be done and some policy decisions need to be made by all concerned stakeholders. No one denies that freedom of expression is a basic human right but do any ‘rights’ come without corresponding responsibility? Certainly not! The issue must be thoroughly understood; no freedom should be available without a corresponding sense of responsibility. In the case of television channels, all are guilty of irresponsibility. It starts with the government of the time and includes the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), channel owners, editorial managers (if any), anchorpersons, political parties, individual participants and advertisers.

Pakistan Television (PTV), the standard bearer for a long time, started to lose its hold because different governments abused it for their benefit. Gradually the hunger of the concerned beneficiaries increased and they enjoyed the attention obtained from television coverage. As they wanted more and more, the menace of favouritism entered and merit was ignored. PTV administrators survived and progressed on khushamad (currying favour) and the institution started going south. The other killer was the government’s black out of the opposition or any other point of view. If a window were available for them to express their differences with the government, then their responsibility to the public would have been fulfilled. This was not to be. Once the patrons, in this case the government functionaries themselves, indulged in the moral corruption of favouritism, all doors to various kinds of corruption opened and there was no stopping the destruction of the institution and the demise of PTV’s authority and respect. Promotions, demotions and appointments were all to become disappointments for the competent.

Room for other channels was felt necessary for ‘freedom’ of expression on the demand of intellectual journalists and was supported by opportunity seekers in commercial ventures. The pressure increased and the (at the time military) government’s regulatory authority was allowed to issue television licences to interested bidders. Until such time as the new licensees were limited to business professionals there was a possibility for PEMRA to monitor their activities. However, the earliest channels were dependent on the vast archives and experience of PTV professionals. Some questionable deals for access to the vast PTV archives took place. The matter did not stop there. Pressure from media giants finally succeeded in making the government succumb. Large groups of newspaper owners got licences. Thereafter, the government’s will to control weakened and the government issued licences wholesale and contented itself with the fees earned by PEMRA through granting licences. This was a critical mistake. It backfired in two ways: first, it gave away tremendous power of communication and control over public opinion and consequently the power of blackmail to the highest bidder. Second, it started unhealthy competition to attract advertising revenues and the television channels cut each other’s throats to get advertisements. This situation gave a lot of power to the advertising companies who had little understanding of aesthetics and the social responsibility of a communications medium. The mistake of over-licensing was not the first one by government functionaries. One example stands out: the over-licensing for agro-based industries. In the late 1990s, so many licences were issued that the agro-based industries collapsed, unethical practices were found and many went bankrupt. Licensing by the government must be assessed on the basis of the size and resources of the market. Otherwise cut throat competition gives rise to unhealthy practices and corruption in a bid for survival.

Television channels also behaved like industries and ills crept in, the main source being advertising revenues. Television channels sacrificed their ethics and morals for survival. The creative, socially relevant messages in dramatic content became fewer and popularity and ‘ratings’ called the shots. As responsible owners of the powerful television medium, the owners needed to educate the viewer and watch the content of the productions. This editorial role almost disappeared. Dramas were reduced to family squabbles. Then cheap imported programmes started to flood in. This adversely affected local producers. Channels went to the extent of disrupting good local content halfway and releasing imported content as replacements. Imported content is mostly cheap because such programmes have recovered their expense and made profit elsewhere. For foreign producers such releases in Pakistan were a bonus. In terms of business, Pakistani commercial channels became a ‘dumping ground’. In the absence of anti-dumping laws, which are applicable in other countries, Pakistan’s viewers got a mix of programmes that violated their national threshold of ethics and even morality. Glamour became the main attraction. Socially relevant content became irrelevant. PTV, which took pride in its plays and was respected throughout the world for its quality drama in preference to Indian film, lost its hold.

The next casualties were the discussion programmes. The content of socially beneficial discussions with educative quality was replaced by political discussions. The commercial interests of the owners as well as some anchors reduced political discussions to political bickering. The bickering became fun to watch for the ordinary viewer and the ‘ratings’ went higher. More and more this poison was dispensed. Some of the channel owners and anchors found a huge opportunity for blackmail, favouritism and political clout. They felt they had the power to pressurise a sitting government or destroy a politician or government functionary.

(To be continued)

The writer is the former CEO Pakistan National Council of the Arts; chairman Fruit Processing Industries; chairman UNESCO Theatre Institute Pakistan and COO ICTV, USA. He is the author of Melluhas of the Indus Valley 8000 BC to 500 BC. He can be reached at naeemtahir37@gmail.com