Daily Times

If you wish to develop an in-depth understanding of the word ‘babbling’ with all its over and undertones, then please do not look it up in the dictionary as it will only provide you with a vague and boring definition. Instead, you need to turn on your television set and start watching evening talk shows on the private news channels. Without any doubt, after a short while, you will find out, like many of us have already, that babbling means “talking rapidly and continuously in a foolish, excited or incomprehensible way”. It can predominate the discourse of any society if its media — particularly electronic media — is set free, without any rules and regulations to follow.

In the last few years, this is exactly what has happened in Pakistan. Out of its immaturity and lack of professionalism, our garrulous and truculent electronic media, which does not believe in any ethical binding, moral code or regulatory pressure, has developed a special talent: to promote confusion in the country. The rivalry between various media houses has compounded the issue even more. It is true that, for the first few years, the electronic media handled the friction among its various outlets with some degree of prudence and heedfulness, and kept at least a minimum level of responsibility and objectivity in their programmes. Nevertheless, the good old days are gone and the enmity between them now is common knowledge since they are up in arms against each other without even trying to hide it.

Stooping below every level of decency and promoting a culture of mudslinging and counter-more-aggressive-and-dirtier-mudslinging, they have started broadcasting talk shows containing direct and personal attacks targeted at their opponents and have begun to question each other’s patriotism, sincerity and honesty. Everyone knows it is a dangerous trend, a culture that is going to jeopardise both the financial interests and the political influence of every organisation, eventually hurting all groups. The reason is simple: hatred spawns more hatred.

I became ashamed recently when I watched, on one programme, the host relentlessly attacking the owner of another institution and sharing his so-called ‘evidence’ with the public without any fear of being reprimanded by his own institution. On another show, the untold ‘agenda’ is always to go after the politics of a single political leader and oppose his every move and every action on every show. Still, on another broadcast, the political leadership of a party was provoked to name the analyst involved in the controversy just to intensify the feud and improve their plummeting programme ratings.

Now, let us look at the quality of these programmes and their guests. Except for the few odd ones, most popular hosts conduct hours’ long discussions regarding important issues without an understanding of the problem, any homework, research or journalistic investigation. The depth of knowledge of their guests is self-evident too, as they are most of the time defending their party’s position without knowing their party’s position! Dubious Islamic scholars, out of their ignorance and oblivion, do not hesitate to belittle the constitution of Pakistan and brush it aside without having any clue of its framework, its significance, its limits and the difference between ordinary laws and the constitution.

Disregarding the law of the land themselves, the hosts invite on-duty civil servants and introduce them as ‘experts’ on a regular basis. A member of parliament from a political party is presented as a ‘neutral’ commentator, a personal friend of the head of a party is portrayed as being an ‘impartial’ observer and a controversial public office holder is glorified as the source of all inside news, and the most ‘credible’ name in journalism.

As far as sense of responsibility is concerned, I am sure, if it were up to our programme hosts, they would give both God and Satan an equal opportunity on their shows to claim themselves to be ‘fair and balanced’. Or, maybe, they will bend towards Satan more as he is much more popular among human beings and will most likely bring sensationalism and negativism to their broadcasts. Similarly, the psychopath serial killers of innocent people in the name of religion ought to have a say and the rapists of young girls must get an hour long uninterrupted interview, as they also represent a part of our society and the media has to enlarge it out of proportion, and then reflect upon it irrespective of the consequences.

Almost over all over the world, the media abides by this rule of not calling anyone who has a history of violence for a personal appearance. Particularly in the US they have stopped broadcasting interviews of terrorists on their channels. How can one newscaster hold himself back if his colleague is able to communicate with the terrorist first, and his channel has allowed him to proceed with the broadcast? The real question for us is if the same rule can be applied in Pakistan, notwithstanding the cutthroat race of ratings.

Honestly, I am not disappointed by the poor quality of programmes, their personal attacks or their lack of insight as much as I am disgruntled by the sheer irresponsibility. Interviewing people who have a clear involvement with violence and to share their points of view is an act of violence, in my opinion, itself. What is the suspect going to say on television except to deny any such association? To further create a softer image about himself, he will hide behind the shield of Islam — to provide that opportunity is a great disservice to the nation. However, through their apologetic attitudes, it is apparent that they are scared of the criminals and, with their programmes, their organisations are begging for mercy, sending the terrorists a signal that they can be on their side if push comes to the shove, which, in my opinion again, is a shame, a real shame

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