Daily Times

The Soviet Media theory came to the fore after the fall of Tzar’s empire in Russia. The empire was replaced by the Soviet system based on the writings of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels and directions of Vladimir Lenin and, later, Joseph Stalin. The theory, in keeping with Marxist-Leninist principles, brings control of all information dissemination nodes under the direct control of the State. The idea is for a State controlled media that provides sufficient time to the people so they can express their opinions while simultaneously engineering programs that foster social cohesion and progress.

In working, however, the model displayed several problems. There is a subtle difference of ‘extent’ between Opinion formation (that is to elicit a certain mindset by subtle action) and Opinion Engineering (to elicit a certain mindset by direct and indirect propaganda). The model, itself, is prone to susceptibility as the leadership of a country can use it to maintain hegemony rather than serve the people as was the case in Hitler’s Germany or Mousseline’s Italy – both of which adopted the Soviet Media model.

However, these are all theories of how the media (press or electronic) should be structured. They don’t altogether encompass how the media man (street journalist) should approach a story or how a news angle should be decided. That phenomenon is governed by altogether different media theories.

The Post-Positivism Theory

The Post-Positivism approach to media concerns building a news item or theory based purely on substantiated and empirical facts. It is as close to ‘pure sciences’ as possible with emphasis laid on how the world (and by extension society) can be explained, predicted and controlled. The theory is based on empirical observation as envisaged under the scientific method, though it recognises that human social behaviour is not a constant, unlike elements of the physical world.

Hypothesis A: Post-Positivism based journalism is contrary to ‘national interest’

Furnishing a larger picture usually necessitates use of the scientific method as much as possible. However, as can be seen from numerous instances from Pakistan’s past – the nation does not subscribe to this theory at all. In the case of the Kargil war, for example, the facts of the matter were largely uncontested on the field of international politics. However, a local ‘nationalistic’ narrative won out in the end because Pakistani people want to view the world in that particular way. Through all of the interactions between Pakistan and India, the local narrative has stuck to an emphasis on the two nation theory and the ‘Muslim victimhood’. In many an instance, it can be empirically verified that Pakistani Muslims have not been victims rather sometimes the aggressor (as in the case of Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan) yet that discourse finds very little space in the public sphere of perception.

Hypothesis B: Post-Positivism based journalism does not ‘sell’

The ratings index for Pakistan (TPRs) show that news anchors who stick to establish narratives and further it based on their own reasons consistently perform better than those who don’t. For example, the television talk show “Kal Tak” anchored by Mr Javed Chaudhry has regularly contributed to the critique of democratic powers sometimes to the point of detriment. While Mr Chaudhry restricts his editorial policy towards the continuation of a discourse that is ‘popular’, he also performs consistently on the ratings chart and has a dedicated following from the masses.

On the flip side, a talk show like “Bolta Pakistan” anchored by Mr Mushtaq Minhas and Mr Nusrat Javeed -which is formatted so as to include multiple opinion sets (given that Mr Minhas and Mr Javed belong to two very different schools of thought) – performs poorly on the ratings chart. It is for this reason that it can be hypothesised that a scientific method based orientation towards journalism does not necessarily ‘sell’ well.

The Hermeneutic Theory

The Hermeneutic theory of mass media attempts to explain how individuals or subsets of individuals interpret news and information so as to align it with personal interests. This subjective interpretation of information is a phenomenon that the Post-Positivism theory fails to take into account. The Hermeneutic school of thought is very diverse including such subcategories as social hermeneutics and interpretive hermeneutics (Radford, 1991).

Hypothesis A: Subjective news items gather increasing interest.

Human beings, being subjective entities, view any information from a very non-objective and personalised point of view. As such, whether an aircraft that met tragedy was carrying 100 passengers or 300 passengers may be of academic interest at best but if the same airplane was carrying a friend or a relative then the intensity of curiosity increases manifold.

Hypothesis B: Realpolitik cannot exist without subjective news consumption

Take the example of Mr Altaf Hussain – leader of the MQM – being arrested in London on the charges of money laundering. While the legal processes for such an act or allegation are already set as Standard Operating Procedures and evidence is considered a necessary item – the manner in which it is received in a city like Karachi shows that it is the interpretation of news that actually carries weight.

The act of money laundering is fairly commonplace in today’s society and the methods of doing so are also limited and often susceptible to scrutiny. However, if facts were treated as facts then we would not see the MQM able to gather its supporters out on the streets. Clearly, it managed to do so proving that the business of politics requires such interpretative laxity in order to work.

Critical Theory of Mass Media

The Critical theory of mass media posits the existence of a form of news construction that prejudges an act or an event as inherently good or bad before the actual investigation takes place. The underlying assumption is that the media is an active vehicle of change in society and certain opinions need to be ‘pushed’ in order for society to comply. The problem with this approach is that it brings out the self-righteous trait within media organizations, in general, and journalists, in particular. It also opens the door for misreporting of facts and bias in news generation (Fuchs, 2009).

Hypothesis A: Modern media organisations try to control perception

In the age of modern, privately owned media organisations the problem of creeping bias and ‘opinion enforcement’ is a serious issue. For example, returning to the example of how Geo labelled the serving DG ISI as an accomplice in the attempted assassination of one of its most renowned journalists, Mr Hamid Mir, before any actual investigation had been conducted was a method of ‘controlling popular perception’. It took as granted that the assumed testimony of Mr Hamid Mir – as related by his brother Mr Aamir Mir, was sufficient ground for such a media campaign. It also based its consideration on the fact that the security agency workings in Pakistan are inherently flawed and required ‘tough love’. Needless to say, the eventual retraction of any such allegation on the part of Geo, its unconditional public apology, the fine imposed upon it and a 15-day closure of activities serves as advice that news should probably be treated as news and not a crusade.

Hypothesis B: Crusades are sometimes counter productive

In most cases journalists are working from the goodness of their hearts when reporting a misdeed or infringement of any individual’s or group’s rights. However, in some cases such a ‘crusader’ approach can lead to greater harm than good. For example, when reporting cases of rape against young girls from poor families, some journalists can become overenthusiastic and end up giving personal details of the victim such as what her name is or how old she is or where she is from. While this is all done with good intentions on the part of the journalist who may believe the rapist’s family to be too influential or the police too inaccessible or unsympathetic, it does mar the victim for life by disclosing her identity. In such a case it usually becomes easier for even further harm to befall her later on.

Normative Theory of Mass Media

Till now, the three theories discussed (i.e. Post-Positive, Hermeneutic and Critical theories) are considered to be representational theories i.e. they are used in the construction of news items as particular paradigms of approach. However, the Normative Theory of Mass media differs from the others in that this isn’t a ‘set of instructions’ rather provides a benchmark against which media operations can be judged and evaluated. As discussed earlier in this paper, there are four other kinds of normative theories (Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility and Soviet) (Siebert, 1956). The relative weakness of this particular approach is where benchmarks are made keeping in mind one of these four normative theories; i.e. the benchmark becomes confounding or misleading when another benchmark is created using an entirely different form of normative theory.

Hypothesis A: Normative benchmarks will not work in a multicultural, multipolar society

In a society like Pakistan where there are multiple powerful actors and various ethnicities the manner in which the media deals with each one of them will rely on different subsets of the normative theory or even different theories altogether. For example, in a city like Karachi where one political party can gather a dedicated cadre of volunteers to exercise street power and violence, the media will always work under the paradigm of authoritarianism when being dealt with by them. In the same city, for a minority group of Hindus who regularly suffer from bouts of violence or having their temples destroyed would be dealt with under the paradigm of Libertarianism or Social Responsibility. In such a situation it becomes very difficult to pin point the exact nature of a media organisation given these extreme shifts.

Normative benchmarks require a strong State

Building on the previous explanation, it is only possible for one group of people to wield power of so much violence and, thereby, dictate their relationship with journalists and media men if the State is weak. All of these basic theories pre-suppose the safety (and amnesty) of journalists, however, in Pakistan this is not true. Pakistan ranks high in the “Most dangerous countries for Journalist” category.

Therefore, if one is to exercise and implement any one of these different theories or even an innovative mix then the State has to ensure a level playing field. Otherwise, journalism will also always be in flux much like Pakistani society and, therefore, vulnerable to misuse.

The writer is the Web Editor, Daily Times. He can be reached at shrnaqvi3@gmail.com and on twitter @Hassannaqvi5