Daily Times

Society is in a never-ending state of flux; where there was once an almost unchallengeable control over means of information-dissemination in Pakistan, today we see that grip loosening. The 200 million Pakistanis have seen democracy and military rule playing leapfrog over the 68 years of its existence. We see the narrative of change — no matter how misleading — appeal to the masses. Today, we are on the very precipice, and from here we will either plunge to the very depths or take flight.

Pakistan media is partly to appreciate…or blame, depending on an individual’s point of view. In the early 2000s when private media was first introduced in the country as a strategy to counter the growing Indian-inspired, international narrative post-Kargil, no one could have imagined that it would literally explode on the scene the way it did. It was beyond belief that far from the planned and controlled news and information distribution it would become the powerhouse that it currently appears to be. Unfortunately, even a lumbering behemoth is powerless unless it recognises itself and its potential, unless it sets for itself certain benchmarks and guidelines to follow in myriad circumstances that will eventually rise to test it.

Pakistani media, as it stands today, is a house divided against itself. The unfortunate incident with Hamid Mir in 2014, and the closure of the biggest and most influential media house in the country, coupled with the form of support and opposition it has received at the hands of fellow journalists and media moguls has done more than simply leave a bad taste. It has exposed certain systemic flaws within the industry as well as given rise to some very important questions related to extent and responsibility. While, in the long run this critical situation may give rise to some positive results, it doesn’t change the fact that media policy makers need to return to the very basics for guidance. It is this that my column will attempt to do.

It is of interest that while most anchors and veteran journalists of Pakistan, along with a fair host of politicians, analysts, military officials and administrative bodies, continuously propose their own opinions on how media should be structured and engaged in society, they fail to take into account or mention that such paradigms do exist already. It is merely a matter of choosing from them or, if one is creative and sensitive to the needs of the times, to innovatively mix and match from general theories to come up with a customised solution. But the question remains, what are these theories?

The “Normative Theories of Mass Media” refer to a set of paradigms applicable to media industry by which they are managed and administrated. These were first proposed by Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson and Wilbur Schramm in their book named Four Theoriesof the Press, published in 1956 (University of Leicester, 2014). The authors separated these paradigms into four distinct routines.

The Authoritarian Theory or Model of Mass Media administration suggests that all news and information needs to pass through a certain set of ‘filters’ put in place by the governing elite. The usual explanation given for this act is that information needs to be ‘weighed’ in order to ascertain whether any ‘national interests’ will be harmed by its dissemination. The same ruling elite that puts forth censors that act on any news item, of course, also defines national interests. These censors are of five fundamental types — political, moral, religious, militaryand corporate.

If one is to extrapolate the argument then one could say that Noam Chomsky’s outlook on modern media is that it follows a line of authoritarianism generally. His book, Manufacturing Consent portrays media as an industry in cahoots with the military-industrial complex — an appendage that works to further and protect their interests by the way they disseminate or delete, construct or ignore news items.

Pakistan has had its own experience with an authoritarian management of news industryunder the rule of various military dictators, especially General Zia-ul-Haq. Needless to say, the authoritarian model may serve the so-called national interests but it fails to provide safeguard to he who needs it the most — the common man.

The Libertarian Theory of Mass Media was highly influenced by Libertarian philosophical discourse of the 16th century. It maintains that the press has a responsibility to air news items ‘as is’ with the final consumer rational enough to decide good from bad. It maintains that whitewashing a situation does no one any favors, and even a negative news item may provide much needed insight during a decision making process.

The libertarian model rose in opposition or contrast to the authoritarian model of press management.

The Social Responsibility theory came more as an evolution of the Libertarian theory of Mass Media rather than its opposition per se. The 20th century saw the perceived need for greater control over press outlets than could be mandated under a ‘free-for-all’ approach. In the west, the rise of Communism, and in the east the anti-colonial struggle necessitated, on the part of controlling interests, the need for more regulation of information.

The Social Responsibility theory suggests that media and its consumer, i.e. society, should be tied together into a bond. Where the media is free to air what it feels is necessary it is, still, considered to be subject to feedback from society. The theory also expands its base to include private presses and media within its ambit. It led to the introduction of investigative reporting where once only a ‘fact sheet’ was presented to the consumer (Ward, 2014). Press councils were set up comprising both media persons and consumers and a code of ethics for self-regulation was introduced. However, on the flip side, the theory also allowed for a perceived infringement of rights and privacy.

The theory is regarded, by some, to be the best compromise between a purely Libertarian model and a purely Authoritarian Model of Mass Media management.

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