Daily Times

The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulation Authority’s (PEMRA’s) new code of conduct for the media answers fewer questions than it raises vis-à-vis the public interest and freedom of expression. The regulatory body is independent and proactive in nature, but the fact that it needed a push from the apex court to come into action casts a shadow on its performance. Having gone through the draft of the new code, I have to admit that there is nothing in it that keeps you on the edge of your seat.

It has all that the other media codes and laws have and misses all that they do. The limits on discussing the judiciary, the armed forces, the yet-to-be defined ideology, etc, have been in the media codes and laws all along. The architects of the code seem to be babus (affluent men) concerned only with how to draw the lines. They decided to choose from the existing milieu, instead doing what has not been done in a proactive manner.

Article 4, which deals with “news and current affairs”, contains a slight surprise and discourages the live transmission of content, which is bound to raise many an eyebrow. It is difficult to apply this clause on the coverage of hard-hitting news that is reported then and there. Suppose Imran Khan and the like hit D-Chowk again, will Digital Satellite News Gathering (DSNG) crews be able to afford a delaying mechanism in breaking the news second by second amidst cut-throat competition? They may risk being late in airing the speeches but not the action.

Public interest is conspicuous by its near absence but for Article 21, which deals with the subject in six very brief clauses. This Article seems to be a very short warning, following a colourful and glamorous advertisement of cigarettes or alcoholic beverages. If a programme “(i) exposes or detects crime; (ii) exposes significant anti-social behaviour; (iii) exposes corruption or injustice; (iv) protects people’s health and safety; (v) prevents people from being misled by any statement or an individual or organisation; or (vi) discloses information that assists people to better comprehend or make decisions on matters of public importance”, then it is in the public interest.

There is no denying the fact that an extensive conceptualisation of these dangerously generic clauses is needed in order to decipher them, failing which, they run the risk of being so vague that anyone can cite them to perpetuate hate-speech. The media is already subjected to a large number of laws and regulations in Pakistan, which is at odds with the concept of the capitalist media and liberal democracy. These two concepts dominate our governance system, blended with religion. But if a code is to be drawn, it has to be explicit and comprehensive.

Freedom of expression is by and large mistaken for less government restrictions on the business of the media. Even if they are made in good faith, they are susceptible to be misused by power hungry rulers. It is for this reason that the office of the professional editor is important. Proponents of this logic believe that a professional editor maintains balance in the news, upholding standards of fair play. This logic, however, is a farce because the office of the professional editor cannot substitute the description of a set of do’s and dont’s.

Freedom of expression goes far beyond the growth of the media business. Research on the media portrayal of female politicians in Pakistan has found that gender stereotyping has been consolidated in the decade that followed the unlocking of media channels in 2002. This trend contradicts the normative theories that equate freedom of expression with the freedom of media organisations from a system of checks and balances put in place by governments. What about the right of the masses to access the media? What about their right to diversity of content so that they are able to make informed choices? Do these not define freedom of expression or the public interest?

It remains a fact that the code of conduct is heavily anchored in talk shows. Media monitoring organisations have shown surprise over the fact that political talk shows have replaced dramas and documentaries in Pakistan. Professor Dr Farishullah Yousafzai, who now contributes to the production of a third generation of journalists here, believes that the audience is fed violence when they watch participants of talk shows run violently at each other.

At this point, consider that the popularity of these shows can be quantitatively translated into the choices of the masses. But is it a real choice? Does the gratification that they get from this content depict their interest or is it a false gratification? Qualitative research has proved that it is false gratification and this trend does not fall in the category of the public interest because the audience is not given a variety of content from which to make its choices.

A recent World Bank report has shown that medium-sized cities like Faisalabad, Rahimyar Khan, Bahawalpur and Hyderabad pull larger crowds of the masses migrating from villages than mega-cities like Karachi, Lahore and Rawalpindi. If the media follows this trend in the movement of populations while designing its news mix, it will achieve diversity of content to a large extent. The code of conduct has nothing to guide the media on this account, which means that the government has tacitly agreed to deny a vast portion of the population their right to information with which to make their choices. When designing any code of conduct for the media, the authorities should keep in mind that they need to work in the content and demographics that are missing in the media.

The writer is a PhD candidate in media studies. He can be reached at hassan.shehzad@iiu.edu.pk