Interview With Rashed Rahman – Part III (final):
“The Institution Of Editor Is All But Gone. What We’re Left With
Are Post Officers”
|
Miranda Husain April
29, 2019
|
Miranda Husain: There’s a
sense among working journalists that the fourth estate in Pakistan is
battling for its very survival. The irony, for many, is that the current
climate — punctuated by delayed salaries and censorship — has taken a firm
hold under a period of uninterrupted civilian rule. What do you make of the
state of the media here in democratic Pakistan?
Rashed Rahman: It’s terrible in a number
of respects. On the one hand, there is pressure from the authorities,
including the government and the military. The result is a level of
day-to-day control that the media hasn’t seen even during the worst days of
dictatorships. There are people sitting in newsrooms, calling newsrooms.
There are people sitting at television stations and ringing up in the middle
of a programme to say either do this or don’t do that.
But I’m sorry to say that while the media may have had a lot
of flaws in the past, there was, however, a tradition of resistance to
censorship. There are many manifestations of this, including blank front
pages. Yet all that seems to have gone by the wayside. Managements are now
much more pliant, looking towards the balance sheet bottom line rather than
ethical or professional considerations. The institution of editor is all but
gone and what we’re left with are post offices. So, the room for autonomy and
independence within the policy brief given to the editor to run a paper is
defunct. The same holds true for television channels, although I don’t
believe there’s such a thing as an editor for electronic media. The latter
seems to have no gatekeeper.
And it’s not just mainstream media that’s facing imposed
censorship. Of late, social media has also come in for unwanted attention and
unwanted control. We’ve recently heard about Facebook removing a number of
accounts that were probably traced back to the military or the ISPR. So, we
have, on the one hand, critical and dissident voices being stifled or even
strangulated on social media. And on the other, this same medium is being
used for malign purposes, campaigns and trolling. The landscape is not very
encouraging to say the least.
MH: What can both journalists and media owners do, if
anything, to regain control?
RR: Publishers have the duty to uphold and reinforce the
weakened institution of editor. Once there’s agreement on an editor — and
(s)he has been briefed as to the policy framework within which he or she is
to operate — the best and most enlightened publishers then leave it to the
editor. Why? This is something that evolved historically when print media
came into being. Publishers and owners found they had friends, business
partners and associates across the social fabric. And they were constantly
being approched by people wanting their publications to do — or not do —
things a certain way. So, they actually evolved the institution of
professional editor in their own self-interest to shield against all this by
turning to these requesters and saying that the editor must be consulted.
Now,
when autonomy is surrendered those same considerations that prompted such a
move will likely result in publishers going along with the powers-that-be.
Both in terms of policy and what’s printed and broadcast and what isn’t. All
in the hope that it’ll give them some material benefit. Has it worked out
that way? It doesn’t look like it. Because when the PTI came into power, the
first thing it did was slash both the quantum and the rates of government
advertising. In the past, this used to be the media’s bread and butter. Yet
this declined over time as the private sector became more oriented towards
advertising, as both the economy and the media industry itself grew. Meaning
that the private sector became the staple of media revenue and government
adverting was the cream on top. But we’re in the middle of an economic
downturn in this country.
|
||||||||||||
|
So, naturally, the private sector isn’t inclined to advertise
as much as in the past. This has contributed to a tremendous financial crisis
within the media. Thousands of journalists have been laid off. In these
circumstances, to expect publishers and owners to take a professional and
ethical stand is akin to whistling in the wind.
And as far as journalists are concerned, the three factions of
the PFUJ (Pakistan Federation Union of Journalists) refuse to sit down
together and sort out their differences in order to have a strong voice for
working journalists. As a result, they’re unable to either persuade their own
management or the state apparatus to uphold their rights and redress
grievances. The overall picture is pretty bleak.
MH: Do you think the situation will improve in the near-term?
Does the fourth estate in Pakistan have a future?
RR: I think this is a question loaded with philosophical
connotations. It’s not about Pakistan alone. Firstly, media as a whole is
going through a transition worldwide due to the communications revolution,
internet and social media. The world is connected potentially if not
actually. The issue is whether traditional media can hold its own against a
landscape that produces and disseminates information at an accelerated pace —
not all of which is necessarily true given the absence of gatekeepers. Can
traditional media compete in the long run in terms of spread and outreach?
This question was raised in the 1990s when the Internet first came online
globally and the demise of the newspaper was predicted. This hasn’t happened
so far. But some publications have gone down while others have been forced to
go online or remain in limbo, halfway between the two.
Secondly, in Pakistan specifically, the combination of blanket
censorship and self-censorship has left newspapers with incredibly dull
content and channels unable to teach audiences anything new. Sixty-five
percent of the country’s population is under 30-years-old. I don’t believe
they’re reading newspapers or watching television. That’s the future. And if
this percentage is turning away from mainstream media then the latter is
doomed in the long-term.
Moreover, the new media is entering into terra
incognita because there aren’t any rules as yet. In fact, it’s being
used in a flagrantly cavalier manner to promote particular vested interests
as well as false news and distorted perspectives. Of course, there are some
positives but overall the picture is mixed.
And the question remains as to which will win out against the
emerging campaign of fake news and trolling on the one hand and resistance in
the name of upholding freedom of expression on the other. The bottom line is
that traditional media may well become a museum curiosity.
MH: Is that to say traditional media is dead on arrival?
RR: New media overheads are a fraction of traditional
formats. I’m running an online monthly journal (Pakistan Monthly Review, PMR)
at low output cost. And then there’s the question of outreach, real and
potential. This might start off small but the potential has grown.
Traditional media was always defined by the phrase: “All news is local.” Read
The New York Times edition that we
get in Pakistan and compare it to the one that’s published in the US and
you’ll find that they’re two different beasts. The American version is
American. The international version — which used to be called The International Herald Tribune — is
aimed at a global readership.
Thus the very role of traditional media and its inherent
character arguably no longer fit the bill as far as today’s world is
concerned. What we have in its place is a potential gateway to propaganda.
All of which bring us back to the question of who’s going to do the
fact-checking and who’s going to decide the news agenda. In short, who’s
going to be the gatekeeper.
These are all contentious questions that remain unsettled.
Having said that, however, I’m talking about historical trends
that started a few years ago and the likely logical outcome. It may, indeed,
be premature to offer fateha (funeral
prayers) for traditional media just yet.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment