“THE press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”

This is a quote from a statement by Lord Justice Leveson (carried by the Guardian) on being named as the head of the inquiry into phone hacking by the (now deceased) News of the World, the hottest-selling tabloid in the United Kingdom, belonging to the News International/News Corp.

The widely reported scandal, which involved the illegal hacking of phones belonging to some 4,000 people to generate content for the tabloid, rocked Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. It has put a brake in the United Kingdom at least on his plans to acquire a greater share of the lucrative broadcasting pie and expand his political influence.

Over the years, the two main political parties — Conservative and Labour — thought nothing of sucking up to Murdoch and his minions as they perceived News International to have had a decisive hold over the British voters.

But the Guardian’s excellent investigative reports finally forced their hand when it was revealed that it wasn’t just showbiz celebrities, royals or politicians whose phones were hacked but even kidnap, murder and terrorism victims were not spared the indignity, the intrusion.

To give the devil his due, Rupert Murdoch has used some unconventional management practices, innovation as well as investments in new technology to run a profitable media empire and delivered healthy dividends to his shareholders when globally the industry is facing a crisis. And not all of the group’s journalism stank. Some of it was top drawer like the news channel SkyNews’.

In a speech at an annual media event in Edinburgh two summers ago, Rupert’s son and heir apparent who runs his European operations, James Murdoch, concluded that “the only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit”.

But the question confronting Lord Justice Leveson and more broadly British society today is how to define this independence; more significantly what to do when this ‘independence’ manifests itself in flouting the law, pursuing narrow agendas, lies and deception and even a subversion of the democratic will.

James Murdoch predicated independence on profit; but obviously did not mention how some of the News International papers were taking journalism into the gutter to be successful money spinners. This mostly scandal-based journalism enabled the two tabloids in the NI’s British stables — Sun and the News of the World — to establish a circulation in excess of 2.5 million copies each. This reach gave the media company unrivalled influence over the UK electorate and instilled fear in the political parties.

If this sway was used for the public good, perhaps one wouldn’t object. But there are instances where Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who later took American nationality to comply with US laws governing media ownership, would all but dictate to the British government what its stance on Europe ought to be.

Murdoch’s power, before the NoW debacle, was pretty nigh unquestionable. So, is there a parallel in Pakistan?

The biggest of our media houses and the one with the most reach, influence and financial success was founded by a modest individual as an entrepreneurial venture, who built his reputation around never ‘missing’ anything newsworthy. This group made its mark in Urdu. Its focus remains on the need to be financially successful, whatever it takes. It enjoys the first mover’s advantages in TV.

In addition, the current generation owners appear to have political ambitions too. Whether these ambitions are to gain a foothold in the corridors of power for its own sake or to ensure monopoly over means to multiply profits isn’t clear.

Undoubtedly, the trained eye will twin this group with Murdoch’s.

The other major group, which publishes this paper, has chosen English as the main language of its content, thus limiting its mass appeal. This group kept faith with the professional editor and was thus able to retain its credibility even when owners have held political office. Its critics target its business acumen particularly over its recession-hit TV channel.

But questions are seldom asked about the quality of its content, although sometimes it errs on the side of conservatism, not in terms of the positions it takes but in how it articulates these.

The third traditional group has limited influence and its offer has narrow appeal because here conservatism, even jingoism in terms of foreign policy, is followed as a creed. It unashamedly remains a proud defender of what it sees as the ideology of Pakistan. Its multi-media offer may remind one of the Murdoch-controlled Fox News but that’s where the similarities end.

Some of the latter-day ‘success stories’ in media ownership have been written by shrewd businessmen-industrialists who amassed huge wealth but the influence their piles of cash gave them was way short of the respectability, clout and access to power some of the ‘old media families’ enjoyed and they coveted.

These groups are splashing cash to create dazzling content and create a following particularly in the electronic media but have some way to go before they prove their offer has substance and depth. In any case, save for one, none of the old or new media groups come close to possessing the clout Murdoch’s empire packed.

Even then sometimes our media starts to earn the epithet of being the mother of all chaos. It isn’t clear whether it is narrow business and political/ideological interest, a misperception of one’s role, incompetence, inflated egos or faulty editorial processes that causes the chaos. But there is no doubt soon we’ll need to start asking some questions of ourselves. The foremost among them: who guards the guardians?

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.

abbas.nasir@hotmail.com