| June 07, 2008 | Saturday | Jamadi-us-Sani 02, 1429 |
|
The feeding frenzy
AS a news junkie, I miss my daily dose of Pakistani politics when I am abroad. And as my absences from the local scene are now often lengthy, I try to make up for lost time when I’m back by flipping from one TV chat show to another.
When the age of multi-channel television finally dawned on us a few years ago, I had high hopes that with more and more informed and aware Pakistanis, we would finally see a transformation in our society. There has been a change, but not in the direction I had expected. I had hoped that as more people saw for themselves how the rest of the world functioned, attitudes here would change, and a more liberal and open Pakistan would emerge. So much for wishful thinking. As I flip the channels, I see the same guests on chat shows, voicing the same opinions. The anchors, instead of probing below the surface of inanities and clichés, simply reinforce the prejudices of their audience. The other day, for instance, one guest on a panel, while talking about the state of the economy, went on about how two previous governments had imposed a ‘Jewish agenda’ on us, which was why the country was in such a mess.
According to this gentleman, a businessman, both Moeen Qureshi, the caretaker prime minister in the early nineties, and Shaukat Aziz were ‘Jewish agents’ bent on damaging our economy. At no stage did the host challenge this assertion, thereby suggesting to his audience that he agreed with it.
In one sense, of course, the addition of large numbers of TV channels to our airwaves has been a good thing. Many young people with aspirations to a career in journalism, but without the writing skills required for the print media, have been able to get jobs in the new TV and radio networks.
Millions of Pakistanis who earlier had to rely on the plodding, slanted fare from PTV and Radio Pakistan, can now tap into the real-time world of instant news and views.
The problem with this brave new world, however, is that it devours breaking stories at a prodigious rate. Just as a shark is constantly on the move as it looks for food, so do TV producers scour the political landscape for scraps of news. Competition for viewers pushes this process to a feeding frenzy, as rumours and unimportant bits of information are elevated to national crises.
To interpret this constant flow of rubbish is an army of ‘experts’ who go from one studio to another, hyping up what is often meaningless information. And because they have to make it up as they go, there is understandably little thought in their analysis. Worse for a visual medium like television, the discussions are often boring, with everybody agreeing with one another.
In a wonderfully refreshing article in this newspaper, ‘Manufacturing Dissent’ (June 4), Cyril Almeida writes: “When, for whatever reason, one channel flashes breaking news, the other newsrooms erupt. …If enough channels do it — and they have only minutes to decide what they will air — the ‘news’ assumes a semblance of the truth in the media echo chamber.”
This is the true nature of the beast. 24/7 TV has certainly put us more in touch with our world than ever before. Indeed, we can now count the nostril hair Sheikh Rashid is blessed with, should we wish to, thanks to the in-your-face cameras that every celebrity walks around with these days. But do we really want to hear and see these jokers day in and day out? And do we want to be subjected to the views of the talking heads who are regulars on our channels? The evidence suggests that we do.
But as more and more TV channels join the pack, the pressure to have something new every hour on the hour grows. Advertising revenues depend on viewership, and the bottom line is that bills and salaries have to be paid. So reporters and producers have to dig up something new to feed the medium’s gaping maw. There is little time for reflection and sober consideration, which is why I do not recall a single memorable phrase in the scores of talk shows I flip through regularly. Nobody has time for irony or wit either.
What they do seem to have time for is repetitious and tedious views about some storm in a teacup that will blow over the next day.
Instead of adding substance to the national debates that need to be conducted, the electronic media has trivialised them. For example, the entire discussion about the independence of the judiciary has been reduced to personalities. Hours of TV time are devoted to who gains and who loses if Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry is restored. For over a year, this single item has been driving the national agenda, largely thanks to the hysterical media coverage it is getting. Of course it is an important matter, but surely it merits more serious analysis.
No doubt, over time a more professional level will be achieved, and many of the smaller channels will be weeded out. But I fear that the instinct to dumb down, to trivialise and to hype up events will continue to be the electronic media’s bane for a long time. The pity is that it has the potential to be a powerful agent of change. If, instead of playing to the lowest common denominator, TV tried to demolish common prejudices rather than pandering to them, it could help to bring Pakistan into the 21st century.
The truth is that with a few notable exceptions, those producing and presenting TV programmes today reflect the conservative attitudes of the majority of Pakistanis. They see no need to try and change this outlook. Indeed, today’s Pakistan has nothing to do with the state Jinnah wanted to create. Unfortunately, those who shape public opinion have no desire to put the country back on the secular, liberal track that its founder wished it to be on.
As I flick the remote from one channel to another, I am left reflecting on the sad fact that the electronic revolution has done more to nail us to the past than any religious party has.
irfan.husain@gmail.com
