Let's boycott TV debates
Nobody can think faster than a speeding bullet! Not even Imran Khan, Hameed Gul, Farid Paracha, Ehsan Iqbal, Ansar Abassi et al who grace one talk show or another every evening. Hence, “they think in clichés, conventional, common ideas that are received generally. By the time they reach you, these ideas have already been received by everybody else, so reception is never a problem”
It was a talk show as usual. Asma Jahangir was debating Ansar Abassi and Haroon ur Rasheed. But Asma was not present in the studios; she was a phone-in guest. She had begun speaking, but hardly managed a sentence before Ansar Abassi provokingly interrupted her. For another three minutes both continued to speak. Intermittently, Haroon ur Rasheed and Ansar Abassi would answer together in expressing their disagreements. The anchor appealed for calm yet even his appeals sounded hysterical. Finally he decisively intervened for a (commercial) ‘break.’
I was convinced, while watching this clip via a Facebook page, that progressives and dissidents should boycott at least certain talk shows, if not all of them, on “mainstream” channels.
Imagine if Asma Jahangir had not agreed to participate. Her absence would have deprived the show of a certain credibility and perhaps even reduced the show‘s ratings by a few points on the chart.
My position may sound extreme. Have I lost my common sense? In a country where newspaper readership is negligible, the vast majority of the urban population turns to TV for information and entertainment, so progressives grab every opportunity that comes their way on the mainstream channels.
Alas! It is not as simple as that.
Censorship
In the first place, there is censorship: visible-, invisible-, and self-censorship. And not just in Pakistan. Censorship is practiced everywhere, by every corporate media outlet beginning with the West. Censorship is built into the DNA of the corporate media. For instance, the U.S. network NBC is owned by General Electric “which means that interviews with people who live near a nuclear plant undoubtedly would be … but then again, such a story wouldn’t even occur to anyone” (Bourdieu 1998:16).
Given corporate control over the media, political conformity for a journalist becomes a professional virtue. Most journalists are unable to reach a prized position unless they are “professional” enough to be trusted by the bosses. After all, bosses can not be around 24/7. In order to reach celebrity status, journalists practice self-censorship; rarely does a successful journalist remain an independent agent.
In the case of Pakistan, the Media Cell at the ISI-Headquarters, Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), and the Press Information Departments (PIDs) place pressure on the media. Hence, “ journalists are caught up in structural processes which exert constraints on them so that their choices of what to cover are totally precontrived” (Bourdieu 2005: 45). “Above all, time limits make it highly unlikely that anything can be said” (Bourdieu 1998:16). Except banalities. Hence, demagogy works best. Understandably, demagogues capable of answering every question on every topic are in demand. The answer to every question remains the same: “rampant corruption,” “our inability to follow the actual path of Islam,” and “deep-seated conspiracy” are explanations for anything from betting on cricket matches, power outages to the cause for the melting of glaciers up in the Himalayas.
Notice that the length of articles in mainstream press is shrinking. For instance, the newly-launched Express Tribune imposed a 600-word limit for its op-eds. In the West, mainstream newspapers insist on 600-word pieces. Newspapers don’t want to threaten their corporate sponsors. But in case of TV, “space“ (i.e. time) is miniscule, reduced to “sound bites.” A news story is a couple of minutes long. In case of talk shows, an hour-long production is punctuated with as many as 20 commercials. Time is money!
Owing to this “negative connection between time pressures and thought,” Bourdieu claims that “television is not very favourable to the expression of thought”. He asks, “Is it possible to think fast?” And offers an answer: “By giving the floor to thinkers who are considered able to think at high speed, isn’t television doomed to never have anything but fast thinkers, thinkers who think faster than a speeding bullet…”
But nobody can think faster than a speeding bullet! Not even Imran Khan, Hameed Gul, Farid Paracha, Ehsan Iqbal, Ansar Abassi et al who grace one talk show or another every evening. Hence, “they think in clichés, conventional, common ideas that are received generally. By the time they reach you, these ideas have already been received by everybody else, so reception is never a problem” (Bourdieu 1998:28-29).
Reception is important. In the process and science of communication if the audience is not decoding the sender’s message, communication does not take place. “When you transmit a ‘received idea,’ it’s as if everything is set, and the problem solves itself. Communication is instantaneous because, in a sense, it has not occurred, or it only seems to have taken place” (Ibid).
For example, Imran Khan does not need to argue when invited to “Capital Talk” to debate Pervez Hoodbhoy. Instead he accuses Hoodbhoy of being in the pay of CIA. Neither the anchor nor the audience needs any nuance when the “received idea” about Hoodbhoy says it all!
A week after this particular incident, Hoodbhoy himself explained to his friends in an email (posted here with his kind permission):
Just for the record: last week Imran Khan and I were brought together by Hamid Mir on “Capital Talk.” Someone I don't know has already reported on this rather unpleasant episode.
1. Neither IK nor I knew the other would be there. IK said that he would not have agreed to come if he knew I was an invitee. We had had an earlier encounter on Dawn TV that still irked him.
2. IK blamed the Americans for having ordered the operations in Buner and Swat. When I responded that it wasn't the Americans but the Taliban who were blowing up girls’ schools and cutting throats, IK furiously accused me of being a security advisor to the Americans.
3. During the break, HM asked IK how exactly he knew I was an American agent. IK replied that "Pervez's friend R***** told me." I told IK that he was talking nonsense and had gone mad in making such a serious allegation on TV. IK rose in fury from his chair to hit me. I recalled my boxing days in school and got up too...
I find it very sad, especially since I still admire IK's contribution to society - his Shaukat Khanum cancer hospital.
Backstage maneuvers
Phil Donahue was host of “Donahue” on MSNBC from 2002 to 2003. Despite having the highest ratings of any show on MSNBC, the programme was cancelled on February 25, 2003. A leaked NBC memo described how the show presented a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war…He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives.”
Bill Moyers interviewed Donahue in 2007:
Moyers: You had Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector, who was saying that if we invade, it will be historic blunder.
Donahue: You didn’t have him alone. He had to be there with someone else who supported the war. In other words, you couldn’t have Scott Ritter alone. You could have Richard Perle alone.
Moyers: You could have the conservative?
Donahue: You could have the supporters of the President alone. And they would say why this war is important. You couldn’t have the dissenter alone. Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.
Moyers: You are kidding.
Donahue: No this is absolutely true.
Moyers: Instructions from above?
Donahue: Yes. I was counted as two liberals. (Edwards, D and Cromwell, D 2009: 8-9).
This episode illustrates various paradigms involving a corporate TV network. First, it shows yet that the actual audience is the advertisers. The media see its readership/viewership as a commodity to be sold to them. Second, unbeknownst to the audience, a lot happens backstage. It is not mere censorship and self-censorship or briefings at the ISPR/ ISI-media cell. It is selection, editing, representation, and presentation. Above all, it is the agenda setting that remains hidden. A team of off-screen media managers sets the policy. This, in turn, is internalized by almost all the employees, as a topic is selected for debate. A producer decides which particular guests would be best and the narrow range of opinion they represent. That is, there is a limited range of opinion that is considered acceptable. Even after this careful selection, a biased scissor can be applied in the name of editing, further favouring a particular viewpoint. Kamran Shafi, for instance, regretted having participated in a talk show hosted by Dr Shahid Masood.
Last year, senior Dawn-columnist Kamran Shafi appeared as a guest in DR Shahid Masood’s “Meray Mutabik” (1 May 2010) on Geo TV. Kamran Shafi’s talk was heavily edited. In his column after the show was aired, Kamran Shafi confessed:
“I made the mistake of my life when I appeared, against better counsel, on Dr. Shahid Masood’s ‘Meray Mutabiq,’ which was recorded and then edited. And by golly was it edited! Suffice it to say that I was shocked out of my wits, and greatly saddened, at the show as aired” ( A committee and a half – by Kamran Shafi, Dawn, 04 May, 2010).
Another commonly practiced method is cornering liberal/progressive opinion by inviting one progressive and pitching him/her against two Media Mujahideen/ultra-right “guests.” In this case, the anchor, in 99 cases out of a 100 is a member of Ghairat Brigade. For instance, watch the clip below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e335NjG0h2o
In this clip, Pervez Hoodbhoy is facing Irfan Siddique and Zaid Hamid. The producer did not want to leave anything to chance. Hence, Dr. A. Q. Khan’s expert opinion was also sought by phone. The show was hosted by Javed Chaudhry, who has glorified the Taliban in his columns, and is an extremely reactionary journalist. Was this a coincidence? Maybe. But just watch a few talk shows this evening and you would find a pattern of guest-selection: one liberal/progressive person besieged by two ultra right guests + the anchor. Not so much a coincidence but a pattern.
Often, there is a small audience surrounding the guests at the recording studio. How are they selected? In a recent show hosted by Rauf Malik debating Veena Malik’s participation in Big Boss, the studio audience enthusiastically applauded Syed Noor. But liberal voices hardly evoked clapping. A coincidence? If we know how this public is allowed entry into the studio, we will again discover a pattern.
Other interview methods may be employed. For instance, I was invited to participate on a Swedish talk show on Channel 4 the day after Benazir Bhutto’s murder as I was living in Stockholm at the time. A famous Swedish journalist was my co-panelist. After couple of questions I realized that questions of a political nature (“what is Musharraf’s future?” “what will happen to the nuclear assets?”) were directed to the Swedish journalist. I was being asked if I ever met Benazir? If I talked to my family back home and how were family members reacting? When did I get to know that she was … Instead of replying one such “question,” I instead responded with a political comment. After that, I was not even asked a polite question, but shunned for the rest of the programme.
Selective boycott
Dissenting voices are presented to erect a façade of “objectivity.” Like professionalism, objectivity is a product of media’s capitalistic development (Boyd Barret 1977, Curran 1977). Sometimes dissenting voices are selectively given space in order to negate them.
Most importantly, one needs to understand that corporate media is conservative ‘by nature’. Direct corporate ownership and control, means that they are hegemonic tools in the hands of the ruling classes. They are certainly not in business to revolutionize society, but rather to justify the established order. Even if we believe the liberal fatwas that the media are not the lapdogs of the elite but their watchdogs, this does not imply a revolutionary ideology. All it implies is that the media should guard state institutions. Hence, the underlying assumption is that nothing is wrong with the state and its institutions, but only with rogue elements that go awry every now and then.
Pinning any hope in corporate media is delusional. Instead progressives must build alternative outlets while taking every opportunity in the mainstream that comes their way--but on their own terms.
In case of talk shows, progressives should at least resort to a selective boycott. There are talk shows hosted by anchors linked to the ISPR/ISI. There are hosts who publicly declare their Talibanist credentials. By appearing on such shows, progressives merely lend credibility to crude pro-Taliban propaganda and sow illusions in reactionary talk shows. Progressives should boycott these shows.
Whenever progressives participate in talk shows, they should at least demand:
1. Panels should equally represent both sides of the ideological fence.
2. Opposing viewpoints should be given equal time.
3. If a public is invited to recording studio, it should be representative of the views being presented.
(And this list of demands is certainly not comprehensive)
Next time a progressive appears on a talk show, keep Bourdieu’s analysis in mind: “In fact, it seems to me that, by agreeing to appear on television shows without worrying about whether you’ll be able to say something, you make it very clear that you’re not there to say anything at all but for altogether different reasons, chief among them the desire to be seen” (Bourdieu 1998 :13-14).
Bibliography
Bourdieu, P (1998). On Television and Journalism. Pluto. London
Bourdieu , P (2005) The Political Field, the Social Science Field, and the Journalistic Field. In Bourdieu and the Journalistic Field. Rodney Benson & Erik Neveu (eds). Polity Press. Cambridge/Malden
Boyd-Barett, O (1977) Media imperialism. In Mass Communication and Society. Eds James Curran, Michael Gurevitch and Janet Woollacott. Edward Arnold. London.
Curran, J (1977) Capitalism and Control of the Press, 1800-1975. In Mass Communication and Society. Eds James Curran, Michael Gurevitch and Janet Woollacott. Edward Arnold. London.
Edwards, D and Cromwell, D (2005) Newspeak in the 21st century. Pluto. London/New York
 |
Farooq Sulehria is working with Stockholm-based Weekly Internationalen (www.internationalen.se). Before joining Internationalen, he worked for one year,2006-07 at daily The News, Rawalpindi. Also, in Pakistan, he has worked with Lahore-based dailies, The Nation, The Frontier Post and Pakistan. He has MA in Mass Communication from Punjab University, Lahore. He also contributes for Znet and various left publications in Europe and Australia. |