“In Pakistan, media personnel have always been used by the establishment and political powers, be it the coup d’état in 1999 or the formation of the IJI in 1992”
In its short order issued in the Arsalan Iftikhar Suo Motu Case, on June 14, 2012, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed quite ‘critically’ that the Pakistani media, while reporting the Arsalan Case, held people of Pakistan hostage and disseminated inaccurate information.
Following a sensational leaked video of Malik Riaz’s interview doing rounds on the internet, people are raising eyebrows, tongues are wagging and fingers are being pointed at the conduct, accountability and ethics of journalists and anchorpersons. According to some analyst the Familygate saga has turned into Mediagate farce. Journalists are under fire from left, right and centre. Various interpretations are being given regarding the media’s role and linkages with the Familygate scandal.
According to Imtiaz Gul, senior journalist and director of Islamabad-based think tank Centre for Research and Security Studies, “There have been people in the press who played in the hands of those wanted to discredit the judiciary. On the other hand there are sections of media that stood by the judiciary and their principles and tried to expose all those involved in this conspiracy by taking rather quite objective stance vis-a-vis the allegations leveled by Malik Riaz”.
Adnan Rehmat, director of Intermedia Pakistan, however, disagrees with this point of view. He says, “It’s not media’s job to defend or protect the judiciary. A journalist is supposed to collect the authentic information and present it within a proper context without adding his own opinion. There are a few sensible analysis of the Familygate story in the press but by and large the media are extremely biased in favour of the judiciary”.
Providing a context to this tilt, Adnan Rehmat says, “Actually the judiciary has been in confrontation with the executive lately and Pakistani media has sided with the judiciary. Though the executive isn’t involved in this case rather an individual leveling allegations that are yet to be proven in the court of law, yet news channels have been making various judgments, to shape public opinion, even before the judiciary gave its judgment.”
“They are becoming part of the story which is totally unprofessional and unacceptable for journalism”, he says.
Mohammad Badar Alam, chief editor the monthly Herald, holds the similar views. “Although Journalists should never toe the line of any authority and avoid partisan reporting yet the coverage of the Arsalan case has been awfully biased, sensationalized and full of inaccuracies. This is really unfortunate for dedicated journalists”.
Badar bemoans the fact “that anchorpersons are openly supporting the judiciary whereas journalists are not supposed to support anyone or anything except democracy and the freedom of expression.”
He thinks: “Journalists should fight against the oppressive forces and martial laws but they are, in no way, mandated to ally with the judiciary (or any other institution) in its confrontation with the parliament”
For journalist Mattiullah Jan, who hosted talk show ‘Apna Gareeban’ on media ethics and accountability, the most questionable thing is the unethical behavior of Shaheen Sehbai who spread the rumors on social media involving the country’s supreme institute and its Chief Justice without getting his facts right. He thinks, “Despite being the Group Editor of a leading daily, Mr. Sehbai acted very unprofessionally and irresponsibly. Controversial role played by the anchors that broke the news only on the basis of confidential meetings with Riaz has made us controversial too”.
Responding to the question whether media being targeted to divert attention from the Familygate story, Imtiaz Gul says, “There was an attempt to take the focus away from the PPP government and pitch other institutions against one another”.
The whole purpose of the Familygate controversy, Imtiaz Gul believes, “was to let people forget the issues related to governance, law and order, energy crisis or inflation and think only about CJ Iftikhar, Arsalan or Malik Riaz. You can see how Memo Commission’s judgment has gone unnoticed just because of the hype created by this case”.
“Dunya TV’s video clearly indicates that media houses have played their role in this controversy. But some sympathizer of Pakistan or judiciary thought to publicize the content in public interest and leaked the video.” he adds.
Some think media in the Arsalan Iftikhar case, fell victim to their own corporate greed. As Mattiullah Jan explains, “Certainly there are some forces who wish to discredit journalists and they have succeeded to some extent. They used senior anchors to propagate some ambiguous information. Though incomplete and unverified the information was debated and discussed at length - bringing the role of judiciary and Chief Justice into lime light. In this way I think Malik Riaz smartly manipulated the media. Apparently the government was pissed off by a particular media group and the very group was used by Malik to trigger a public debate even without any hard proof”.
“Since media stimulated a public debate without providing substantial evidence, therefore, now they have to bear the brunt. Now nobody is interested in probing the allegations leveled against CJ’s son or the SC’s short order, all the talk is about reigning in the media”, Mattiullah thinks.
While pointing out the media partisanship, analysts insist media coverage of the Familygate should be viewed in the context of the fierce competition and drivers of agenda-setting. Mohamad Badar Alam mentions that “In Pakistan, media personnel have always been used by the establishment and political powers, be it the coup d’état in 1999 or the formation of the IJI in 1992. Yet the news of Arsalan Iftikhar extortion case cannot be killed by bringing up the issues of media regulations. No matter what the court decides, the Familygate controversy has raised questions in the minds of common people about the transparency of a prestigious institution and CJ’s integrity”.
Adnan Rehmat endorses this viewpoint: “Pakistani news agenda is usually not set by the media rather it is manipulated by the powers that be as we have seen in various institutional conflicts i.e. judiciary vs. military or judiciary vs. parliament”. Comparing this story with the Memogate scandal, Adnan Rehmat observes that “evident bias in reporting and talk shows” was visible as they “grilled Haqqani only on the basis of Ijaz’s statement” but started portraying the CJ as a pious man at the very outset. Mattiullah agrees with Adnan on unfair reporting of the Memogate story but argues “since the Familygate story involves the judiciary it is very sensitive matter as certain laws protect judges from scandalisaton”. Adnan thinks probably due to this reason the Geo TV has maintained two positions on this issue with Hamid Mir hailing the CJ while Najam Sethi speaking up for equality. “However, they should have analyzed situation objectively instead of offering subjective judgments”, he insists.
“Media is partially tainted as a result of what has happened in past few days” observes Imtiaz Gul. “It’s really unfortunate to watch senior anchors indulging in personal attacks and slurring each other’s repute. Such incidents encourage interest groups to further exploit media”. He further remarks, “Intelligence agencies all over the world penetrate the media, there is nothing unusual for a journalist to be on a payroll of any agency or a business house.”
“Mud-slinging by journalists has shifted the focus of the story towards media” says Mattiullah. “One may feel curious if all predictions of a journalist are true but disclosing a journalist’s source is against professional ethics which shouldn’t have been done. It is very sad that journalists are accusing each other of being CIA/ISI agents.” But these “sensationalized disclosures” according to Mattiullah “are good for public awareness”.
Analyzing the repercussions of the allegedly ‘planted interview’, the experts acknowledge the off camera footage will cost Pakistani media its credibility. Yet “whatever is being said on the media one has to take it with a pinch of salt” says Imtiaz Gul. Thus the leaked video may be a blessing in disguise. Imtiaz Gul states, “Two anchors don’t represent the whole media besides the recording has also revealed some politicians which is good for people to get the picture clear.”
In Badar Alam’s opinion, “The hoopla created by leaked video is really unfortunate and somewhat damaging for the credibility of honest journalists but it is also a positive development since it is a warning for the media to act responsibly in future. It is very important to expose the black sheep of media in order to promote ethical journalism. And the video has set the ball rolling.” Convinced that the hosts misled their audience, Mattiullah Jan thinks, “Both the anchors in question have often been accused of compromising professionalism. Having watched their casual conversation with Malik Riaz at a time when the country was hit by the tremors of a high-profile corruption case, the viewer has reason to doubt other genuine journalists and news for that matter”.
“Media deems itself a watchdog holding everybody accountable, the leaked video is an opportunity for the people to assert their right to know the truth about these watchdogs as well”, says Adnan.
A faction of the press reckons asset declaration necessary for the accountability of journalists. Adnan suggests, “If there are specific allegations against them like those allegedly mentioned in a list, then they should either sue the person or explain the truth to public”. Badar Alam, supports this saying “if they are honest what are they afraid of? We hold others accountable thus we too have an ethical duty to clear any charges or doubts raised about their professional commitment”. But Imtiaz Gul sees no point in this argument since “journalists also has the right to make a fortune as long as no ill-gotten means are employed. The question is whether a journalist accepts bribes and grafts from the people who want to influence their opinion”.
According to Adnan Rehmat probably more important than accountability is the media mechanism in Pakistan. “Audience doesn’t have media literacy that is why it is quite gullible while responding to the flurry of information or news. Still people in Pakistan, now have better understanding of the news media courtesy media’s own sheer sensationalized expose like the video of Mubashar Luqman. No matter how much support is pledged to the CJ on the talk shows, people on the street have started talking about the fishy business of Chief Justice’s son which shows media cannot rely on propaganda for long,” says Adnan Rehmat.
 |
Duriya Hashmi is a passive activist, blogger and aspiring film maker who writes to vent anguish and believes in art as a catalyst for change. Her cyber self can be followed at |
