Democracy and media go hand in hand. Democracy cannot flourish without a free and pluralist media. Media cannot grow in a dictatorial or autocratic environment. In short, democracy and media supplement each other. Diversity in the marketplace of ideas is a must for democracy, while dictatorship and autocracy strive for uniformity of opinion. In autocratic regimes, dissenting voices are silenced in the name of national interests and national cohesion. [The term ‘national interests’ is a loaded phrase which is open to many definitions, but they always come in handy for dictators and autocrats in times of crisis, with Pakistan no exception.]
Autocratic governments are not the only threat to a free and pluralist media. Free market economy and conglomerates have emerged as the greatest threat to the freedom of the press. Advertisers, who have become the economic lifeline of the media, determine what news to be published—and what qualifies to be a news. They don’t pressurize the media to publish news in their favor; they use their economic clout to stop the publication of a certain news. Adverts compete with news for audience attention, and at the end of the day audience gets lots of adverts and little news.
This reminds one of Shorash Kashmiri’s famous quote that “we don’t charge for what we publish, we charge for what we don’t publish.” Important news just gets “killed” to appease the advertisers. Over the years, journalists in Pakistan have developed a tendency of self-censorship for a variety of reasons. Since the dark days of Ziaul Haq, Pakistani press, apart from the government and state agencies, is facing other enemies as well.
Political parties and religious groups, egged by the government, started targeting newspapers and individual journalists not falling in line. Karachi, otherwise the hub of newspaper industry, was the worst-hit area where outspoken newspapers were stopped from publishing by militant groups while the government looked the other way. Individual journalists were physically harmed to silence them and sow fear in the hearts of the whole journalist community.
The sad part of the story is that the newspapers managements entered into deals with the militant groups instead of standing by its victimized journalists. After being ditched by their respective organizations, the journalists felt more threatened and found safety in not challenging the demons. For fear of being killed by the one of a kind militants, the journalists opted for “killing” the stories that could tempt the ‘providence’.
Another outgrowth of the myopic rule of Ziaul Haq was the radicalization of institutions by inducting religious activists in them. Journalism, which till then was the forte of leftist intellectuals, was contaminated by religious parties’ zealots who are more of activists than journalists. This again reinforced self-censorship. But this time not for the fear of journalist’s life, rather to serve a narrow ideology in the guise of journalism. Any news story, which is against the ideology or parent party of the journalist, is “killed” conveniently.
Now come conglomerates: these are in fact “private ministries of information” that generate their own news and control others. Conglomeration, an outcome of free market economy, encroaches on the free marketplace of ideas. Every newspaper has become a publishing house churning out more than one newspaper in more than one language. Now every publishing house has a cable TV service as well. This surge in conglomeration has lead to monopoly of news, while journalism itself has become an industry. The large publishing houses work like the notorious corporations. Much to the loss of the audience new technologies have accentuated monopoly in media by increasing the power of big corporations to exercise more power and increase their range.
Conglomeration is nibbling away at audience’s choice of plurality which results in uniformity of opinion and the lacking of diversity. When diversity of opinion gives way to a uniform worldview, democratic discourse comes to an end. Democracy, shorn of diversity of opinion, leads to dictatorship where a single individual or institution drives the whole society. People embrace, out of their free will, the yoke of slavery in the name of democracy and ‘national interests’.
In such a situation the culprit is not the dictator but the corporate media. The media creates certain imagery by giving news which is fragmented and sketchy that makes it difficult for the audience to see the connections across issues. It becomes difficult for the common people to follow the development of a particular issue over time. This situation promotes apathy, cynicism, and quiescence at the expense of political participation. Common people become mere spectators in a democracy which otherwise should be a participatory business.
No situation is more congenial for hijacking democracy than this. Media becomes part of the power troika along with the bourgeoisie and the army that take the common people for a ride in the name of inculcating real democracy. Thus democracy and a free media get sacrificed at the alter of free market economy which is the linchpin of capitalism.
In case of Pakistan, alternative media is also no panacea. Not content with the mainstream media and the state-run PTV a new media has emerged. But, unfortunately, this media espouses a narrow and distorted worldview in the name of alternativity. For arguments sake, the press run by religious and sectarian organizations is the only alternative media, but it is heavily laden with issues that have nothing to do with democracy or free market of ideas.
This downslide of the media can be balanced by the emergence of citizens’ media which is run by the community instead of a corporation, a family enterprise or a religious/sectarian organization. In citizens’ media common people are part of the whole journalistic activity which develops a sense of belonging in them. Citizens’ media does not compete for circulation or for corporate adverts. Its interest lies in the interest of the community and community is the owner of the media. Mainstream press, because of its widespread reach, has a larger agenda in which smaller communities and their problems find little space.
No time is more opportune for the emergence of a citizen media than today. Corporate media can be countered by a network of small community media with no commercial interests and with strong roots in the community. The voice of any community should not get lost in the din of corporate culture.
