TV Discourses Hardly Contributing to Our Intellectual Development

Discourses, discussions, dialogue, conversations and arguments have always been recognised as a means to enhancing knowledge, to know another’s point of view without necessarily agreeing or for that matter, disagreeing.

Even the Greek philosophers considered debate as a useful medium of teaching.

These discourses were meant to be civilised and meaningful exchange of opinions and arguments with agreement on fundamentals but variances on issues related to practice — reconciling and bridging the differences was the main objective for debate.

Tolerance was an essential ingredient that balanced the magnanimity of the argument, upholding the concept of spreading awareness with the grace of respecting a rival’s beliefs.

While much can be argued about the usefulness of debates there are some ugly aspects that could aggravate into minor tiffs, culminating at times into uncontrollable violence, breaking into riots with brutal ferocity resulting in mass murders and arson.

As a character, Levin says in Leo Tolstoy’s novel Anna Karenina, “The argument is really about the inner self. While we talk of logic on the surface, we are really in conflict because of our ego or some deeply, and emotionally, held position.”

Prominent among the causes of downfall of the Abbasid Rule were disunity amongst the people on sectarian grounds and for holding different beliefs that erupted into volatile discourses mostly based on frivolous issues that it did not take long for the once powerful state to crumble before the Mongolian might.

This could have been the reason why in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there was a shift towards rote method of learning rather than open discourses.

Thus at the lower level of education both in the modern schools and traditional madrassahs, students were forced to be on the receiving end with hardly any opportunities to interact with their counterparts lest such activities resulted in unmanageable episodes of hostility.

Recently in Pakistan, manazaras have taken on a new form.

These can be seen and heard on the innumerable television channels that air live and sometimes recorded programmes where a topic is debated by proponents of conflicting views. As long as these remain within the ambit of civility and knowledgeable themes, they prove a valuable source of information but the moment they transgress the bounds of personal attacks on characters and perky issues, they start taking on a loathsome nature.

Small talk, gossips, scandalous rumours, mud-slinging, innuendos and slander might be appealing to a vast segment of the audience but they certainly cause great harm to the character of the people.

Such behaviour might draw in a lot of money to its patrons or substantially raise the television rating points (TRP) but it bankrupts the entire value system of the society.

History bears witness that once, the national character of a country is damaged, subservience to a foreign and more powerful master, becomes inevitable.

Time is precious, therefore, it should be utilised most productively rather than wasting it in aimless discussions. The war of tongues is extremely dangerous as it has immense potential of getting converted into physical armed warfare.

With falling levels of tolerance such discourses have become the breeding grounds for vested interests who do not let any opportunity go by to create chaos.

These days, the electronic media has become influential in shaping the opinion of the masses. Rapid transmission of information is excellent but if done irresponsibly, could lead to disaster. Within minutes, a piece of news can play havoc with the peace and tranquillity of society besides disrupting the entire system. It is time that we reassess our talk shows where guests are invited to throw light on their views.

They should be instructed to keep themselves within propriety limits, respect other people’s opinions, refrain from uncivil behaviour (interrupting a speaker), abstain from hurling personal accusations (in a world where no one is infallible), differentiate between humour and mockery, remembering that a wrong word from their mouths could cause a jolt in which they, along with their loved ones, would also suffer.

The producers and anchors, keen to keep their jobs intact must also lay down some principles for maintaining decorum in their programmes. Their own attitude and style of conversation should not be aimed at rebuking, antagonising, sensationalising or offending anyone.

In today’s Pakistani media, semblance ofBaghdad’s violent and useless manazaras is quite obvious — one prays it is not the case of history repeating itself because if they continue unabated, we maybe heading towards the inevitable that occurred in Baghdad.

As a responsible fourth pillar of State, it is the collective duty of media to refrain from undesirable manazaras that are detrimental to the entire society.

Pakistan is Getting the Media it Deserves

by Aryn Baker/ Time

A few weeks ago a group of Pakistani journalists and foreign correspondents based in Pakistan gathered to meet visiting representatives of the Washington-based think tank Center for American Progress. Its members were “on a listening tour,” they said, and wanted to hear the journalists’ perspectives on the U.S. and Pakistan. The response was caustic. Correspondents and editors belonging to Pakistan’s top local print and TV outlets let loose with accusations and complaints, particularly about American concerns that Pakistan was failing as a state. “There is no Taliban threat,” said one Pakistani journalist. “Do you really think a bunch of hillbillies from the tribal areas can take on our military?” sneered another. “It’s all propaganda,” said a third, designed “to weaken us, so the U.S. can fulfill its agenda to break Pakistan into pieces.”

In the course of my reporting on Pakistan, I hear conspiracy theories all the time: that the Pakistani Taliban fighting in Swat are funded by Indian intelligence; that the Americans are assisting the Taliban in Afghanistan to justify and secure a Central Asian foothold against China; and the old chestnut that Israel’s Mossad and the CIA were behind the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. While no press in any country is without flaw or bias, I count on fellow journalists everywhere to be more enlightened and sensible than average folk. But in Pakistan’s case, sections of the media are reinforcing the nation’s paranoia at a critical time when it faces a threat to its very existence.

Rumor reported as fact is an epidemic in Pakistan. Very recently the English-language daily the News ran the front-page headline PLANS READY TO TAKE OUT PAK NUCLEAR ARSENAL. The unbylined story, about a secret U.S. commando force tasked with infiltrating Pakistan to secure its nuclear weapons, was based on a Fox News online report describing a worst-case-scenario contingency plan should Pakistan be taken over by extremists. There were no named sources in the News story, and much of the reporting depended on e-mailed comments to the website. Nevertheless, it fueled hysterical discussions on TV chat shows and cemented a national conviction that the Americans want to eliminate Pakistan’s “Islamic bomb.” Another furor erupted over a three-year-old American academic study that posited a greater Middle East divided along ethnic lines — proof, railed the Pakistani press, that the Americans were pursuing a policy of balkanization in the country. On May 18, the Nation published a story that said: “Former prime minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on the orders of the special death squad formed by former US vice-president Dick Cheney … The squad was headed by General Stanley McChrystal, the newly-appointed commander of US army in Afghanistan.” The story was sourced to an interview by an unnamed Arab TV channel with American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. Hersh immediately denounced the report as “complete madness” to another Pakistani paper, the Daily Times, saying, “Vice President Cheney does not have a death squad … I have never suggested that [McChrystal] was involved in political assassinations or death squads.” Yet at a press briefing the same day, Pakistan’s Information Minister Qamar Zaman didn’t rule out the possibility.

In 2002, the then President, General Pervez Musharraf, permitted private TV stations to broadcast news instead of just the state-owned Pakistan Television Corp. At the time, Musharraf’s deregulation was hailed as a significant step for the nascent free-press movement; indeed, today there are more than 30 nongovernment TV stations in the country. As TV stations proliferated, I argued that increased competition would force the emergence of a strong, ethical and responsible media corps. But there simply aren’t enough well-trained and -informed local journalists to supply the dramatically greater number of media outlets. I also assumed that consumers would gravitate toward truth. Instead the bulk of readers and viewers seem comfortable with sensationalism and xenophobia — as reflected by an April poll conducted by Gallup Pakistan revealing that 76% of Pakistanis “believe Pakistani media [are] unbiased to a great or somewhat extent.” In other words, Pakistanis like their media the way they are.

Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to the region, is working on a media plan for Pakistan. It aims to develop the government’s ability to disseminate information via new technologies such as cell phones. The idea is not to promote propaganda but to facilitate public-service messages, like emergency information or registration for refugees. The plan also allows for training government officials to become more open press officers, and to fund independent radio stations to counter those run by extremists. All this is good, but it’s not enough. Pakistan’s press needs to take a hard look at itself and its level of professionalism. Only then will it live up to its potential, and only then will Pakistan get the media it deserves.