A few media outlets, who still hold on to the intent of objective journalism, have become victims of not only external forces, but also by the mess created by their more subjective peers. The battle for media freedom, in an era of subjective journalism and relative truths, will be messier this time round

In 1995, I came across a book written by a Pakistani political activist in 1985, after he was released from solitary confinement where he had been mercilessly tortured by the police. As a young activist, the author had participated in various protests against the reactionary Gen Zia dictatorship (1977-88). In the early 1980s, accused of being a member of a “terrorist communist outfit” and an “Indian agent”, he was thrown in jail and constantly tortured in the various prisons of interior Sindh. Finally, in 1985, he was allowed medical treatment in Karachi.

He was not a member of any communist outfit, nor was he a member of Zia’s most active opponent, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). He wasn’t a Sindhi, Baloch or Pakhtun nationalist either. He belonged to the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) — one of the few Right-wing parties that were against the Zia regime.

In 1984, when the Zia dictatorship banned student unions, various Left-wing student groups and the student wing of the Right-wing Jamaat-i-Islami, the Islami Jamiat Tulaba (IJT), set aside their ideological differences to protest together against the ban. At least for a month or two, the dictatorship was put under tremendous pressure, until the IJT decided to suddenly exit the protest.

During the same period, journalists and their unions often cooperated to protest against what were called “Zia’s black laws” against Press freedoms. A detailed study by Philip E  Jones of the 1968 movement against the Ayub regime saw similar left-right alliances taking shape. The late scholar, Khalid bin Sayeed’s study of the 1977 movement against the authoritarian Z A Bhutto regime also speaks of the left and right journalist groups coming together. This happened again during the movement against the Musharraf dictatorship in 2007.

There is nothing unique about this. Large protest movements have a tendency of bringing together distinct ideological groups to address shared concerns. Consider the present scenario in the context of the kind of harassment and censorship the country’s media has been facing these days. If, for example, one media group comes under attack by the powers that be, its peers are likely to either remain quiet or even celebrate!

How did this happen? Whenever a profession, an institution or an individual faces a crisis, the instinctive thing to do is to point out the external forces responsible for triggering the crisis. And on most occasions, the external forces are the triggers.

Pakistan has had a long history in which certain state institutions, Governments and political parties have bullied, harassed, terrorised and censored the media. However, if today we begin to again point out these external forces, we won’t be saying anything new. We won’t be saying anything that hasn’t already been said for over 40 years. It is being lamented again. But during a crisis, it is equally important for one to look for triggers within.

Internal reasons that might be contributing to the crisis often get ignored when all the effort is being invested in pointing out external triggers. Looking for internal triggers is important because, I believe, the crisis faced by the media today may be slightly different than before.

To begin with, there is a battle going on within the media between objective journalism and subjective journalism. The former is based on facts that are thoroughly investigated, checked and cross-checked. Their agenda is simply to provide information without any obvious bias towards a particular political party or individual, a state institution, a religion, a sect, an ethnicity, etc.

We can all agree that absolute objectivity is impossible, but at least the intent to be objective (in the media) was once there. That’s why, for example, newspapers used to have what were called “gatekeepers.” Their job was to safeguard the intent of remaining objective and factual.

But from the 1990s onwards, across the world, we saw a concentrated attack on the whole idea of objectivity. Vulgar post-modernism derided objectivity as being an intellectually elitist tool to repress popular opinion. The gatekeepers were brushed aside and a new subjective idea of journalism started to take root. All of a sudden, anybody could say just about anything.

That’s why what is being said — especially on TV news channels — is mostly opinion. But opinions are not necessarily facts. As a US Senator once correctly pointed out: “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their facts.” The whole Fox News model turned this on its head. Opinions were presented as facts and anyone with a theory or a rant was welcome to appear on TV. This model was a huge commercial success. Those, who thought they knew better than the snooty experts and intellectuals, lapped it all up.

Conspiracy theories, distortions of historical and contemporary facts and the demonisation of imagined enemies, all became acceptable content. News journalism crossed into show-business and reaped the ratings. After the success of Fox News, almost all private news channels, which mushroomed across the world, including Pakistan, adopted the same model.

The nature of the media as a business changed. The intent of remaining objective was now bad for business. When news media, show business and popular opinion came together, the result was a new form of entertainment + a kind of “newstainment” that blurs the line between fact and fantasy, truth and lie. It became okay to come on TV or print in a newspaper or a website “facts” such as: 9/11 was an inside job; that ancient Hindus were flying around in spaceships thousands of years ago; that one can derive energy from jinns: That Malala’s shooting was staged: That there were billions upon billions of dollars stashed by Pakistani politicians in foreign banks: That he or she was corrupt or a traitor, or an infidel or a racist, a sexist, immoral, fascist, liberal fascist, et al.

All this is now okay to say and write as long as it is generating ratings, circulation, likes and retweets. All forms of media have become platforms for all kind of opinions. But opinions dressed as “facts.” Ironically, the attack on the idea of objectivity was encouraged by the media. But if objectivity as an intent once bothered external forces, adopting subjectivity can become a self-destructive act.

Subjective journalism does not bother about objective things such as evidence. But this opens it up to counter-accusations that also do not bother with things such as proof. That’s why the nature of censoring today’s media has become a lot more brazen than before. It’s all subjective now, all “relative.” One man’s ban (on a media group) is another man’s act of patriotism, and another media group’s triumph. Typical post-modernist hogwash. The few media outlets that are still holding on to the intent of objective journalism have become victims of not only external forces threatened by their objectivity, but also by the mess created by their more subjective peers within the media industry. Therefore, this time the battle for media freedom is and will be a lot more complex and messier.

(Courtesy: The Dawn)