EDITORIAL (July 03 2007): Frank, unvarnished talk is very much characteristic of President Pervez Musharraf. The other day at the National Defence University, he poured out his heart before media persons by unfolding his perception about their recent role in covering the Nawab Akbar Bugti killing and the judicial crisis, and implied that it was less than equal to the call of their duty.

He took issue with them about the television talk shows and the “running commentary” on the judicial juggernaut by independent TV news channels, stressing that national interest was compromised, which should not have been done. He said he was forced to amend the Pemra law only to scuttle the hype that had created imbalance in the coverage of events following his action against Chief Justice Chaudhry.

If action has not yet been taken against the “suicide bombers holed up in the Lal Masjid”, it is because of his fear that the media would not cooperate with the government. “Can you guarantee that blood of any dead or injured will not be screened on television channels during the operation?” he asked his audience.

Media can offer him no such guarantee. If media is the fourth pillar of State and if media is the first line of defence it is so in its own right. It has a role to play, independent of the other three pillars, and that role is to keep the people informed of what is happening about, and around, them.

This role is neither complementary nor supplementary to what the three other pillars of the state do. Media reflects actualities of the situation to help people form their own opinion about things and issues that they feel relate to them. The better the mirror the clearer the reflection. In media parlance it is called objective reporting, something every professional would like to do in the performance of his/her duty.

So, the perceptional mismatch between the media and the executive of Pakistan headed by President Musharraf is very much there, because it has to be there in an ambience of free society and democratic polity. On the other hand, the absence of such a mismatch would be seen as absence of freedom of press that happens in a closed, stifled society.

In the ultimate analysis, all national interests are geared to secure and strengthen the sovereignty of the State where people are free to make their decisions. A national interest overriding the freedom of people is a contradiction in terms and negates the foundations of a state based on people’s welfare.

In fact, the President’s complaint about lack of cooperation from various segments of the national media is embedded in the perennial confusion that has beset successive governments, specially the ones that wrongly believed that they were the State. But when out of power the same functionaries of the government once in power see the role of the media in a positive light.

Is it not the fact that neither Benazir Bhutto nor Nawaz Sharif find any fault with the role that the media is now playing in Pakistan. Media is the same but the position of political leadership has changed. Having said that one would not rule out the need for continuous engagement, through various channels of communication, between the media and the government.

Efficient government media managers can help create a mutually advantageous relationship between the two by keeping the media adequately informed and placing various developments in their correct perspectives. Unfortunately, this has not happened, especially in the recent past.

Not only the quality of contact in the government was poor but the content too was lacking in logic and conviction. That perhaps has, rightly, prompted the President to routinely address the media every fortnight. It is a welcome development, hopefully, to be followed suit down the line.
Source: Business Recorder
Date:7/3/2007