Is Media Power Real?
By
Dr. Haider Mehdi
Media
pundits convinced of the need for social justice in a democratic society
strongly assert that “the mass media and individual journalists need to
become the advocates for the politically homeless.” It is a powerful
role that is assigned to the media by many prominent social and political
critics. In fact, this concept, in no uncertain terms, argues that the
media’s role in a democracy is essentially political.
An
eminent media ethicist suggests that “justice for the powerless stands
at the centerpiece of a socially responsible press. Or, in other terms,
the litmus test of whether or not the news profession fulfills its mission
over the long term is the advocacy for those outside the socioeconomic
establishment.”
“…
One of the ironies of democratic politics is,” writes a social
scientist, “that in order to accomplish something, you first have to get
elected. But accomplishing something, not getting elected, is the major
work of politics.”
Is
the Pakistani media socially responsible? Is it politically active? Is
media power real in Pakistan?
On
November 3, 2008, General (retd) Pervez Musharraf, fearful of the growing
political power and activity of the electronic media, arbitrarily and
unconstitutionally banned several national television broadcasts. The aim
was to put an end to the media’s growing political power and restrain
its possible influence on voters’ attitudes for the forthcoming national
elections. Another objective was to undermine the process of
democratization and use the media to support Musharraf’s dictatorial
political establishment. Ironically, the censorship of the media and its
absence from the political scene did not help Musharraf’s party, the
PML(Q), to win the elections.
Interestingly
enough, the massive use of government funds, an excessive application of
media propaganda and coercive manipulation of broadcasts and other media
techniques did not help the Chaudhry brothers to gain voters’ confidence
either. Media employment, in fact, worked against the
PML(Q)’s interests.
Several
media experts are of the opinion that the media is simply not powerful
enough to be an agent of social and political change. This view suggests
that the potency and puissance of the media is restricted to reinforcing
the prevailing social and political attitudes. So the vital question is:
What does Musharraf’s monumental defeat at the hands of the Pakistani
voters tell us about the power of the media in this country? Is it that,
irrespective of the media’s role, the public’s consciousness of
political and social issues determines which direction the country will
go? This view is shared by political libertarians, who believe that people
are competent to understand what’s “good and rational and able to
judge good ideas from bad.” The advocates of this perspective also say
that “good and truthful arguments will win out over lies and deceit”
because people’s rationality plays a paramount role in political
decision-making. Although, as a student of media and politics, I am not
completely convinced of this argument, it seems quite evident that in the
Feb. 18 elections the people of Pakistan did decide the future political
management of the country on the basis of rationality -- as well as on the
sentiments of democratization built on the harsh political experience and
ravages of a dictatorship that has lasted for nearly nine years. Did the
media play any role in this psychological and metamorphic transformation
of the public’s attitudes and the expression of their will? If it did
not, then why was Musharraf’s political establishment fearful of its
emerging political power? If it did, then why was the media ineffective in
PML(Q)’s election campaigning?
The
fact of the matter is that human behavior is so mysteriously
unpredictable. It is in this context that the Feb. 18th
elections reflected a drastic change of attitude in public temperament.
It proved that the media did not have the power that was imagined.
However, it also seems quite obvious that the media did have an impact in
that it helped create a new national consciousness quite opposed to the
one that was intended by the political establishment. The Feb. 18th
elections are a testament to the fact that common citizens are aware of
the direct and indirect results of the different national institutions on
their level of existence – and their vote resulted in a revolutionary
mandate rejecting the status quo and demanding an absolute change in
political structure of the country. This would not have happened
without the media’s role in politicizing the masses and mobilizing the
public to active participation in the democratization process.
Pakistan,
at its present stage of existence, is neither a profoundly accomplished
nation (consider the ramifications of the last eight years of dictatorship
and growing socio-economic gap between haves and have-nots – 8% holding
94% wealth of the nation) nor a completely failed state (consider the
projection of national political consciousness in Feb. 18th
elections). We have PML(N) leadership holding onto the “Politics
of Pure-ism Paradigm” (a concept developed by this writer) and committed
to the fulfillment of election campaign promises (yet Pervez Musharraf is
still in presidency without any visible signs of leaving soon). The
Lawyers Movement, headed by the able and principled leadership of Aitizaz
Ahsan, is pushing for restoration and dignity of judiciary (however,
formulas such as Minus 1 are being promoted). The PPP, in its approach of
strategic political realism and national reconciliation cover,
unfortunately remains uncommitted and unclear on several important
national issues (hopefully in the near future the PPP will be obliged
under public pressure to respect its mandate wholly and completely). It
remains an ethical and political responsibility of the media to keep the
pre-election national issues alive and make the public (and politicians)
aware of its power to hold the new leadership accountable.
Extreme
caution will have to be taken to make sure that the electronic media is
not overly dominated by sheer commercialization by the profit-making
corporate sector. Take, for instance, during the April 9th
broadcast of “Bolta Pakistan”, the program was interrupted
several times by TV commercials. At one point, a mobile phone commercial
was repeated six consecutive times followed by several other
advertisements. It is quite obvious that if the corporate world
controls the media, it will have tremendous influence on the content and
the management of the media. Indeed, a concentrated profit-making
focus in media is known to have worked against the general public
interests. This will have to be avoided at all costs.
Is
media power real? The universal judgment is inconclusive on this matter.
Should the media be all powerful? The civil society in Pakistan needs to
debate this issue rationally and logically. We have to be careful that the
media does not take up the role of socio-political indoctrination as has
happened in the technologically-advanced US and other western European
countries.
In
the present political environment in Pakistan that is exploding with the
demands of democratization of all national institutions, the media will
have to take the role of a Fourth Estate in the affairs of the country.
The
Fourth Estate stipulates: “Media as an independent social institution
that ensures that other (state) institutions serve the public.”
The
Nation, May 5, 2008
