John Wilkes, the pioneer of media freedom in UK during the 18th century writing in the first issue of his newspaper North Britain on 5 June 1762 declared “The liberty of the press is the bright light of a Briton and is justly esteemed as the foremost bulwark of the other liberties of this country”. The declaration has won universal approbation and adequately explains why media enjoys the status of the fourth pillar of the state. A free media is a catalyst of social, political, cultural and economic progress in a society and also regarded as a flagbearer of national morality, more so in democratic dispensations.
However freedom of expression does not mean unbridled liberty or a licence to act like a loose cannon. The exercise of the freedom of expression is, however, contingent upon adherence to the recognized social and professional ethics. In other words, freedom with responsibility is the name of the game.
Neither the successive governments have made honest efforts to promote a genuine media culture in the country nor the media has shown the desired sense of social responsibility which is the demand of its profession. Both need serious rethinking if they are honest about taking the country forward
The introduction of the private sector in the field of electronic media and the accompanying freedom of expression is probably the best thing that has ever happened in this land of the pure. While it is heartening to see the media enjoying its freedom and guarding it zealously, it is equally disappointing to see the absence of the component of responsibility. There is a discernible propensity to scandalize things, rumour-mongering and playing favourites in disregard of the internationally recognized professional ethics; more so among the electronic channels. It is quite an ordeal to watch the current affair programmes and talk shows, hosted by some uncouth and non-professional anchorpersons —barring a few honourable exceptions— yelling at the top of their shrilling voices at the panellists trying to rub in their peculiar perceptions and getting involved in a debate with them, instead of listening to their views on the questions put to them. Being aggressive in approach is adorable but descending into an insulting mode is absolutely non-professional and detestable.
They also lack the ability of a professional moderator to control the flow of the arguments as is evident from their nod to the shouting matches among the participants, presenting a spectacle of shindigs rather than serious forums to discuss national issues; so repulsive to the eyes and jarring to the ears. A professional anchor person and host of such shows would always thoroughly brief the participants about the etiquettes of the discussion before coming on air and also curb his own inclinations to join the melee .
It is an undeniable reality that most of the anchor persons are inductees from the print media and are not well conversant with the professional culture of the electronic media and the art of conducting panel discussions or talk shows. Some even have not worked as journalists at all before landing into the arena. That probably is the reason that these shows look more like entertainment stuff than forums for informative and educative debates. Nobody would grudge an ambience of freedom for the media, but at the same time nobody would either welcome erratic and irresponsible conduct on its part. The media must be mindful of the fact that the onus for preserving its freedom of expression is inextricably linked to the exhibition of responsible behaviour.
The media has a pivotal role in consolidating the gains of democracy and promoting democratic culture in the country. Being a representative of the society, it is incumbent upon the media to show unswerving dedication to the cause of democracy and the promotion of national interests. These are indeed very serious issues and are required to be handled and commandeered by thoroughly professional and knowledgeable individuals. In a democratic set-up the government is also under obligation to ensure an unfettered press in the country and its growth on healthy and professional lines.
While the media is a watchdog against the indiscretions of the government, the government is also a watchdog against streaks of undesirable behaviour by the media. That relationship needs to be respected and strengthened. This is an age of self-regulation and less intervention by the governments. In most of the developed and democratic countries, the media— with the encouragement and support of the respective governments— has taken upon itself the role of ensuring adherence to the professional ethics and redressal of complaints against irresponsible, non-professional, unethical and erratic behaviour by any electronic channel or newspaper. That necessitates proper professional education in different disciplines of journalism, and training.
Freedom with responsibility is the name of the game. Dr Robert Maynard Hutchison, Vice Chancellor of Chicago University who headed Hutchison Commission formed in 1942 to make recommendations on the freedom of expression and media’s obligations towards the society— in the backdrop of growing calls by the US public for government intervention to check the indiscretions of the media and attempts by it to avoid intrusive government regulation— remarked “freedom comes with responsibility:
The report of the Commission, submitted in 1947, is regarded as the Magna Carta of the modern concept of freedom of expression and the media’s responsibilities towards society. It unequivocally emphasized the need for the media to provide accurate, truthful and comprehensive accounts of events, act as a forum for exchange of comment and criticism, present and clarify goals and values of the society and make sure that it projects a representative picture of the constituent groups of the society. The report also reiterated the fact that society and public have a right to expect high standards of performance and as such intervention can be justified to secure public good.
No wonder then that the ethical and professional codes of conduct drawn up by representative bodies of journalists in the democratic countries, the International Federation of Journalists, media associations, Press Councils in the countries where a self-regulatory arrangement is in place, invariably espouse the principles of the Social Responsibility Theory propounded by the Hutchison Commission.
I am confident that if the media keeps its part of the bargain and the government also truly creates an enabling environment for the media there would not be any tussle between them whatsoever. That would be an ideal situation but regrettably it has never existed in Pakistan.
Neither the successive governments have made honest efforts to promote a genuine media culture in the country nor the media has shown the desired sense of social responsibility which is the demand of its profession. Both need serious rethinking if they are honest about taking the country forward.
