Abstract
“The Poison and the Antidote” critically examines the pervasive issues afflicting Pakistani society, particularly corruption in Pakistan, extremism, and social inequality. Identifying these challenges as the “poison” that undermines national progress, the article explores potential “antidotes” through effective solutions and necessary reforms. By analyzing current policies and proposing strategic initiatives, the author emphasizes the urgent need to combat corruption, reduce extremism, and promote social justice to build a more equitable and prosperous Pakistan.
“The Taliban can only kill a few of us but the Media will slow-poison the whole society”; so said a young lady with a doctorate in strategic studies, and no fan of the Taliban. Since the pen was always deemed to be more powerful than the sword, the media’s soft power can indeed be deadlier than the brute force of the Taliban. The problem is that the pen, even when used to lethal ends, can do no harm to the ignorant, or for that matter to the bigoted (MARD E NADAN PER KALAM E NARM O NAZIK BEASAR). For them we have the electronic media, more precisely its visual version, the television. I am assuming therefore that the scourge that the lady was referring to must be the TV, which now rules the airwaves and has so pervasively inflicted our brainwaves. It may not have done a yeoman’s job to inform, educate or entertain the masses; the charge of poisoning nevertheless seems a bit too harsh. But if one looks at the trajectory that the media has taken over the past few hundred years, this toxic fallout was almost inevitable.
In the 18th century Europe, the press along with the church, the nobility and the towns men, was the fourth estate. In due course it was exalted to be the fourth pillar of the state– the executive, the legislative and the judicative, being the other three. As it grew in power, it was at times diffidently called the fourth force. In countries where it is more effective than the state in shaping perceptions – always more important then the reality-it may well have become the first force. If the charges of poisoning still seem a bit over-the-top, let’s not forget that when the state abdicates the business of hearts and minds, the media, or for that matter the Taliban, would fill the void and acquire noxious powers. And then it can get worse.
One of our former prime-ministers actually believed that the statecraft was all about ‘space in the media’. He would not even bless relief goods unless a good number of cameras were thereto showcase his passion for the poor. Essentially a PR man, his infatuation with publicity was understandable. But then there was also this senior bureaucrat whose only part on a foreign visit was to keep the domestic media abreast with his activity. As the country’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia I was also accredited to the OIC, known for its masterly inactivity. Before the first session, an experienced diplomat briefed me on my role: “deliver a hard hitting speech and ensure that it makes headlines back home”. If the media puff is now the measure of performance, at times even its substitute, no wonder it has turned its head.
The malady is indeed not our exclusive domain. Even in countries that do not solely rely upon this instrument to propagate delivery, or where people have better things to do than being sofa spuds, there are complaints about selective reporting, spin-doctoring, and the media’s propensity to blackmail people in high places. In our case, what has aggravated the malaise is its rapid proliferation that has inevitably diluted quality. Too much power and too little substance are a deadly combination.
A respected journalist of the old school once enlightened me on the curse of “ratings” that has led to this rat race in which one-upmanship was now the name of the game. Concocting or sexing-up stories was bad enough but still not solely a Pakistani affliction. The way our electronic media has gone haywire with the talk-show pageants must however be an indigenous phenomenon.Indeed, the issues are many and our people curious. In search of clues they surf the media landscape, but what they get in return is recycled banalities. The reason is obvious: there are now scores of channels that must fill-in hundreds of slots with“experts and analysts”.
That makes media the great equaliser. Someone, whose only claim to fame is services rendered to an illustrious conman, is now an authority on geopolitics and shares the discourse with the best in the business. Given the right of free speech no one can be grudge that, except to think about the right of others to get something worth their while.
The range of damage can best be described by the media insiders, and thankfully some of them have done precisely that.I have no idea why none of them would try to correct the course, except mumble about the need for internal accountability and code of ethics. Maybe it’s time some outsiders picked up the gauntlet!The problem seems to be that the only means available to mend its ways is the media itself.But then isn’t that the norm? We often seek cure from the cause.
“TUMHINNAIN DARD DYA HEY, TUMHIN DAVA DENA” (you caused the pain,a nd only you can provide the cure), is part of our folk wisdom. “You broke it, you fix it”, is the American rule to reassemble the humpty. This homeopathic recipe must be vintage. Long ago one read somewhere that the best antidote against the snake bite came from its poison. Of course this monster is not going to detoxify itself. No one does, especially when intoxicated by power. But if we think it was doing more harm than good then the onus of sanitising or if necessary defanging it lies on us.
By its own admission, the first and foremost duty of the media is to inform.Anyone halfway familiar with its antics knows better than taking its info-coups seriously and awaits confirmation or what is more likely, a denial. The cynics use a simple device: “if it is on the media, it must be wrong”. There are good chances that they would be proven right. But a large number, even when repeatedly bitten from the same hole, lump up whatever the media spits out. They are beyond help.
In another area, though the noblest of all media missions, we’ve been spared the media’s half-baked recipes by default. There used to be some good programmes on education and social issues both on radio and television. No more; possibly because the viewers these days prefer to be enlightened on the myriad of live issues, mostly political. That provides the media just the right pretext to be extravagant with our time and the sponsors’ money. And if that has led to our addiction with these talking circuses, the ailment needs to be studied more carefully.
Some common causes are obvious:too many “experts” blowing too much hot air and largely going around the subject. A wise person would switch over toWorld Wide Wrestling. Some would rather get their kicks right from these slanging bouts. Many innocent soul show ever hang in there in the vain hope that some words of wisdom would trickle down. Instead, they are subjected to a pattern perfected for the idiot box.
It usually starts with some seemingly endless rant about the sins of the past, and depending on whom one dislikes the most- the US, the Army, the politicians or the Mullah-being blamed for all the mess. Indeed, one would have gladly suffered some ‘historical perspective’ provided it led toa logical course for the future.Instead, what we get is a wish list, more like a laundry list, of truisms that do no good to man or beast. Even more distressing are the canned questions that are essentially to nettle the speaker: why wasn’t something done sooner; or what did you do when you were in power? Time we had a history channel.
Lately, we are being repeatedly reminded that whereas all others who count in our strategic calculus- the West, the Indians, the Taliban, even the detractors within- have their narratives all firmed-up, we have not. One is of course aware of the power of the narrative but the notion that all of us must agree on a single account is neither possible nor in fact desirable. Some despotic regimes tried that in the past by shielding their people from dissenting views, but the gains were short-lived. America has been more successful but only after sustained and subtle efforts and then too because the system provides enough succour to its citizens to earn their more or less unthinking loyalty.In our case the state narrative triggers more scepticism than conviction. To win people’s trust we may have to invoke their indulgence.
The prevalent perception in the country is that we are not in control of our destiny and an exterior earthly manoeuvre steers whatever happens here. It provides a convenient excuse to do nothing. We may have had our way on a number of major issues-the China policy of the 1960s, relations with the post revolution Iran, and our nuclear programme- but the obsession with foreign factor is endemic. Merely a verbal threat by an American no one, or some cartographic innovation from the Wild West predicting our doom, hurls our media in the overdrive. The agenda would be discussed for days on end till the instigator becomes a household name. And just in case some turmoil followed for whatever reason- and there are always many- the notion that a hidden hand was calling the shots is reinforced. Resignation and apathy loom larger than before.
To hold the media responsible for this depressing state would be giving it too much credit, nor can it stand-in fora credible state system that would line up the nation behind its story.At best the media can help air a few well reasoned narratives and let the people come to their own conclusions. Overtime, they would know better than fall for these infernal designs. The idea is to stimulate a sprit of enquiry in our people rather than conditioning them to admit capsuled knowledge.
Just one media group with a couple of sound hands and minds needs to show the way and the others will come tumbling after. Otherwise, like in countries where the smug arrogance of the big media houses has driven people increasingly to rely on social media networks for credible information, here too the mainstream media would lose its primacy as an opinion maker.
I have no idea if this new rage would serve us any better, but it would at least serve the present one right.
PS: the 24/7 coverage of the protest movement in Islamabad that rolled in on this Independence Day proved once again that whereas the ‘foot-soldiers’- in this case the camera teams in the field- always do a good job under trying conditions, the thinkers don’t even try to catch the zeitgeist.
