analysis: Power and responsibility of the media —Iftikhar Ahmad

An adequate response to the moral panic created by the foreign media, for example, about Pakistan’s nuclear assets has to come from our own media to help restore people’s self-confidence and their trust in the ability of the nation to protect its strategic assets and sovereignty

From the viewpoint of the power and influence of the media (press, radio and television) in world politics, crises and conflicts, there is a need to consider the issue of moral panic, biases, media representation and the need to make media contents and presentation balanced and objective. Moral panic is some exaggerated or imaginary threat to society, stirred up by exaggerated speculation and sensationalised reporting in the mass media.

Most of our taken-for-granted knowledge, opinions and attitudes are based not on personal experience, but on evidence and knowledge provided by newspapers and television. Indeed if the media did not report an event, the only people likely to know about it would be those who were actually involved. This raises the question, should the media be given the right to interfere in the private lives of citizens? Is it ethical to do what the television channels are busy doing in the case of the marriage of an Indian tennis star, Sania Mirza, with former captain of the Pakistani cricket team, Shoaib Malik? Look at the complications the media has created for Shoaib. It is something beyond the personal troubles of Shoaib Malik and may turn into a complicated political and emotional setting between India and Pakistan.

For most of us, the mass media is our only source of evidence, and it colours, shapes and even constructs our worldview. If most of our opinions are based on knowledge obtained second hand through the mass media, then this raises important issues about the power of the media to mould and shape our lives and identities. Most people think and act in particular ways because of the opinions they hold and the knowledge they have. However, does the mass media inform us about everything, or does it ‘filter’ information, obscuring the truth and giving false, distorted or exaggerated impressions of what is happening in the world? On the question of ethics, the value of a most popular TV programme/talk show may be questioned in spite of its educational and entertaining segments.

An adequate response to the moral panic created by the foreign media, for example, about Pakistan’s nuclear assets has to come from our own media to help restore people’s self-confidence and their trust in the ability of the nation to protect its strategic assets and sovereignty. Our own media has to contribute to the important task of public relationing to build a positive image, to protect and promote Pakistan’s national interest and reject the world’s nuclear fears. Statements from high civil and military officials of Pakistan have, from time to time, rejected the world’s nuclear fears. The government agencies have dismissed such concerns as unrealistic and based on lack of understanding of Pakistan’s command and control mechanism.

Some of the questions that have interested sociologists explore formal controls on the mass media, the issue of how media ownership influences the content of the media, other influences on the content of the mass media and the issue of media bias, the issue of favouring some points of view over others, favouring the more affluent over the poor, and the issue of misrepresenting or stereotyping some social groups, like women, minorities, ethnic and religious groups, etc. Stereotype refers to a generalised, oversimplified view of the features of a social group, allowing for few individual differences between members of the group.

Media content and policies can be influenced, rather exploited, by powerful groups, organisations and states. However, there are legal limits to the media’s freedom for protecting the public from any offensive of potentially harmful effects of the media (press, radio, television and even the internet), and to safeguard people from being unfairly treated in television and radio programmes. Monopolies and concentration of ownership of the mass media might be of some concern in a democracy.

A major interest of researchers is whether the mass media is biased in its selection and presentation of the news. For example, some sociologists argue that the media reproduces the views of the ruling class and portrays subordinate groups in stereotypes. Studies by the Glasgow University Media Group have shown that the language and ‘visuals’ used in TV news broadcasts are biased against particular groups; that stories are selectively reported (for instance, the effects of strikes are given more coverage than their causes) and that there is a hierarchy of access to the media, in which more powerful groups find it easier to get their views heard. Sociologists have also examined how news values, i.e. the criteria that journalists and editors use in deciding whether an event is ‘newsworthy’, produce systematic biases in the news. Material, literature and approaches to the issue related to the mass media help us assess the existing views (Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, M Haralambos, M Holborn, Collins).

Haralambos and Holborn further analyse: “Pluralists argue that society is made up of many competing sections, each with more or less equal access to resource and influence. Different parts of the media cater to these various sections of society. The media reflect society: just as there is diversity within society, so there is diversity in media content. Pluralism appears in the work of many media commentators, particularly in the ideas of media workers themselves. Indeed, many of the pluralist studies of media content and effects, such as Martin Harrison’s highly critical study of the Glasgow Media Group’s work, were funded by the media industry. One pluralist author, who is also a media professional, is the BBC radio news correspondent, Nicholas Jones. He [Jones] argues that radio news is neutral, fair and balanced. He examined media reporting of industrial disputes and claimed that any apparent bias depends on how successful workers and management are in obtaining suitable media coverage of their positions.”

In the ultimate analysis, the mass media has to promote Pakistan’s national interest, ideology and culture. The media must stand upright and speak the truth for the sake of establishing a just society and a democratic way of life. Only a balanced approach could help achieve the desired objectives and transform the media into a meaningful social institution. Hopefully, all those connected with the mass media in some capacity do realise that wrong assumptions lead to incorrect, illogical conclusions and oversimplification of views when it comes to analysing issues, solving problems, and resolving crises. Free media ultimately means a responsible and responsive institution. If a biased, misleading and imaginary story on Pakistan appears in the New York Times, Pakistan’s ambassador has the right to reject and protest. Moral panic must be rejected. The purpose of creating moral panic is to pressurise Pakistan through exaggerated and imaginary threat to society stirred up by sensationalised, biased and engineered reporting in the mass media.

The writer is former director, National Institute of Public Administration (NIPA), Pakistan, and can be reached at iftahmad786@hotmail.com