THE situation that journalists — or some among them — find themselves in reminds one of this timid soul who worked with a newspaper in Lahore. For ages, he was stuck with the same organisation as others near him hopped around, sometimes making a return post-haste, sometimes getting lost in the maze created by the growing number of newspapers and TV channels opening left, right and centre. Frequently, a journalist who opted out of an office would in time resurface in foreign lands or in a local NGO, more than occasionally lecturing those he left behind on how to communicate what and when.

This non-hopper of a gentleman had worked long and hard on resisting the tempting wooing tone to land a plusher, more-paying if eventually less secure job. But apart from the insecurity of shifting, there were other halters around his neck which discouraged him from making himself available for sale on the market. The single biggest factor was his employer. In this particular instance, it didn’t cost the employer much, other than a few minutes of his precious time.

There would always be fresh challengers and new competition. This would lead to hints then offers then deals and prosperity would suddenly appear to be just a grab away. All this would have an impact on our reluctant job-hopper, even if not quite on the scale it affected the usual fence-sitters who would routinely allow themselves to trip over under the influence of the Pied Piper’s tune. Now he would envy them and now he would sympathise with the wayward fortune-seekers. However, all that was needed to pour cold water on his own aspirations would be a sentence by his long-time employer: ‘Now now! Are these the people you are going to work under, mister?’

This would invariably be followed by a knowing silent message telling the staffer he had absolutely no choice but to continue where he was. And next there would be a sentence about how the media expansion — that inevitably led to some untrained minds taking up the business — had led to a glut of technicians.

The divisions are deep and it is no longer simple for journalists to come out on the streets as spontaneously as they did until not too long ago.

The assertion was that since it was a bigger industry now, the need for keeping it running had created a bigger pool for the employers to choose cheaper alternatives from. The complete message went something like this: I can get the work done in half the amount I am paying you and, given the choice of employers, journalists would be happy to work with me. So back to your desk please.

The logic was twisted, over and over again. If, by original logic, a new venture was to act as a boon for dervishes going about as journalists or their more materialistic families, the conclusion was not always as expected, or it was not the same in each case. Every now and then, the comparatively ‘good employer’ and ‘meek employee’ sequence would be repeated, ending on a proud note for the former.

Of course, over time there have been more rewarding parallels of this routine and, despite the glut and the industrial need to find cheaper hands, there have been substantial increases in the perks and salaries of working journalists generally. But the debate about the newer, progressively, ‘less scrupulous’ entrant adding to the value of the old and the better has continued. The discussion has been given fresh impetus in the wake of what is happening in the case of Bol.

There are said to be some 2,200 workers whose jobs are at stake here — 2,200 families not quite used to the old dervish way of life that journalists (some of them at least) — once preferred to be known for. The unease is not limited to the protests that are occasionally staged outside the press club to press for the right of these workers to retain their jobs, and avoid the ignominy of getting run out without facing the ball. The spread of the panic can be felt beyond the Bol staffers in other media organisations.

The insecurity is common to all and these days it is not unusual for a journalist to ‘admit’ that because of the brutal taking away of the revolutionary Bol illusion they might not be as bold in pressing with their demands in the near future as they have been in the recent past. For at least some time to come, some of the journalists should be happy to just have a job rather than act as part of the protest outside the press club.

The protest itself doesn’t quite have the sameness and unity of the past. The divisions are deep and it is no longer simple for journalists to come out on the streets as spontaneously and unconditionally as they did until not too long ago. To start with, it indeed requires some study to judge which PFUJ is standing with which media group on what issue.

The romance of the trade union is fading. There are these grand shows celebrating the struggle of those who had bravely offered themselves to Zia’s flogging squad but the sense of unity is short-lived. There is this gentleman who received lashes during the Zia era calling for a struggle for the rights of the Bol staffers who are in trouble. A few days later, there is this piece of writing by one of his old comrades in the journalists’ trade union that appears to lament the state of affairs in the wake of Bol and Axact without showing any undue sympathy for those who found themselves onboard the sinking ship. Both would be confident of pursuing the right path.

The employee was always responsible for what job he/she signed up for. In the era of less responsive and less responsible unions he or she must swim or sink alone.

The writer is Dawn’s resident editor in Lahore.

Published in Dawn, June 5th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play