The press, and now by extension the electronic news media as well, have often been referred to as the Fourth Estate. The commonly understood meaning of this term refers to journalism’s ability and responsibility to keep a critically watchful eye on the doings of governments, legislatures and their subsidiaries. The theory is that the press constitutes an objective and dispassionate observer that can and often does act as a medium of communication (which, incidentally, is where the term ‘media’ came from) between the rulers and the ruled.

Certainly, in quite large swathes of the world, this theory is often proved in practice. Some of the most infamous political deeds done across the world have seen the hard light of day due to journalists’ efforts, from Watergate to the investigations of Tehlka.com, prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay and currently, the MPs’ expenses business in the UK. On most occasions, such exposes have ultimately proved beneficial to the public good, either by challenging illegal or unethical moves taken by those in power, or by exposing cover-ups and infringements on citizens’ rights and civil liberties.

Upon the evidence currently available, however, the bulk of Pakistan’s news media – particularly the electronic media – are failing in this responsibility. There is little truly investigative journalism, and the debate or analysis often appears to be an exploration into the talking heads’ personal views, rather than a genuine effort to unpick the strands of the whys and hows. Pakistan’s media organisations – again, unfortunately, the electronic media in particular but print as well, to a lesser extent – now display a definite predilection towards the right, and only token attempts are made towards feigning objectivity. Consider, for example, how the media debate about the Taliban menace was, in the early months of the year, conducted mainly on the basis of the validity and scope of the Shariah as a form of governance rather than in terms of, for instance, cross-border infiltration by armed groups from Afghanistan, or citizens’ constitutional and fundamental freedoms, or the threat to the writ of the government. The earlier two operations conducted were severely criticised by the talking heads on television, mainly on the grounds of the Muslim brotherhood – “They are Muslims, after all!” proclaimed notable talk show anchors, thumping on their desks before turning the debate to the merits of an ‘Islamic’ system over a ‘western’ one and forgetting all about terrorism in the process.

Some of this pattern can be explained by the fact that since governments in Pakistan have over the years proved deficient in common sense and efficiency, the media appears to have developed (unknown to itself, one hopes) a reflexively oppositional stance to the establishment. Trained over the decades to decry military takeovers and coups, shady behind-the-scenes deals and corruption – both moral and financial – in every circle from the military to political to bureaucratic, the people working in the media reflexively occupy the opposition benches in any new governmental order. And this would be all very well, were it not for the fact that as a result, even potentially necessary or praiseworthy steps taken by the establishment fail to be considered on their own merit and often end up rejected wholesale. And, in doing so, the media lose their claim to objectivity and dispassionate analysis.

But it takes more than this to explain the right-wing and obscurantist trends displayed by the media in Pakistan. Reflexive opposition is all very well but it does not explain why, for example, so many representatives of so many news channels took, as a default position, the Lal Masjid cleric Abdul Aziz’s side during that raid, particularly in the run-up to the stand-off. The Jamia Hafsa women had been in the news for weeks, after all. Yet much of debate revolved around their ideological aims and – again – the scope and viability of Shariah, rather than the central illegality of forcibly occupying a library.

I believe that education is one of the most self-evident reasons for this unquestioned right-wing stance – and one that is most often a default position rather than an actively thought-out policy – taken by the media. Today, the bulk of the people working in the news media – particularly those that have some years of experience under their belts and are now rising to decision- and policy-making positions – are roughly between 30 and 45 years of age. This is the generation that was in school or just entering college – ie in the formative years of their intellectual abilities – at the time when General Zia embarked upon his grand Islamisation project.

These – or rather, ‘we’ – were the first guinea pigs. Upon us was tried the experiment of compulsory Islamiat and Pakistan Studies, with all their associated ills of a re-written and often blatantly inaccurate history and a mindless nationalistic jingoism. This generation, more than any other, perhaps, absorbed the constructed glories of the army and the evil incarnate view of India, the importance of the theory of ‘strategic depth’, the assumption that the country was predominantly Sunni and that other sects – indeed, other religions – were a deviance from the norm. To these beginnings can be traced societal shifts such as the demonisation of the indigenous subcontinental culture – which was portrayed as ‘Hindu’ culture – and the ideological linking of Pakistan with Saudi Arabia. To these beginnings can be traced the demise of ‘Khudahafiz’ in favour of ‘Allah hafiz’ and ‘salaat’ in favour of ‘namaaz’ (about which a debate worth checking on is under way on Facebook, by the way).

And, simultaneously, the 80s were also the decade marked by a sudden plummeting of standards of education. As the curricula were tinkered and experimented with – including, in my experience, Matric-level chemistry and physics being translated into and then taught in Urdu, for a brief while – a generation of Pakistanis ended up with an ‘education’ that was scarcely more than literacy given substance by indoctrination.

Two and half decades later, this generation is at the point of taking over the helm of the country’s affairs. At least in the media, it is already in positions of power. Is it any wonder, then, that the debate we are treated to daily is so confused and ideologically warped?

Postscript: “In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press […]” – Oscar Wilde.

— hajrahmumtaz@gmail.com