Some soul-searching questions

Talking of self-appraisal and self-regulation for the media may sound idealistic in what may be seen as a vicious circle of the well-established practices of media. Such set and standard media patterns may pertain to what are conceived as vested interests, creating hype for the public, full-time and round-the-clock criticism and counter criticism. While the reality may so duly be printed or projected by the media that reporting exposes many an ill of society, the way it creates a hysteria-like public situation calls for some food for thought indeed.
As man-made ways and means to check or control media have been in the form of regulations and regulators to which and to whom media remain accountable, the latter is said to be allegedly challenged to either stay on course of whims and fancies or else pay the price resulting in reprisals and counter-reprisals. It is such a vicious circle of face-saving, retaliation and counter retaliation regarding media and celebrities tinted in media that there is hardly any time for constructive activities as reflective of our developmental perspective over the years.
It has to be borne in mind that media is not an alien proposition and that media people, barring exceptions, has the same psychology as those in politics, social sector, arts and culture etc. The inner psyche generally pertains to quietly or vocally pushing through for self projection, intriguing and conspiring for personal interests and for ego, face-saving or retaliation for cover up of wrong doings and upon being exposed. This may reflect of the general character, irrespective of both media and those who regulate the media. As such, talking of media regulations or, for that matter, regulations for the regulators seems to be a ritualistic exercise unless an out-of-the box answer is envisioned and enhanced.
It is not by advocating self-regulation for the media but also the logic, genuineness and appeal that the spirit of self-appraisal for the media carries count indeed. First, there are no two opinions about media being the edifice of any society's stability and that media as a trend-setter making a world of a difference in the lives of people. Secondly, when media can progress individually and collectively through creativity, constructive criticism, trust and understanding, there is no justification for negative thinking and practice in order to steal the show or pounce on opportunities. Thirdly, it has been seen that those indulging in and conspiracies have a regretful personal, family and social history. Fourthly, it has to be realised with a bigger heart, broader mind and larger vision and with greater hope, higher expectations and better ingenuity that media's responsibility is superior towards a better society and brighter society due to its overwhelming influence and impact on life at large. Fifthly, there has to be ingenuity in realising the truth about constructive criticism towards positive change.
Thinking out-of-the-box and doing some soul-searching on the part of the media would help distinguish between the role of a critic and that of a doer. A positive doer is one who does or tries to do something good. For example, a child keenly participating in debates, essay contests and art exhibits along with his difficult academic and personal routine. A blind critic is somebody who criticises just for the sake of criticism. It is a person who always finds faults with others, criticises for fun or for boosting his own ego and continues to be addicted to the rip job. In principle, the role of a doer is more important than the job of a habitual critic. But in practice, it is a critics' world where the role of humble and toiling doers is overshadowed by mere lip-service of sarcastic critics.
It is crucial to look at the nature of criticism. Positive criticism is marked by sincerity, maturity and reasoning. It not only pinpoints problem areas but also attempts to analyse and tackle them. The criticised person is not offended but trusted and taken into confidence. Negative criticism may be criticism for the sake of criticism due to idleness or frustration in life. It occurs as a result of casual pastime, false prestige, self-projection and selfish interests. The target of criticism is demoralised or offended, resulting in escapism or retaliation, creating an air of mistrust and tension between the critic and the criticised.
As such how constructive or destructive criticism of individuals and institutions through print and electronic media help improve in the former case and inflict damage at the latter's end is self-explanatory. For example, it is the test of media projection, whether it is editorial writing, investigative reporting, news commentary or analyses or feature writing for the print media or for that matter talk shows, news and commentaries for the electronic media.
The way criticism is directed makes the difference for the better or for the worse. It can either leave a positive or inflict a negative affect on newspaper editors, electronic media managers and their proprietors and on the crucial government, public and business contacts. There are two options to choose when media is pinpointing a government policy: First, to criticise the government point blank and ripping its policy apart with bombastic and sarcastic criticism to the extent of offending it with a negative response of boycotting that newspaper or electronic channel in media briefings, foreign tours, for ads and sponsorships and resulting in curbs and controls in what is seen as a vicious circle of attack and counter attack leaving the nation in a lurch and stamping positive thinking and progress at a standstill.
Sharing with our illustrious and worthy media prodigies and professionals the fact about how indispensable remain those investigative stories and subsequent exposure of the stark realities. But the worst individual or institution may have at least one or two positive aspects to be acknowledged. If we begin our editorials, our Radio or TV talk shows with whatever the little fraction of a good point or two of the criticised and later turn and word what is rampant as blind and blatant criticism into sincere and reliable suggestions in what would be known as the positive art of print and electronic media criticism towards trust, confidence-building and betterment. While confidence-building and trust-winning criticism may not improve or change things overnight, it would not be as detrimental and deadly as offending through criticism for the sake of criticism.
What is then the modus operandi for the media to highlight problems for rectification rather than to avoid them as mere caution or play up with problems towards deterioration of the situation? When criticism is backed by genuine and sincere intentions and by caring, sharing and counselling, it can add to trust, confidence-building and betterment of the criticised. There is nothing wrong with criticism as long as media does not make a hero out of the critic. The critic has his place. He has a legitimate job to do. But when we praise the critic for his rip job than the doer for his toil and creativity, the premium is being placed on the wrong job. It is much easier to criticise than to create and attempt, and it is much easier to tear something down than to build it.
To glorify the critic while ignoring the much greater contribution of the doer is gross injustice! The positive role of each profession and every professional is vital towards social stability and change for the better, be it in the arts, humanities and the social sciences, biological, medical and veterinary sciences, natural, physical and environmental sciences, education, health and the social sector, engineering, technology and information technology, government, politics and law, business management and its allied disciplines etc. But the contribution of media, positive or negative, remains the key to peace, progress and stability of the society and vice versa depending on the nature of its role: helpful or harmful, as it has proved to be instrumental in influencing minds, controlling hearts, channelling feelings, forming public opinions and changing the very fabric of society for better or for worse.
The social responsibility factor associated with the media ideally makes it an able, noble, humble and gentle profession. It is idyllically a profession which expects of its professionals to be innovatively and harmoniously blending personal, institutional, societal, government, business and public interests towards mutual rewards and rejuvenation. But the point to ponder is whether media is the same in practice as what it portrays idealistically in principle.
If media can pursue any core social, civic and humanitarian issue with the vim, vigor and vitality it is capable of through devising a creative, consistent and common editorial and broadcast policy, there is no reason why it cannot help usher in an era of positive thinking, information and relief for the masses, sooner or late and somehow or the other. It is a question of media brains of Pakistan closing their ranks and calling it creativity, care and consideration for the common man.
In order to ensure that media's individual and institutional interests are kept intact while pursuing a common editorial or broadcast policy to address core social issues for public welfare, it has to be innovatively and mutually considered and agreed upon that each media organisation has to adjust just a fraction (0.1) % of their time and priorities as they may keep venturing for their set and standard patterns of business promotion and breaking news exclusiveness for almost the whole ((99.9%) of their time and priorities management. The real question, however, remains whether our trend-setters can rise over and above self and ego towards what is known as corporate social responsibility or a noble endeavour.
(The author is Faculty Advisor, Media Management Program, CBM/Institute of Business Management, Korangi Creek, Karachi.)