Once upon a khabarnama...

when mushie chacha turned off the channels in november 2007, many journalists took to the streets. in karachi, one particular protest was shut down by the police, and the participants arrested. later, they would quote the experience when they spoke of being 'hardened journalists' who bore the brunt of 'a repressive military regime as they fought for the freedom of speech while rocking out to rage against the machine.' 


what most of them failed to mention was how their stay in jail for a few hours involved being brought over pizzas and cans of soft drinks as well as untold cartons of cigarettes.


the point being, that sometimes things aren't what they seem. 


so when dawn.com had issues with my second consecutive blog because of things i was saying about their other employees, i decided to put it on my blog, which is only beholden to me. this doesn't stand as an example of censorship or any such malarkey, for several reasons. the most important one being that in both cases, the references to dawn employees was not an indictment of them personally, nor was it a personal vendetta against two popular and well respected men. instead, it was an attempt to contextualise their words and actions.


so, without further ado, here it is.

Before disney took over the job, fairy tales were the realm of the spoken word.

instead of animation, grandmothers, or audio cassettes, usually took upon the role of reading out elaborate tales of fantasy, adventure, bravery and magic. each tale was embellished with fascinating characters with pretty one-dimensional personalities. 

the brave prince, the wronged princess, the devious churail, the friendly giant, the mischievous gnomes, vengeful pirates, bashful fairies, scheming sorcerers, generous djinns, 40 crafty thieves - you get the picture.

for the story teller, the liberating aspect of this exercise was the ability to create a whole world, populate it with characters, and trust that the listener would take that on face value.

there wasn't any necessity to provide context. the evil king was evil because that's what the story said - no one asked to hear about his human rights record, or his control over his kingdom's sovereignty. 

a few days ago, one of pakistan's most respected journalists wrote a rather curious article, in which he spent a long time dissecting the life and times of Angelina Jolie.

the inquest resulted in a lot of wink-wink, nudge-nudge innuendo, and some outright tamachay on the wisdom and choices of Ms. Jolie. 

now several blogs took apart this approach on the interwebs, and i'll leave you to judge for yourself. but personally, the basic question that arises upon reading this column is why unleash this maelstrom of mense on the actress, who after all was working recently for flood relief victims in pakistan?

a quick glance at the article reveals the answer.

the article's conclusion was related to ms. jolie's complaints about the excesses of the Pakistani government. according to the scribe, this was how low the government's stock had reached - that even a person with morals as allegedly dubious as Angelina bhabi looked down upon the rulers in islamabad.

now, if we step back, and ignore the spicy gossip strewn all over this column, a more primeval reaction arises - 'huh?'

what is the point of all this?

well, pyare bacho, the point is that in order to provide context to a story, to an event, to any scrap of news, one has to create a narrative.

a narrative requires certain characters, certain events and their consequences in order to provide a conclusion. 

narratives help provide allegories, examples and advice on how to make sense of the world. to provide a beginning, middle and end. and the simpler the narrative, the flatter the characters, the more emphatic its message becomes.

in pakistan, where we are saturated by news and nothing but news all the time, it appears that we have put our grandmothers to sleep and turned on the television for our fairy tales.

and so each day, we stare agog at our screens, as wise men narrate epic tales of evil plotters, court room intrigue, daring heros, corrupt rulers, oppressed masses, wanton destruction, foreign hands and local bodies. 

unfortunately, while our grandmothers would end the fairy tales when we started to fall asleep, the modern story tellers just don't let up. and so if our attention begins to waver, they conjure up even more exoticised characters, whose benign actions become symbols of societal malaise. they start weaving together completely unrelated fantasies and present them as a cohesive whole.

like the amorous, brazen queen of the heathen tribes of the west, who visited this fair kingdom, and even she, this insatiable devourer of men, was left ashamed by the excesses of the evil king and his supporters.

i wonder who disney would get to play the role of the grand vizier?

What is this Media-Shedia? Guest blog by Jaahil Journalist

“Modern journalism is about providing the kind of spin your audience is interested in.”

-Salman Rushdie
(heavily paraphrased, just as he would like it)

The consumer of news media/journalism is not asking for an objective opinion. They are instead asking for the confirmation of their own biases. The point of the market is to provide enough unique outlets for the specific type of bias prevalent in society.
There is no such thing as objective journalism. If you think an article on say Jirgas should have quotes from thirty different analysts, it means that this is what you believe to be a standard of objectivity. That is the bias you have that you wish to have fulfilled.

That’s why the Daily Show and The O’Reilly Factor are the biggest news shows in America. It’s because both present the kind of experience that their consumers are demanding. It’s important to note that in order to maintain the idea they represent, both Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly go through great pain to assert that they are not ‘conventional’ journalists. Stewart maintains that his show is about shits and giggles. O’Reilly has the “No Spin Zone’ to try and assert that while news is always spin, in his zone there is no such cause for concern.

Try telling that to the millions that tune into their shows. The very fact that both hosts deny they are ‘conventional’ journalists serves to boost their credibility in the eyes of their viewers.

"Some of today's top journalists appeal to distinct constituencies reflecting the nature of their audiences. For example, Bill O'Reilly tops the list of most admired journalists among Republicans – 10% name the Fox News Channel talk show host. Only 2% of Democrats and Independents name O'Reilly. Much of Katie Couric's support comes from women: 7% of women name Couric as the news person they admire most compared to 2% of men. And Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central, is popular mainly with young people. Among those under age 30, 6% say Stewart is their favorite journalist, making him along with O'Reilly the top pick among this age group. This compares with less than 1% of those over age 30, who admire Stewart most."

Forget objectivity. You can never have that. Consider the following two sentences:

“Thus it can be argued that the idea of nationhood is little more than the idea of a corporate brand.”

“Thus it can be argued that the idea of nationhood is just as important as the idea of a corporate brand.”

Both sentences are saying the same thing – that brands and nationhood are pretty much the same. But one implies that brands are shit, and thus so are nations. The other says that ‘look, this is how good brands are, and nations can be just as good.’

Maybe you don’t like the example. Who cares what you think. The point is that bias is impossible to avoid when you have to make a value judgment. Want to know how ‘reputable’ news organizations get around this problem? They blame it on someone else.

Specifically, they refer to ‘analysts’ or ‘anonymous sources who wished to maintain their privacy because of the sensitivity of the subject matter.’ Or if they are just fucking desperate, they refer to ‘word on the street.’ It doesn’t really matter. And it’s not necessarily true that they just make up these mysterious sources. The sad truth is that a source with a given opinion can always be found.

You want to slag off Musharraf? You invite Imran Khan, or Qazi Hussein to your show. Don’t have to say anything yourself, yet you can get him to be your mouthpiece.

And there is no objectivity to this. Because even if you think that inviting these particular people will make the show anti-Musharraf, you know that inviting Malik Qayyum or someone would make it slant the other way. Or you can get someone who is supposed to be impartial, and you’ll get a mouthful of Western based academic thought, mostly associated with the idea of building democratic institutions and what not. Or you can invite an apolitical mullah (they do exist you know) and get a mouthful of Islamic nationalist-pan nationalist rhetoric.

And if you’ve been in the business for a while, you KNOW which guests to invite for what kind of show. It’s not like you can avoid it.

What gets me tickled to no end is how people think the media has a lot of power. They do have it, but it’s not like they can be completely autocratic about it. See they can’t force you to watch what they are showing. They need you to be watching. So they will play to the galleries.

Don’t blame them for it, it’s their job*.

*In fact, fuck all of you self righteous types. Like you were ever part of something beyond reproach. Learn to make changes, and not just pick on something you can complain about from a high horse, while continuing to live like a selfish prick the rest of the time.

So the media can’t make enemies until someone has enemies. Then they dress up the bandwagon and offer people free rides. And like a successful amusement park, the point is to get people to come on your rides. Little else.

And no, the media has no other responsibility. Because if it did, it should have its employees paid by your pocket. You are not paying shit, so stop thinking you have a say over what is aired. All you can do is switch the channel until you find someone who speaks your kind of bias