In
Pakistan, journalism has become the riskiest profession. According to
Reporters Without Borders (RSF), out of 66 journalists killed worldwide
in 2011, 10 died in Pakistan.
For the second consecutive
year, Pakistan has been declared the most dangerous place for
journalists — more dangerous than even Afghanistan and Iraq.
In an
atmosphere of unabated violence against journalists, where the
perpetrators and the reasons for their ire are many, news decisions
become more risky; journalists then take news decisions following a
different set of values than what most newsmen do worldwide.
German
scholar Wolfgang Donsbach says that news decisions are a highly complex
phenomenon. In the case of journalists mainly in the western world, two
general needs or ‘functions’ involving specific psychological processes
can explain news decisions.
Journalists look for social
validation of their perceptions when they decide what needs to be — or
does not need to be —reported. They also want to preserve their existing
predispositions in the process. These two factors work as a checklist
for journalists as they take news decisions.
“Journalists have to
decide what is true, what is relevant and what is, in a moral sense,
good or bad. They must constantly make factual and evaluative
decisions,” Donsbach says.
There are three conditions under which
people in general and journalists in particular are most dependent on
others. First, when the external reality is ambiguous and difficult to
assess. Second, when there is a dualism between the physical and social
reality, and lastly, when physical reality takes precedence over social
reality.
Therefore journalists and information-seeking people
communicate with others to create a shared reality from the competing
information. Thus people communicate with each other to get out of
undetermined, unpredictable situations and create a shared image of the
environment they live in.
However, for Pakistani journalists it is
not only a shared reality that is produced in communication. They don’t
look for just social validation; they also seek to determine the level
of threat, which they think is reduced by diffusing risky information.
In
such a situation, journalists don’t strive for scoops or exclusive news
stories; instead, they share their information with their colleagues in
other news organisations to avoid being singled out by threatening
forces.
This need for ‘preservation’ at the expense of a plurality
of opinion eats into the vitals of objective journalism. A single
opinion and a single narrative prevails across the mass media landscape
where people are exposed to only one ‘reality,’ which is created in an
environment of fear.
Debate gives way to conformity, while
difference of opinion is looked upon as deviant behaviour. Journalists
either resort to self-censorship or get carried away by the fervour of
patriotism, which is the outcome of a mob mentality.
Nothing is
more dangerous than a conforming mass media, which blocks out saner
voices just for being different from the mainstream opinion and critical
of the status quo.
When a majority of journalists toe the line of
the powers that be, it exposes the few who are sceptical of the
dominant version of the truth, as they ought to be.
In the US, the
agenda for local newspapers is set by big corporations that own
newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post. Journalists
working for other, smaller newspapers work in undetermined and uncertain
situations. They go through a cognitive process where to report an
event the way nobody else has reported it or to not report what
everybody else reports can be embarrassing and jeopardise their
professional standing.
Journalists in Pakistan go through the same
process, but for them avoiding a threat to their lives is more
important than embarrassment or professional standing. For them, alarm
bells ring out if their news stories stand out as different from those
of others. They take care to report what everybody else does not only to
ward off mere embarrassment or their professional worth, but also to
protect their own lives.
That is the reason why stories on the
same issue in different newspapers contain the same version of the
truth, while for readers browsing through different newspapers become an
exercise in repetition and a waste of time. Alternative opinion and
competing versions of the truth become scarce. Thus the end losers are
the readers and the democratic polity that thrives on a plurality of
opinion rooted in debate.
That is the reason why journalists in
Pakistan try to stay with the pack and look towards each other for
decision-making. Social networks of journalists comprise people of their
own profession who work within a ‘frame of reference’ built before an
event occurs.
Thus, the decision about reality represents group
dynamics and group norms rather than the reality itself. As journalists
have similar values and attitudes, it is rather easy for them to develop
a shared reality. This shared reality does not constitute the reality
itself.
For their survival, journalists need to stick together but
at the same time help readers build a healthy opinion; new angles of
the truth should guide the structure and contents of news. So how can
journalists be different in presenting the reality, which after all is a
social construction, and also escape the wrath of those who hate
dissent?
For this to happen, journalists need to strengthen their
ranks and enhance their professional capabilities by learning how to
work in conflict and hostile environments.
Before he was killed, Saleem Shahzad set a good precedent for other journalists by informing them about the threats to his life.
Most recently, journalist Hamid Mir, averted — at least for the time
being — threats to his life by disclosing immediately the obnoxious
messages he had received.
The writer is pursuing a PhD in communication at the American University, Washington, D.C.
[Published in daily Dawn on December 30, 2011]
