The media business

At the end of the 15-minute taping, he made a very pointed remark to the TV compere: "You will take care of it?" The man nodded assent, a bit sheepishly I thought as he glanced at me. Two days later when the recording went on air, I knew why. In the 7-8 minutes that was aired, I got in only one sentence, the rest of the talking was done by my industrialist friend.

Stunned by this axe-ing, I did a little research. In the face of the millions in revenues in advertising spent by that industrialist on that channel, there was no way the particular TV channel was about to allow me to air my views. My presence was as an "extra," meant to show the "even-handedness" of the channel and the TV personality in having a Pakistani point of view. That particularly TV compere finds it difficult to make eye contact with me whenever we come across each other in international gatherings. His so-called integrity and principles compromised, one should take all his interviews with a pinch of salt.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Many years ago the owner/editor of a newspaper carrying my columns for many years was approached by the head of an official agency (this was a reaction to my having written about the dangers of selecting a person who had never been in combat as the army chief) that my column should not be permitted in the newspaper because of "national security" considerations.

The respected owner/editor's reply to this "gentleman" was to put my article also in his widely circulated Urdu newspaper, my readership constituency expanded manifold. The character and integrity of this great man is a rare commodity! Many years later, on mentioning the corrupt practices of a particular individual in one of my weekly columns, I was advised (not by the respected owner/editor) about the volume of advertisement placed by the institution that person controlled. I ceased to write for that newspaper.

Big advertisers can exercise inordinate control over, viz (1) detrimental news content and also (2) editorial freedom, supposedly very jealously guarded privileges. Compromises in the pursuit of business undercut the integrity of media accountability. It is the same in the first world as in the third. If the media, print or electronic, is susceptible to being restrained in exposure of any illegality, repression, criminal behaviour, etc, then the pedestal it stands on has a hollow base. One hastens to add that while many in the print and electronic media have compromised their integrity by this "blackmail," there are still quite a handful who have not succumbed, honour intact they have preferred rags to riches.

The traditional media houses are taking good advantage of the booming consumer economy force-multiplying ad revenues, before that the print media was extremely dependant upon advertisements (ads) from the public sector. Successive governments (democratic or otherwise) exercised this control over the media with a vengeance. To punish those publishing anti-government material the flow of ads was choked off.

Without those revenues the print media entity concerned would either fall into line or go out of existence. This Sword of Damocles is still used successfully against smaller media units, with lesser effect against the bigger ones with far more financial reserves. The advent of the electronic media, and entry of some large business houses into the media, government control over the media has diminished considerably. Now more indirect methods of coercion are used!

Research shows that business houses trying to become media giants have mixed objectives, their media ventures give name recognition of their brand, a place in the consumer sun offset by the losses on the balance sheet. Regretfully two of the business houses venturing into media have indulged in financial shenanigans which the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) conveniently overlooks.

Investment in the media is a calculated financial risk as a defence mechanism against accountability, and they have plenty to hide. Building considerable influence and connections, they have compromised quite a few in the hierarchy by support in kind (including primetime media coverage), if not with cash.

In western countries even that would get a short shift, business houses and legislators have often been investigated in western countries for disbursing favours and accepting them respectively. The integrity of the media is sometimes used by those having shady background as a shield against wrongdoing, mostly past and/or present, and perhaps for the future. Can you imagine the mafia trying to buy into the New York Times or Washington Post or CNN or ABC?

The recent economic consumer boom has seen ad revenues force-multiplying many times over, financial institutions taking over the clout that the Press Information Department (PID) of the Federal Ministry of Information once used to have. In contrast to PID, banks have vast marketing budgets that gives them great power with both print and electronic media. Given that only a handful of financial institutions have still to be privatized, those who control the purse strings in both public sector and private sector banks matter.

The "support" can be indirect. Whenever you find any magazine naming someone as the Finance Minister of the Year, the Banker of the Year, the Bank of Asia, etc, etc, a little research can easily find out as to ad revenues diverted to them, and by whom. Sometimes even third parties are used to hide the origins of funding. Try writing a column or appearing on the TV screen against any person the financial institution supports.

Sylvio Berlusconi become PM of Italy on the foundation of his media conglomerate, as PM he managed to fend off corruption charges. On the question of accountability, can you imagine any media organization risking their ad revenues by going after an institution or individual who has control over a war chest? This is the worst kind of corruption, and worst of all it has undercut the inherent credibility and integrity of quite a segment of the media.

To go back to the reputable international TV and radio channel which "stands on principle" but indulges in dubious practices, we should wake up to the reality of how effectively they can be targeted by experienced and committed professionals. We keep on talking about a "soft image," what we have to do for a favourable image is to carry out positive "damage control." We do have many inherent problems, these are blown out of proportion, we have to minimize their adverse effect on the country's reputation. Experienced media persons need on-the-job training (OJT) to understand the interaction of media business and the need to focus the allocation of revenues for maximum effect.

Ikram Sehgal, a former Major of Pakistan Army, is a political analyst and columnist.