When I started journalism in 1986 Pakistan was ruled by General Zia ul Haq and the country was at the tail end of a repressive dictatorship, its darkest period of tyranny. My editor was a gracious middle aged man who wrote really short editorials – mostly about democracy. His peers, a few other senior journalists in Karachi, used to tell me stories of the good old days when the media was a reliable watchdog, vigilantly guarding our young nation. I was very proud to be part of Pakistan’s fourth pillar.
For my venerable seniors, editorial independence meant freedom from interference by the owners of publications and by politicians, i.e. By the establishment. I remember being told that you will find news where you are not invited. And when an official gives you ‘news‘- it is likely a plant.
But now it seems that the Pakistani media has devolved from a watchdog to a lapdog; a passive, submissive, and obedient pet of the establishment. The way these tody journalists beg for access, stripping themselves of dignity and esteem, is tragic. At the end of the day they have nothing meaningful to report. It is abundantly clear that my peers have inoculated themselves with a knowledge vaccine, ensuring they will never be afflicted with the desire to know too much. For them, intellectualism is equivalent to the black plague.
OK, you may argue that journalists are not necessarily intellectuals; they are merely the eyes and ears of society and need only report. Fair enough- I will buy that.
But you can’t even simply report what you see and hear, if you really want to be invited back to the party the next day. So the old dilemma of access to information vs. compliance with government officials determines the rules of the game. The pecking order does not necessarily reflect the reach of a medium or platform – but it is often inversely proportional to your skills. I know it will sound elitist because I am about to tell you that I have limited access and luckily don’t make it to the top of the list of preferred journalists. I also know that Pakistani press attaches and other officials are just doing their job (or making their job easy) by allowing access to only a few trusted, manageable folks who will turn on a dime, so to speak.
I am referring to two Pakistani teams- one led by Hussain Haroon at the United Nations and the second under the command of Hussain Haqqani in Washington DC; both equally inept – both equally skillful.
It is abundantly clear to me that Pakistan’s representative to the United Nations, Mr. Hussain Haroon, can’t hold a conversation with the Pakistani media on his own. He is always aided by a bunch of bureaucrats whispering in his ear. In all my interactions I have always found someone whispering to him. He doubts himself so much that he asks his aides if they “want to contradict” him. He is often nowhere to be found when you need him; too many tea parties and long afternoon siestas for His Excellency Hussain Haroon. Following the history of others in Pakistan’s information ministry, Hussain Haroon’s press attaché in New York works very hard to protect trivial information – for example he will tell you about a briefing 30 minutes before hand. He will share the schedules with only ‘official’ media. He is a good guy with many endearing qualities but I really wish he was my banker instead.
Under the stewardship of Ambassador Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s team in Washington DC is just as skillful. Mr. Haqqani likes to brief media only ‘off-record’ and spends his time demeaning the press corps. In a very condescending manner he scolds them to research but does not respond directly to simple and straightforward questions. He speaks in metaphors, responds in poetry, and saturates his audience with symbolism. He’s particularly fond of geographical metaphors. In the last few briefings I noticed the use of an array of spatial metaphors: region, landscape, geopolitics, site, field, horizon, soil, domain etc. His use of metaphors is curious because they seem to imply fixed, immobile , and anti-dialectical concepts. I’m not sure if it is his political training but like other conservative intellectuals his statements lack clarity, richness, fecundity, life and dialectical thought.
Ambassador Haqqani has learned and mastered the art of Donald Rumsfeld speak. Here are two of my favorite Rumsfeld quotes. Speaking of Osama Bin Laden’s whereabouts, former Defense Secretary said: “we do know of certain knowledge that he is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead.” And, after the Iraq invasion when he was asked where are the weapons of mass destruction, he said: “we know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
Ambassador Haqqani, unlike his peer at the United Nations, is very energetic, does not seem to take long naps, and rarely has anyone advising him. That is because he can spin effectively on his own. His press attaché keeps a pecking order as well – those on top of his list get to attend all the important events and are called on to ask questions and those on his secondary list only occasionally get information of bilateral meetings, customary phone calls etc. Those on the blacklist get, of course, nothing. But he is a great guy when there are no high level events or stories to evade.
So as I reflect on yet another hyperbolic UN General Assembly extravaganza, I am confronted by the same question every journalist must answer; do you want to be a watchdog or a lapdog? This late in the game, this dog cannot learn new tricks. I am going to stick to being a watchdog even if that means no meaningful access to information. For those on the sidelines- getting access to information independently is excruciating laborious – but the reward is priceless!
