Hasan Mansoor
It is always enthralling for a cub reporter to hunt the first sources of one's career and be able to cultivate them. The problem starts from the outset: In most cases, the 'sources' cultivate such reporters instead. A naive soul could only save himself from such situation if he finds an able senior who accepts him as his protege. He should be someone whom a youngster could find invariably on his back whenever he turns to him to get solace and guidance.
Unfortunately, the bond between senior and young journalists is fading spectacularly, especially after the advent of TV journalism. TV journalism in Pakistan heavily relies on breaking news; authenticity and correctness always takes the backseat. A young reporter's surging adrenaline always gets him to jump on the top of a top story; which suits to his owners and hierarchy in beating the competition.
What most of times happens on Pakistani TV could have been a real reason for a newspaper to lose its authenticity and become a subject for the media teachers in telling their students what they should not do.
I repeat, Pakistani news channels heavily rely on 'breaking news', which often break within! It could be the horror for a BBC viewer to watch a breaking news about a donkey that falls from a bridge and dies, but for the viewers of local Urdu channels it is as important as a U.S. drone hits a Taliban hideout in North Waziristan.
TV reporters have been given the poetic licence to send a ticker about an explosion in a town with same zeal and audacity as they normally do in case of a bomb blast. Pakistani TV stations will broadcast an explosion's story without confirming that it is caused by a bomb or a pole-mounted power transformer that exploded due to some technical fault. They instill enormous fear factor with the blatant use of Google Earth visuals and traumatic sound effects to confound millions of viewers.
A director news of one of many of our TV channels known for their desultory functioning, does not shy to brag about such practice; calling it a tool of the present corporate culture.
"Look," he enlightens me, "It is all about competition. If an explosion is later proved to be a bomb blast, it gives us a reason to beat the competition, which is what pushes our ratings uphill. Sometimes, our information gets a bit wrong, so we conveniently play the news down."
A TV showman says TV business is all about how adamant one is. "If we start apologising to our viewers on every wrong information we have passed to them, then most of our bulletins would be full of corrigenda," he quips.
Most of our TV reporters who cover violence, terrorism and hostage situations are young, thus with little courage to resist the harrowing orders from the top. The hierarchy in a private TV station largely consists of the professionals who have little to do with journalism. Very few of TV professionals have difficult journalistic years on their back, which leave fewer of them realising the perils and difficulties of a reporter that one counters while working in violent situations.
"My job is to inform the desk about what has happened during my duty hours in quickest possible time; else my job is at stake," a young reporter says.
One will encounter a common story our young colleagues narrate. TV is admittedly far powerful than a newspaper. So, reporting in TV helps them establishing their sources quite conveniently, but TV prowess seldom assist them how to cultivate the sources. Someone truly says 'experience has no shortcut!'
Pakistan is one of the worst countries plagued with terrorist incidents. Every now and then, TV stations flash breaking news about political violence, targeted killings and bomb explosions. This has left our reporters more fragile flailing around in the hunt of information when a situation develops and supply anything they deem it worthy of people's interest to their channels.
During the course of their dig, they often use a single source. In journalism, using a single source is always considered a curse, which could end one's profession in the bud or worse, can put innocent lives in immense danger. There are incidents in which innocent girls or their parents have attempted to commit suicide because of one-sided single-sourced reporting accusing them to have violated social mores.
The hate-mongering by anchors and televangelists is non-educational for public viewing and corrupting minds. Salmaan Taaseer is one of many casualties caused by the preaching of hate by the TV hosts, majority of whom have nothing to do with journalism.
The visible hazard of using a single source in your story is that it goes in a single direction; it takes one side -- the side which suits your single source. No source in journalism can be reckoned as neutral, because you are dealing with a human being who, like every human, has inner prejudices, biases and vested interests within. A single-sourced story is bound to go in the interest of an individual or a group. By doing this you are taking sides with your single source. Taking sides is a human nature as even spectators take sides when gladiators fight in the arena. A reporter could opt for it in one's news analysis; while reporting one has to go for angelic demeanour. You have to report the version of the accused as well no matter how you deem it despicable on your standards.
It is not just a story, which determines your objectivity. Your professional demeanour makes it all. I have just seen a picture posted by a TV reporter who is thought to be one of the leading crime reporters in Karachi. The picture was taken during a failed weeklong police operation in Lyari, which is considered to be Pakistan's Columbia for it is infested with powerful drug mafias. The operation was led by police officer Aslam Khan, popularly called as the Chaudhry whom the 'other side' calls 'the butcher'.
Our reporter was there to cover the tiresome operation along with several other colleagues. The picture shows him posing as driving an auto-rickshaw while the Chaudhry and another reporter are sitting cosily on the passenger's seat smiling.
For someone there is nothing wrong in the picture. It depicts a moment of leisure for both the reporters, who have taken time to relax from their tiring job and one of them thought it appropriate to post it on his wall to bring smiles on his friends' weary faces. But, the picture loudly tells others about the reporter's bias. It could be the case that drives humans to the levels of naivety, but such excuses are unacceptable from vastly experienced journalists. The picture derives he takes sides with the Chaudhry, which he should have not while performing his professional duty. One can wonder why should we not side with a cop and despise a criminal? The answer is simple, we are journalists and our job is not to pass judgments. Though, now our judges as well satiate their desire to become poets in their judgments!
A journalist is always at the risk of being exploited by his/her sources. Publishing press releases ditto is biased, showing ambulances painted with the logo of a particular charity or political group is promotional corruption; inviting a set of analysts in a talk show is intellectually prejudiced etc.
A few years ago, a newspaper had formed its teams of reporters tasked to raid private properties in its boasted quest of eradicating corruption from the society. The newspaper owner gave a licence to the reporters to invade any factory, lab or restaurant and report about their wrongdoings in the paper. The precedent was followed by the competition as well. The raiding parties blatantly trespassed the legal guarantees given to the private proprietors and made people's lives a hell. Gradually they saw their reports were not being published in newspapers, but the owners remained demanding incessantly. They had been made tool for their owners to get people blackmailed. Some reporters were audacious enough to resist the owners and lost their jobs.
The newspaper raids continued up to the hilt, until TV channels took over. Anyone could see at least one programme on every news channel, which raids anywhere in town in the name of the greater interest of the public. For me, it is vigilante journalism and is as bad as the infamous morning show in which a host with the coterie of her female colleagues catches couples in Karachi's parks. Public interest is the cliched jargon, which is as vague as the national interest. Coated with religious insinuations and patriotic jingles, reporters raid any private property; something which cost nothing in Pakistan but in the West even Rupert Murdoch could find him in the jail.
Hitting a scoop is every reporter's dream, it takes reporters to the zenith elsewhere who independently investigate great deceptions and not just write articles but books littered with evidences. In Pakistan reporters are highly inclined to make a scoop on the investigations of their sources or interested quarters instead. Some high-profile reporters are even alleged of filing so-called investigative stories without writing them down personally!
This is the worst incidence of being exploited at the hands of your sources. But, wait! Not every reporter is unaware about his exploitation. Unfortunately, we have many of those who do it with great consent for equal reciprocation from their sources in terms of all kinds of favours. Covering a typical field creates opportunities for opportunists, which can be seen at times when reporters resist when their beats are changed. I don't call all those as opportunists and corrupt. There are reporters who feel them cosseted in a particular beat for the reason a switchover would force them to traverse new skies and go for new hunt -- a labour most don't like.
But, some reporters resist to dissociate from their sources, with whom they have developed a bond of affection and fortune. In the past, our seniors would frequently change the reporters' beats for the reasons that could save the youngsters from being corrupt and getting stale.
It is quite hard for us to save us from being used by our sources. But, there is a simple remedy to mostly avoid it. Don't rely on a single source -- Never! Even one is offering you a story of your life! Always go for a variety of sources before writing a story. Magnetism is always bipolar, though, both poles repel each other! A hunt for the sources who push each other away is always good for a reporter. The reporter may not develop friendship with his sources, but his stories will always attract admirers and even keep the accused happy!
A young reporter could be justified in his compulsion that drives him to rely on a single source to save his job, but we lack an authority that provides mandatory training of professional ethics to journalists. A check on the hate and biased content on TV and newspapers is lacking as well, though it is quite a fragile issue and be dealt with responsibility so that it does not hurt freedom of the Press.
(Written for Media-Agenda conference May 2012 in Karachi)
It is always enthralling for a cub reporter to hunt the first sources of one's career and be able to cultivate them. The problem starts from the outset: In most cases, the 'sources' cultivate such reporters instead. A naive soul could only save himself from such situation if he finds an able senior who accepts him as his protege. He should be someone whom a youngster could find invariably on his back whenever he turns to him to get solace and guidance.
What most of times happens on Pakistani TV could have been a real reason for a newspaper to lose its authenticity and become a subject for the media teachers in telling their students what they should not do.
I repeat, Pakistani news channels heavily rely on 'breaking news', which often break within! It could be the horror for a BBC viewer to watch a breaking news about a donkey that falls from a bridge and dies, but for the viewers of local Urdu channels it is as important as a U.S. drone hits a Taliban hideout in North Waziristan.
TV reporters have been given the poetic licence to send a ticker about an explosion in a town with same zeal and audacity as they normally do in case of a bomb blast. Pakistani TV stations will broadcast an explosion's story without confirming that it is caused by a bomb or a pole-mounted power transformer that exploded due to some technical fault. They instill enormous fear factor with the blatant use of Google Earth visuals and traumatic sound effects to confound millions of viewers.
A director news of one of many of our TV channels known for their desultory functioning, does not shy to brag about such practice; calling it a tool of the present corporate culture.
"Look," he enlightens me, "It is all about competition. If an explosion is later proved to be a bomb blast, it gives us a reason to beat the competition, which is what pushes our ratings uphill. Sometimes, our information gets a bit wrong, so we conveniently play the news down."
A TV showman says TV business is all about how adamant one is. "If we start apologising to our viewers on every wrong information we have passed to them, then most of our bulletins would be full of corrigenda," he quips.
Most of our TV reporters who cover violence, terrorism and hostage situations are young, thus with little courage to resist the harrowing orders from the top. The hierarchy in a private TV station largely consists of the professionals who have little to do with journalism. Very few of TV professionals have difficult journalistic years on their back, which leave fewer of them realising the perils and difficulties of a reporter that one counters while working in violent situations.
"My job is to inform the desk about what has happened during my duty hours in quickest possible time; else my job is at stake," a young reporter says.
One will encounter a common story our young colleagues narrate. TV is admittedly far powerful than a newspaper. So, reporting in TV helps them establishing their sources quite conveniently, but TV prowess seldom assist them how to cultivate the sources. Someone truly says 'experience has no shortcut!'
Pakistan is one of the worst countries plagued with terrorist incidents. Every now and then, TV stations flash breaking news about political violence, targeted killings and bomb explosions. This has left our reporters more fragile flailing around in the hunt of information when a situation develops and supply anything they deem it worthy of people's interest to their channels.
During the course of their dig, they often use a single source. In journalism, using a single source is always considered a curse, which could end one's profession in the bud or worse, can put innocent lives in immense danger. There are incidents in which innocent girls or their parents have attempted to commit suicide because of one-sided single-sourced reporting accusing them to have violated social mores.
The hate-mongering by anchors and televangelists is non-educational for public viewing and corrupting minds. Salmaan Taaseer is one of many casualties caused by the preaching of hate by the TV hosts, majority of whom have nothing to do with journalism.
The visible hazard of using a single source in your story is that it goes in a single direction; it takes one side -- the side which suits your single source. No source in journalism can be reckoned as neutral, because you are dealing with a human being who, like every human, has inner prejudices, biases and vested interests within. A single-sourced story is bound to go in the interest of an individual or a group. By doing this you are taking sides with your single source. Taking sides is a human nature as even spectators take sides when gladiators fight in the arena. A reporter could opt for it in one's news analysis; while reporting one has to go for angelic demeanour. You have to report the version of the accused as well no matter how you deem it despicable on your standards.
It is not just a story, which determines your objectivity. Your professional demeanour makes it all. I have just seen a picture posted by a TV reporter who is thought to be one of the leading crime reporters in Karachi. The picture was taken during a failed weeklong police operation in Lyari, which is considered to be Pakistan's Columbia for it is infested with powerful drug mafias. The operation was led by police officer Aslam Khan, popularly called as the Chaudhry whom the 'other side' calls 'the butcher'.
Our reporter was there to cover the tiresome operation along with several other colleagues. The picture shows him posing as driving an auto-rickshaw while the Chaudhry and another reporter are sitting cosily on the passenger's seat smiling.
For someone there is nothing wrong in the picture. It depicts a moment of leisure for both the reporters, who have taken time to relax from their tiring job and one of them thought it appropriate to post it on his wall to bring smiles on his friends' weary faces. But, the picture loudly tells others about the reporter's bias. It could be the case that drives humans to the levels of naivety, but such excuses are unacceptable from vastly experienced journalists. The picture derives he takes sides with the Chaudhry, which he should have not while performing his professional duty. One can wonder why should we not side with a cop and despise a criminal? The answer is simple, we are journalists and our job is not to pass judgments. Though, now our judges as well satiate their desire to become poets in their judgments!
A journalist is always at the risk of being exploited by his/her sources. Publishing press releases ditto is biased, showing ambulances painted with the logo of a particular charity or political group is promotional corruption; inviting a set of analysts in a talk show is intellectually prejudiced etc.
A few years ago, a newspaper had formed its teams of reporters tasked to raid private properties in its boasted quest of eradicating corruption from the society. The newspaper owner gave a licence to the reporters to invade any factory, lab or restaurant and report about their wrongdoings in the paper. The precedent was followed by the competition as well. The raiding parties blatantly trespassed the legal guarantees given to the private proprietors and made people's lives a hell. Gradually they saw their reports were not being published in newspapers, but the owners remained demanding incessantly. They had been made tool for their owners to get people blackmailed. Some reporters were audacious enough to resist the owners and lost their jobs.
The newspaper raids continued up to the hilt, until TV channels took over. Anyone could see at least one programme on every news channel, which raids anywhere in town in the name of the greater interest of the public. For me, it is vigilante journalism and is as bad as the infamous morning show in which a host with the coterie of her female colleagues catches couples in Karachi's parks. Public interest is the cliched jargon, which is as vague as the national interest. Coated with religious insinuations and patriotic jingles, reporters raid any private property; something which cost nothing in Pakistan but in the West even Rupert Murdoch could find him in the jail.
Hitting a scoop is every reporter's dream, it takes reporters to the zenith elsewhere who independently investigate great deceptions and not just write articles but books littered with evidences. In Pakistan reporters are highly inclined to make a scoop on the investigations of their sources or interested quarters instead. Some high-profile reporters are even alleged of filing so-called investigative stories without writing them down personally!
This is the worst incidence of being exploited at the hands of your sources. But, wait! Not every reporter is unaware about his exploitation. Unfortunately, we have many of those who do it with great consent for equal reciprocation from their sources in terms of all kinds of favours. Covering a typical field creates opportunities for opportunists, which can be seen at times when reporters resist when their beats are changed. I don't call all those as opportunists and corrupt. There are reporters who feel them cosseted in a particular beat for the reason a switchover would force them to traverse new skies and go for new hunt -- a labour most don't like.
But, some reporters resist to dissociate from their sources, with whom they have developed a bond of affection and fortune. In the past, our seniors would frequently change the reporters' beats for the reasons that could save the youngsters from being corrupt and getting stale.
It is quite hard for us to save us from being used by our sources. But, there is a simple remedy to mostly avoid it. Don't rely on a single source -- Never! Even one is offering you a story of your life! Always go for a variety of sources before writing a story. Magnetism is always bipolar, though, both poles repel each other! A hunt for the sources who push each other away is always good for a reporter. The reporter may not develop friendship with his sources, but his stories will always attract admirers and even keep the accused happy!
A young reporter could be justified in his compulsion that drives him to rely on a single source to save his job, but we lack an authority that provides mandatory training of professional ethics to journalists. A check on the hate and biased content on TV and newspapers is lacking as well, though it is quite a fragile issue and be dealt with responsibility so that it does not hurt freedom of the Press.
(Written for Media-Agenda conference May 2012 in Karachi)
As reported by Stanford Medical, It's indeed the one and ONLY reason women in this country live 10 years longer and weigh on average 19 KG less than we do.
ReplyDelete(Just so you know, it has absoloutely NOTHING to do with genetics or some secret-exercise and really, EVERYTHING to about "how" they are eating.)
P.S, What I said is "HOW", not "WHAT"...
Tap this link to see if this short test can help you find out your true weight loss possibility