Television Anchors or the Death of Journalism
By Syed Kamran Hashmi
Westfield, IN
Irrespective of one’s professional background, every important person (self-proclaimed or otherwise) shares the same dream about the peak of his career in Pakistan: to appear on television as a ‘senior expert,’ the first reliable step towards hosting his own program. Apart from the young and energetic, retirees with ‘severe heart disease,’ are also jumping in (allegedly) to join the party and seize fame and fortune. Who can blame them for such an endeavor, an endeavor which pays off well both in terms of financial compensation and political influence?
In fact, it is because of our insatiable desire for fame and fortune that Pakistan has become such a burgeoning market for the ‘senior experts,’ and along with them, the suicide bombers and the world renowned terrorists as badly. One major difference, to be kept in mind, though, between the two is that the latter (the men of action) are concerned about their reward in the afterlife while the former (the paper tigers) are only worried about the eminence in this mundane world.
By mentioning that, I, by no means, am rooting for the men of action over paper tigers since I believe that each one of them, in their own way, endanger the national integrity and regional peace. Let me put it in another way: no country can afford to have so many of them together, except when it is determined to become Pakistan in the near future.
Coming back to the experts, here I must make clear to the readers that we do not know the cut off which sets apart a junior expert from a senior one. For many, it is just a figure of speech, an expression to show respect to any guest. In some instances, they even call each other seniors when they know, it is the first month of the ‘senior’ on job. Likewise, I am not sure what makes an expert an expert. Is it the number of their published books, their contribution in research articles, ground-breaking technological inventions, discovery of the new laws of mechanics or the landmark policy papers that changed the direction of the country? We are not sure. However, listening to them on television makes me think that none of these literary, legal or scientific contributions are required as a prerequisite to be an expert. On the contrary, these qualities may be frowned upon and discouraged. To be proclaimed as a specialist and then be able to maintain that success one must bear only one attribute: to provoke others and/or be provoked by them into a feud which includes shouting, swearing, yelling and even kicking, slapping, or throwing a punch.
By adopting this simple formula, if you have already appeared as a guest on some television shows and have showed off your talent, then let me assure you that you have fulfilled the first step of your dream to conduct your own program. But with the interested applicants ranging from retired generals to the local physicians, and from stage comedians to serving bureaucrats, the market is full of well-connected, talented (and most of the times self-proclaimed legendary) candidates, people who have done so much for the country that only fools can turn them down. In their presence, it is all but natural for you to feel intimidated and even depressed. What should you do then? I guess, you should follow the same time-tested rule, which normally is reserved for democracy that goes like this: “If democracy does not deliver, what is the solution? More democracy.” In the same way, if provocation does not work, what is the solution? More provocation, till you become an anchor yourself!
And once you have secured your position as a host vanquishing over your competition, the world falls in line for you. I understand that in the beginning, you have to focus on your own area of expertise and maintain your individual style. But, as a host once you have drawn enough viewership, you must expand your skillfulness and cast your authority in Biology, Chemistry Physics, Medicine and Economy along with International Relations, Public Policy, Politics and Defense, all at the same time.
Every evening, wearing a perfect makeup on your face, hiding all the blemishes of your skin (and character), as a true patriot you have to spend - which you already do - at least five minutes of your time on an introductory lecture providing the nation a guideline to succeed, computing its progress report, enumerating the reasons for its failure. If the people in power are sincere they would grab the pearls of wisdom that you have just spilled out, stack them up together and compile all of them as a book of wisdom to be carried in their pockets all the time. But, alas, the crooked politicians miss the ‘near divine’ wisdom.
Remembering from the Divine wisdom, I must add that during your introductory speech, no one should be allowed to question you or correct you or ask to provide appropriate references. Just like no one can challenge the authority of the cleric with a mike who can talk for hours without making any sense on the most difficult aspects of human evolution, atomic physics or astronomy. While it's the same type of job as both of you have to entertain the audience for a long period of time and provide the nation an outline for their personal and collective success, the only difference between you and the cleric is the visible absence/presence of the beard, the robe, the camera, the discussion table and the pulpit. The question is: in the presence of so many clerics, do we need more?
