Journalists or Royals?
By Syed Kamran Hashmi
Westfield, IN

Switching channels is as easy as changing clothes for most anchors, if not easier. We observe them hopping from one television station to another like a thrifty old woman in the flea market springing back and forth from one stall to another looking for the best deal, screaming at the vendors, goading them to slash down the prices. (In their case, however, it was to jack up the salaries)

So, it did not surprise me when they flocked to pay Bol Network a visit once they got a call from the emerging group, the highest bidder in the market. The network’s administration was saying all the right things to lure them in: guaranteed editorial independence, partnership in the corporate profits, transparency and mutual respect in the work environment, and a commitment to change the culture of family-owned enterprises where an employee is more like a personal servant, if not a slave. Their grievances notwithstanding, but can we ignore that the change broadcasters wanted to bring first before any legal, cultural, or a democratic one, was in their own financial status?

And to be honest, journalists are not alone in their yearning to have a decent and respectable job, a place where their self-respect is not humiliated by a rich arrogant employer on regular basis. Almost everyone in Pakistan who is privately employed has to suffer the tyranny of his business owner. He wishes to leave and switch jobs too, but he can’t. The market does not allow him to. But, the market was letting the television anchors to scuttle across the media sector, bouncing back and forth like a rubber ball, raising expectations and the pay check every time.

As such, when they stepped in the office for an interview, they knew they were not going to settle for any less, not like an ordinary clerk or a police constable who sells his conscience for few bucks and is derided by the whole nation as being corrupt and incompetent. Even though they knew the soaring competition has pushed their ratings down and has exposed their vulnerability a little, they still valued their product (opinions) to be the best like a French fashion designer, whose brand is a symbol of both prestige and style, a Hollywood celebrity whose name guarantees success. Yes, they thought of themselves more as celebrities than journalists. And so, they were determined to negotiate their packages from the position of strength and confidence, like a hawk with inside information who can ignite interest and generate enough revenue to justify his salary, not like a meek junior staff member, a dove, fearful and sheepish, who would work for a nominal fee to gain experience.

What did they have in mind in terms of compensation? Unbelievable, even sky was not high enough: a seven (or even eight) digit monthly income, chauffeur driven imported vehicles (company maintained), palatial homes in posh neighborhoods, business-class free air travel, private education for the kids in exclusive schools, gyms, spas, health insurance for the family and parents, life insurance, disability insurance, and above all, nationwide fame and respect. Just like the greedy parents of the groom demanding a long list of dowry from the bride, their expectations were unrealistic. Not only unrealistic, they verged on royalty. Can anyone afford it? Of course, not. I know even Google, an Internet giant which tops the Forbes list of the Best Places to work in America for the last three years, cannot dream of providing such luxurious benefits to its employees. If it did, it will go bankrupt in a matter of days. And I am sure when it comes to cyber technology, no one beats Google!

Their bizarre expectations and offers aside, what surprises me is the willful suspension of their curiosity, the fundamental requirement of their profession, the trademark and the reason of their pride. How could they not ask: what was the source of income of the company, before joining it? Were they really that naive? Or was that not important, even after they had known?

Meanwhile, the question they can ask me or many of us who did not interview, negotiate or join the Bol network is what we would have done had we got the job offer? Would we have not followed the same path? I understand the hindsight vision is 20/20, and it is easier to claim piety in the absence of a real opportunity to make three times more money than the market rate. That's why I would not even venture to make such claims. However, what bothers me is the remorselessness of the journalists. I know I would have sent an unambiguous and precise apology as soon as the story broke, if I was involved. Nonetheless, they behave as if they have done nothing inappropriate or unprofessional. I agree that many of them may have not known about the department of the company dealing with fraudulent degrees but how could you not apologize to the nation for missing it?

Trying to draw a parallel, their situation reminds me of the position of Pakistan Army’s after the raid in Abbotabad by the US Navy Seals that killed Osama bin Laden: either you are an accomplice or incompetent, pick one. In the case of the former, it picked the latter choice which by far is the safer one. I think most of the journalists would do the same. And as far as we are concerned, we do not have a choice at all. In the case of military, we had to defend them, after all it was a matter of national pride and defense. Now, in the case of journalists, without any institutional action or state’s admonition, we will be at their mercy again like cattle ready to be butchered by their razor- sharp tongues. Trust me, few weeks from today, all of them will be back in action: perched at their comfortable chairs, they will be peering at us through the camera, claiming professionalism and integrity.