The golden goose

IT might be an odd week to write about journalism and indulge in some navel gazing, for much has happened in recent days to keep everyone occupied. From the Imran Khan health saga to tragedies that have left most gasping, with the fire at Pims and the murder of Hina Javed — whose husband has been arrested — in Pindi. And this was just in the twin cities. There was more such news from elsewhere — the rape and murder of a child in Haripur and the broader insecurity faced by people living in parts of KP and Balochistan.

But it has to be said that the two incidents in Islamabad and Pindi — the power centre of this country — forced the state and society to pay attention. Indeed, at one level, one welcomed the fact that there had been little effort to stop the wall-to-wall coverage of and commentary on these two incidents. After a long time, it seemed as if journalists reported, commented and spoke without looking over their shoulder.

So unusual was the experience that it was discussed in more than one newsroom, as insignificant hacks wondered what had happened and why there was some space. After all, now we live in a world where so much of what is happening in the country is a ‘red line’ — from the trees in Islamabad to incidents in our ‘invisible’ provinces to angry protests. Most of it is now left unreported. It is uncovered only by those who are willing to turn into Sherlock Holmes, trawling through social media for ‘events’. Simply the ‘what and when’ is becoming the holy grail. For the television channels beamed into our homes and the newspapers delivered to our phones have learnt that they can only print all the news considered fit to print by the powerful in Pakistan.

And this has had an impact on the media industry in ways that are yet to be understood and analysed.

Most media owners are no longer interested in investing in human resource.

At the most basic level is the credibility gap issue and how it is adding, perhaps, to the shift of people to social media platforms for news. I use the word ‘perhaps’ because it is something I encounter anecdotally. People are moving to social media to learn about the issues no longer covered by the mainstream press. Part of it might be because digital platforms are now providing more innovation in content than the mainstream — for instance, the former now provide space for longer and more meaningful conversations than the same hurried, oft-repeated debate that has become the hallmark of lazy television journalism. Light, satirical commentary on politics is now also more readily available on the newer platforms.

But this growth of the social media is now also changing trends within the industry where most acceptable ‘stories’ now make their way to platforms other than the mainstream press. Consider the story about Imran Khan first being taken to hospital for treatment. It came via a vlogger/ journalist on his YouTube show. Similarly, a podcast owned by Geo News disclosed that some IPP parliamentarians are drawing closer to PML-N and might even join it. And even more recently, the news of Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari’s possible engagement was made public in a YouTube conversation before it reached the mainstream. Even before these incidents, the story about Mohammad Zubair meeting the then army chief on behalf of Maryam Nawaz and Nawaz Sharif was provided on social media; in hindsight, it seems the news in this case may have been provided by the powers that be.

These are some examples of stories which could have been reported by the mainstream media but were not. In some cases, it can be argued the podcasters preferred to use their personal platforms rather than the ones they are employed at. But can it explain all the cases? And it is also noteworthy that employers no longer feel the need to curb their employees on individual platforms. For in an industry where owners no longer care about audiences and are busy making money from government revenue (which is linked to docility rather than journalism), few are interested in either the quality of programmes or of what the anchors are doing outside of the show. Because nothing matters other than sanitised mindless shows and reporting which ensures generous revenue and no official reprimand.

This is also why news channels no longer show any of the angst or energy in terms of reporting or content as was the hallmark of the earlier years. Programming has become monotonous; there is little innovation, and field reporting now takes place once there is some push from up above (and I don’t mean the management). Owners are busy counting ad revenue, access and favours and the ones in power are busy patting themselves on the back for having controlled the narrative. And if the people are no longer buying it, the echo chamber doesn’t let anyone find out.

But there is an even more serious angle to this. Most media owners are no longer interested in investing in human resource for it is no longer needed as such. Who needs reporters, when reporting simply creates problems? Why bother hiring senior editorial people when stories no longer need to be vetted? And none of this affects the bottom line? Because content and reporting has little to do with how much money can be made. This is why nearly every other day comes the news of one channel or another firing people. It’s not random and neither is it whimsical. It reflects the priorities of an industry whose economic model is not linked to the quality of its output. Soon the industry might be tempted to replace news and programme hosts with AI-generated ones, if the latter come cheap enough and can be controlled.

But I wonder if anyone has bothered to think about a day when the media loses its nuisance value entirely. Will the moolah still continue to flow into the coffers of the mainstream? Or will it simply fade into oblivion?

The writer is a journalist.

Published in Dawn, September 1st, 2026