Electronic Media Or A State-Controlled Media?
Social media unveiled many aspects of society. The reality of many aspects is uncovered on social media that are censored or biased, as shown by other channels like electronic and print media. In a state like Pakistan, the huge difference could be observed between ground realities and news shown to the public, creating a doubt about the credibility of electronic media that acts like a state-controlled media in Pakistan. All over the world, in every country and every culture, storytelling has significant power. The stories that we are told on our screens and in advertising build identities, determine behaviors, and forge our dreams. Researchers found that stories repeated in our minds actually interact with our brains, which need shortcuts to simplify and organize information and data constantly coming at us. They impact how we view the world and make meaning from what we perceive. The narrative we tell and are told has the potential to create and continue prejudice beliefs by those few who dominate the storytelling sphere, so what dangerous ways has this materialized itself in the media and advertising?
We are warned so much against social media because of how it is destroying lives. Social media is criticized at every platform to exaggerate things or to be used as a tool for incorporating propaganda against state institutions. The harms of social media are there, but then what is the most trustworthy source of news and information? People consumed content previously as well and were heavily dependent on electronic media or print media for the cause, and more or less print and electronic media were the same thing and act as two bodies of the same organization, particularly in Pakistan. What this media had to offer in Pakistan kept the reality of the state and its institutions hidden from the public for so many years as the channel to control people’s minds was narrower, so these media outlets were controlled, and even today the level of reporting and news casting in Pakistan is biased to a shameful extent. They work on guidelines that could not justify the parameters of free journalism. Media houses are owned by political and well-connected businessmen, and it seems they also own journalism in Pakistan as well. Sometimes a national tragedy will go unreported, and sometimes we could see glorification of a particular sect to unbelievable extents. Even the guidelines of not mentioning the name of Imran Khan—the leader of Pakistan, Tehreek e Insaf—are strictly followed by these jokers as if it makes a difference. The only thing it represents is that it satisfies the ego of some retard because no other logic justifies the level of pathetic criteria followed by Pakistani electronic media.
The way to create a false narrative with such confidence is humorous, where you would see media addressing one element as anti-state one day and the other element, which they tried to show loyal, would be declared rebels by them on the other. The instructions change, and so does the tone of the media regarding a subject. As a free reporting organization, one can never label its own citizens as anti-state always and be biased regarding state institutions. The root cause of corrupt establishments that control Pakistan lies in the lies of this media. The sheer cover they get from electronic, or rather “controlled media,” has been a powerful tool for them and a question for us about the sources we trust for information.
The average person spends over 11 hours a day watching, listening, reading, and interacting with media; therefore, mass media has the power to challenge and change perceptions. The next time you are consuming content from the media, ask yourself whose voice is telling this story. Who is it trying to represent? The alternate of social media has its own pros and cons; it is on us to evaluate the facts and ground realities and not the opinions of storytellers working as biased agents dressed as media representatives in Pakistan.