Why many public officials have fear of headlines?
An honest officer should never fear an uncomfortable question, and an honest journalist should never need the threat of an uncomfortable headline to seek an answer.
Dr. Fiaz Maqbool Fazili
There is a question that has long intrigued me: Why do so many chief executives, senior officers and public officials seem uneasy, sometimes even fearful, of journalists and media owners? This piece highlights an uncomfortable question about respect, fear, accountability and the changing face of journalism., an excerpt from how to save the media.
Is it respect for the Fourth Estate? Concern about being misunderstood? Or fear of waking up to find one’s name dominating headlines, television debates, or social media feeds for all the wrong reasons?
Journalism remains one of the democracy’s most vital institutions. A free and responsible press questions authority, exposes wrongdoing, highlights public grievances and gives voice to those who might otherwise remain unheard. Its role as a watchdog is not a favour to governments or administrations; it is a democratic necessity. Yet the relationship between public institutions and sections of the media has become increasingly complicated.
The central question is simple: Do officials fear accountability, or do they fear adverse publicity? The two are not the same.
An honest officer should never fear legitimate scrutiny. Decisions based on facts, law, public interest and institutional integrity should withstand questioning, however uncomfortable. Accountability is part of public service.Yet many officials become visibly anxious when a journalist calls, a media owner seeks a meeting, or an unfavourable report begins circulating. Why?
Part of the answer lies in the growing power of perception. In today’s political and administrative environment, reputation is often shaped as much by media narratives as by actual performance. A favourable report can instantly create an image of efficiency and vision. An adverse story, even when incomplete or inaccurate, can trigger uncomfortable questions from superiors, political leaders and stakeholders.
As a result, some officials spend more time managing perceptions than improving institutions. That is where the danger begins.
Good governance should never become subordinate to good publicity. Public officials must engage with the media, provide information and explain decisions. But they should never feel compelled to cultivate individuals or media organisations merely to avoid criticism.
There is an important distinction between professional engagement and patronage.
The situation becomes even more troubling when negative publicity is perceived as a tool of pressure. Any attempt to seek favours, privileged access or special treatment under the shadow of adverse coverage undermines the credibility of journalism itself. Where such conduct occurs, it should be addressed through evidence and due process, not by discrediting the entire profession. At the same time, the media landscape has changed dramatically.
Traditional journalism, with its editorial safeguards and fact-checking mechanisms, now competes in a digital ecosystem driven by speed and sensationalism. News, opinion, activism, propaganda and personal grievances often occupy the same space.
A photograph, edited video, anonymous allegation or unverified claim can go viral within minutes. Facts frequently struggle to keep pace with speculation. The result is a culture in which public judgment is sometimes delivered before evidence is examined. Trial by social media has become an unfortunate reality. Yet concern about irresponsible reporting cannot become an excuse for resisting scrutiny. Public office does not confer immunity from criticism. On the contrary, the greater the authority, the greater the obligation to explain and justify decisions.
Editorial independence must never become a commercial instrument or a means of extracting influence. Journalism derives its authority from credibility, fairness and public trust. When facts give way to sensationalism, everyone loses: institutions, journalism and the public alike.
Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of journalists continue to uphold the highest traditions of their profession. They work under difficult circumstances to expose corruption, highlight genuine public concerns and recognise exemplary work that might otherwise go unnoticed. Their contribution deserves respect and protection.
It would be unfair to let the actions of a few diminish the credibility of the many.
Public officials must also engage in honest introspection. Have we become so accustomed to controlled narratives that difficult questions now seem threatening? Have we confused public relations with public accountability? Are we seeking approval from headlines instead of earning trust through performance? These questions deserve reflection.
An upright officer should be equally comfortable with praise and criticism, provided both are based on facts. The responsibility of an administrator is not to ensure favourable coverage but to ensure effective governance. Institutions that function with integrity should be able to withstand scrutiny.
Similarly, journalists must remember that criticism carries responsibility. Facts must be verified, context respected and individual dignity preserved. Journalism serves the public best when it informs rather than inflames.
Respect should be mutual, but fear should have no place in this relationship.What is needed is a healthier understanding between the media and public administration: transparency without intimidation, criticism without malice, access without obligation and accountability without vendetta.
Public officials should neither court journalists for favourable headlines nor avoid them for fear of difficult questions. Journalists should neither seek proximity to power for personal advantage nor treat every disagreement as a scandal. Both institutions ultimately serve the same public interest.
The best defence against adverse publicity is not a carefully cultivated media network. It is integrity, sound judgment, documentary evidence and the courage to answer difficult questions.
Let the media question public officials. Let it investigate and expose wrongdoing. But let it do so fairly, accurately and responsibly. Likewise, let public officials have the confidence to distinguish between legitimate scrutiny and conduct that genuinely warrants a formal complaint. After all, a journalist’s duty is not to make an officer comfortable, and an officer’s duty is not to make a journalist happy. The responsibility of both is to serve the public.
Perhaps the day we stop fearing headlines and start focusing on the quality of our work, the relationship between the media and public administration will become healthier, stronger and more meaningful. That would be a welcome beginning.
(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE. The Author is a Medico, Senior Columnist, Writes regularly on ethics, moral values, integrity and social responsibility.)
