Freedom and responsibility go together
It is rightly said that press (media) and a nation rise and fall together. The media as a fourth pillar of the state and representing the society is supposed to maintain its pluralistic hue wedded to the cause of defending the social values, human liberties and freedoms that are indispensable for the socio-economic development of the society besides playing its educative role on issues of crucial national interest in an independent and impartial manner.
The media is also required to promote and defend democracy as its own freedom is reinforced in a democratic set up. This is how it can play an effective role in the rise of a nation. Any conduct and behaviour contrary to that ultimately leads to fall of a nation.
Judged on the touchstone of the foregoing, the media landscape in Pakistan presents a very dismal picture. While it zealously tends to maintain and protect its freedom, it is not showing the sense of social responsibility that goes with the freedom of expression. The media outlets, like the political polarisation in the country, have also become highly polarised.
The conduct of the media during the last three years of political turmoil in the country and run up to the recently held elections clearly manifested that phenomenon.
Some channels have been persistently engaged in tarnishing the image of the leadership of a particular party and dishing out unauthentic information about alleged corruption; some have been promoting the narrative of the anti-democratic forces and the interests and views of the political parties and vested interested they represented.
Mutual rivalries between channels and media groups going beyond fair and competition in the market of ideas and descending into the realm of degrading dispositions towards each other were yet another contributing factor to the overall irresponsible behavior of the media. The new entrant to the media mix, the social media, has played a very dirty role in spreading falsehood, fabricated news to malign opponents through fake accounts.
It was particularly used to mislead the youth in regards to national issues. It went on un-checked with all the negative consequences.
John Wilkes, a radical and popular politician of London, a journalist and pioneer of freedom of press in Britain during the eighteen century, writing in the first issue of his weekly newspaper “The North Britain” in 1762 said “Freedom of expression is the bulwark of all other liberties in Britain.”
This quote almost has a biblical sanctity for all the nations that value human rights and liberties and their significance in nation building, especially those professing democratic dispensations. In fact freedom of expression and democracy reinforce each other and arguably are mutually indispensable.
Freedom of expression is also one of the fundamental rights enunciated in the Declaration of Universal Human Rights of the United Nation.
In conformity with that almost all nations signatory to the declaration and having written constitutions do provide constitutional guarantees for the freedom of expression.
It is an irrefutable reality that the government has a constitutional duty to ensure that all the entities operating with the boundaries of the state do not cross the Rubican
Article 19 of the Pakistan constitution also reiterates the freedom of expression and speech in these worlds “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression and there shall be freedom of press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court {commission of} or incitement to an offence”
The constitutional provision for freedom of expression and media is in consonance with the internationally recognized role of the states to regulate all the entities within its territorial limits in such a way that they contribute to the strengthening of the state, its ideological moorings, national interests and the moral values of the society with a view to promote peace and tranquility in the country.
In fact there is no concept of unbridled media freedom in the world and rightly so. It is universally recognised that freedom comes with responsibility. The media in any state has to exhibit sense of responsibility while enjoying its freedom.
The Social Responsibility Theory propounded by Dr Robert Maynard Hutchison, Vice Chancellor of Chicago University who headed Hutchison Commission formed in US in 1942 to make recommendations on the freedom of expression and media’s obligations towards the society — in the backdrop of growing calls by the US public for government intervention to check the indiscretions of the media and attempts by the media to avoid incisive government regulation — remarked “freedom comes with responsibility.
The report of the Commission submitted in 1947, is regarded as the Magna Carte of the modern concept of freedom of expression and media’s responsibilities towards the society. It unequivocally emphasised the need for media to provide accurate, truthful and comprehensive account of events, act as a forum for exchange of comment and criticism, present and clarify goals and values of the society and make sure that it projects a representative picture of the constituent groups of the society.
The report also reiterated the fact that society and public have a right to expect high standards of performance and as such intervention can be justified to secure public good. Ethical and professional codes of conduct for the media drawn up by UNESCO, International Federation of Journalists, Media associations, Press Councils in the countries where self-regulatory arrangement is in place and the code of ethics which forms the part of Press Council Ordinance in Pakistan invariably espouse the principles of the Social Responsibility Theory propounded by Hutchison Commission.
The media can defend its freedom and play its defined role only when it acts with responsibility. Nevertheless it is an irrefutable reality that the government has a constitutional duty to ensure that all the entities operating with the boundaries of the state do not cross the Rubican.
One would like the media to self-regulate itself in a manner that while playing its role as a watch-dog against the government, it also serves the cause of the society and the state by maintaining its pluralistic disposition.
In the post-election scenario and the permeating diabolical challenges in the country it has to exhibit greater sense of social responsibility instead of playing a partisan role and being part of propaganda of the vested interests, specific political groups and parties.
It needs to present realistic and truthful picture of the unfolding scenario to the public and in its capacity as watch-dog against the government also guide and help the new ruling dispensation in making right and informed decisions for tackling the behemoth challenges confronting the country.
The media owes it to the nation and itself. The incumbent government will also have to make sure that the media enjoys freedom of expression within the parameters of the internationally recognised ethical and professional codes of conduct and the social media is also regulated properly.
