A “WALKING shadow”. A “poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then is heard no more”. A “tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing”. Shakespeare was describing life. He could as easily have been writing about the state of Pakistan’s media.
On television screens, pundits screech and pontificate. Online, tweets and retweets document righteous fury and differing opinions. On radio, DJs chatter late into the night. In print, columnists fill column inches with feisty words, punctuation serving in place of pounding fists. But this is all noise without substance.
State attempts to control Pakistan’s independent media are near complete. The Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority, approved by the cabinet last week, is the formal trapping confirming what has long been implicitly known: there is no appetite for press freedom in Pakistan today. The PMRA will bring all media — print, broadcast, digital — under the control of one regulator that will dictate rules, licensing and punitive measures.
The PMRA’s approval should be the fillip that unites the media.
The consolidation of media regulation is particularly damaging to print media, historically perceived as the industry’s ‘release valve’, able to publish content that could not be broadcast owing to its limited readership. Beyond the centralisation of control, the PMRA also reeks of authoritarianism because it disregards the concerns of stakeholders such as media associations.
But the PMRA is not damaging in isolation. It comes as the culmination of a more than a decade-long campaign to stifle the press. This has been multipronged, entailing journalists’ intimidation and killing, stoking rivalries between media outlets, issuing backchannel directives about what can and cannot be published or broadcast, clampdowns on papers’ circulation, blocking channels and websites, silencing online voices.
The PMRA seems especially excessive because this campaign has been so effective. A report published last year by the Committee to Protect Journalists highlighted the widespread practice of self-censorship, with journalists conceding that they did not comment on no-go issues for fear of being sacked, harassed, killed (notably, journalists’ identified fear of retaliation by militant groups as another driver of self-censorship alongside pressure from state institutions). Against this backdrop, the PMRA will sanction overt censorship, beyond that which is already being done.
The PMRA’s approval should be the fillip that unites the media industry to coordinate its response to this attack on press freedom. The divisiveness within the industry has been a key reason for the state’s success in encroaching on freedoms so far. A first step could be for the independent media to reconsider self-censorship as the prime strategy for dodging strong-arming by the state, which will increase under the PMRA.
Self-censorship is a win-win for the state. It enables the semblance of a free and vibrant press — the sound and fury that the government can tout at international fora as proof of Pakistan’s democratic credentials — all the while signifying nothing, failing to report the truth, failing to hold state institutions accountable, failing to inform the citizenry.
By resorting to self-censorship, the independent media has hidden the extent to which it is cowered from its audiences, and left itself open to charges of venality and avarice. Pakistan’s middle classes have become accustomed to criticising what they read and watch, without demanding to learn what information is being denied to them.
Journalists must remember that the press comprises the country’s public record. It is what will become history, and what will inform future national narratives. Self-censorship, by definition, leaves things unsaid, without revealing that what is documented is merely a coerced sampling of available information. By self-censoring, the media becomes complicit in the authoritarian project of coining a unified, imposed narrative about the country, its politics, its predicaments and potential.
There is a reason why our senior journalists and editors, when confronted with press censorship under Zia, chose to black out columns to indicate when the military regime objected to certain content. This let the public know the conditions under which the press was operating. And while it didn’t help people learn what they were not being told, it empowered them to understand that they did not have the complete story. Such awareness helped fuel the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy, and kept the appetite for civilian rule alive through dark times.
History will view the formation of the PMRA as a low for the PTI government, confirmation of its undemocratic agenda and subservience to Pakistan’s real power brokers. But it will equally judge the media’s response to such draconian measures. Rather than be reduced to a “tale told by an idiot”, the independent media should seriously consider how it will write the story of resistance.
“The Supreme Court appropriately understood the importance of the internet to the way politics and free expression occur right now,” says Neil Richards, a professor at Washington University Law School, who specialises in First Amendment law.
“We cannot have a functioning First Amendment that doesn’t take First Amendment activity in a digital context into account.” While the court’s decision may set certain parameters for governments looking to restrict people’s online access, it has no bearing on what companies like Facebook and Twitter can do.
As private companies, they are already free to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. They could also, in theory, ban certain classes of felons from using the platform without fear of being sued for discrimination.
Discrimination law in the US only prevents businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex, and national origin. That means the very platforms which the Supreme Court has said play a critical role in our First Amendment rights still have full authority to censor any person or class of people they want to.
“If we’re really concerned about freedom of speech,” Richards says, “it means we have to keep paying attention to the decisions these businesses make with respect to the ability of their users to express themselves… In other words, while courts may have power over the law, it’s the rest of us who need to keep the internet’s gatekeepers accountable.”
Digital dullard that I am, ‘interruptions in service’ when trying to connect livestream with other verified profiles or social media influencers. Despite a strong internet connection, the interruptions are inexplicable, yet they seem to congregate around times when we are planning to talk about either Facebook and/or international causes.
My connections and I plan these livestreams via FB messenger. My ‘invite’ options, historically inconsistent, have now completely disappeared.
Should we have any expectation of privacy? Only an overriding public need should justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy. But we are talking about a private, digital entity so the definition of so-called private messaging should be clear that the messaging is not 100% reliable.
Personal Experience: At times, I have sent private messages to my individual friends and group messages and my message appears to have been read by the recipient (in FB messaging it shows ‘read’ or ‘seen by everyone’) but that’s not always the case. The recipient receives an ‘alert’ they’ve received a message but when they check, nothing is there. So, it appears to the sender, the message was ‘received’ when, in fact, it was not.
Who is ‘reading’ the messages if it’s not the intended recipient? How can Facebook claim to be good for global connectivity or business or the supreme gatekeeper for news when basic communications are unreliable?
Facebook claims, “We rely on a set of core values. These values — which we’ve been using for years — guide our thinking and help us keep the central experience of News Feed intact as it evolves. In our continued efforts to be transparent about how we think about News Feed, we want to share those values with you. We are not in the business of picking which issues the world should read about.
“We are in the business of connecting people and ideas — and matching people with the stories they find most meaningful. Our integrity depends on being inclusive of all perspectives and viewpoints, and using ranking to connect people with the stories and sources they find the most meaningful and engaging… The strength of our community depends on authentic communication.
“The feedback we’ve gotten tells us that authentic stories are the ones that resonate most. That’s why we work hard to understand what type of stories and posts people consider genuine — so we can show more of them in News Feed. And we work to understand what kinds of stories people find misleading, sensational and spammy, to make sure people see those less.”
Turn on the TV in the morning if you dare and tune in to the morning show circus.
You may encounter a bride, swathed in red, with a beautician who declares that she will clean the ‘dulhan ki moochhein’ (the bride’s upper lip hair). Surf ahead and you may see 20 enterprising beauticians, bending over women reclining in chairs, slathering layers of make-up on them in a ‘beauty race’. On another channel, women dressed in heavily embellished lehngas are having a ball as they try to burst balloons in a contest.
You’re also likely to encounter men and women in their wedding best, attending an on-air wedding. They’ll scream, they’ll laugh and they’ll dance their socks off to 10 songs or more. You may see a bride and groom, smiles plastered on their faces as they prepare to step into matrimonial bliss — and it could get confusing because you saw the same couple getting married in another ceremony on another morning show just a month ago. Even some of the wedding guests were the same. This motley crew of actors is on the payroll of multiple shows and they are happy to dance, cry and get married repetitively every time it is required.
On a truly gory morning, you may even see a host in morbid black, her head covered while she attempts to tap into the supernatural world with her guests for the day, a learned ‘baba’ and a harried soul who is ‘possessed’ and keeps succumbing to convulsive fits.
There’s more, so much more: the merits of polygamy are advocated, dark-skinned girls are freely called ‘negroes’ and ‘habshans’, remedies for becoming fair-skinned are suggested by learned ‘doctors’, potato and cucumber skins are rubbed on faces in order to miraculously cure acne and makeshift ‘catwalks’ showcase glaringly blingy designs.
Pemra recently issued an advisory notice to television channels that underlined the need to show sensible content in their morning shows. Just how far the decision will go to reign in this bawdy representation of Pakistani society remains yet to be seen
The unabashed mediocrity and senselessness of it all reminds me of something that playwright Anwar Maqsood said to me a long time ago. “TV was once meant to show content that entertained but simultaneously elevated the intellect. Now, TV merely deteriorates the intellect even more.”
Pemra to the rescue
The host of Chai, Toast Aur Host Dino (R) with Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy (2nd from left) and other guests | Dawn News
This all must have been precisely what the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) had in mind when it recently issued an advisory notice to television channels, highlighting the need to show sensible content in morning shows. The statement observed that the shows lacked creative content, relying primarily on subjects revolving around ‘matrimonial issues, wedding, dances, fashion, private lives’ and that many of the themes were likely to create an ‘inferiority complex among the masses.’
All this makes sense. Pemra’s moral police often gets things wrong, issuing decrees that curb creativity, but there is nothing creative about the shows that are being aired on our TV channels for two hours (or more) every morning. It’s just strange that these shows have hitherto been allowed to run rampant for nearly two decades now. What took Pemra so long to wake up and realise that morning shows were veritably the bawdiest representation of Pakistani society, slowly rotting away the cerebral capacities of the audience? Oh well. Better late than never.
The ratings race
“We don’t only air weddings and dances in our morning show,” objects Nida Yasir, who has been hosting ARY Network’s Good Morning Pakistan for nine years now. According to Nida, there’s a lot more to her show than merely dhol dhamaka. “There are so many shows in which we try to help people and raise funds for their education or medical needs. We often invite doctors and discuss health issues. I’m also very careful about the terminologies that I use. In a make-up-centric show, I’ll tell girls to ‘follow their own skin tone’ and to ‘not look grey’. I never use words such as ‘black’ for skin colour because I know that this can be offensive to some people.
“I am only human, though, and when you have been coming live on TV for as long as I have, there are bound to be a few mistakes. We used to air episodes on the supernatural but then I myself started getting scared. Once, the lights in the studio burst while we were filming such an episode. At another point, one of the show’s administrators began to foam at the mouth. This was when I decided that I no longer wanted to work on supernatural themes.”
Nida continues, “But yes, we do stage live weddings on our shows because those are the most popular episodes. Shows with intellectual content or even celebrity guests don’t guarantee ratings the way a wedding show does. There was a time when we would air one wedding week per year but then Shaista Lodhi [another popular morning show host] began to constantly air weddings in her morning show for another channel. The ratings of my show started going down and I had no choice but to launch into a long wedding season of my own!”
Pemra’s moral police often gets things wrong, issuing decrees that curb creativity, but there is nothing creative about the shows that are being aired on our TV channels for two hours (or more) every morning. It’s just strange that these shows have hitherto been allowed to run rampant for nearly two decades now.
The infamous Sahir Lodhi, who hosts the Sahir Lodhi Show on TVOne, says that the fanfare on his morning show helps in gaining the attention of the audience and then he slowly tries to educate them about different topics. “Even long before Pemra had issued its notice, I had been feeling the need to change the audience’s taste and to change the format of my morning show,” he claims. “Slowly but surely, I have been trying to do this. There are games and music but we have also recently aired episodes discussing important topics such as mental health. I also like to give hope to my audience in some way or the other. A lot of the masses that tune into my show live difficult lives and, in my own way, I try to steer their lives into a positive direction. We are living in the information age and, above all, I consider it my responsibility to empower people with knowledge. It’s a slow process, though. People are accustomed to turning towards morning shows for entertainment.”
Sahir Lodhi | Arif Mahmood/White Star
Jerjees Seja, CEO of ARY Digital Network, says that viewers always have the choice of changing the channel if they don’t like a certain show. “In Pakistan, the wedding season is our most festive season. Weddings are extensively planned out for months in advance. Women splurge out on hair, make-up and wardrobe. Lavish décor is selected, dances are prepared. Why shouldn’t we base our shows on a topic that the country enjoys so much? People who don’t want to see the on-air weddings — or game shows and beauty contests — can simply change the channel.”
But changing the channel often means proceeding on to another show that is more or less the same. Inane jokes, mindless games and a dance every 10 minutes — audiences love them, ads file in for the channel and the ratings rise high.
“Content deteriorates when you show people what they want to see.” — Ashfaq Ahmed
“Are ratings everything, though?” asks Anwar Maqsood. “You could show vulgarity and the ratings would go even higher. The whole nation would watch the show. But would that be the right thing to do?”
Qasim Shafique, producer of Chai, Toast Aur Host on Dawn News, says that he doesn’t really look at ratings. “On our show, audiences like topics that are relatable. Human interest stories tend to be liked a lot. I’m lucky that the channel doesn’t pressurise me into looking at ratings.”
Similarly, on Geo News, Huma Amir Shah and Abdullah Sultan host Geo Pakistan which relies primarily on news. “We are strongly opinionated and we mix things up, discussing pop culture along with more serious issues. I’m sure our ratings are not as high as that of commercial morning shows but we try to give people something to think about, something to take home with them,” says Huma Amir Shah.
Nida Yasir | ARY Network
In general, though, local morning shows predominantly lack intelligent content. “The host is hardly ever questioned and it’s very wrong,” admits Shaista Lodhi, one of Pakistan’s most popular morning show hosts who retired, she says, from the business about six months ago. Her last spate of morning shows was with the Geo TV Network.
“I started off the trend for weddings on shows, I’m the culprit,” she says. “But then it all went overboard. Even in a wedding-centric show, channels can abide by certain limits but that rarely happens. One of my very last shows was themed round how to get married in simplicity, within a small budget. It was a topic that I felt could be very helpful for viewers. But many times before, while enduring long wedding ceremonies on TV, I would wonder to myself what I was doing.
“I have hosted morning shows on veritably every major channel in Pakistan and, on every set, there is this pressure to win the ratings race. Often, as hosts, we end up negating our own personalities. We don’t want to wear heavily embellished clothes and slather on make-up early in the morning and shout and yell through a wedding ceremony. I’m a doctor and when I would sit next to a guest who would declare that depression could be cured by eating okra, I would cringe within. I would wonder if someday my medical license would be taken away because I was allowing unqualified people to speak out in my show.
“There is content that plays with people’s lives and health and creates delusions. A schizophrenic woman could get pronounced as ‘possessed’ or young girls are encouraged to think that their sole purpose in life is to please their husbands when they are advised to put on lipstick every evening or cook food in a certain way. There were make-up shows where the sole focus was on how to make small eyes look big. I felt like I was doing a crime.
“I observe some of the terminologies that are used at large by hosts,” Shaista continues. “A woman who has been unable to have children for 12 years, is described as ‘beychaari’ [wretched]. Instead of guiding her to live her life in constructive ways, she is further jostled towards mental stress. It’s just wrong. If at any point I wanted to add in a quote or make an intellectual reference, I would be told by my heads that no one wanted to hear it and that I needed to move on to catchier topics.
“Perhaps I’m able to say all this now because I’m no longer hosting a show. I got tired of it a long time ago but I couldn’t back out because I was a single mother at the time who had bills to pay. Now that I could leave the business, I immediately did so.”
“Teach the people what they want to see.” — Mustansar Hussain Tarrar
Regardless, the choice to monitor content on morning shows lies with channels. Pemra’s statement has been issued as ‘advice’ and it is up to channel heads whether they want to follow it or not. With high ratings come high earnings and there’s a big chance that the morning circus will continue on, completely disregarding the argument that they are doing a disservice to the nation.
There was a time, though, when mornings would be different. Many years ago, veteran author, actor and host Mustansar Hussain Tarar would be the nation’s morning fix, taking the stage on the only channel that was aired on TV at the time. Amiably, he would drift through topics that varied from current affairs to the latest music, books and advice to children. “I deliberately wore Pakistani clothes because I wanted my transmission to be representative of my country. And my primary purpose was to create awareness about our country and culture amongst the audience,” he remembers. “I would work hard on creating content. I wanted the audience to treat me like I was family. I would laugh with them, shed a tear if I felt like it. It won me my country’s love. The children who saw my show referred to me as ‘Chachaji’. Tariq Aziz and I were the first comperes to be awarded Pride of Performance.”
But fast-forwarding to an era where multiple channels contest against each other, could a morning show along the lines of Tarar’s transmission still gain the audience’s attention? “There is a way of presenting things,” he says. “A host needs to be well-informed, intelligent and witty. I don’t agree with the argument that this is what the public wants. Media is an extremely powerful medium and it can actually dictate to the public what it wants.
“I was once invited to Nadia Khan’s show and she said on air that I was the ‘father of all morning shows in Pakistan’. I corrected her and said that while one or two of the shows may be considered the offspring of my transmission, the others certainly were not. Most of the shows that are allowed on to our channels every morning are sickening.
“A morning show needs to have impact,” he continues. “I remember that I used to tell the children watching my show that the ones who studied were ‘baa-baa bachchay’ and that those were my favourites. Some years later, I was hosting an event where India’s Prime Minister was given the Guard of Honour by the Pakistan Air Force. After the event, I was leaving when I saw the PAF batch approaching me. They marched up to me formally and then their Commander gave me a Guard of Honour. He told me, ‘We are the baa-baa bachchay of your morning transmission. It is because of you that we are here’.
“At another time, I had shaved my head during my month-long Ramazan break and when I returned to the morning show, my hair hadn’t grown back entirely. I started off the show, quoting Aristotle and then I paused and quipped with the viewers, ‘Here I am, quoting Greek philosophy to you and all you can do is stare at my head!’ A few days later, the principal of a school in Islamabad stormed on to our sets and complained that I had created a huge problem for her because half the boys on her campus had now gone bald. Then, in my next show, I spoke to the children that they didn’t need to do so.”
It’s true that no present day host can claim to have such iconic status amongst his or her viewers. Channels and hosts are far too busy tussling over short-term profits to aim for long-term impact. Could Pemra’s advice be taken seriously and channels make a patriotic, deliberate effort to work long and hard at creating intelligent content for the many viewers that turn to TV every morning? Or perhaps we could all take a cue from Anwar Maqsood and hope that every morning, there is ‘loadshedding’ at the time of morning shows!
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) have expressed serious concern at the establishment of Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA), replacing the existing print and electronic media statutory media bodies, maintaining that the government’s objective appears to be to control both electronic and print media.
This was the outcome of an anecdotal survey carried out by Business Recorder of the two top lawyers’ bodies in the country.
PBC Vice-Chairman Kamran Murtaza categorically stated that the objective behind creating the new body appears to be to control the media. In the presence of separate bodies for electronic and print media there is no need for an amalgamated regulatory body, he added.
Murtaza further contended that “stifling independent voices, controlling democratic institutions and curbing journalists engaged in criticizing the illegal and unlawful steps of the incumbent government will not be in anyone’s interest and would ultimately destroy institutions.”
Amanullah Kanrani President SCBA said restriction on freedom of speech and expression would not be tolerated and cited Article 19 which stipulates: “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the 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 SCBA President pledged to oppose the passage of any law contrary to the spirit of Article 19.
Advocate Shafqat Abbasi, former chairman PPC, hailed the idea of bringing print, electronic and social media under one roof, but said instead of government the media should manage the body. He noted that in Europe and South Africa the media is run by media given that the bureaucrats or politicians are not aware of media problems.
Abbasi further pointed out that the Press Council Ordinance, Press Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance and Pemra were enacted after dialogue and consultation by the government with the media bodies.
The All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) flayed the federal cabinet’s decision to set up PMRA lamenting the lack of consultation with stakeholders.
APNS office bearers have stated that it would be impractical to bring print and electronic, ie, TV, radio, social and digital media under one regulatory authority maintaining that while the broadcast and digital media may be brought under one umbrella print media is different in nature, format and issues arising thereof, cannot be lumped together.
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) Saturday rejected the government’s recent decision to establish the Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA).
A joint statement issued by the PFUJ President Afzal Butt and Secretary General Ayub Jan Sarhandi said establishing the Authority would be an act worse than the Press and Publications Ordinance promulgated by the former military dictator General Ayub Khan.
The PFUJ expressed serious concern over the government’s decision and warned that it would not accept such draconian black laws.
“The establishment of PMRA is shrouded in mystery and the draft for establishment of the Authority has not been shared with relevant stakeholders. The PFUJ has come to know that the draft for establishment of PMRA has provisions related to cruel punishments for violations, which have not been made public,” said the statement.
It said aimed at introducing a system of annual licensing for the print media, establishment of PMRA is akin to making the press subservient to the bureaucrats of the Federal Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
This is in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees freedom of expression as a fundamental human right. Establishment of a federal institution to regulate printing and publication – which is a provincial subject after the 18th Constitutional Amendment – interferes in the domain of provinces and is, therefore, also in violation of the Constitution.
The government is violating the Constitution with the ulterior motive of subjecting the print media to draconian black laws, which would never be accepted by PFUJ.
Bringing print and electronic media, i.e., radio, TV, and digital media, under a single regulatory authority is completely illogical.
The two domains are completely distinct from each other requiring different rules and regulations. Nowhere in the civilized world-including developed and developing countries-are the regulatory bodies and regulatory rules of the print and electronic media the same. Putting both print and electronic media under a single regulatory authority in Pakistan would, therefore, create serious problems for freedom of press, accountability, and governance.
Media stakeholders were not taken onboard on the decision for establishing the PMRA. The PFUJ would not accept enactment of any media-related law without its input in the process. Establishment of the PMRA would abolish laws like the Press Council of Pakistan Ordinance, Press Newspapers, News Agencies, and Books Registration Ordinance, and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), which were promulgated after consultations with the media representatives.
Abolishing the aforementioned laws would also put an end to the Wage Award under which the media employees’ salaries are determined.
The PFUJ has a long and proud history of struggle against such draconian laws and warns the government to stay away from opening another Pandora’s Box for itself by establishing the PMRA.
The PFUJ urges the democratic forces, scholars, civil society, political parties, and lawyers to unite in raising their voice against government’s attempts at curbing freedom of press.
The PFUJ appeals to the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS), Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE), and Pakistan Broadcasters’ Association (PBA) to fully support the struggle against imposition of draconian laws to curb freedom of press.
Let us not forget that freedom of press is the key to democratic freedom. As famously put by Thomas Jefferson, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”
Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF) in a letter to Prokopis Pavlopoulos, President of Greece has expressed deep concern over the attack on three journalists covering protests outside the parliament house in Athens.
PPF Secretary General Owais Aslam Ali in his letter, has denounced this unjustified attack on journalists in the line of duty and called on the authorities and law enforcement agencies to thoroughly interrogate the matter and hold those responsible for this vicious act.
According to European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), three journalists including German journalist Thomas Jacobi, Greek photojournalist Kostis Ntantamis and a cameraman of the state owned broadcaster ERT were attacked by the followers of Greek Neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn.
The journalists were covering the demonstrations held outside the parliaments building on Syntagma Square regarding renaming of North Macedonia.
The demonstrators hit Jacobi on his face after they recognized his previous work on Golden Dawn, the 2015 documentary “Golden Dawn: A Personal Affair. What’s in the mind of the Neo-Nazi next door?”
The protestors beaten Jacobi injuring his face, damaged his equipment’s and asked him to remove footage and pictures he taken on his mobile phone.
On another place during same protest, unidentified demonstrators assaulted photojournalist Ntantamis, injuring his head while his equipment was also stolen.
AGAINST sane advice, the PTI government has moved ahead with its agenda to tighten its control over the media. On Thursday, the federal cabinet approved the creation of the Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority that will enable the government to ‘regulate’ all media in the country from one platform.
The step has come in the face of strong resistance from media organisations and journalists amid severe criticism of the PTI setup’s overall handling of the conventional fourth pillar of the state. The government’s move is especially senseless when it is considered that print and electronic media are separate entities, each with its own defining features.
Indeed, democratic societies, while they may see the necessity to have regulations for the 24/7 electronic media, allow news publications to check their own content through a code of ethics — in keeping with the principle of freedom of expression.
Unfortunately, the PTI’s move to bring all media under state control, smacks of an authoritarian streak that should have no place in a democratically elected setup. Remarks such as those uttered by Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry on Thursday that all bodies representing journalist bodies would be taken ‘on board’ in formulating rules for the PMRA gloss over the fact that these very bodies i.e., CPNE, the Press Council, APNS and PFUJ, had already opposed the creation of the new regulator.
It is no secret that the PTI government has an adversarial relationship with the media. Much of this is the rulers’ own fault. They have unwisely created an atmosphere where any criticism of the government is seen as an ulterior motive, leaving little room for an exchange of views which is central to a nation’s progress. On too many occasions, PTI cadres have denigrated the press and hurled invectives at those who have raised questions about the government’s performance.
This is a short-sighted approach, especially when the PTI itself has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of media freedom in Pakistan. It makes little sense for it to try and destroy the very vehicle which has helped it reach the seat of power.
Crucially, by its actions, it has also shown contempt for the long, difficult journey taken by Pakistan’s press. Over the course of the years, journalists have been imprisoned, tortured and killed in the line of duty. Their hard-won gains must be defended, in fact, built upon, not snatched away by a setup that seeks dictatorial ‘solutions’ through the creation of a new regulatory body —without realising that it is setting a trap the government itself could fall into.
With the rulers in full war regalia, it seems that it is now up to the media itself to protect its freedoms, and unite in the face of any attempt to shake the foundations of an independent press.
