Broadcasting – Page 12 – Pakistan Coalition on Media Safety

March 11, 2019

NA panel to be briefed on proposed media regulator tomorrow

ISLAMABAD: The recently formed National Assembly Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting in its first formal meeting on Tuesday (tomorrow) will receive a briefing on the government’s move to set up the Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA) — a new body to monitor and regulate all the media in the country.

Besides this, the committee headed by Mian Javed Latif of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) is also expected to take up the issue of the ongoing controversy over the appointment of the managing director of the state-run Pakistan Television (PTV).

The agenda issued by the NA Secretariat for the meeting shows that the members will receive comprehensive briefing on the function/performance of the PTV and on the proposed legislation to set up the PMRA.

The federal cabinet had in its meeting on Jan 25 already approved formation of the PMRA that envisages merger of all the media regulatory bodies, including the print and electronic media.

With the formation of the PMRA, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) and the Press Council of Pakistan (PCP) would be merged into the new regulatory body.

The proposed legislation has already become controversial after its opposition by the representative bodies of journalists, newspaper editors and the owners of media houses.

Since the approval of the formation of the PMRA by the cabinet, Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry has been active in lobbying and holding consultations with the opposition parties to ensure smooth passage of the law from both houses of parliament.

Sources said the information minister had already arranged a couple of briefings for the members of the opposition parties on the issue, but he had not been able to get their support. They said the opposition members, mainly belonging to the PML-N and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), had suggested to the minister to hold a thorough debate on the proposed legislation at the appropriate forums.

When contacted, PML-N spokesperson Marriam Aurangzeb confirmed that Mr Chaudhry had approached them on the issue and sought their cooperation.

She said the opposition had asked the minister to debate the issue at the parliamentary forum and it was good that the government had accepted the proposal and now the NA committee would receive the briefing on it.

In reply to a question, Ms Aurangzeb said that she believed that the draft prepared by the government was “very weak”. She said there was no need for setting up a new regulatory body when the laws to regulate the media were already there.

Some critics claim that after putting the electronic media in crisis by cutting down the rates of their advertisements, the government wants to rein in the print media.

The All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) and the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE) had criticised the decision to set up the PMRA. The APNS termed it a “regressive measure”, while the CPNE described it as a move aimed at curbing the freedom of print media.

The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists has also opposed the government’s decision to establish the PMRA.

Briefing a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Information last month, the information minister had said that advancement of technology had led to converging of all news and entertainment media in mobile phones.

He also tried to dispel the impression that the new regulatory body was being established to curb media freedom in the country. He said the media in Pakistan enjoyed more freedom than any other country in the Muslim world as well as in the Third World.

“The present government believes in freedom of expression and does not want to impose any curb on free media,” the minister had told the committee.

Dawn

March 9, 2019

PPF condemns the attack on Joy FM Radio in Monrovia

Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF), in a letter to George Weah, President of Liberia has expressed concern over the attack on Joy FM Radio in Monrovia on March 5.

PPF Secretary General Owais Aslam Ali, has denounced the attack on Joy FM radio station and urged the concerned Liberian authorities to thoroughly investigate the matter and hold those responsible behind this attack.

According to Center for Media Studies & Peace Building (CEMESP), unknown assailants entered the premises of radio station and destroyed the equipment’s and cables connected to the Transmitter and the broadcast antenna.

Soon after the attack the station has been off the air. Joy FM is the member station of the Excellent Communication Incorporated, based in Liberia’s capital Monrovia.

Emmanuel Dahn, station manager of Joy FM, informed the audience through a social media post, “We regret to inform our listeners that we are off the air as result of an attack on our transmitter cables.”

March 7, 2019

Right of freedom of speech not absolute: SC

ISLAMABAD- The Supreme Court has observed that the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution is not absolute.

The top court has further observed that the said right cannot be stretched to cover a speech, comment or publication which may tend to influence, impede, embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice, scandalises the Court and brings the judges of this Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt.

The top court has reiterated its consistent view that the real object of initiating contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to the judges from imputation to which they might be exposed personally as individuals or to satisfy the ego of a judge by punishing such person, instead, it is to maintain and strengthen the confidence of the public in general and the litigants in the court and to vindicate the honour and dignity of the Court to ensure that the administration of justice is not diminished or weakened.

Issuing a 14-page judgment, the top court further observed that it is also true that courts in the matter of contempt tend to show grace and magnanimity towards the alleged contemnor in cases where the contemnor without justifying his action/statement shows his repentance.

“However, this is not a rule of thumb and cannot be applied to every case as an apology tendered does not automatically purge the contemnor of the contempt and may not necessarily be accepted unless the court from the surrounding circumstances is satisfied about the bona fide of the contemnor,” it added.

The judgment authored by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah on the Intra-Court Appeal, filed by Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) firebrand Talal Ahmed Chaudhry against his conviction in Contempt of Court, noted that the offending speech was made by him announcement of Panama Case verdict, which disqualified Nawaz Sharif for lifetime.

The judgment observed that some of the members of the then ruling party (PML-N), in order to show their allegiance with Sharif, started a campaign of maligning the Office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the Judges of this Court in public gatherings and on electronic media.

“The appellant being one such firebrand speaker has deliberately and intentionally in the stated background, through the stated utterances, attacked the integrity and independence of the judiciary to please and support his leader with the sole intent to ridicule and lower the respect and to shake the confidence of people at large from the safe administration of justice,” it added.

It maintained: “The tenor and content of the speech of the appellant clearly shows that it was designed and worded to scandalize the Court and to bring the judges of this Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt.”

The top court observed that the utterance made by Chaudhry can by no stretch of imagination be termed as bona-fide.

“In the instant case the appellant (Chaudhry) throughout has been trying to justify his offending statement by taking different pleas and even the apology so tendered was in case his justification with regard to the offending statement was not accepted.”

“Unfortunately we see neither genuine remorse nor sincerity on the apology which in the instant case is being used by the Appellant to get out of a difficult situation that he finds himself in for having used intemperate and contemptuous language against the highest Court of the country and the Judges.”

The top court while dismissing the ICA took the view that the contempt committed by Chaudhry is so grave that the apology is not sufficient to purge the contempt.

“The appellant in fact has crossed the boundary of decency and morality by a calculated move with an aim to obstruct and diminish the administration of justice and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to escape the consequences by pleading freedom of speech and expression.”

The top court further observed that Chaudhry tried to explain away and justify his actions and has tendered an apology only as a matter of abundant caution and as a fall back. “Such an apology cannot be accepted. The appellant has failed miserably in discharging that burden.” A five-judge bench headed by former Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar had heard the ICA of Chaudhry.

The top court in August last year had convicted Chaudhry in a contempt of court case and sentenced him till rising of the court with the imposition of a fine of Rs. 100,000.

Consequently Chaudhry, due to conviction, had also been disqualified under Article 63(1)(g) of the Constitution to contest any election for next five years for becoming a public office holder.

The Nation

The Express Tribune: ‘RTI law helped improve governance quality in K-P’

Dawn: ‘Era of hiding information from people is gone’

March 6, 2019

SC endorses Pemra’s 2016 restriction on Indian content

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed Pemra’s (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority) 2016 decision of restricting electronic media in Pakistan from broadcasting Indian content.

A three-judge SC bench consisting of Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan granted leave to an appeal moved by Pemra and suspended the July 18, 2017 order of the Lahore High Court (LHC).

The court, however, postponed further proceedings to consider whether the regulator had the authority to restrict airing of any foreign content and does such prohibition fall within the purview of Article 19 of the Constitution which ensures freedom of expression. The next date of hearing in the case will be decided later.

Pemra on Oct 19, 2016 imposed a blanket ban on all Indian content after relations between Pakistan and India soured against the backdrop of the Uri attack a month earlier. But the LHC on July 18, 2017 lifted the Pemra ban by declaring it null and void. Pemra had filed a petition in the apex court, challenging the LHC’s order.

Senior counsel Mudassar Khalid Abbasi, who represented Pemra, pleaded before the apex court that the 2006 permission of telecasting Indian content by different electronic media channels in Pakistan was conditional and subject to reciprocity on the part of Indian channels. He pleaded before the court to set aside the LHC order.

During the hearing Justice Ahsan wondered whether the high court had the domain to intervene in the affairs of Pemra. The apex court also observed that under Section 19 and 30(2) of the Pemra ordinance, the regulator had the authority to block any content if it considered it against the public interest and even alter the terms and conditions of a channel’s licence at any stage.

Tracing the history of the matter, the Pemra petition recalled how in January 2006 the then prime minister in a meeting authorised the regulator to draft a policy that Pakistani television channels can show small percentage of Indian content.

Subsequently, Pemra in its 36th meeting of February 2006 allowed 10 per cent foreign content to private channels of which 40pc (4pc overall) may be English content and the rest 60pc (6pc overall) may be Indian or other content.

Later in line with its decision of the 120th meeting of Oct 9, 2016, the regulator withdrew the 6pc Indian content, adding in future Indian content would not be allowed to broadcast or distributed in Pakistan except on the basis of matching reciprocity by India.

The petition explained that Messers Leo Communication (Pvt) Ltd (Filmazia) had instituted a petition before the LHC on March 2, 2017, seeking a declaration that Pemra’s Oct 19, 2016 circular was against its Ordinance of 2002 and, therefore, should be held illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

The LHC, however, set aside the Oct 19, 2016 circular by declaring it as unconstitutional and illegal.

The petition questioned could a single judge was justified in setting aside the regulator’s circular in exercise of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction and permitting broadcast of Indian content by broadcast media licensees while interpreting the relevant provisions of the constitution, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, Pemra Rules, 2009, Pemra Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015, Pemra (Television Broadcast Station Operations) Regulations, 2012 etc.

The petition asked was the high court declaration an academic exercise in wrongly and ornamentally interpreting public interest. Was the high court wrongly interpreted the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, flaccidly pleaded in terms of merely mentioning Article 19 in only one of the grounds when the main thrust of the petitioner before the high court was on its right to business of the foreign content.

The regulator also asked whether the high court wrongly held channel’s ‘right to choose a programming mix and broadcast 6pc Indian content under the licence agreement was premised on the fundamental right to free speech and expression.

Whether the high court order subsumed Indian content within the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, thus, indirectly holding that denial thereof placed a clog on every citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression vis-a-vis Indian content, the Pemra petition argued.

Whether not the high court while interpreting the legislative scheme, including the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, wrongly enlarged its scope, in effect embedding Indian content within its’ otherwise judicially evolved by degrees multidimensional categories of free speech.

And whether the high court’s judgement under question, perhaps indirectly placed Indian content upon a higher pedestal within the categories of free speech and expression, when, in fact, the same may, at best, be given the status of commercial speech or expression, if that, since admittedly the broadcast media licensees are only concerned with economic considerations of profit and loss, the petition said.

Dawn

The Express Tribune: SC bars channels from airing Indian content

The Nation: SC bans Indian content on Pak TV channels

Business Recorder: TV channels: SC reinstates ban on transmission of Indian contents

March 2, 2019

PPF condemns the ongoing attacks on Prime Television

Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF) in a letter to Edgar Lungu, President of Zambia has expressed concern over the recent attacks on Lusaka based Prime Television.

PPF Secretary General Owais Aslam Ali in his letter, has condemned the continuous attacks on Prime TV and urged the political parties and authorities in the Zambia to stop targeting journalists for their reporting. PPF also called on the media regulator Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), to stop supporting the political parties.

According to the African Freedom of Expression Exchange (AFEX), the Patriotic Front (PF) party attacked the privately owned Prime Television for its reporting on the Sesheke parliamentary by-elections.

On January 26, 2019, Davies Mwila, the Secretary General of PF party sacked the reporters of Prime TV from his press conference and announced publicly that the station is barred from covering the happenings of his party.

The remarks of Mwila provoked the supporters of party against the journalists working with Prime TV.

In different incidents, a group of youngsters supposed to be the supporters of OF party attacked three reporters of Prime TV.

On February 14, 2019, the group attacked Wells Chifunda who is a court reporter for Prime TV. In another incident, on February 8, assaulted Lyold Kapusa, a reporter for Prime TV also seized his laptop. On February 5, the group also attacked another reporter of the station, Kazela Habwanda.

Several politicians were also seen encouraging these attacks publicly antagonizing the station in their statements.

On February 15, IBA sent a letter to the Prime TV requesting the station’s editorial policy and broadcast recordings of its political shows, News Bulletin and Oxygen of Democracy Programme. The request was made after a complaint by the Secretary General of the PF who accused the channel of unfair and unethical coverage in the mentioned political news bulletin.

Again on February 28, the regulator summoned the management of the station and demanded that the channel should apologize to the Secretary General of the PF party within 14 days for alleged biased reporting on the party.

March 1, 2019

Fawad Chaudhry’s insistence

Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry told a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Information on February 25 that there was a need for a centralised regulatory authority for all types of media, print, electronic and digital. The minister mustered in support of his idea the convergence of news and entertainment in mobile phones because of technological advances. That may be so, although it is not yet a situation where the mobile phone reigns supreme unchallenged over all other sources of information. However, how this development justifies the setting up of the proposed Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA) to oversee (and control) all media was not explained by the worthy minister. To his credit, the minister at least paid lip service to consultations with political leaders and stakeholders to forge a consensus on the proposal and that PMRA would be free from government intervention. At present, the minister informed the committee, the Press Council of Pakistan (PCP) looks after matters related to the print media, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) the affairs of the electronic media and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) digital media and cellular companies. Fawad Chaudhry hastened to add that the new regulatory body was by no means being established to curb media freedoms. Contrary to the minister’s claim that the media enjoys more freedom than any other country in the Muslim or Third World (a dubious distinction even if accepted), media practitioners and users know the kind of control of news and information to bring it into conformity with the official narrative that has been at work in recent years. Media houses have been compelled on pain of financial survival if they do not toe the officially certified line. Self-censorship therefore is rife. The other contentious statement made by the minister to the Standing Committee was to shed crocodile tears for the plight of media workers, especially electronic media workers, who he argued did not enjoy the same protections under the law for their rights as the print media workers. He also bent his ‘concern’ for electronic media owners having to deal with problems stemming from being subject to different regulatory authorities to argue they would ‘benefit’ from the establishment of a centralised regulatory body. In the first place, Fawad Chaudhry should have taken the trouble to point out which are these ‘different regulatory bodies’ that electronic media owners have to deal with, since his statement contradicts what he had said about the existence and function of Pemra. Second, he should also have explained how a centralised media regulatory authority would benefit such owners. Merely asserting such conclusions without explicating and filling in the argument remains less than convincing. Last but not least, Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry thought little of sprinkling salt on the wounds of media workers by asserting that advertising was shifting from news channels to digital forums and thereby creating problems for the traditional news media. He neglected to mention his government’s role in creating unprecedented problems for the media by hitting it in its pocket where it hurts. Government advertising has been cruelly slashed both in quantum and rates under the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government. Whatever financial difficulties the media houses had been experiencing before, this ‘gift’ from the PTI government has led to thousands of journalists and media workers losing their jobs throughout the country as a result of the shrinking earnings of all media houses.

The minister’s effort to paint the government’s intentions vis-à-vis the freedom and independence of the media in a rosy light simply does not hold water. Print, electronic and even social media are being subjected as we speak to an intolerably high level of self censorship and control through intimidation and worse. Media houses are being squeezed financially through the government’s advertising policy. The most dire consequences of all this have fallen first and foremost on the heads of media workers. In any case, in democracies the media is free of the kind of regulation envisaged in the PMRA idea. Our Constitution’s Article 19 too empowers freedom of the media and expression. The minister’s insistence on monitoring the media through one overarching regulatory authority not only cuts across the grain of these freedoms, it raises suspicions that what is being proposed is a draconian censorship regime to outrival even the worst military dictatorship in our history.

Business Recorder

February 28, 2019

PPF condemns harassment on Zimbabwean journalist

Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF) in a letter to Emmerson Mnangagwa, President of Zimbabwe has expressed concern over the harassment on Zimbabwean journalist, Tafara Chikumira.

PPF Secretary General Owais Aslam Ali in his letter, has condemned the attack on journalist by political party’s security officials and urged the authorities and political parties to stop targeting journalists for doing their job.

According to Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), the security forces of MDC Alliance harassed the bureau chief of Zimbabwe Broadcasting Cooperation (ZBC), Chikumira.

The journalist was attacked while covering the rally held in Gweru’s Mkoba stadium on February 24. It was reported that security officials did not wanted ZBC to cover the event because they were of the view that ZBC is biased and covering the event in favour of the ruling party.

The security officials stopped harassing Chikumira only after the interference of MDC Alliance’s leader Nelson Chamisa.