With respect to governmental information, any government distinguishes which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest.

However we also know that a free press plays a key role in sustaining and monitoring a healthy democracy, as well as in contributing to greater accountability, good government, and economic development. Most importantly, restrictions on media are often an early indicator that governments intend to assault other democratic institutions. The freedom of media is also affirmed by Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"

On basis of above What do you Think? Press should be given freedom or not?

well, it will be just like a sweeping generalization or a sort of judgemental statement, if one takes either side of your question. press should be given freedom but not at the cost of national interst, across the countries if you analyze the role of press, it always safeguards national interest, in the case of our country, (if my example goes right) there remained a tension between military and civilian, at the time when press was given freedom. the role of press was remained like adding fuel to fire instead of becoming up front in such situtions. Remember those talk shows, when, even foreign policy of our country was under a sever debate, in such a way as if it is the game of public sphere. I think such screcies should be the matter of thinktanks not of media anchors.
on the other front, freedom of press brought some awakening moments in the public history of our country, as a result injustice has paved its way to public notice via press.
Press should be given freedom, but it should not forget its responsiblities while delivering its services.

I am writing it in hurry so pardon for mistaks.

__________________
Self-confidence is the first requisite to great undertakings.

@ ZARLASHT
Free press iz the life blood of democracy which should be protected at all costs.
Free press acts as eyes and ears of govrnment.A sensible government would take full advantage of the intelligence and information provided by the press free of costs.
But it is the duty of press also to use such indepedence and freedom in better way and for the sake of thier country.but im in favour of freedom of press because it make the govt accountabla to the people and the leaders are no more capiable to keep secret any thing from people and press provide an opportunity to the people to take part in decision making of country.

thnx

Freedom of press has its merits and demerits.
As in the case of judiciary issue press played a positive role by telling people importance of independent judiciary and pressurizing the political leadership to respect the popular opinion.
But in case of terrorism role is mostly negative as media went after sensationalism and did not checked credibility of information (video of swati girl).
So there must be a censorship that can maintain a check and balance.
Not, ofcourse, by the government but some body or committee of civil society can do this job.
Moreover there must be some qualification that makes you eligible to be a tv anchorperson.
Immature boyish attitude should be discouraged by the masses.

Salams, media is indeed a basic pillar of every nation,s developement, prosperity, character, collective effort, and sovereignity.. There is no doubt a media war or i wud rather say a media competition going on in the world.. Instances are countles, ri8 frm the cold war to 9/11, 7/7, mumbai attack,israeli agression and still going on.... Media is a tool used by the bigger powers to gud effect in the late 20th and early 21st century thus far.. So the role is huge.. AT THE SAME TIME THERE IS A VERY FINE GAP B/W CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE JOURNALISM. The pakistani media in particular has a difficult role to play at an age of infancy. The newly vibrant media should concentrate on being the eyes and ears of people and govt of pakistan and not the hearts and minds of them.. The decision of govt to abandon revealing matterz of national security to the public should be welcomd in gud faith.... Long live pakistan.

Well an interesting topics and I feel great to have known everyone’s point of view. I am of the opinion that media should never be given any opportunity to create anarchy, the best illustration was part played in the downfall of Musharraf regime and then how it participated in the reinstatement of Chief Justice of Pakistan.
Though I believe, what happened showed a glimmer of democratic values which we still have but if in a glance over the Swat and Balochistan issues; it wouldn’t be hard to perceive that it’s still indulged into the similar activities. At one side the national channels of our country gives a vague idea of how we are progressing with each new moon and on the contrary, private channels present the same issues as a prevailing mayhem. Another reason of this havoc being played is the fierce competition between the numerous channels, to fascinate the viewers they can always be found exaggerating on a petty problem, even at times it amazes a spectator to see a different death tool in a blast or attack.
For a strong government a country needs a healthy opposition and undoubtedly a responsible role of print and electronic media. By introducing a certain line of action it can be used to educate people and invoke their sense of responsibility and patriotism rather than creating a chaos.

@ Lord Avalon

I think It is good idea to create sense of ownership among media so tat no one may create anarchy. However I also believe that as a democratic country media should be given full-fledged freedom to play its due role. We don’t hv to forget wat our media was in past ten to fifteen years when it was under the control of govt but today it is the media tat has challenged govt n made it accountable.

__________________
"If we fight, we may not always win, but if we don't fight, we will surely lose."

Creating sense of ownership is indeed a good idea, the worst i count is creating an idea of instability and insecurity among the masses. Today the knowledge of people about this country is solely the credit of media but again; there is a need of putting an end to the freedom it is enjoying. Without it, i believe media will always work as an opposition which is not required. If talking about constructive criticism and awareness about the wrong doings of Government then i don't see any harm but if examplify the unfortunate event of Lal Masjid, Media had a due role in that scenario. It urged the people to demand for a strong step from Government and when the decision was taken, the very same channel presented the operation as an attack on Islam and humanity. It lead the people not only to lose their confidence in Pakistan army but blurred the thin line between right and wrong which still is incoherent.