Changing role of the media

Tuesday, June 19,2007

FIRST, it was the bench, then the bar and now the media. The insecurity of the Musharraf government has pushed it in the direction of throttling the freedom of expression. By one stroke, it has destroyed what it incessantly claimed to be its source of pride in the form of a free media.

The viewing public is several times more in number than the readers of the print media. While newspapers require a literate public, television does not need that. The Pemra (Amendment) Ordinance of June 4, 2007, could have the effect of blindfolding millions of viewers accustomed to witnessing dialogues in the form of talk shows.

Fortunately for the nation, the enforcement of the ordinance was suspended by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz after a tremendous show of protest by media men, lawyers and civil society in general.

Indeed, the talk shows became so popular that they gradually and imperceptibly slackened the decades-old monopolistic hold of the prime time family drama over people’s hearts and minds. The lean sentimentality of the romantic TV plays has been overtaken by the far more meaningful, interesting and intriguing characters of the real drama of political life unfolding before the public eye.

Cable TV pulled viewers out of the age of innocence into full awareness of the dramatis personae active on the political stage.

On the one hand, the Pemra Amendment Ordinance denied people their right to participate in public life through exposure to a variety of opinions, policies, approaches and worldviews. On the other it handed down a ‘cause’ to civil society whereby the latter was obliged to struggle for regaining the lost space in the sphere of communication. The amendment had the potential of sharpening the conflict between the government and the communication fraternity.

It is the journalist community which was directly and most tragically hit by the new ordinance. The negative impact of such acts and provisions would have been felt in the institutional and professional context, which was the target of the new measure.

The provisions of seizing a broadcast or distribution service equipment, sealing the premises and suspending the licence of a broadcast media made horrendous reading.

These provisions could have pushed the electronic media into its dark ages if these were not promptly and rightly withdrawn.

While the media was the focus of the new text, the current agitation of lawyers in support of the Chief Justice of Pakistan provided the real context. The combined strength of the bar and the bench put the Musharraf government on the defensive.

The latter had limited options. One of the options was to defuse the situation. Unfortunately, the government has shown neither flexibility in its standpoint vis-à-vis the presidential reference nor willingness to enter into a comprehensive dialogue with activists on the ground.

This situation led the government to the default option, i.e. tightening the noose around expressions of dissent. This is the classic scenario for the emergence of an alternative social movement, for which Eastern European societies in the 1990s provide an impressive model. Barring a few individuals with high stakes in the preservation of the prevalent system at any cost, the articulate sections of the population are expected to display a condemnatory attitude towards the aborted crackdown on the electronic media.

Talk shows provide ‘exit’ from the street. Blowing hot and cold on the TV screen took the anger away, brought extreme views to some kind of a middle ground and shaped the contours of the national discourse.

Watching the spokesmen of the JI, MQM, PML-N, PML-Q, PPP, ANP, BNP and other parties as well as NGOs and public intellectuals engaging in argument and counter-argument has been fun and much more. People from across the political spectrum talked to each other and established a political idiom. It was conflict resolution par excellence, at least potentially and eventually. A democratic culture seemed to be brewing.

Then the ordinance struck. In the global village, this certainly did not go down well. The credentials of Pakistan in the world as a democratic state have been far from satisfactory.

During the last three months, the government’s legal and political measures have added up to a huge baggage of moral deficit. That is characterised by a lack of imagination and the vision to rebuild public institutions and norms.

The world of diplomacy is not as far from the shores of the country as the government would like it to be. It is right next door. The need to cultivate a good profile of Pakistan in the world is absolutely essential for moral and diplomatic purposes. The world is too closely networked and integrated for any country to continue to dabble in draconian laws to control the media.

The ordinance could demonise the profile of Pakistan, which is not what the nation wants. It was a diplomatic disaster in making.

At home, the issuance of the Pemra Ordinance preceded the National Assembly session only by one day. Obviously, the government planned to bypass the lawmaking body in the process of the formulation of the law. The old practice of indulging in legislative activity from outside the legislature continued unabated. Respect for autonomy of institutions is the need of the day.

The lawmaking body should make the law through the designated process of committee deliberations, discussion on the floor of the parliament and agreement on the provisions of law. Arbitrary lawmaking must end.

The global media is no more confined to information gathering activity. It has assumed an agenda-setting role.

That is why it is understood to be the fourth wing of the state despite official denial. It is supposed to project an autonomous body of opinion and analysis of the current and not-so-current events and developments. It must give guidelines, directions and opinions to lead decision-makers and their critics. It has assumed a life of its own. It does not necessarily represent others. It represents itself as a profession and, more than that, as a calling.

The issuance of the Pemra (Amendment) Ordinance instantly led to protest by journalists, lawyers and civil society. The government responded by filing cases against journalists and arresting political workers and sought to look firm in its resolve to curb the freedom of expression.

A meeting between the channel operators and the government seemed to give the impression that the provisions of the controversial law could be amended by parliament in the process of passing the act.

Cases were filed in the higher courts against the ordinance for being in violation of the freedom of expression provided in the Constitution. The government felt obliged to suspend the enforcement of the ordinance.

Why did the government make a move which had the potential to boomerang? Did it make sense to gag the electronic media at a time when the legal and judicial communities were already unhappy over the presidential reference against the Chief Justice and would have been even more so in the wake of new curbs on the media? How could the government not visualise the possible impact of its action on the general public, which would not countenance any attempts to stop it from watching the progression of events throughout the country?

It can be surmised that the president’s plans to continue to be in office have gone awry in the presence of the rapidly changing public mood. First, the government failed to take notice of the gravity of the situation when the lawyers took to the street. Then, it chose to go to the street itself in a grand show of strength, which was impolitic and, therefore, unwise. Later, the corps commanders meeting led to the issuance of a statement which was widely criticised for being ‘political’ in nature and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Subsequently, the NSC meeting promised tough action against those who were perceived to be perpetrators of disorder. The net effect of the government’s action seems to be further alienation of the public. The government has still not been alerted to the fact that large political, social, cultural, professional, religious and ethnic groups and communities have been alienated over the years. It has still not realised that the media has been providing an excellent analysis of the situation on the ground.

All around, the public seemed to be making a political statement that the time was ripe for respecting the civil institutions of the society. New curbs on the media showed that the nation’s message was being ignored. The suspension of the enforcement of the ordinance showed, instead, that the government at least partially realised that the time for such draconian laws had gone.



http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/19/ed.htm#4

Professional hazards for journalists

By Zubeida Mustafa

AT A time when communication technology has facilitated the flow of information and made it difficult for governments to suppress the dissemination of news, authorities in South Asia are moving against the tide.

They have stepped up their effort to curb access to knowledge and information in a desperate bid to keep the people in the dark. This is a paradox that is difficult to explain.

A recently released publication titled The Fight Goes On: Press Freedom in South Asia 2006-2007, prepared by the International Federation of Journalists, documents the challenges journalists in South Asia have faced. Although erroneously the sub-title speaks of press freedom, the report covers print journalists as well as those working for the electronic and virtual media.

While one can celebrate the fact that the authorities in the eight countries of this region have failed to stifle the press, despite their resort to brutal methods, the question to be asked is: how long can this go on? The IFJ report lists the names and particulars of 143 journalists who were threatened, harassed, kidnapped, physically assaulted or even killed (18 of them) in May 2006-April 2007. Besides many more suffered when their organisation was attacked or there was a clampdown on the media.

This brutalisation of the press by targeting journalists personally is shocking. On the basis of data compiled by the IFJ, in 2006 Pakistan was declared the third most dangerous country in the world to be a journalist in. Four media men were killed in Pakistan during the course of the year. Eight lost their lives in Sri Lanka.

This is a new trend. Previously the “offending” newspaper was penalised for reporting something found to be offensive by the powers that be. It could be in the form of a ban, a fine, imprisonment for the editor or even shutting down the paper. Such measures would have the intended effect of cowing the press.

But now circumstances have changed. The countries where violations of the freedom of the media have taken the most abusive form are the ones where political instability has been most rampant, state repression has been at its worst, the rule of law has virtually vanished and socio-economic conditions have deteriorated to such an extent that state structures and institutions have broken down.

In these conditions journalists have faced threats not just from the government but also from a number of non-state actors such as political parties, terrorist and rebel groups, maverick intelligence agencies and vested interests. In this context, the enemies of the freedom of expression have found it more convenient to single out journalists and prevent them from performing their duties by unleashing violence against them. This has made individuals more vulnerable. Even family members have been attacked.

Pakistan is a good example of how the deteriorating political conditions have hit the media most acutely. Shaky military governments have cracked down on the press and the electronic media the hardest believing that they can set things right by shooting the messenger so that the message does not reach the people. But it does not happen that way any more because today information has its way of reaching the people — thanks to the invention of new technology.

But the media can only expose the wrongdoings of the rulers and inform the people. It cannot actually try the wrongdoer, as a court of law would. Neither can it punish the guilty or provide redress to the victim. These are the functions of a law court, the police and the administration. The fact is that the media can operate effectively only in a democratic milieu when all the institutions are functioning perfectly.

Then why do those governments, which have destroyed institutions such as the judiciary, have reduced good governance to a farce and have destroyed the rule of law, fear freedom of expression? Their biggest fear is that a lively and enlightened media will mobilise public opinion in support of democracy and the rule of law. By educating and informing the people, the press, radio and television can help them sift out the wheat from the chaff and determine what is right and what is wrong.

Before the advent of the private and independent electronic media, print journalism was the only source of information from a non-government source. Considering the low level of literacy in South Asia — cumulatively it stands at 57 per cent but in some countries like Afghanistan it is only 28 per cent — newspapers had limited readerships.

Even today, India which is the most populous of the South Asian states has a newspaper circulation of 203.6 million (20 per cent of the population above 12 years of age). With a proliferation of television channels information now spreads fast and illiteracy is no barrier in the way of access to information.

These are plus points for media freedom. But as pointed out by the IFJ report in its section on Pakistan, journalists need greater economic security to enable them to work confidently and build up a healthy, strong and vibrant media. Better working conditions will also promote greater integrity.

What has not been sufficiently emphasised and in which the IFJ could play a role is in the training and continuing education of journalists, encouraging the journalist bodies to draw up their own code of ethics and working for their self-improvement. The media derives its greatest strength from its own professionalism, integrity and authenticity which allow it to fight against draconian laws on strong moral ground.

The IFJ has rightly observed that there can be no press freedom if journalists exist in conditions of corruption, poverty or fear. The IFJ no doubt provides security to the journalists by extending them international support when they are at risk. But it should also help in improving professionalism in the media, especially in countries where journalists are most threatened.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/20/op.htm#2

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

Pemra amendments still a threat



By Dr Mahreen Bhutto

Tuesday,June 26,2007

OUR uniformed president has agreed to withdraw the sweeping media curbs contained in the recent amendments to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) Ordinance 2002. Apparently, he has linked the withdrawal of the draconian amendments to a code of conduct.

Press reports suggest that the code of conduct to regulate media business would be incorporated in the Pemra Ordinance. Reports also indicate that the Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA) has been told that the code of conduct must keep “national interests” in view.

So until the code of conduct is made public and amendments are withdrawn officially, the sword of Damocles will continue to hang over the media. It is difficult to believe that the government will agree to a code of conduct that does not suit it or that gives full freedom to the media. The government would be happier to see controlled freedom for TV channels and the press.

The government slapped the curbs on the media by making amendments to the Pemra Ordinance just two days before the National Assembly was to commence its budget session. This indicates that its intentions were mala fide. Through these curbs, the government made its dissatisfaction known to media organisations, especially to TV channels for their live coverage of recent events including those featuring Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the bloodbath of May 12 in Karachi.

Although the present dispensation claims to be democratic and is never tired of taking credit for making the media free, ground realities point to something totally different if recent events are to be taken as yardsticks for the verification of the government’s claim. The message for journalists is loud and clear: the government will not let the media get too big for its boots for it would then impinge on its authority.

The implementation was suspended because of nationwide protest not only by journalists but also by political parties. The decision was taken following a meeting of the prime minister with officials of the PBA and the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS). A six-member committee, consisting of three members, one each from PBA, APNS and the Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors (CPNE) and three senior government officials from the ministries of information and law will review the ordinance.

These fresh amendments empowered Pemra to confiscate the equipment of broadcasters and seal their premises without consulting a council of complaints, which was envisaged in amendments passed in February this year. It increased the fine for violators to Rs10 million from one million rupees. President Musharraf had issued the original Pemra Ordinance on March 1, 2002, to establish a body to regulate the electronic media and the National Assembly passed the law on May 17, 2005, with some amendments in the form of a bill (Pemra Amendment Bill).

It will be pertinent to mention here that Mohammad Ali Jinnah resigned from the Legislative Council in March 1919 to protest against the Rowlatt Act while describing it as a black law, for it empowered the British regime to imprison anyone without assigning any reason or charge. Jinnah had serious reservations over such a provision as he believed that such an enactment was against the principle of justice.

Similarly, a plain reading of these amendments would suggest that these (until officially withdrawn) could/would be used as tools to condemn the media which is justified in describing it as a draconian law because it authorises Pemra to move on its own — given the fact that Pemra was transferred to the information ministry from the cabinet division. This is against the government’s own policy of keeping such authorities independent so that they can function on their own and without any pressure.

The government has not been happy with TV channels for their live coverage of the present judicial crisis. It attempted to teach a lesson to Geo through the police when a heavy contingent trespassed its office in Islamabad in March when the Chief Justice was to appear before the Supreme Judicial Council. Then came May 12 when people in Karachi saw residents bathed in blood on their TV screens. The Chief Justice was forced to return to Islamabad after staying in the airport for well over nine hours although he was scheduled to address a function of the Supreme Court there. These events unnerved the government and it blocked the transmission of channels.

Article 19 of the Constitution ensures freedom of speech as it says, “Every citizen shall have the right to the freedom of speech and freedom of expression and there shall be freedom of the press”. The level of freedom enjoyed by media organisations currently is primarily due to their own relentless struggle otherwise successive governments, especially military dispensations, have always tried to put curbs on the freedom of expression.

The worst form of repression was witnessed during Ziaul Haq’s regime which even flogged journalists. Similarly, the Press and Publications Ordinance 1963 promulgated by military dictator Ayub Khan was the focus of protest by journalists’ bodies and organisations of publications’ owners. It was finally revoked in 1988.

On countless occasions President General Pervez Musharraf was heard telling the nation that it was his government that issued licences to TV channels as well as liberty but recent events are contrary to his claims. This year is going to be an election year and the president is promising free, fair and transparent elections. But polls will hardly be regarded as free and fair if the media continues to receive a bashing at the hands of the government and there is no end of efforts to muzzle the press.

What was witnessed in the National Assembly’s press gallery on June 6 was unprecedented too as it involved journalist protesting against Pemra amendments and they scuffled with non-journalists who were sent in the gallery by the Press Information Department (PID). The next day’s ban on the entry of journalists in the National Assembly was imposed for the first time in parliamentary history.

If the government fails to pay serious attention to the issue, it will find it difficult to control the situation that is bound to be aggravated by any verdict on the presidential reference that does not go in favour of the Chief Justice.

The writer is a PPP-P member of the Sindh Assembly.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/26/op.htm#3

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

SAFMA declaration

Thursday,June 28, 2007

After imposing the draconian PEMRA ordinance that infuriated Pakistani media and civil society and shocked the world, the government deigned to take it back. But it left a Sword of Damocles hanging over the media: that the legal and financial restrictions proposed in the ordinance would be used if the electronic media did not work out some sort of code weighed in favour of the government. In a declaration on Tuesday the South Asia Free Media Association rejected such restrictions on Pakistani television and radio channels and for the print media. At the same time, it called for greater access to information for people -- something which is still lacking despite repeated pledges by the government for nearly eight years now, particularly so when it comes to government records. The declaration was issued at the end of a discussion organised jointly by the Media Commission of Pakistan and the South Asia Free Media Association (SAFMA), aptly titled "Media freedom, media laws". Freedom doesn't mean untrammelled freedom without social and legal responsibility. Even without a code, however, Pakistan's print and electronic media have shown a remarkable sense of responsibility by reporting on issues that have furthered the public good by keeping a check on government policies and actions. By doing so, the private media has provided a much-needed alternative to state-owned radio and television, which over the years have suffered extensively because of a plunge in their credibility caused by a general failure to relay information and news that is close to reality.

If there is to be a code, it must evolve through self-regulated conduct by the media, not imposed by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or PEMRA, or what the declaration calls non-state elements. Any legislation regulating the media's role should result from bipartisan consensus in both houses of parliament, with the consultation of representatives of the media and of other relevant sections of Pakistani society, as the "Declaration on Media Freedom and Media Laws" emphasised. The government needlessly embarrassed itself by first imposing the unpopular ordinance, then beating a retreat after the national and international uproar against the measure. Its continuing ambivalent conduct is proof of apparent doubts in at least some sections of the Musharraf administration as to whether it should have taken back the anti-media restrictions -- a decision which admittedly was one of its most positive contributions. Let's hope that the declaration will help it take a look at those doubts and see them for what they are: a product of insecurity and fear.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=62278

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

Gagging the media is unwise

By Ghayoor Ahmed

FOR a society to exist, certain communication system is a must. Even the primitive tribes had evolved several methods to this end which have been left behind by a changing world and replaced by the mass media that has become an increasingly important means of communication. The advent of modern technology has given a further impetus to it.

It is hardly necessary to over-emphasise the importance of a free media in a democratic country as it has become an effective instrument for strengthening the norms of democracy and creating a deliberative atmosphere to enable the people, who are the arbiters of their destiny, to make informed choices on important national issues. One cannot ignore the fact that media is in the vanguard of providing the relevant information to them that facilitates the decision-making process relating to their individual and collective lives.

In Pakistan one often hears or reads criticism against the media for its alleged irresponsible conduct. It is accused of projecting certain events in a manner that brings the government and its policies into disrepute and, therefore, the people at the helm justified the recent imposition of certain restrictions on the media. Regrettably, this is a much-derided argument that completely overlooks the fact that media is a mirror and its coverage of events only depicts what is actually happening in the country. The media should not, therefore, be accused of exaggeration if it does not toe the official line.

The exponents of restrictions on the media also ignore the fact that a large proportion of people in Pakistan are politically conscious and, therefore, they should not worry if the media sometimes presents confusing views on important national issues which, needless to say, is part of a democratic system. It is indeed unfortunate that the government considered it necessary to tighten screws on the media in order to force it to fall in line.

Being the fourth institution outside the government, the media also keeps a check on misuse of power by the three pillars of the state, namely, the legislative, the judiciary and the executive and, therefore, in a democratic polity an independent and strong media, unfettered by restrictions, is necessary to ensure good governance. It should therefore, be allowed to pursue its functions without fear or favour. As a matter of fact, it should not only be provided sufficient space but also protection for its lawful performance, even if, at times, it appears to be highly critical of the government.

However, at the same time, it has to be emphasised that while performing their functions, the media persons should not be swayed by personal likes or dislikes or any other subjective consideration white covering or commenting on events. They must perform their functions objectively and honestly. It is the right of the people to know the truth and the media persons must make earnest efforts to meet their expectations. One must, however, appreciate the fact that the media persons are often too near the events they cover to make a balanced judgment, especially when they see some appalling acts of barbarism or suppression being carried out during the performance of their professional duties.

There was no plausible excuse for imposing unreasonable restrictions on the media in the wake of the current judicial crisis, which has completely reversed the policy of freedom of expression that was being pursued by President General Pervez Musharraf. To say the least, it is a clear manifestation of the lack of comprehension on the part of those functionaries who have done it at a time when the country is already in a state of political turmoil. The ill-advised arm-twisting tactics adopted by them have unnecessarily created tension between the government and the media that could lead to undesirable consequences that may impinge on the national interests.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinion without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media, regardless of frontiers”. The provisions of this Declaration are considered to have the weight of international law because they are so widely accepted and used as a yardstick for measuring the conduct of states.

Many countries, including Pakistan, have included the provisions of the Universal Declaration in their basic laws. It is, however, regrettable that the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, has recently expressed his concern over the curbing of the freedom of the media in certain countries, including Pakistan.

The ongoing government-media crisis is a serious development that has created a serious situation. Prudence demands that before the present standoff between the government and the media becomes any worse, an unconditional and result-oriented dialogue be initiated between the two sides to resolve the matter in the right spirit. Both sides must redefine their relationship in a fair and objective spirit. Failure to do so will make things worse for both and for the country.

The writer is a former ambassador.


http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/02/op.htm#2

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

Freedom of the Press

Afrah Jamal
A free press is multi-dimensional; it anchors democracy in the civilised world, preserves the semblance of democratic systems elsewhere, and could serve as an independent reformer of society. Therefore, its longevity is desirable and a well-governed, better regulated setup critical.

Where we stand today regarding the state of journalism manifests itself in the form of events that, from a distance, indicate widening fissures in press freedom land. Pakistan’s ranking in terms of press freedom comes at a dismal 157 in 2006 down from 119 in 2002 (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=4116). The events of 2007 suggest that we may be headed further south in press freedom land.

While the track record of this government, in terms of granting press freedom, had been creditable thus far, little wonder that hints at retraction of liberal policies or the possibility of reinstatement of dated oppressive ones left people uneasy about the fickle definition of laissez faire practiced in Pakistan. Orders to seize, fine, seal and suspend culprit channels have mercifully been rescinded, countermeasures against spin and undue bias on the other hand, has prompted the launch of a ‘code of conduct’, creating yet another flurry. Rules, however, are the lesser of the two evils – in fact most societies deem them a necessity and the free spirited press of the civilised world ardently practices self-regulation.

A closer examination reveals that the present status of journalistic freedom in Pakistan can be gauged more in terms of quantity than quality of broadcast channels. Today 48 odd channels have taken over the airwaves. They dominate the local satellite news dissemination regime, perhaps because the original (sycophant) pet network pompously serenades the state but unlike Fox TV, fails to make it entertaining. The influence of privately-owned media channels cannot be disputed, but some people, after seeing the treatment of the recent crisis, have found unkind parallels between the media practices of today and a monkey with a machine gun.

Freedom for the more amateur media outlets has translated into providing a stage to launch rancorous debates with political adversaries, voicing a stream of invectives against the state, oblivious of the libel laws and giving an unfiltered coverage of violent breakdowns in law and order. Whether it is a show put on for ratings or something more sinister, an untamed media that can reshape perceptions is a formidable force to reckon with.

Finally the state could no longer feign indifference to the ‘weapons of mass conversion’ wielded by mainstream media. It challenged their objectivity and while their original heavy-handed approach continues to rankle, the resultant effect is that our media now has to reconcile itself to the fact that power does not absolve it from responsibility and prepare to make the necessary adjustments.

Restraint has been imposed on certain aspects of reporting, but the media is also expected to be self-regulatory and the contents of an official code will soon be divulged. Who knows, guidelines may actually prevent this watchdog from turning into a vicious hound dog.

Repressing free speech will never be viewed kindly but having said that, there is nothing wrong with a ‘code of conduct’ that will ultimately prevent the ignorant, immature or avaricious elements in the media, if they exist, from fermenting accidental (or otherwise) strife within society. The other side of the argument, made on a local news channel, states that when information flow is checked, disinformation seeps out.

There is no visible change since the crackdown. Anti-government statements appear all the time in prominent dailies, partisan voices have not been silenced in the media, and the fixation on the Chief Justice (CJ) issue is unabated, albeit in a more subdued manner.

The case against press freedom is strong, but the media has always been subject to a degree of restraint. Granted that there may be no formal media censorship in democracies like the US, but they show zero tolerance for those questioning their patriotism. Bill Maher hosts ‘Real Time’ on HBO now, but anti-patriotic sentiments on his previous late night talk show, ‘Politically incorrect’ cost him the show (http://www.officialsecretsact.org/content/view/117/4/). Veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett, a Pulitzer Prize winner for his Vietnam War coverage, criticised the Iraq War Plan on Iraqi state TV (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...rj.irq.arnett/) and lost his job. Then there is Ann Coulter at the other end of the spectrum who does get airtime on American national television, but has been fired from networks for vicious personal attacks.

In 2001, major news networks like CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC and CNN convinced themselves that their national security and public interest lay in acceding to their secretary of state’s request for curtailing coverage of bin Laden’s taped messages. Statements like, “In deciding what to air, CNN will consider guidance from appropriate authorities” (http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinm...2001-10-3.html) further illustrate the picture.

That the national interest is best served when media cheers our progress while stopping to point out flaws is a given. However, the sheer impropriety of denouncing the actions of a nation in distress or deep focus on the marginal rather than essential and sensationalism over substance will ultimately invalidate the effectiveness of this watchdog. Such an event will neither be in the public’s interest nor the state’s. State-sponsored censorship is the surest way to commit political Hara-Kiri. Seen in the context of emerging threats and changing priorities, possibly some democratic systems have become increasingly intolerant of dissenting voices, but few take kindly to irresponsible journalism and all place their national interest supreme. The cases quoted above merely show that the censorship trend is a global phenomenon. The difference, perhaps, lies in subtlety (we just do not have any), so if we could only bear in mind that casual potshots at media freedom might be easy to forgive, but napalming them will be impossible to forget.

The writer is a freelance journalist and former Editor of Social Pages

http://www.thepost.com.pk/OpinionNew...05365&catid=11

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.

Media and conflict reporting

By M Ismail Khan

Tuesday,July 10,2007

Pakistan's media continues to perform amazing feats. Over the recent years, it has challenged policies of the military-led government, magnified a civil rights movement led by lawyers, reported disasters and armed conflicts and defied intimidation, physical violence, gagging and arm-twisting. Now it has managed to uncover the holy nexus between a religious seminary and militancy in the very heart of country's capital city.

The ongoing Lal Masjid conflict has once again brought the role of the media into the focus. The week-long coverage demonstrated the media's persuasion and leadership capacity; on the other hand it has also highlighted the risks and challenges journalists faces in covering intricate urban conflicts.

Shootout between militants holed up in Lal Masjid and security forces took the life of a working journalist, many others suffered serious injuries as they rushed forward to cover the conflict. Some journalists sustained direct bullet wounds, many others found themselves pelted with stones, bricks and teargas shells. But despite such utterly chaotic and dangerous environment, they persisted with their professional duties and brought to their audience, listeners and readers 'bullet by bullet' news of the conflict which still goes on. Their courage and determination is simply great.

However, courage and determination may not be sufficient in facing such bizarre situations. Journalist covering armed conflict should be properly equipped. Unfortunately, none of the journalists who got injured covering the Lal Masjid fighting was using a helmet or any other protection equipment on his body when the conflict broke up last Tuesday. It was only after the media was removed from the actual scene of action that some of the broadcast journalists were seen wearing protective equipment. Very few among them have proper insurance coverage, and hardly any journalist had undergone any sort of professional training of working in hostile environment or in conflict zones.

Conflict reporting or war journalism is a highly challenging and specialised job. Most international media outlet dedicates their best ones for coverage of high-stake conflicts. But even the most experienced journalists are required to go through special training programmes. They are periodically provided interactive sessions on situation analysis, risk assessment, handling peculiar security unrest in both rural and urban settings. These trainings also include orientation in basic life-support action such as handling of breathing problems, gunshot wounds and bleeding, burns and shocks. The journalists are taught about basic techniques in avoiding, ambush, using the ground, avoiding and dealing with kidnap.

The complexity of conflicts such as the Lal Masjid crises or similar militancy demands that journalist have basic knowledge about sniper firing, mines, booby traps and improvised explosives. More importantly, journalists need orientation in operating in a rapidly changing nasty civil disorder and riots. It is not clear what the real motives were behind Lal Masjid Taliban burning down the Environment Ministry, but there have been comments from the ministry reported in the press which accuse erroneous media report about the presence of a large number of rangers on the rooftop of the ministry's building.

Another potential area of improvement in conflict reporting is the use of graphics, maps and technology. Very few TV channels and newspaper made graphical presentation of the location and its surroundings. Other then using live images, video clips and sound bites there is also a need to promote graphic presentations using 3D, graphs, charts and maps so that general public could develop a better understanding of the ground situation. Aerial shots and satellite imagery, e.g. Google Earth, could have provided useful insights about the locality.

After the May 12 episode in Karachi, the ongoing conflict around Lal Masjid is the second major internal crisis which has received such in-depth media coverage. While the Karachi mayhem evoked spontaneous public outrage against the government for its inaction, public reaction to the event in Islamabad has been quite the opposite. Here, not only gun-tottering Taliban in the streets of G-6 were at the receiving end of public outrage; there is a clear and massive public approval and support for the operation.

One would insist that public approval of the government is a direct outcome of what the media has managed to project during the initial phase of the conflict. But it is now up to the government to remain accessible to the media in reporting what actually transpires on the ground. A certain level of control and restriction is understandable in such sensitive conflict, but now that the media does not have full access to the actual scene of conflict, journalists flocking to government press conferences for official information should be provided with credible and full information.

Pakistan and the neighbouring countries have been experiencing conflicts and turmoil over the last couple of decades. Many Pakistani journalists have closely covered the Afghan war; some of them have facilitated the work of international war journalists in the tribal areas, Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Middle East. Pakistani media's coverage of the war in Lebanon between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas is still fresh in people's mind. So are its heroics in FATA and Afghanistan. What is required is allowing the up and coming journalists to benefit from the professional experiences available in the country.

There is a need for a state-of-the-art professional development facility. Universities, media organisations and forums should come forward and help journalists polish their talent in conflict/war reporting -- so that they could continue to break news and inform public without breaking their limbs or getting killed in the cross fire.



The writer is based in Islamabad and has a background in media, public policy and development. Email: ismail.k2 @gmail.com


http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=63848

__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.