Assault on media
It’s the fifth day of the emergency, and the situation regarding the media was never as grim as it is today. In the days of Ziaul Haq and Ayub Khan and others, media offices were not threatened with bombings, and owners of media groups didn’t receive warnings of assassination. Among the many controversial assertions he made in his television address defending his virtual martial law, General Musharraf insisted — as he has done innumerable times in the past — that he had freed the Pakistani media. This is reminiscent of Mrs Indira Gandhi’s declarations in her public speeches in rural constituencies that since her father had given freedom to India, the audience should vote for the Congress Party. Just as she tried to hog the credit for India’s independence, the beleaguered General seems to think that it is because of him the media is what it is today. The fact of the matter is that whatever freedom the media has today — such a term being very relative as recent events in the country have shown only too well — is because of its long and drawn-out struggles against military dictatorships as well as civilian governments who have always seen an independent media as a thorn or a pest to be kept under control.
The current environment is obviously not very encouraging either. Almost all television news channels remain off air. A couple have been allowed back but their content is business and commerce-related. Of course, there is the ever-green PTV but watching it these days actually makes one wonder if those involved in disseminating the government propaganda via it have even a slight ounce of conscience and moral courage. Also, it has to be said that for all its complaints that independent TV channels were presenting a one-sided (read anti-government) picture of events, the government seems oblivious to the fact that PTV is perhaps the best (or should it be ‘worst’) example of biased and one-sided reporting of events.
The point is that independence of the media is a given in a polity with pretensions of democracy, especially one that had been elevated to “enlightened moderation” eight years ago. It certainly should not be claimed as a favour as many senior state functionaries are often fond of saying in public. If anything it should be realised that like many other institutions of society, the role of the media has evolved over the years and because of advancements in technology — particularly the advent of the Internet — it has seen immense change. This change has been more or less irreversible and has only been possible because ordinary people have a thirst for knowing what is happening inside their country and the world beyond. From the point of view of audiences, asking them to rely only on PTV would be asking for too much — after all, equating a channel that has long since been considered to be the Master’s Voice with an independent news outlet seems beyond an ordinary mortal’s powers of suasion. The government must reverse its ban on the TV channels and ensure that any harassment or threats to journalists and the entire media community at large are dealt with sincerely or else people will be justified in believing that the government itself in complicit in such abominable actions.
Source: The News
Date:11/9/2007
” 
” 
” 
” 
