Clampdown on media
Editorial…
IT is ironic that just a week after World Freedom Day was celebrated with pomp and ceremony, and government personalities sermonized on their commitment to this fundamental of democracy, should come a rude reminder that the state regards freedom of information as a privilege it can dispense and withdraw at will. The print media is all too familiar with this attitude, This paper, and its sister publication Nawa-i-Waqt, have been the most recent victims of this policy. Now the private sector electronic media has experienced a government clampdown.
On May 9 a private TV channel which had been advertising a live interview with Mian Shahbaz Sharif, cancelled it minutes before it was to be telecast. The host informed viewers that “We are ashamed we could not telecast the interview” and “vowed to continue the struggle for the freedom of the media.” When asked if there had been any state pressure on the administration to kill the programme, he replied, “no comments.” The remarks speak for themselves. The extent and nature of the pressure brought on in this case is elaborated in a news report. It claims that the private TV channel’s management was actually threatened by the personnel of government agencies with closure of their Karachi offices and with the possibility of being picked up and shifted to unknown locations. These are nothing short of tactics employed by the most repressive regimes.
It seems that this is not an isolated incident either. Another TV channel failed to telecast a record a panel discussion on the topic of PML (Q) infighting. The management responded to queries by participants by stating that they had been asked to cancel this transmission. These are serious developments representing a major onslaught on media freedom. They are also a step-up in the recent exercise by government’s advertisement dispensing machinery to tame any publication that allows space to opposition opinion, by starving it of public sector advertisement revenue. This organization continues to take that punishment because of its commitment to the principle that the media has a sacred duty to keep its readers informed on the both sides of the issue, allowing it to make an educated decision. The media, with rare exception, discharges its function in a democracy to the best of its ability. But surely the government knows that it must also assume its responsibility and it certainly will not be doing so by knocking down any programme or news report that it finds irksome.
Has it taken stock of its recent arm-twisting and heavy-handedness against the media and the huge repercussions they will most certainly have on media freedom? There needs be a realization in the government’s political quarters that such clampdowns only promote an artificial sense of security. This serves no real purpose but gnaws at the very foundation of democracy.
Source: The Nation
Date:5/11/2004
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
