But some of these channels were being helped by cross-subsidy from other media outfits in the same group. And yet it was an unsustainable situation.

If the government move was the catalyst, one cannot ignore several other factors that have also come into play. Media houses, to begin with, are also using the opportunity to clean their stables. Most, in a bid to compete for ratings and revenue, had over-reached themselves. It was time to make amends.

They had hired anchors and others well above market rates. Some channels that were launched in the past few years were done without taking into account the economics of the industry or the state of the economy of the country. Both were suffering.

To add to this is the fact that a number of outlets in Pakistan are run on non-commercial lines. In other words, profit is not the only motive. This makes it difficult to compete for those channels and media outlets who have to watch the bottom line to make a profit and pay their expenses.

Looking back, one can say that the media industry in Pakistan was bound to go into correction mode. One can only wonder why it was not done sooner. There are too many channels competing for too limited an audience and advertising pie. In other countries with similar conditions, the number of channels do not go into double digits. Competition is healthy, and expenses and expectations are realistic.

Not so in Pakistan. Television is an expensive business. But irresistible. In Greek mythology, the Sirens were dangerous creatures, who lured nearby sailors with their enchanting music and singing voices to shipwreck on the rocky coast of their island. Same is the case with the proposal of opening a news channel in Pakistan. Given the low literacy rate in the country, it is an irresistible proposal which brings audience, power and prestige. People and organisations are lured into this. But if not managed well, it is also a recipe for disaster. As we can see, many ships have crashed in the process.

Hundreds of journalists have lost their jobs. Many of them were let go owing to market considerations. It is not an unusual situation, the same has happened, and continues to happen, in a number of countries where the media is run on commercial, and not ideological, lines. It is only where the media is tightly regulated that the state ensures that journalists are kept employed.

In Pakistan, journalism is re-inventing itself. The challenges are great. Not only are there new limitations on what to write, but a larger issue is the taste and demands of the audience. Social media, which was once considered non-serious by most mainstream journalists, has started to eat into the share of the audience.

The number of people using smartphones now exceeds the number of TV screens in the country. So, it’s not just economics that is affecting the industry. Audiences are turning away. Younger people are looking at other platforms for information and entertainment.

Both the newsroom and the journalist will have to change to meet this new challenge. Newsrooms cannot restrict themselves to one medium or language. Neither can journalists. Most journalists will now have to improve their skills to be able to report for different platforms. They will have to immerse themselves in social media in a bid to connect to their new audiences. News will change in the manner it is made and delivered.

Sadly, most journalists in Pakistan are not equipped for this new challenge. Worse is that they are not willing to wake up to the new realities. The year 2018 has been the wakeup call for many in the profession. Let us hope for better times.

The Express Tribune 

LAHORE: Media is the fourth pillar of the state and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) government is will soon clear outstanding dues of the news organisations, Prime Minister Imran Khan announced on Thursday.

“Our government is committed to the freedom of expression and has full support to the media industry,” the premier said in a meeting with DailyPakistan’s Chief Editor Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami and TV anchor Kamran Shahid at PM House in Islamabad.

Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Media Affairs Yousaf Baig Mirza and PM’s spokesperson Iftikhar Durrani were also present on the occasion.

Khan assured the journalists that any proposal to help the media industry in their ease of doing business would be given serious consideration by the government.

He also directed the Punjab government to allocate funds for the renovation of historical Badshahi Mosque, which is situated in the heart of Lahore.

The Mughal era building is said to be constructed between 1671 and 1673 under the supervision of Fida’i Khan Koka, who was Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s brother-in-law and the governor of Lahore.

After only two years of construction, the mosque was opened in 1673. Badshahi Mosque’s splendor is influenced by the Jamia Mosque of Delhi which was built by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan.

Daily Pakistan

KARACHI: Speakers at a session in the ongoing Festival of Arts and Ideas organised by Sindh Madressatul Islam University (SMIU) on Thursday said that despite being influenced by highly divisive society of the country, Pakistani media has still managed to play its role in trying to disseminate untwisted information to people.

At a session titled ‘Media and the state: Is honeymoon over?’, speakers, however, blamed a section of the electronic media for “negative” reporting because of rat race for ratings that eventually painted negative image of the country.

They said the country was divided on various fronts as there were people who supported fundamentalism and there were others who sided with liberal and progressive ideas, yet media outlets in general were ensuring that factual information reached the people.

They, however, blamed the rat race for ratings that had often forced a section of the electronic media to run twisted and incorrect news reports and disinformation on prime-time talk shows.

“Fundamentalism has gripped the country on the one hand and on the other there are liberal forces. Similarly, our society is divided on ideological grounds as well and in such a situation, media is still making it possible to inform people honestly,” said journalist Ghazi Salahuddin.

Columnist Wusatullah Khan said that media was not just limited to a newspaper or a news channel, but books, poetry, fiction and drama also fall in its vast definition. He said that freedom of expression had been achieved through great struggles in the world.

Mr Khan also spoke about the current financial crisis as being claimed by some media outlets. He said that media organisations got merely a quarter of their advertisements from the government while the rest [75 per cent] came from the private sector.

He said that the overall nature of media was also changing because it had to entertain the dictation of clients who paid for advertisements.

Journalist Mazhar Abbas said that most talk shows on news channels were negative in nature and ratings were the key culprit to blame for it.

He said that most of the wrong information being relayed on electronic media was the result of continuous pressure of deadlines and race for ratings, and such misreporting could not be rectified later on.

“Our reporting is irresponsible and this is leading society to the negative path.”

Owais Zaidi of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority said that people were gradually getting aware of what was happening in the country and elsewhere in the world.

Struggle for freedom

Speaking at the distinguished lecture series, journalist and intellectual I.A. Rehman spoke at length about the history of media in the country.

He informed the young audience about troubles that journalists faced while struggling for freedom of press in the country.

He said that Gen Ziaul Haq’s dictatorship was the worst in the country’s history when newspapers had been forced to publish empty spaces as authorities used to censor the news originally pasted on pre-press copy.

The country’s revered rights activist said that the authorities at the time had censored Faiz’s poetry and even the reference to pharaoh, as written in the holy texts, in newspapers perturbed authorities.

He said such events were highly important for the young generation as they would help create a culture of tolerance and respect for dissent.

Separately, Madiha Rehman reviewed the works of novelist Kamila Shamsie in ‘Life of an author’ session.

Dawn

KARACHI: A Russian professor with expertise in international journalism on Wednesday said Pakistan was better placed than Russia and China, though still “least free” on the freedom of press rankings by two prestigious institutions.

Prof Aleksei Bykov, a professor of international journalism associated with the St Petersburg University, Russia, spoke at length on the ‘Lesson on freedom of speech in international journalism’ at the Festival of Arts and Ideas 2018 organised by the Sindh Madressatul Islam University on its campus.

The second edition of the four-day annual festival was inaugurated by SMIU Vice Chancellor Dr Muhammad Ali Shaikh in which delegates from across the country and abroad are participating. ‘Each society must itself decide the question of freedom of speech’

Prof Bykov referred to the World Press Freedom Index 2018 of Reporters Without Borders where Pakistan had a better standing (139th on the list of 180 countries with last entries are the least free) than Russia (148th) and China (176th).

Freedom House’s Freedom of the Press 2017 ranks Pakistan 65th among 100 countries with 100th as the least free. Russia ranks 83rd and China 87th on the list.

‘Imperial interests’

The Russian scholar said those rankings were prestigious for a large population of the world, but there was another opinion in which they were accused of serving certain imperial interests.

He said in Russia, there was a dichotomised model regarding the media where the state had supreme control over the state electronic and print media. However, there was another side where free media outlets worked. He spoke on fresh curbs imposed on the foreign ownership in the Russian media. These curbs reduced the foreign stakes in the country’s media.

He said the print media had a long history as it began in Tsarist Russia; broadcasting began in the Soviet Union while the internet emerged in the post-Soviet era.

Prof Bykov also spoke on the happenings in Turkey after the botched military coup in 2016, trailed by curbs on the media where free speech was being rebranded as “terrorism” and actions by the Erdogan government were aimed at creating a strong state.

He said each society must decide the question of freedom of speech on its own and develop a dialogue to evolve solutions.

‘World is our home’

Stalls were set up by SMIU students on the premises on the theme of ‘World is our home’, depicting various cultures of the world.

Speaking at the inaugural ceremony, Dr Shaikh said the theme ‘World is our home’ was selected as all the people living on the planet formed a single entity.

He said many issues were common among the people living across the borders such as poverty, world peace and climate change. He said world peace could bring prosperity and development in all parts of the world. He was of the view that the biggest bond among all people of the world was humanity. However, he added, it was wrong to say that the era of wars had gone.

Retired Justice Agha Rafique Ahmed highlighted SMIU’s leadership programme and said the programme provided opportunities to its students to visit national and international institutions.

Speaking at the ‘Distinguished lecture series’ programme, Junaid Ismail Makda, president of the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said Pakistan had started proceeding in the right direction after peace had been restored after many decades.

In the series of ‘Life of an author’, the life and times of Mirza Ghalib were reviewed by Dr Tanzeem-ul-Firdous of the University of Karachi.

A panel discussion was held on ‘Education as an instrument of social change’. Educationists Dr Mohammad Memon, Prem Sagar, Asif Ikram and Chandni Kumari spoke.

The discussants said during the past couple of decades, education had deteriorated badly, and as a result “we have failed to bring social change”.

They said at present the country was left with infrastructure and not institutions. They added there was a dearth of pedagogical leaders and, sadly, teachers had turned into instructors only. The participants said syllabus being taught to students did not meet the modern-day demands.

Another panel discussion was held on ‘Impacts of climate change on water resources’. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Tania Saleem, and Naeem A. Mughal were among the panellists.

Dawn

KARACHI: Speakers at a programme shared their sentiments about portrayal of persons with disabilities in the media during a panel discussion held in connection with the International Day of Persons with Disabilities on Monday.

The programme Media & Disability: Pity-heroism Dichotomy was organised by the Network of Organisations Working for People with Disabilities, Pakistan (NOW­PDP) at the Institute of Busi­ness Administration’s main campus. Some members from the media as well as some people with a disability talked about how they feel.

Columnist and anchorperson Zarrar Khuhro pointed out that the disabled got news in the media until bigger news sidelined them. “Some disabled persons get publicity for doing things no one will appreciate a normal person for. So tell us what we are doing right, what we can do better or should we do anything at all?” he asked.

Yumna Ikram, who is visually-impaired, said that she wanted to study computer science because she found it interesting. She also thought that being one of the first visually-impaired people to enter the field would also help open doors for others like her but she was used by television channels to gain sympathy and for raising their ratings.

“I also thought that I should let them pursue their motives while I use their channels to spread awareness for others like me, to show them that if I can do it, so can they,” she said.

Amna Raheel, the girl known to have made her wheelchair her wings, said that she was surprised to find that people thought of her as a hero for doing things such as studying and graduating that were nothing out of the ordinary for any normal individual.

“I was being hailed as an ‘inspiration’. But I wanted to live like a normal person, not a hero. I was feeling like a misfit due to the way me and my work were being portrayed and seen,” she said. “To talk about my feelings, I started blogging. Then I was asked why I was being an attention seeker.”

Fashion designer Munim Kazi, who is also deaf and mute, said that after getting his degree, he applied for a job without putting the bit about his disability in his curriculum vitae. “I didn’t want to be judged for my disability even before meeting the interviewers,” he said.

“But then they realised that I could not communicate with them in the normal way, they asked how they would conduct the interview and I explained to them that it could be done through writing. After bagging the job there was the issue of how to communicate with my colleagues. We started with writing on paper and then slowly they also started talking to me through sign language, which I taught them little by little. When you start communicating with the deaf you realise they are not much different and as normal as you are,” he said.

Rapper and comedian Ali Gul Pir shared his observation that in the plays or movies the roles were especially written for the disabled to gather sympathy. “The little persons too are brought in as funny characters,” he said.

Actor Adeel Husain said that discrimination was part of this world “but there are variations in the reactions you get. But everything isn’t black or white. There are grey areas too.”

Turning to the friends living with a disability, he said: “It is your decision to take such things to heart or pay them no heed and carry on with your work. It is not so simple, I know.”

Dawn

When journalists in this country portray certain politicians as the embodiment of corruption, they are not expecting to be hauled up by the Supreme Court. Yet that is exactly what happened in the aftermath of a political talk show hosted by Arshad Sharif, aired on ARY News on August 28, 2018.

In the show, Sharif, while discussing proceedings pending before the Supreme Court hinted that former president and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari had not been entirely honest when furnishing details regarding his ownership of property. He then went on to discuss two, allegedly contradictory, affidavits filed by Zardari at different points in time. Not content with pointing out the ostensible factual inconsistency, he sought — and furnished — opinions on which of the two affidavits represented the truth. This led to suo motu case No 28 of 2018, in which a three-member bench of the Supreme Court laid out, and affirmed, standards to be followed when commenting upon sub judice matters.

In simple terms, ‘sub judice’ refers to a matter being under judicial consideration. At the heart of this latest Supreme Court case is the rather difficult exercise of striking a balance between freedom of expression and ensuring that reputations and actors involved in cases covered by the media are not prejudiced.

So how do you know if you are going too far in commenting upon sub judice matters? For starters, broadcasters have to abide by Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct, 2015. The next thing to be mindful of, as per the Supreme Court, is the balance to be struck between your right to express your opinion versus another person’s right to a fair trial as well as their right to be dealt with in accordance with law. Comments upon sub judice matters have not been banned but they will, as per the law laid down by the top court, have to be ‘objective’ — and not ‘subjective’. PEMRA’s licensees (i.e. television and radio channels) are now bound to ensure that no material capable of prejudicing judicial determinations, trials or ongoing investigation is aired.

To the optimist, the ruling is an important step in reminding the media of its responsibilities in a time of deep political division. There is no shortage of those who have suffered harm to reputation and dignity because of unforgiving attention from the media. To the cynic, there is unmistakable irony in an activist court chiding media houses for shaping perceptions through sound bites instead of focusing only on facts. Nuance requires borrowing from both perspectives.

At the risk of stating the obvious, media channels can make or break reputations if they decide to be with or against you. Sure, you can take them to court for defamation to clear your name but a lot of damage has usually occurred by then. There is great merit in ensuring that there are pre-agreed rules of the game that the media does not violate — especially in matters as emotive and divisive as high-profile court cases.

It is deeply frustrating to watch people who are not lawyers pretending to be legal experts and opining on pending cases, however, some of this is a necessary evil.

But who should lay down the rules? Should it be the state or would self-regulation by the media be a better model? In this instance, the top court has built on top of what the state had already prescribed through a Code of Conduct. For those who believe in restraint, the top court could have left the matter at calling for the implementation of the Code of Conduct. But it went further, much further. Should this be celebrated?

The answer depends on whether you trust the state — in each relevant context — to prescribe rules that would be fair and narrowly tailored without trying to suppress free expression or legitimate criticism. For now, you and I do not have much of a choice — there is a statutory Code of Conduct, additional directions from the top court and a Supreme Court ruling to support the implementation of this framework.

No one would argue that the media should be free to cause or fan prejudice in sub judicematters. A trial by media can be deeply traumatic and scarring — for individuals involved as well as the system. But the hard fact is that each instance of prejudice stems from a unique context, with its own facts. Arshad Sharif’s case is just one example; should the apex court have used this one case to impose a judicially crafted set of rules telling media houses what they can and cannot say? The cause of striking a balance between fair trial and free speech is not well served when general — instead of specific fact-based — balancing exercises are carried out.

The criteria defined by the court when it is talking in general terms, instead of in specific cases, will always be overbroad. This is just the nature of the exercise. Laying down a broad set of general rules always results in vague standards that have to be concretised in individual cases. Normally legislatures or the executive (through secondary legislation) lay down general rules; the courts stick to deciding specific cases. In matters relating to free speech, I am not keen to celebrate the judicial writing of general rules to control speech.

Of course, as a lawyer and citizen, it is deeply frustrating for me to watch people who are not lawyers pretending to be legal experts and opining on pending cases. Some of this, we should remind ourselves, is a necessary evil. Democracy, to quote Amartya Sen, is ‘government by discussion’. Not every opinion we disagree with is prejudicial to a case or an individual — and we must be cognisant of the dangers of using a straw-man to craft prohibitions broader than absolutely necessary. The line that we are trying to draw is thin so being circumspect and sceptical makes sense. Judges and lawyers are not easily prejudiced by the media; they often approach cases with their own, more silent, pre-conceptions or convictions. Of course, juries in trials and the public, in general, should not be hostage to the media — but those are calls to be made in individual cases.

Consider some of the problems that may arise as a result of the court’s broadly worded directions. What does it mean that a media channel cannot air ‘subjective’ comments on pending cases? Is it within or outside the bounds of the law to televise a debate between two constitutional law scholars arguing over what arguments are likely to weigh with judges in a sub judice and landmark case? Is discussing how individual judges read the Constitution an ‘objective’ (allowed) or ‘subjective’ (prohibited) comment? Is calling a judge a conservative or liberal an exercise in fact or opinion? There will likely be increasing uncertainty about this in the coming days. A possible downside is that people and media outlets will engage in self-censorship; this would be tragic.

There is a strong case to be made that Arshad Sharif crossed a line; he wanted to cast doubt upon the veracity of two documents that were to be judicially examined, and ruled upon, in a pending case. He apologised and undertook not to repeat his conduct. The matter could have ended there, but it did not. Has the apex court clarified the law and struck the appropriate balance? Or will this lead to more questions and uncertainty in the coming days?

The News

BANNU: A journalist is receiving threats for giving coverage to protest demonstrations against Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) or the Pashtun protection movement.

The local journalist has, meanwhile, criticised for not taking any action against those hurling threats, despite being informed time and again. Journalists have also announced boycotting all police functions for not providing protection to reporters.

According to details, the PTM organised a party meeting in Bannu the other day. The very next day, the Waziristan tribal people held a demonstration in Mir Ali against the PTM and their elected representatives while and trader organisations and common people held a protest in Bannu against the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement.

Different television channels and reporters covered these protest demonstrations. After that, a reporter of a private TV channel and general secretary of Bannu Press Club was given life threats through telephonic calls for covering the anti-PTM demonstrations. The journalist community has demanded protection to the said reporter.

The News

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari said on Tuesday that his party would stand by journalists and continue to struggle against the injustices being committed by the government.

“Whatever your economic policy, it is the responsibility of the government to provide financial security to the public by ensuring jobs for them,” he said while talking to the media during his visit to a protest camp set up by the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ)-Afzal Butt group outside Parliament House.

Mr Bhutto-Zardari said that as an opposition party the PPP would continue to raise its voice against “non-serious and unjust” policies of the government.

Says govt involved in ‘economic murder’ of media workers; MQM team also visits protest camp

“We request you to support us,” he urged media personnel. “Your issues are our issues — all your issues are our issues. Whenever there has been injustice with media persons, the PPP has stood with them,” he said, reca­lling his mother Benazir Bhutto’s frequent visits to press clubs and interaction with journalists.

Whenever they faced censorship, Benazir Bhutto extended support to the media, he said. Now the media was facing censorship as well as financial woes, he added.

“The government must provide relief to the people because they [the leadership of the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf] have made tall promises of generating 10 million jobs. Not only media persons, but people belonging to other professions have also started suffering due to flawed policies of the government,” the PPP chairman said. “Wherever we go, we meet people protesting against the government.”

He said that even government employees were protesting against the policies of the new government.

“The government does not have to take any major step [to raise funds to provide relief to the people] as they are taking foreign loans. They have even presented a budget but they fail whenever it is a matter of relief for the general public.

“There are various options and several ways [to provide relief to people] but… the government has no intention of taking care of the working and middle classes and protect their interests,” Mr Bilawal-Bhutto said.

He added: “The finance minister only issues statements that he wants to seek input from the opposition [on different issues] but he does not even meet us. They are doing only what they want to do.”

He lambasted the PTI government policies, saying the “flag-bearers of change” had already dropped an ‘inflation bomb’ on the people in the form of a “mini-budget” and were now involved in “economic murder of journalists and media workers”.

He said that the PPP had long-standing relations with the journalist fraternity. “Whenever there has been any injustice in this country, the PPP and the journalists have launched a joint struggle against it whether it was the martial law of General Zia or the military regime of Gen Pervaiz Musharraf,” he added.

MQM visit

A delegation of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P), including MNA Iqbal Muhammad Khan, also visited the protest camp and expressed solidarity with the journalists.

Speaking on the occasion, Afzal Butt, the president of his own faction of the PFUJ, said the objective of the protest was to voice the grievances of the journalist fraternity and not to launch any movement against the government.

He asked the government to intervene and stop “large-scale downsizing” in media houses, which had badly affected the families of the journalists and media workers.

Dawn

Related Story

Business Recorder: Bilawal asks government to ensure job security of media workers

ISLAMABAD: Federal Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry on Thursday announced a broad outline of the newly proposed Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (PMRA) to oversee print, electronic and social media.

The announcement set alarm bells ringing among stakeholders including journalists who complained that they had not been consulted on the issue and expressed scepticism over the government move that they said could contain media freedom in the country.

While briefing the Senate standing committee on information and broadcasting, Mr Chaudhry said the PTI government would regulate all media and “no one will be able to defame anyone under the new law”.

Amid uneasy gestures by senators, he told the committee that the government was working on a proposal to bring all media regulatory bodies under the proposed PMRA. This would be done by merging all existing rules and acts related to Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), Press Council of Pakistan (PCP) and Pakistan Telecom­munication Authority (PTA), he said, adding that it would introduce one-window operation to address complaints and other regulatory aspects of the media.

Referring to the proposed law, Information Secretary Shafqat Jalil told the committee that in future electronic media would be allowed to air advertisements only after the approval of the information ministry.

The information minister said the draft had been forwarded to Pemra, PCP and other media bodies including Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors, All Pakistan Newspapers Society and the Pakistan Broad­casting Association.

Dawn 

Related Stories 

The Express Tribune: New media regulator on the cards

The News: Pemra to be replaced by new authority: Fawad

The Nation: Pemra to be replaced by new authority: Fawad

The PTI-led coalition government’s proposed draft of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority law reads more like a complete negation of the ruling party’s pledges made in its election manifesto with regard to the media freedom.

The objectives of the proposed authority appear to be media control rather than media regulation. More likely those who prepared the draft in question were dictated by dictatorial desires rather than democratic aspirations.

Being aware perhaps of the dictatorial nature of the proposed draft law, the authors while concluding its Annexure-A admit that a conflict could arise between the federation and the provinces as well as create a perception of authoritarianism:

“In existing law as provinces have powers in various regulatory processes such as authenticating declaration and circulation audit, etc, eliminating their role will create alarms. If the provinces come up with their own laws then there will be conflict. Any centralisation and simplification that infringe upon their jurisdiction will raise concerns. It is proposed that provinces should be taken on board while drafting the law.

“Decentralised media regulating bodies is a form of democratisation. Creating centralised structures working under a single command is against the spirit of democracy. The media may raise voice against centralisation. The facilitation process should be brought under but the regulation and accountability processes should work under the ‘boards of stakeholders’ with ‘sufficient autonomy’ within the new authority.”

One hopes that the proposal to take the provinces on board while drafting the law would be done through an open debate in the media and elsewhere, including inside the Council of Common Interests. Also, the promise of allowing ‘sufficient’ autonomy to ‘boards of stakeholders’ would need to be openly debated to define in clear legal terms what exactly would be the extent of the term ‘sufficient authority’. However, the most questionable provision of the draft ordinance relates to the ‘power of the federal government to issue directives.’

It says: “The federal government may, from time to time, issue directives to the authority on matters of policy. The directives may be issued with regard to the matters relating to Article 19 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. If a question arises whether any matter is a matter of policy, the decision of the federal government shall be final.”

This provision seemingly allows the government of the day to violate Article 19 with complete impunity by classifying as a ’matter of policy’ any matter that would undermine its own vested political interest or exposed its policy errors and blunders. In fact this provision arms the government with a deadly weapon capable of curtailing drastically the extent of freedom allowed to the media under Article 19.

People in general underestimate the state’s power of disinformation. If there is one single well identified producer of fake news it is the state! Authorities have put pressure on enterprising investigative journalists and their potential sources using special laws against them.

The ‘war on terror’ has brought another dimension to this constant tension between intelligence/security agencies and investigative journalists. It is true, of course, that reporting on terrorism also means reporting on counter-terrorism, and on the way the conduct of the police, the intelligence services and the judiciary as well. And the last thing the authorities want is an exposé of their failings, incompetence or turf wars inside the ‘state security apparatus.’

Too often secrecy is being used not to protect legitimate national security interests but to hide official blunders or even illegal actions from the eyes of the public. Unjustified cover-ups and suppression of truth regarding crucial questions of public accountability have proven to have seriously damaged the process of democracy.

The Express Tribune