On September 17, 2012, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) blocked YouTube after the website refused to remove the trailer of the controversial, amateurish anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims by Sam Bacile (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula). The then PPP-led government declared the following Friday “Love The Prophet Day,” hoping to encourage peaceful protests. However, the violence that ensued was yet another disturbing reminder of the growing influence of the conservative right in Pakistani society. Although YouTube remains blocked in Pakistan, two days ago the TTP launched its official website through its media partner, Umar Media, which serves as a central information portal featuring videos, publications and statements made by its leaders. The website, until recently accessible in Pakistan, has been criticized for carrying propaganda that incites violence, especially against Pakistan’s security forces.

The war Pakistan seems to fighting is not just against the physical presence of the Taliban but also the entrenchment of their it Islamic ideologies. This ideological infiltration has become more pronounced courtesy of the mainstream media, allowing both militant groups as well as conservative right-wing parties to exploit mainstream media attention and gain access to a larger audience.

The Pakistani media has given extensive space to statements made by militant leaders and has readily covered terrorist incidents throughout the country. While this may fall within the ambit of the media’s responsibility, the editorializing and depiction of such incidents has only further emboldened the militants. By negotiating with militants, the government has transformed those who were previously seen as “enemies of the state” into “stakeholders,” granting them the appearance of valor, along with tremendous legitimacy and leverage.

Against the backdrop of negotiations, leaders of different militant groups and conservative right-wing individuals like Maulana Abdul Aziz (former chief cleric of the Lal Masjid, infamous for fleeing under a burqa during an operation in 2007) have regularly appeared on political talk shows voraciously defending their rigid views on Shariah implementation. TTP leaders frequently give statements to national papers from undisclosed locations. In an interview given to Newsweek Pakistan, TTP spokesperson, Shahidullah Shahid claimed that, “We consider Mullah Omar as the Amir-ul-Momineen. In Pakistan, Mullah Fazlullah is leading us and he has all the qualities to lead the Pakistani nation.” Given the state’s weak negotiating position, extensive Taliban coverage not only glorifies and emboldens the militants but also creates space for a militant narrative.

While the media can easily be criticized for engaging in a ratings race, the truth remains that it cannot function in an environment where it is under constant threat and intimidation. The government, desperately preoccupied with coaxing a peace deal out of the TTP, has failed to prioritize the security of its citizens and the media.

Threats have been issued to journalists and media owners across the board. Since last year, militants have attacked the liberal Express Media Group in five separate incidents. Bomb attacks and shooting incidents outside the Karachi office caused much alarm and prompted the media group to ask the state for protection. Earlier this year, the TTP killed three employees of the same media group, prompting the Express Tribune to shift its editorial policy and refrain from publishing criticisms of the group, whether in its reports or in the opinion pages. In addition to this, the group’s TV channel also allowed TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan to appear on one of its talk shows and promised adequate coverage in return for a halt against attacks. Despite that, an assassination attempt targeting renowned journalist and outspoken Taliban critic Raza Rumi took place in Lahore on March 28. Rumi, a noted columnist, is also a TV anchor for the Express News channel. The militants’ strategy is clear and two pronged: exploit the media to carve out a space for its own narrative while at the same time intimidate media groups and individuals who dissent from their view.

The lack of security granted by the government has prompted some media groups to provide private security to the owners, editors and heads of their news channels. However, the fact remains that Pakistani media and journalists face a serious threat and the government has so far failed to allay the media’s concerns or provide adequate security. Adding salt to the wounds, in the general atmosphere of competition and ratings, TV channels even now fail to unite; coverage of media attacks is fleeting and names are absent if the victim is a competitor. This trend is troublesome and the journalist community faces a dangerous challenge, one that will require non-traditional solutions to address.

In Afghanistan, following the unfortunate attack on Serena Hotel, which killed nine people including a well-known AFP journalist and his family, Afghan journalists declared a 15-day boycott of news reporting on the Taliban. It is unlikely that the same action would be taken in Pakistan, where many remain sympathetic to the terrorist agenda.

Given the violence and intimidation, the absence of a liberal counter-narrative, and the government’s policy of appeasement, the militant narrative has been able to gain increasing prominence in mainstream media. Where once a media appearance by a leader of a terrorist group that is responsible for the killing of 19,000 civilians was an anomaly, today it is common and tomorrow it will be normal.

Using the powerful tools at their disposal to reclaim the ability to shape national discourse will undoubtedly be an uphill task for the Pakistani media, made particularly difficult in the absence of security and support provided by the government. However, the Pakistani media must stand tall. And it must stand united.

If for nothing else, it must do so for its own survival.

Arsla Jawaid is a journalist and managing editor at the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Follow her on Twitter @arslajawaid

The Diplomatic

Terrorists struck again on Sunday, lobbing two grenades into a Peshawar cinema house as people watched a Pushto movie. Four persons were killed and at least 31 others injured for enjoying a normal, legitimate entertainment. Published pictures of the incident presented a scene of utter devastation with blood splattered all over the floor and shoes left behind by panic-stricken survivors as they rushed out to save their lives. The usual suspect, the TTP, said it had nothing to do with the carnage. It may not have ordered this particular attack, but one of its affiliate groups certainly is responsible for it. The KPK government offered an unpalatable explanation as the provincial Information Minister Shah Farman said, “whenever there are prospects of peace talks either drone attacks take place or such acts of terrorism are engineered by elements averse to negotiations.” In other words, a ‘foreign hand’ was involved.

The Taliban in the past have been attacking and burning CD shops. A few years ago, they had bombed a cinema in the city, leaving nine people dead. Considering the behaviour pattern there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who is responsible for the latest bloodletting. Notably, the police are reported to have claimed that they had already warned cinema owners of possible attacks, telling them to improve security arrangements. And that they made the same information available to the government. In pointing the finger at foreign hand the provincial authorities seem to be trying to cover up their own laxity in dealing with the threat. It is not right to shift the entire blame for lack of proper security to cinema owners and responsibility to “elements averse to negotiations.” Cinema managements are at fault for not putting in place proper security measures. It seems that there was no metal detector door or physical checking of people’s personal belongings at the entrance. These are standard measures in most other big cities. The government also needed to ensure compliance. Such checks could have prevented the terrorist (according to the police, the grenades were hurled by a single person from the theatre’s rear rows) from bringing in the grenades and cause so much harm.

As for the other issue, when the police say they had advance information about the threat, it is reasonable to expect they had information about the perpetrators’ identity too. The present investigations may take a while to be completed. Once the job is done, the identity of those behind this act of terrorism must be made public. The people need to know who the perpetrators are, and how they want to reorder this society according to their narrow bigoted worldview. That is all the more important considering that despite so much bloodshed at the hands of violent religious extremists, there still are Taliban apologists in the mainstream of our national life who argue that Muslims cannot shed Muslim blood.

Business Recorder

Pakistan’s journalists are feeling the after-effects of a brutal attack on Express Media, the third and most lethal attack on the media group and its staff in the last six months. The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack, and has issued a fatwa (decree) warning of further attacks against media outlets that they say are providing “misinformation” against them.

On 17 January 2014, four gunmen riding on motorcycles opened fire on the Digital Satellite News Gathering van of the Express News TV channel, which was stationed in the suburb of Nazimabad in Karachi.

Technician Waqas Aziz Khan, driver Muhammad Khalid, and security guard Muhammad Ashraf were seated in the front of the van. The young men, all aged less than 30, were shot multiple times at close range and rushed to hospital where they were pronounced dead. A cameraman who had been seated in the back survived the attack.

In response to the incident, the government created a two-member committee, consisting of the Minister for Information and Broadcasting and the Interior Minister, and tasked it with consulting media houses and journalists’ bodies on how to devise a security strategy for journalists.

The president of the Karachi Union of Journalists (KUJ) lamented that the media continues to be targeted “while those in power are playing the role of a silent spectator”.

The day after the lethal attack, protest demonstrations by journalists, photographers, camera operators, politicians and civil society activists were held in Karachi and other cities. While speaking to the demonstrators, Amin Youssuf, secretary general of the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), announced a 10-day mourning period during which black flags would be hoisted outside press clubs throughout the country. A few days later, the group called for a hunger strike for 23 January, to protest the fact that the killers have not been arrested and proper compensation has not been given to the families of the assassinated journalists. The PFUJ asked unions throughout the country to participate.

The Taliban claim responsibility

Kamal Siddiqi, editor of the Express Tribune, told the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) he could not point to any specific reports that could have led to this latest attack. The outlets that form part of the Express News media group report critically on politics, crime, and international affairs, and have periodically received threats, CPJ reports.

Soon after the attack, in a live telephone call to the anchorperson of Express TV, Ehsanullah Ehsan, former spokesman for Tahreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), claimed responsibility for the killings. According to the Pakistan Press Foundation (PPF), Ehsan accused the Pakistani media of having “assumed the role of the opposition” by spreading “venomous propaganda against the TTP”. The spokesman warned the media that they must side with the TTP in this war of ideologies or face more attacks.

An attack on the whole media

Analyst and director of media development at Civic Action Resources, Adnan Rehmat, told Index on Censorship that he believes the attack on Express News was “meant to browbeat and cow down a media that is becoming more outspoken and starting to criticize the Taliban.”

Omar Quraishi, editorial page editor at the Express Tribune, agreed that this was a message “to the whole of Pakistan’s independent media . . . What needs to be understood by all journalists and media groups an attack on Express Media group is an attack on the whole media.”

The TTP’s message that any media seen to be “biased” against them would face attacks poses an ethical conundrum. As Index on Censorship pointed out: “How much airtime to give to the Taliban to keep them appeased?”

“Media is now confronted by a double whammy challenge – wail about terrorism while simultaneously giving air time to those who perpetrate this violence,” said Fahd Hussain, news director at Express News.

The stakes suddenly became a lot higher as of 23 January. Dawn newspaper reports that the TTP, for the first time since its inception in 2005, has issued a fatwa (decree) against the media and prepared a media hit-list. The 29-page fatwa accuses the media of “siding with the ‘disbelievers’, against Muslims, in the ‘war on Islam’ and inciting people against ‘the mujahideen’ through propaganda as well as of propagating promiscuity and secularism,” according to Dawn.

The initial hit-list names nearly two dozen journalists and publishers. It includes the names of a number of media-group owners, the news heads of various television channels, prominent anchors, the editor of a leading English-language newspaper and even some field staff.

“Even at this stage the media could mend its ways and become a neutral entity,” Ehsan reportedly asserted. “Otherwise, the media should not feel secure. A few barriers and security escorts will not help. If we can get inside military installations, media offices should not be too much of a challenge,” he threatened.

Lack of action on previous attacks

The authorities’ inability or unwillingness to bring perpetrators of previous attacks on the Express Media group to justice only heightens the concern for the media. In December 2013, two staff members were injured when explosives were thrown at the group’s offices in Karachi. And in August, gunmen opened fire at the entrance of the group’s offices. Despite visiting the Express Media office in Karachi twice and setting up investigation teams to probe the two earlier incidents, not a single perpetrator has been arrested, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) reports.

Referring to the December attack on the Express Media group, Ehsan of the TTP reportedly said: “We had not incurred any loss of life so we attacked them again.”

“If those involved in previous attacks [against Express News] had been caught, perhaps they would not have been emboldened to continue this campaign against the media,” said Owais Aslam Ali, PPF secretary general.

In a 21 January letter to the Prime Minister, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) said that “the government of Pakistan has failed in its duties to protect media workers when the realities for them are all too apparent . . . these brave journalists continue to try to do their jobs knowing death is a real repercussion.”

Pakistan ranked 159th out of 179 countries in the 2013 Reporters Without Borders press freedom index. It has been one of the world’s worst nations in combating deadly anti-press violence, CPJ’s Impunity Index shows. Condemning the actions of attackers is “no longer enough”, the IFJ stressed, if Pakistan wants to tackle its rank as one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists. In October, IFJ launched the End Impunity campaign to seek justice for journalist killings in Pakistan, Iran and Russia.

A final word of caution comes from Quraishi, of the Express Tribune. He is quoted in Deutsche Welle as saying that “while only one organization has been attacked so far, journalists, society and the state need to understand that this is part of an assault on the whole media, and time for them to get united and deal with the threat head on.”

IFEX

Adnan Rehmat, who has been working for better safety of journalists for two decades, talks about reporting ethics, attack on media and safety

Adnan Rehmat is director of media development at Civic Action Resources. With a background in journalism, he is a media development specialist focusing on advocacy, research and training. For the past decade he has been working, among other things, with media sector actors — from industry associations of owners, editors and journalists to political parties, governments and international actors — on developing and promoting policies and practices of professional journalism that reduce risks to the media and its practitioners and building alliances on combating impunity against media.

The News on Sunday: How do you look at the recent attack on Express News, the third in line? Are you satisfied with the response of the rest of the media?

Adnan Rehmat: The attack on Express Group is but the latest in a string of attacks and part of a fairly consistent pattern that has resulted in over 70 journalists killed in the past 6 years at the rate of about one every month. However, what separates this attack from those in the past is the accompaniment by a detailed statement issued by the Taliban claiming formal responsibility and detailing explicit reasons why the target killings were done.

It’s clearly meant to browbeat and cow down a media that is becoming more outspoken and starting to criticise the Taliban. The response of the media can be divided into two categories: (1) By working journalists – this has been vociferous, they’re rightly alarmed by the fact that they have been formally declared targets and the sense of extreme vulnerability that comes with being declared an enemy by an actor that even the state is too scared to take on, and (2) By media industry/owner associations — this is characterised by a deafening silence that betrays indifference and callousness, which probably is rooted in the firm knowledge that no editor or owner has ever really been attacked. This contrast in response is deeply troubling.

TNS: Do you agree that in this attack there are signals for the entire media? One media house is targeted to terrorise the rest?

AR: Make no mistake, this attack is not merely a signal — it’s a declaration of war against the media. Expect big casualties. Consider this statement from the Taliban after the attack: “We claim the responsibility of the attack on Express News van. The reason of the attack is that in the war of ideologies all media channels are acting as propagandist and as rival party. If the media doesn’t came [sic] to line and still act as a rival our attacks will continue. Our targets are not limited to Express News but all those media channels and their concerned personnel who are acting as propagandist and rival party. The media should conduct their activities under the rules of Islam.” We all know Taliban keep their word on attacks.

Large areas of the country are heavily restricted for media. So media needs to stop pretending it is working in a reasonable environment.

TNS: Do you think this could have been avoided if there was some kind of consensus among the media houses on how to report acts of violence, what language to use and how to appear to act neutral?

AR: In conditions when the state’s assuring presence and projected protection is rapidly vanishing for a growing list of groups in Pakistan, a major defence of the country’s media practitioners lies in stringent adherence to professionalism. Sure, codes of ethics for reporting exist in some media houses but not all, and barely any media house has a declared specific policy on protection and safety — a set of safety protocols that restricts risk taking. In a country riven by extremism, terrorism and an array of conflicts that they have to report, it is astounding the media houses — and the industry as a whole in Pakistan — does not prioritise this. The result: over 100 journalists and media workers either got target killed or were killed in suicide attacks and bombings in public since 9/11.

This inattention to a policy of professionalism is criminal as it encourages unnecessary risk taking by journalists and cheats them of life and limb.

TNS: Internationally, especially in the post 9/11 context, there is talk of Stockholm Syndrome among journalists. We too seem to have that among journalists on either side who are labelled as pro-Taliban and anti-Taliban. Do we not need an introspection of some kind? Should we not demand greater freedom to report independently in conflict areas both from the militants and the military?

AR: It is people’s right to be pro-Taliban or anti-Taliban — you can’t do much about it when the state itself is suspected of promoting this confusion for its dubious ends but when it comes to media taking positions, two things need to be considered: (1) Journalists need to be wary of being manipulated into dubious media agendas by both state and non-state actors who clearly put their interests before citizens’ welfare and use violence as policy or propaganda instruments, and (2) Large areas of the country are heavily restricted for media such as tribal areas, regions seen as operational or logistical havens for non-state actors but where the military rather than civilian authorities control access. So media needs to stop pretending it is working in a reasonable environment. Reporting terrorism has been the dominant story for the past decade in Pakistan — coinciding with the period that 85 per cent of media that exists today came into being. They have reported without rules and paid a heavy, heartbreaking price for it.

TNS: There appears a symbiotic and complex relationship between acts of violence that are defined as terrorism and media. To affirm its status as a psychological weapon, somebody rightly said that “terrorism is aimed at the watching people and not at the actual victim”. If there is need for some kind of censorship for a limited period, how far do you think can the media compromise on its freedom for the sake of the larger good of society (the broadcasters did agree on refraining from live coverage at one point)?

AR: I’m not a supporter of censorship of any kind. But with a media background stretching back over two decades, a big part of which has been spent on efforts for greater professionalism and safety of journalists, I’m acutely aware of the debilitating constraints the media in Pakistan has to contend with while reporting. I believe that no story or report is worth your life.

Most of Pakistan’s 18,000 journalists get paid a pittance, if at all, and mostly not even on time. They are not soldiers and they have not signed on to lay down their lives and so should absolutely assume no unnecessary risk that doesn’t have pre-agreed coverage. When they die, their media houses don’t even own them or pay their families compensation or even pursue justice for them with legal aid. So unless there are first policies, mechanisms and procedures in place that value their work and cover their risks, journalists should learn to say “no” to becoming part of the story and not succumb to the lure of higher ideals that their employers themselves don’t subscribe to.

TNS: You have talked on the social media about the need for media houses to get united. Can you elaborate what kind of structure do you have in mind? Is it going to be one for the entire media or separate ones for print and electronic? How will the smaller channels be controlled? I am sure we are looking it as a self-regulatory exercise.

AR: Pushed by Pakistan being selected as one of 5 pilot countries with bleak safety standards for journalists and high casualty rates, under a new UN Plan of Action on Impunity Against Media, under which the country will be rated by the UN, there is already a landmark Pakistan Coalition on Media Safety that has brought together media owners, practitioners, civil society, parliament and government to consider a national framework of safety for media. It is early days for them but some of the key measures they are mulling include appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate past casualties in media and future attacks; a set of consensus safety protocols to be endorsed and adopted by media houses for journalists that reduce risk taking and a law on safety of journalists.

TNS: Isn’t it time again to emphasise the need for training of some kind for the staffers into conflict reporting?

AR: Yes. Barely 8 per cent of Pakistan’s 18,000 journalists have received some kind of training on safety. There is a massive demand from journalists and press clubs but media houses are reluctant to fund them and other resources are surprisingly scarce to meet demonstrable demand. This is sad because if journalists will continue to remain under pressure and continue dying, an open society is not what we will have and no marks for guessing who will win the propaganda war that Taliban want — influenced with bullets and bombs aided by criminal inaction by the state and inexplicable hara-kiri by the media itself by refusing to be anything less than professional.

The News

The report points fingers at all those quarters that have, in the past, been accused of making life a living hell for journalists from all media backgrounds. They include not just the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) but also state security agencies and even political parties. Basically, everyone with something to hide has a score to settle with this country’s media men and women. The most visible cases that outline the dire threat against journalists are those of Saleem Shahzad who was killed after he uncovered a story about militant ties with the security agencies and Wali Khan Babar who was killed in Karachi after exposing some of the mafias that have the city in its grip. Both cases highlight how the state’s security agencies and the mafia wings of certain political parties may be involved in putting the lives of journalists at risk.

Pakistan has earned and retains the unenviable title of ‘the most dangerous place in the world for journalists’ since 2010. The Amnesty International report clearly states that journalists have been threatened and coerced for reporting on the military, political parties and militant outfits. It also states that lack of persecution has allowed this open hostility towards journalists because no one has so far been brought to book for the deaths and intimidation of journalists. If one thinks about it, the deaths of Saleem Shahzad and Wali Khan Babar seem to have forever been lost in the murky waters of the country’s rich and powerful interests. In addition to this, the electronic and print media bodies and managements of media organisations refuse to take responsibility for their employees, never bothering to look into the threats visited upon journalists who uncover some of the biggest and most damning stories in the country. The media has been a relatively free voice, a watchdog of society, since 2002. It is the one forum in the country where people are held accountable and crimes by the well connected are brought to light. If those who threaten the media are allowed to walk away with impunity, there will be no end to these crimes against humanity and freedom of expression. The Amnesty International report should not be taken lightly; it is there for the whole world to see. With a new elected government about to take office, it is time it and the media bodies came together to tackle this growing threat to the media.

Source: Daily Times