The Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) has announced a Protest Day on October 9 to agitate against unprecedented censorship of the print and electronic media in Pakistan under a “democratic” government. Various owner-editor media bodies like the Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors (CPNE), All Pakistan Newspaper Society (APNS) and Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA) have weighed in with complaints and concerns. Reports by concerned international media watchdogs like the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Reporters San Frontiers (RSF), etc., and respected international print media like The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, etc., testify to the fact of the Pakistani press under siege. Social media in the country is ever ready to report “disappeared” dissidents, lists of “anti-national” journalists under attack and even of “treason” cases against some. Now a new weapon in the war against outspoken speech has been brandished: it’s called “contempt of court”.
Where’s the attack on the media coming from? What’s the nature of the media’s crime? And how come the media has become so susceptible to such pressure tactics by meekly hunkering down and shutting up?
In the old days, the print media could be cautioned and even silenced by a combination of bribes (government advertising) and coercion (Press and Publications Ordinance). But the stranglehold of the press laws ended in the 1990s following the revival of “electoral democracy” led by the two mainstream political parties (PPP and PMLN). A period of “enlightened moderation” by the civilianized military regime of General Pervez Musharraf – that had outlawed both the parties and needed media support for its own legitimacy – followed in the 2000s when permissions were freely granted to businessmen to set up TV channels and radio stations across the country. Before long, there was an explosion of “freedom”, with no-holds barred political talk shows, commentaries and sit-coms becoming the norm for popular entertainment.
The downside to this media revolution is more significant. Fat cats from the industrial and commercial sector seized the commanding heights of the electronic media and marginalized the old band of print editor-owners who had risen by the bootstraps and not ventured forth into other businesses.
These new entrants from the manufacturing, construction and service sectors were primarily motivated by one ruthless objective: to protect and enhance their business interests by leveraging their new media power with the civil-military establishment. Some saw their new venture as a trade-off between tax write offs and celebrity status. Correspondingly, the demand for anchors, hosts and “experts” shot up overnight, the main requirement being good looks, glib tongues and audacity rather than any formal media education emphasizing established journalistic norms and standards. With commercial advertising shifting rapidly from the print media to the electronic, the new media “stars” were now also inclined to leverage integrity for fat pay cheques. Increasingly, “freedom” in the new media dispensation became another word for irresponsible, blackmailing, leveraging or anarchist broadcasting.
Enter Social Media in the last decade or so. Instead of being the main vehicle for breaking factual news, this has degenerated rapidly into a big Anti-Social Media platform trolled by organized political interests. The PTI’s youth brigades were organized by slick IT professionals who were paid to milk this platform by setting up hundreds of fake Twitter accounts that could generate furious “made to order trends” to browbeat and drown out critical voices. Before long, the Miltablishment got into the act too and terms of endearment like “traitors”, “Raw/CIA Agents” began to compete with the shrill abuse of the PTI trolls.
So we now have an old media and a new media. The old media is represented by a dying breed of owner editors who still cling to traditional notions of editorial independence, and a pack of journalists who continue speaking truth to power. The new media is represented by a rising galaxy of channel owners, anchors, hosts and reporters with political and economic interests to leverage unconscionably. In other words, “press freedom” means two opposite things to each group of stakeholders.
The PFUJ, CPNE, APNS, CPJ, RF, etc. all belong to the old media school that continues to protest about censoring the truth, about disappearing critical voices, about organized trolling, about pressure on cable operators to shun errant channels and hawkers who distribute newspapers which challenge failed national narratives. Unfortunately, this group is weak in the face of the relentless onslaught by the new media. Therefore, we may expect Oct 9 Protest Day to be unremarkable, with no more than the usually small suspect-groups of rights protestors with black arm bands and shrieking banners at scattered Press Clubs across the country.
But the situation is bound to change for the better. No private media can survive the brutal reality of ratings by being acquiescent and plaint. The current supporters of holy cows and governments are bound to become their critics. The self-righteous “patriots” of today will surely be exposed as the unholy conspirators of yesterday. Technology is geared to breaking media barriers. No country is an island. And the truth will out.
Where’s the attack on the media coming from? What’s the nature of the media’s crime? And how come the media has become so susceptible to such pressure tactics by meekly hunkering down and shutting up?
In the old days, the print media could be cautioned and even silenced by a combination of bribes (government advertising) and coercion (Press and Publications Ordinance). But the stranglehold of the press laws ended in the 1990s following the revival of “electoral democracy” led by the two mainstream political parties (PPP and PMLN). A period of “enlightened moderation” by the civilianized military regime of General Pervez Musharraf – that had outlawed both the parties and needed media support for its own legitimacy – followed in the 2000s when permissions were freely granted to businessmen to set up TV channels and radio stations across the country. Before long, there was an explosion of “freedom”, with no-holds barred political talk shows, commentaries and sit-coms becoming the norm for popular entertainment.
The downside to this media revolution is more significant. Fat cats from the industrial and commercial sector seized the commanding heights of the electronic media and marginalized the old band of print editor-owners who had risen by the bootstraps and not ventured forth into other businesses.
These new entrants from the manufacturing, construction and service sectors were primarily motivated by one ruthless objective: to protect and enhance their business interests by leveraging their new media power with the civil-military establishment. Some saw their new venture as a trade-off between tax write offs and celebrity status. Correspondingly, the demand for anchors, hosts and “experts” shot up overnight, the main requirement being good looks, glib tongues and audacity rather than any formal media education emphasizing established journalistic norms and standards. With commercial advertising shifting rapidly from the print media to the electronic, the new media “stars” were now also inclined to leverage integrity for fat pay cheques. Increasingly, “freedom” in the new media dispensation became another word for irresponsible, blackmailing, leveraging or anarchist broadcasting.
Enter Social Media in the last decade or so. Instead of being the main vehicle for breaking factual news, this has degenerated rapidly into a big Anti-Social Media platform trolled by organized political interests. The PTI’s youth brigades were organized by slick IT professionals who were paid to milk this platform by setting up hundreds of fake Twitter accounts that could generate furious “made to order trends” to browbeat and drown out critical voices. Before long, the Miltablishment got into the act too and terms of endearment like “traitors”, “Raw/CIA Agents” began to compete with the shrill abuse of the PTI trolls.
So we now have an old media and a new media. The old media is represented by a dying breed of owner editors who still cling to traditional notions of editorial independence, and a pack of journalists who continue speaking truth to power. The new media is represented by a rising galaxy of channel owners, anchors, hosts and reporters with political and economic interests to leverage unconscionably. In other words, “press freedom” means two opposite things to each group of stakeholders.
The PFUJ, CPNE, APNS, CPJ, RF, etc. all belong to the old media school that continues to protest about censoring the truth, about disappearing critical voices, about organized trolling, about pressure on cable operators to shun errant channels and hawkers who distribute newspapers which challenge failed national narratives. Unfortunately, this group is weak in the face of the relentless onslaught by the new media. Therefore, we may expect Oct 9 Protest Day to be unremarkable, with no more than the usually small suspect-groups of rights protestors with black arm bands and shrieking banners at scattered Press Clubs across the country.
But the situation is bound to change for the better. No private media can survive the brutal reality of ratings by being acquiescent and plaint. The current supporters of holy cows and governments are bound to become their critics. The self-righteous “patriots” of today will surely be exposed as the unholy conspirators of yesterday. Technology is geared to breaking media barriers. No country is an island. And the truth will out.