Laws that give controlling powers to the state machinery over news operations of media outlets and the flow of information in society are bad laws. There cannot be any disagreement with the axiom that a new organisation should be free from any outside pressures, but it should be responsible from within. Pakistani state machinery started giving authoritarian looks the moment Western influence on our political and military elites started to recede in the wake of the seeming completion of the US counter-terrorism mission in Afghanistan. Freedom of Expression and the idea of giving journalists and media men a privileged status within the society was never a deep-rooted commitment with Pakistani ruling elites. It was a fashion and fashion which they imported or imitated from the West. Cultural imitation of the West has been a long-standing tradition in Islamabad.
Let me give you a remarkably interesting example. Pakistani government officials and rulers used to address press conferences and briefings comfortably sitting on chairs behind large tables before the tragic events of 911. After the A-Qaeda attacks in New York and Washington, as we became US allies, our military and political elites started to address conferences standing behind dias just like their American counterparts. So, freedom of expression and media independence were fashions that the military government of General Pervaiz Musharraf was willing to concede to the journalists in a few major cities like Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi. The military government, however, ran out of patience as soon as Pakistani media made survival difficult for the Musharraf regime in the wake of the Lal Masjid Operation and Lawyers movement.
The PPP government which came to power in 2008 was traditionally sympathetic towards media freedom. But in all these years Pakistani state machinery’s patience was wearing thin. For all the military itself became a victim of this freedom of expression. Military internal affairs became a subject of controversy in the media, which created a discipline problem within the ranks and files. In the post-Musharraf period, the threat of lack of legitimacy was primarily a headache for elected governments on account of controversies in the media. In later years, the question of lack of legitimacy started to haunt the military itself. And the reason was none other than the media reporting especially the unscrupulous and unrestrained reporting in the social media. Now freedom of expression was no more affordable, and neither was it fashionable any longer given the coldness that crept into Washington-Islamabad relations in the wake of Musharraf’s departure and eventually US military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Since the days of Arab Spring—the spontaneous uprisings in Middle Eastern Arab countries—part of Pakistani state machinery has lived in fear of a similar uprising in Pakistan based on a spark caused by some unscrupulous reporting in social media
The state machinery is now no longer ready to sacrifice its control on society on the pretext of some Western borrowed concept—which they consider alien to their religious and political values and political interests—at a time when they no longer have the need and requirement to play to the galleries of some influential lobbies in Washington and important Western capitals. They are no longer dependent on Western largesse and their political relevance as Musharraf was once dependent on these bounties from Western capitals. So, any expectation that they would pay heed to clamors for freedom of the media is futile and naïve. Pakistani media will continue to live under the stringent legal framework that started to take shape in the last days of General Musharraf’s military government.
Since the days of Arab Spring—the spontaneous uprisings in Middle Eastern Arab countries—part of Pakistani state machinery has lived in fear of a similar uprising in Pakistan based on a spark caused by some unscrupulous reporting in social media. Secondly, the military and its leadership have particularly been targeted in a very unscrupulous manner in the past two years on social media. This is not simply a matter of good or bad image. It is more deeply disturbing than that—how social media created a situation of uncertainty about the integrity of the institution at the time of the appointment of General Asim Munir as COAS.
On a serious note, there must be a clear distinction between editorially controlled conventional media and social media which completely lacks any editorial control that could function as a filter between raw information and processed news. A processed new form in a conventional media outlet must pass through a proper editorial mechanism before it is ready to be presented to the viewers or readers. Law and state, or semi-independent institutions regulating the media are a norm all over the world. This is the requirement of the times in the face of an increasingly anarchic situation that defines the media and social media scene in Pakistan. Regulatory authority I think is not the main point of contention. Hardly any serious person would disagree.
Nobody who is serving the commercial interest of a business concern could morally claim to be an independent journalist
The question is how much influence the state machinery, ruling political parties, one or the other—would have on this regulatory authority. The problem is that in our context the ruling parties themselves and parts of state machinery function as spreaders of fake news. Who will judge them? Much before the time when PTI’s social media goons started to dominate the social media scene, there were pro-military goons who were spreading fake news about any commentator who was critical of the military, there were PMLN goons who were spreading fake news about those critical of the present ruling party. If pro-military elements dominate the regulatory authority or if PMLN elements dominate the authority only PTI-generated fake news would be banned or would be taken care of. Regulatory authority is necessary but a regulatory authority monitors and regulates according to law, not according to the whims of their masters.
However, we can be sure about one thing, Pakistani state machinery’s authoritarian tendencies are here to stay. They are not going away. We have a military and its leadership which is highly insecure about its image and discipline within its institution in the face of growing and outrageous criticism in the social media. We have a civil government, which is overly sensitive about its constituencies, and which has an eye towards the next parliamentary elections. And we have a myriad of state machinery institutions which are ever wary of intrusive media. These interests and their irreversible insecurities will ensure that the media will have a tough time dealing with the state and its laws.
But I would like to draw the attention of the readers towards a bigger threat to the morality of the idea of freedom of expression. Freedom of Expression is not a reward or privilege awarded to a social group called journalists and it is not something which the media men and journalists should exercise with moral impunity. Freedom of expression is a collective right bestowed on the people of Pakistan by the constitution so that the people of Pakistan can creatively use this right for the social, economic, cultural, and political development and progress of the society.
Freedom of expression is a responsibility; it is not a privilege to serve anybody’s agenda of self-aggrandisement
Since the people of Pakistan are engaged in different professions and vocations, they do not always find time to exercise this right. So, in our case, a group of professional journalists and a group of professional bloggers and vloggers exercise this right on behalf of the whole society. But look at how it is used: a few days back I saw a highly acclaimed so-called TV anchor appearing in a brief vlog advertising the commercial interests of a wedding hall located in the Islamabad Expressway. He was inviting his viewers to celebrate their parties and functions in this wedding hall. Amazing: A host of political talk shows who never stops bragging about his independence is serving the commercial interests of a business concern. So, you are only neutral in the political field. However, when it comes to commercial interests you are very much a party. I have seen other instances of popular hosts of TV talk shows advertising commercial interests as models in commercial advertisements, endorsing a particular product.
I remember in the later years of the 1990s when I was serving as a reporter in the packed reporting room of an English-language Daily newspaper in Islamabad, the whole reporting team of sixteen reporters objected to the editor's demands of bringing advertisement supplements from Federal ministries. We as a team of sixteen reporters resigned from our positions. One evening our Chief Reporter, Khalid Qayyum came out of the Editor's room after a prolonged meeting and announced that he was resigning. He told us that the Editor was demanding each reporter to bring advertisement supplements from the ministry they were covering. We had a meeting in the reporting room and we endorsed Khalid’s stand they will not let any commercial interests influence their definition of news, “ we are covering and investigating these ministries and how can we ask them to serve the commercial interests of the newspaper and remain objective in our coverage of ministries activities” was our unanimous decision. We tendered a collective resignation. So, whoever is listening, I want to vow loudly, that I will not fight for freedom of expression which only widens the space of leading popular figures in the media to endorse commercial products or serve commercial interests.
A few months back there was an incident on the roads of Karachi in which a lady from a leading business family in the city crashed into four innocent citizens under her speeding sports jeep in a narrow alley. The reporting of the incident in one of the top newspaper websites did not carry the name of the lady or the family or the business house which was protecting her in the initial reports which were published the same day and which I happened to read on the same day. It was only after social media started giving out the details of the business house that protected the lady that the leading newspaper— the newspaper which is considered a self-styled advocate of freedom of expression and whose owners and editors often proceed to Washington to receive the freedom of expression award—started to give the name of the business house. It was pathetic and shameful. This attitude is a much bigger threat to the idea and credibility of freedom of expression in our society. You demand freedom of expression, your project yourself as its champions and you receive awards from your mentors in Washington and other capitals. And yet you use this same right so shamelessly.
I think the traditional model of newspaper owners has lost its utility—it is timid and it is irresponsible. In other countries, especially our neighboring India, professional journalists, and their organisations are flirting with the idea of news outlets which are not run on any commercial advertisement. Instead, they are run based on charities and donations from ordinary people in society. In this way, they could be independent. Nobody who is serving the commercial interest of a business concern could morally claim to be an independent journalist. I mean if you are in the business of serving commercial interests why are you demanding political freedom in the first place? Freedom of expression is a responsibility; it is not a privilege to serve anybody’s agenda of self-aggrandisement.