|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
Special
Report media 'PEMRA
is a flawed authority' Gagging acts 'If the viewers
have a problem they should speak up, not PEMRA' 'Both
government and owners must protect journalists' The show goes
on Timeline
The bars on freedom of press are not new. True. The print media has been witness to some of the worst restrictions in the history of this country. Equally true. The regulatory authority is flawed. Also true. It's only meant to curb freedom, not regulate. So it seems. The present government is responsible for opening of floodgates of freedom -- read issuing of licences to more than 45 electronic channels. Well, partially true, depending on your stakes in the system (you may choose to lambast the claim if you've nothing to lose or give them credit if you still have to gain favours from the government). The electronic media only mirrors what happens in life. Untrue. If there was no media, the protests would happen nonetheless. Not just true. The truth is that
independent TV channels, at a critical juncture of our history, did not The freedom to speak and the room allowed by the electronic media to also get away with it, let many of the sacred cows lose their holiness. The role of military in political and all other spheres came to be discussed openly on the media and intelligence agencies and MQM were quick to follow -- though a price had to be paid in the shape of some brutal killings in Karachi. And, in this whole process, it was only a matter of time that media itself became news. But, let us admit that it chose to do so. It deliberately stretched its role of news producer to an extent where it became news itself. Now it may not be totally untrue to say that the protests would still happen if there's no media. But it deserves all credit for acting as a catalyst for these protests -- just because it picked the right time to strike. Today, the media is the movement. The government knows it too well and that's why it's jittery. Or, really, angry. The government is accusing the electronic media of flouting Pemra 'rules', but what exactly are these rules about? A couple of months ago,
Javed Jabbar, former Federal Minister for Information, while discussing the
future of media freedom in Pakistan, said that it would be impossible for In addition to Jabbar who termed the step as a 'self-negating and self-defeating measure', everyone has denounced the frantic attempt to curb press freedom except, of course, the general, the general's generals, and his government. The Pemra (Amendment) Ordinance 2007 stands out because the president did not push the legislation through the National Assembly; instead, he chose to promulgate an ordinance. Maybe it was for fear of having to face the opposition in the parliament. The fear was well-founded, something that is evident from the fact that the government, on late Wednesday night, suspended the changes in the Pemra ordinance until a committee reviews the changes. Five years on (after the promulgation of Pemra Ordinance in 2002), it seems absurdly ironic that the government that has always taken pride (and all credit) in "pioneering the establishment of private TV and Radio channels in Pakistan and considers it a source of strength for both democracy and accountability" (to quote Mohammad Ali Durrani, during his June 5 press meet) has tainted the 'enlightened' policy it itself initiated. Though the federal minister for Information and Broadcasting was not available for comment, the government's stance is more or less clear from the statements that the minister has been giving since June 4. And, to be fair, the minister (in addition to the general) dropped enough hints that strict measures would be taken to 'discipline' the media. After the general's warning, the minister said on June 1, "The media should observe the rules of Pemra, and the government will also strictly implement these rules and not allow any one to malign the armed forces, judiciary and other constitutional institutions." Interestingly, no one from the president to the information minister is ready to accept that it has placed bans on TV channels. "TV channels have not been banned, nor have any programmes been banned," said Arshad Malik, press secretary of information minister while talking to TNS. At other times, the government accuses the TV channels of violating Pemra rules. "Since March 9, the electronic media has adopted a quite irresponsible attitude towards the judicial matter and even the directions of the apex court were totally ignored," said Durrani. So, what Pemra rules are the TV channels breaking? Even the Ministry of Information does not have a concrete answer to that. Arshad insists that the channels are guilty of "breaching several Pemra rules." Article 20 of the Ordinance, along with Rule 18 and Schedule B, provide guidelines that the licencees have to follow. Article 27 of the Pemra Ordinance that states that the Authority can "prohibit a broadcaster or cable TV operator from broadcasting... or distributing any programme if it is of the opinion that such programme is likely to create hatred among the people or is prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order, or likely to disturb public peace and tranquillity or endangers national security." However, what it also states is that the Authority has to give reasons in writing for issuing such an order. Furthermore, in case of any complaints, it is laid down in the Pemra Ordinance that the matter shall be referred the Council of Complaints, a body which was supposed to be formed within 200 days of promulgation of the ordinance in 2002 but still hasn't. Though the government does not seem to have a clue as to which rules TV channels were flagging, Pemra's Head Media and PR, Muhammad Saleem seems to have a better idea. Talking to TNS he said, "All that the TV channels have been asked to do is to stop airing more than their allowed percentage during 24 hours of live uplinking. In the US and the UK, too, there is a particular number of hours that TV channels are allowed to uplink live. What the channels were guilty of doing was that they were uplinking live for more than the allowed hours while covering the chief justice's rallies and bar addresses." Adnan Rehmat, the country director of Internews, disagrees, "The Authority as well as the government is just making excuses. Aaj and ARY have permanent licenses, not temporary ones. This means that at least they do not have to follow a particular percentage of live uplinking. But they too have been targeted. The TV channels' only 'sin' is that they covered rallies of the CJP and the speeches of lawyers, which were critical of the government." Coming to the government's second objection, that the electronic media has gone against the directives of the apex court. It was the Supreme Judicial Council and not the Supreme Court that issued the directive to the media. Furthermore, the directive did not ban all coverage of the reference against the chief justice. All that it asked the media to do was to refrain from discussing the contents of the reference or to spell out the charges of misconduct against the CJP. Since then, and even before that, the corruption charges have not been discussed in any programme. The media did not at any point pass a judgment about the chief justice being guilty or innocent. All that the electronic media did was to hold talk shows that discussed the legal aspect of the reference: Whether such a reference could be made against the CJP, whether the SJC could be constituted without the CJP, whether the SJC could override the SC. In cases like O J Simpson and Dr Kelly, the media recreated the court room proceedings, but since they were not passing any judgements about whether the accused were guilty or not, the courts (or the governments) had absolutely no reason for banning or even threatening the media. Mr Durrani on June 1 also said, "Those societies turn into a jungle where supremacy of law is not observed." Maybe the government should try to follow the law before trying anyone 'according to the law'. Imran Aslam, President Geo TV, on the need for a regulatory framework for the media The News on Sunday: What is it that you disagree with: The body that promulgated the PEMRA Ordinance (Amended 2007) or the Ordinance itself? Imran Aslam: The Ordinance
came at a time when the debate on press freedom was One of the major problems with the ordinance is that they have removed the whole discussion period and handed over summary powers to Pemra to go ahead and seal the offices of the broadcast media. These are not the powers of a regulatory authority, these are the powers of the police. Obviously, these are issues that will have to be addressed. Thirdly, doubling the fines is not acceptable at all. TNS: Do you recognise Pemra as a body? IA: We do recognise it as a body, but we have always maintained that it is a flawed authority that needs to be looked at more carefully. And, I think we need to look at some of the rules and regulations, especially the new ordinances, which are very inimical to press freedom. TNS: Why have the representatives of the broadcast media not been able to effectively lobby against the ordinances passed earlier? There has been no unanimous approval of the previous Pemra bills? IA: We have been able to lobby, and we are still fighting. We also wanted a discussion on the terms of Pemra, as we thought it was going a bit too far. The Pemra was taken away from the ministry of information and to the cabinet division, and has been shifted back to the ministry of information now. These things have taken place just recently, and by the time we reacted, it had come to a point where the relations between the government and the press had taken damaging dimensions. Generally speaking, the opening up of the media has led them to claim the credit for this great mushrooming. Certainly, there has been sustained levels of freedom that we have never seen before. Whether this is because they could not monitor it or could not block it, or they just wanted it. I will give them the benefit of the doubt. However, it seems they slowly realised (the 'damaging' aspects of the media freedom). Whenever we have treaded the areas where their own situation has been under attack they have shown signs of nervousness asking us to go slow. When there is a full-frontal on them, they don't seem to have the ability to absorb criticism. After the attack on Geo, it took the President 45 minutes to come online and apologise, and we were convinced that the attack was not his personal intention and he was against such attacks on the media. But, subsequently, we have seen a different picture. Either he is being misguided by his advisors he himself has changed, nobody knows. TNS: Clearly, there has to be some regulatory framework for the media as there is, all over the world. What kind of regulatory framework is acceptable to you, structurally and ideologically? IA: We can negotiate a framework but we cannot accept something that is imposed on us. And this is what has happened. We have offered to work with the authorities, to sit together, draw up a code, but that has never happened. TNS: What about the interests of the consumer? IA: I think Pemra should cover that. It regulates cable operators. It should keep a check on the access to, and concentration of, channels. For example, how many religious channels should there be. Surely, we cannot have a wild cat environment. They should inform us about the laws and the code of ethics. Consumers' interests should also be looked into. TNS: Is it because of the political structure of the country that we have an authority like Pemra? IA: There has always been this issue with regulatory authorities. They end up becoming censor boards. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has long been advising the media (over what to produce). We have lived through a period where we were at the receiving end of notices, advice and censorship policies. And, these are the same people that have been there for the past 25 years. These are the people that have a mindset to control things, and we cannot change their mindsets. I don't see any major difference between the military and the political rule. All we can say about this government is that at least, whether it was due to technology or it is a culmination of years of struggle or the international environment, the government has been responsible for this proliferation of channels that has resulted in providing platform for ideas and discussion of taboo subjects. We have even discussed matters that other governments would have been very nervous to discuss. Let me say that even the exiled leaders do not have the tolerance for such kind of debate. I remember when we interviewed Benazir Bhutto on 'Jawabdeh', it took her 15 minutes to pull the mike up and storm off. This is because they are not used to it. They are used to having the media subservient to them. TNS: If we had a proper democracy, with free and fair elections and a functioning parliament, do you think things would have been different? IA: There are no ideal states. We have experienced quasi-democracy. The problems with the current set up -- and one of the things we have been accused of -- is that we cannot and should not question the integrity of the armed forces. There is certainly an anomaly here, as the president wears two hats. When his political role is criticised it does not necessarily mean that his military role is criticised, too. If the military is involved in commercial business, we have the right to question them as tax payers. TNS: Do you have a policy guideline to ensure balanced coverage of issues? IA: We have decided to make an effort to have all versions when any issue is under discussion in our shows. Or, at least, bring in a neutral expert. We do try our best to strike some sort of a balance. Recently, when we had Imran Khan on 'Jawabdeh', we repeatedly invited Farooq Sattar to join the show and defend his party. But he refused to come. TNS: Is it complete freedom over the editorial content production and distribution you are seeking? IA: This never happens. At the same time, you draw up a social contract. People sit down and discuss issues, and attempt to lay the foundations of a level-playing field. But, when there is a regulatory authority that slowly becomes an authority that is out to strangulate you, then one has to put up a fight. TNS: What would your stand be if the ordinance is withdrawn? Should the media not continue to fight to avoid a repeat show? IA: Nobody says you can have freedom that is licensed. That could degenerate into the law of the jungle. There is certainly a need for some sort of order, somewhere. But that order should not be restraining, it should be facilitating. TNS: You said earlier that the media had offered the authorities to work with them to draw up a code of ethics. Is the friction within the industry one reason why this offer failed? There is a lot of competition within the media itself as it involves big bucks and bigger players today? IA: Of course, we are players in the sense that we all have a stake in the country. And our role is defined, too, and that is not to govern and run the country. We are basically the watchdogs that oversee with responsibility. There are times when media becomes the news and I do not advocate that. Let us just be the news producers. Gagging acts Any outlet of human expression has always had to face censorship and regulation. The audiovisual modes have met with the harshest of control to be exercised upon by overbearing rulers. Reporters who cross borders and relay back their findings from within conflict-ridden zones have often become casualties themselves. Thus, in order to safeguard the lives of media personnel and to ensure their efforts are transmitted across the world, an association of sorts has developed over the past couple of years. The World Electronic Media Forum (WEMF) came together in 2003 and draws support and co-operation from UN related bodies and a number of international broadcasting organisations. The WEMF examines the global information divide as well as co-coordinating with governments and security forces to ensure the safety of active journalists. Among the countries that heavily regulate and levy restrictions upon the broadcasting media, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea are the most prominent. The ruling Communist Party of China has heavily regulated the transmission of Western satellite television channels to the general public. The state-run China Central Television (CCTV) has had a considerable monopoly over the content that is displayed to the citizenry via the small screen. New policies, however, do make an exception for the privately funded channels to be relayed to the public, but these require 51 per cent state ownership. In the so-called developed countries, there are no official media regulation departments. Yet, allegedly there have been instances of the control of information by covert government agencies. But, this certainly does not imply that the broadcasting media stations do not have to adhere to minimum self-control and legal standards. In the US, a system of journalism ethics more or less ensures that free and fair reporting goes on-air. Even though the very first amendment to the American constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, any form of libel or misrepresentation of the facts elicits immediate censure and law suits. American films however are more prone to biased censorship by the Movie Picture Association of America (MPAA) whose ratings compromise the informative or artistic value of this medium. The US northern neighbour though enjoys a more symbiotic relationship between the electronic broadcasting media and the government's cultural ministry. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is responsible for applying a system of 'quotas' in favour of local media content. Hence the programmes in the line-up have to constitute 60 per cent or more of those being representative of Canadian themes or involve a domestic cast and production crew. In fact, the provincial governments themselves fund a lot of television projects which end up being far more open in the range of issues covered vis-a-vis their American counterparts. Within the European Union, a citizen's access to information regarding the member states' activities is assured by article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In such a case, it is the interest of the audience that guides what media content is to be broadcast over the competing audiovisual channels. It was during the 1980s and 90s that many countries in Western Europe had to liberalise their television markets in order to qualify for membership into the European Union. The digitisation and convergence of commercial television channels put pressure on the public ones to distance themselves from political and economic interests. In a bid for the coveted EU membership, Turkey has been considerably lax in letting television and radio broadcasters operate, in many cases even without licenses. A Radio and Television Supreme Council was established in 1994 with the purpose of awarding licenses to commercial broadcasters and monitoring their compliance with the law. Yet the EU requirements of freedom of expression and minority rights have kept the state-appointed media watchdogs at bay. The freedom of expression and free speech is enshrined in article 19 of the 1950 Indian constitution. However, policies more resembling the draconian 1857 'gagging act' of the then British government have been in practice. In the interest of national Security, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act was passed in 1994. Just last month, the Indian High Court cancelled the license of a news channel for airing an 'obscene' visual of an actress. The court also criticised the government for not putting in place sufficient regulatory controls for the broadcasting of media content. Similarly, a two-month ban on FTV was lifted only after the channel promised to be more careful in airing objectionable content. Yet, investigative reporting such as those on corruption cases involving government officials has rarely resulted in the revoking of permits from the state authorities. The merits of globalisation have played a significant role in rendering the electronic media as a powerful arsenal for enhancing human rights. Attempts to regulate and suppress them will only result in strengthening the resolve to speak out and be heard. The only way that the human race will intellectually evolve further is through unfettered exchange of ideas and points of view. 'If the viewers have a problem they should speak up, not PEMRA' The News on Sunday: How do you see the recent tussle between the media and the government? Syed Talat Hussain: Well, the government is panicking, because politically it is isolated. The street is heating up against it, and the government is, typically enough, trying to kill the messenger that brings the bad news. That's that. TNS: How far, in your
honest opinion, is the government justified in imposing these STH: Those who say this are either speaking out of bias or they do not know the real sentiment out there. Besides, they do not understand the demands on media in the modern day. If you look at the way every TV channel covers every big event anywhere in the world, this is the way it is done. It is TV, 24/7. Make no mistake about it. TV amplifies, TV is minute-to-minute coverage. That's what this idiot box is. If we are used to the PTV Khabarnama or we are used to reading one newspaper a day, then obviously we are living in a day and age that is extinct. I can quote you 20,000 examples from all over the world where TV channels have covered events as we did. Secondly, everybody agrees that the CJ issue is the most important issue to have hit Pakistan after probably the separation of the country in 1971. How else are we supposed to be covering this? If the CJ travels from Rawalpindi to Lahore in 26 hours, it's a big event. If he makes it to Abbottabad in 16 hours, it's a big event, again. And, frankly, if the viewers have a problem they should speak up. Pemra certainly does not represent the viewers. Anwar Mehmood certainly does not represent the viewers, I can assure you. That's the market dynamics: If you give the viewers something they don't like, they will respond any way by switching to another channel. TNS: Did you foresee such a ban coming your way? STH: Historically speaking, the governments have always resorted to this kind of tactics. They don't like the mirror being held up to them. Previous governments have had a problem with the print media. We know how it imposed bans when the media printed critical expose on the state. It's a continuation of a tradition that we have seen happen since the colonial times. This is the way the British would react in the colonised subcontinent. They would jail journalists, and register FIRs against them. They would invoke the glory of the crown and the integrity of the Empire as a way to subjugate the press. You could say that it is an old tradition that has continued even into 2007. TNS: Do you know of any organisation such as Pemra that exists in other countries? How do the media in these countries deal with it? STH: Media is not regulated by a body or run by officers who cannot run their own police stations, who can't tell their left from their right when it comes to dealing with technology. They sure are not technically qualified to deal with the media. Secondly, if you read the scripts of different international treaties as well as conventions on such organisations, you find that regulatory bodies are at best independent bodies. They are managed by independent, neutral persons. No organisation that is subject to administerial control, is qualified to be called a regulatory body. International conventions are very clear on that. The news channels themselves are responsible for screening their content. Likewise for newspapers. Look at how Tony Blair was shredded to bits by his media. But, he took every piece of criticism in his stride. Did he file cases against the journalists? No, he did not. TNS: Is it feasible in today's times of internet TV, DTH, and mobile TV, to gag the media and stop the flow of information? STH: You cannot gag technology. It's as simple as that. You cannot stop the information flow unless, of course, you believe that you are more organised than the Chinese, or maybe more sophisticated than the Cubans. You are not. Besides, information flow is not responsible for the public sentiment. I think it's an exaggerated view that media stirs up a feeling of antagonism. Media does not. When Martial Law was imposed in Lahore in 1953, during the anti-Ahmediya riots, was media responsible for that? No. There was resistance movement that started immediately afterwards. Was media responsible for that? No. Look at the entire history of the subcontinent, and you'll find such examples in plenty. Government's incompetence, its short-sightedness, and unfair policies alone have to do with the sentiment of antagonism among the common masses. TNS: Do you foresee any further restrictions? STH: The government's panic is for all to see. It has put its foot in its mouth. I do believe, however, that there will be more restrictions, and more attempted administrative control. But all of this is going to backfire. No government in a developed or an under-developed world has ever won a battle against the media. Period. TNS: How do you plan to deal with the situation? STH: We are going to be talking to journalists, working with the press clubs and their governing bodies. We all are up against the restrictions. And, we are telling our owners not to strike a deal with the government. So, the show goes on. Musharraf is not the first military ruler that has reacted this way. Earlier, we've had Ayub Khan, Zia ul Haq and the like. We will do as our elders and our seniors did, and we'll probably fare better because this time around the odds are against the government.
Mazhar Abbas, Secretary General, Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, on the need to restore the Council of Complaints The News on Sunday: Do you agree with the present government's claims to have provided the media more freedom than previous regimes? Mazhar Abbas: The present government has done many good things for the independence of the media. It allowed the media to establish new networks as well as to criticise the government policies. But, in the current situation, it has not acted properly. I think that by trying to curb the media, the government has not done justice to its claims. TNS: What exactly are the issues the government has with the TV channels? MA: The media managers of
the present government can answer this better. Whatever I Creating new, stricter laws is not the solution but the government should immediately constitute the Council (of Complaints) with a mandate to solve the present media crisis. Basically, it is the failure of the government's media managers who might have given the president the suggestion to curb media in this way, forcing the government to open a new front while the CJ crisis remains to be solved. TNS: Do you think it is the CJ issue that forced the government to implement restrictions on electronic channels? MA: In the present scenario, it is hard to find out any other reason for which the government is trying to put restrictions on the media. It is right that some slogans broadcast through different channels during the live coverage of CJ should not have been put on air. But, the media did not telecast them intentionally. Nobody favours irresponsible journalism. Journalists, from both print and electronic media, should also sit together and chalk out a complete code of ethics. TNS: Would you say that the coverage of May 12 incidents triggered these restrictions? MA: That was really a horrible day, but I do not think that May 12 was the day after which the government decided to tighten the noose around our TV channels. As a matter of fact, journalism has become a very difficult field in Pakistan, over the last few years. According to the index of Press Freedom issued by Reporters Without Borders, Pakistan slipped to 157th position in 2006, from 119th in 2002, out of a total of 168 countries. But, government alone is not responsible for the situation. There are many pressure groups who are creating problems for journalists. But, what the government has done in the last two weeks is that it has created another crisis for them. Basically, it is the failure of the information ministry. Its officials should watch TV programmes of the last two weeks and assess what the government's impression was before it started to pressurise the media, and after that. TNS: So you think that both government and media barons are responsible for the vulnerable situation of journalists in the country? MA: What I am saying is that the process of pressurising the media through different means has a long history in Pakistan. But, the governments alone have not done that; media owners are also responsible for that. They are not ready to provide protection to their workers. I request both the government and media owners to ensure the protection of journalists. Right now it is in the favour of media owners to publish news items against pressure on journalists, but my question to them all is: Will they give our problems similar type of space, once the crisis is over? TNS: Your view on government having registered cases against some 250 journalists protesting against the Pemra restrictions in Islamabad. MA: I think it is not the way to handle the situation. Though the prime minister has now asked the Islamabad police to withdraw FIRs. This should help normalise matters. The show goes on As private television channels broke the monopoly of the state-owned PTV, the government countered them by imposing policy bans Many of us still remember the days when Pakistan Television (PTV) was the only available channel to the viewers. India's Doorsdarshan was the only other option available to residents of select cities falling near the Indo-Pak border. Launched in 1964, PTV
enjoyed its monopoly for decades. Such was its influence that the However, there was an exceptional case in which Shalimar Recording Company (STN) was allowed to operate a television channel in 1989. This channel enjoyed limited autonomy and was supposed to relay the same news bulletins aired by PTV. The quality of programmes, plays, serials and feature films was much better than the one showed by PTV. The channel that appeared to be a roaring success in the start could not sustain its position for long. It also had to face problems, such as defaulters and outstanding liabilities. In 2002, Geo News started beaming its transmission from Dubai. The channel was established in May 2002, and its test transmission started on August 14, 2002. The regular transmission of the channel started on October 1, 2002. Indus Vision in Karachi and ARY Digital in London were other channels that had started earlier and were broadcasting Urdu language news and current affairs programmes by the end of year 2001. While these channels were struggling to make their presence felt, the government had already announced an open media policy in April 2000. Under this policy, a Regulatory Authority for Media Broadcast Organisations was formed that was, later, changed to Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) in 2002 and given the mandate to award licenses to TV channels and radios aired from Pakistani soil. A major impediment to the growth of private channels was a clause in the Pemra Ordinance, 2002, that put a bar on cross-media ownership. The Section 23(2) of the said ordinance read: "In granting a license, the Authority shall ensure that open and fair competition is facilitated in the operation of more than one media enterprise in any given unit of area or subject and that undue concentration of media ownership is not created in any city, town or area and the country as a whole." This restriction now stands removed and the clause now explicitly provides that existing media owners may be granted a broadcast or distribution service license, provided that they do not behave anti-competitively or form a monopoly. Some of the main objectives and mandates of Pemra as mentioned in its rules are to a) improve the standards of information, education and entertainment, b) enlarge the choices available to the people of Pakistan in the media for news, current affairs, religious knowledge, art, culture, science & technology, economic development, social sector concerns, music, sports, drama and other subjects of public and national interest, and c) to facilitate the devolution of responsibility and power to the grass-roots by improving the access of the people to mass media at the local and community level. But, instead of pursuing these goals, the authority is being used to pressurise the electronic media on one pretext or the other. The delay in granting a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to Aaj TV and license to Dawn News Television are just two cases in point. The fact that Pemra is headed by a retired inspector general of police has also been pointed in a survey report of regulatory bodies in Pakistan, issued by the World Bank. Today the electronic media is growing at a fast pace, something for which President Musharraf wants to take full credit. In a public speech, he announced that the fact that 45 independent television channels had sprung up under his rule was sufficient to prove how supportive of free media his government was. No doubt, the leading TV news channels are owned by media conglomerates while others are trying to win space by launching niche and regional language channels. For example, Cartoon Network Pakistan and Nick Pakistan are for children, Ujala TV and Healthline TV concentrate on health issues, AVT Khyber carries Pashtu/Pahari content, Apna TV, Punjab TV, and Ravi TV are Punjabi channels, Kook TV and Waseeb TV cater to the needs of Sindhi speaking audience. While the private channels have prospered, PTV's market has been reduced to bare minimum. According to media experts, PTV is seen only in the rural/remote areas of Pakistan where they cannot afford cable or satellite TV. Had it not been for the television license fee collected through electricity bills, PTV would have become bankrupt years ago. There were many protests from consumer bodies when the government resorted to compulsory collection of Rs 25 per subscriber irrespective of the fact whether he saw PTV or not. The government contended that BBC operations were also financed by license fee but was unable to give answer when told that it did not book advertisements unlike BBC. The competition among electronic media organisations is increasing by the day, with many more channels to follow. Those about to launch their transmission include ARY Shopping Channel - Pakistan's first 24-hour shopping channel, GEO Kids, Al Jazeera Urdu, TMN TV, Noor TV - Islamic Channel, Music ONE and Duniya TV. Timeline June 7, 2007: Journalists observe 'black day' against media gags. June 6, 2007: i)Journalists stage noisy protest in the National Assembly. Speaker NA cancels their entry passes. ii)Case against 200 journalists is withdrawn on the orders of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. June 5, 2007: i)Islamabad Police registers cases against 200 journalists for violating Section 144 by staging a demonstration outside the PM's Secretariat. ii)PEMRA Ordinance is challenged in the Supreme Court and Sindh High Court. June 4, 2007: President Musharraf introduces amendments in Pemra, empowering it to seal channels offices, seize their equippment, and suspend licences if they flouted rules. June 3, 2007: The government blocks the transmission of Geo News televison channel across the country. Durrani expresses ignorance on the matter. June 1, 2007: Pemra directs TV channels to conduct no live coverage of the Chief Justice's trial-related activities, including footage of rallies, live talk shows and commentaries. May 25, 2007: Gunmen attack the Peshawar home of Daily Times cartoonist Muhammad Zahoor who printed cartoons on CJ's dismissal. May 12, 2007: Aaj TV is caught in an exchange of fire between two rival groups. Its staff is trapped for six hours in the building located near Guru Mandir. May 05, 2007: Geo News remains off air for several hours in most parts of Lahore, Hyderabad, Sukkur and Nawabshah. Aaj TV and ARYOne World transmissions are also shut down. April 23, 2007: i)Authorities order cable TV distributors to pull Royal TV off air in Rawalpindi/Islamabad due to its coverage of the judicial crisis. ii)Workers of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League beat up Noman Khalid, producer of Business Plus TV (Islamabad), outside the Supreme Court building as he was covering the PML rally. Khalid is hospitalised. April 22, 2007: Pemra issues a 'show cause notice' to Aaj TV, threatening it of closure because of its coverage of the judicial crisis. April 02, 2007: Four journalists from Islamabad are roughed up by pro-government lawyers as they cover the events in the premises of the Supreme Court building. March 16, 2007: Lahore Police thrashes Rana Tanveer (reporter, Daily Times), Taqveem Shah (photographer), Rana Shahzad (cameraman, Royal TV), Mudassar Butt (reporter), and Mohammed Ashfaq (cameraman, Geo), as they were covering a Lahore High Court Bar Association convention. Their equipment is also smashed by the police. March 15, 2007: i)The offices of Geo, The News, and Jang in Islamabad are vandalised by Punjab police without provocation. The police also fires teargas shells inside the building to force the staff out. The attack is also shown live. Later, President Musharraf apologises. ii)The same day bomb hoax in Geo, Karachi, forces staff to evacuate the building. Bomb disposal squad is called in. March 14, 2007: Pemra orders Geo to stop airing its flagship daily news programme, 'Aaj Kamran Khan Key Saath', with immediate effect. The ban is triggered by the coverage of the issue of the controversial suspension of the CJ. (The ban is lifted on March 19 when the programme comes back with President General Pervez Musharraf invited as the guest.) March 13, 2007: SJC issues a press release noting "with grave concern" that the electronic and print media "is engaged in media trial on a sub judice matter" whose proceedings are being held in-camera and are "not to be reported except as directed/authorised by the Council." March 11, 2007: i)Federal Law Minister Wasi Zafar uses foul language with Mr Abbasi hosting a live programme. The minister later apologises.ii)Aaj TV, Geo and ARY remain off air for some time after getting a warning from Pemra for showing pictures of police baton-charge on lawyers in Lahore protesting.
|
|
just show what happened. They focused attention -- or the lens of their
cameras if you may -- on one particular incident of March 9 and the reaction
they sparked among the legal community. And they dwelled on that. They showed
the lawyers being beaten, and then brought the beaten lawyers in television
studios and let them speak. Yes, they made good visual stories and attracted
viewers. But they did something else in the process. They somehow, somewhere
politicised the hitherto depoliticised people of the country and shook them
out of their inertia. They let the now forgotten jargon of constitution and
rule of law become household talk.
any future government to take away the freedom that the media had been given.
Proving Jabbar wrong, the recent hasty drafting and equally rushed
promulgation of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA)
Amendment Ordinance on June 4, 2007, has saved any future government from
going through the trouble of trying to keep a tight rein on the media.
already underway. The Ordinance appeared to be just another link to the
chain. It doesn't make much sense for the Ordinance to be promulgated two
days before the assembly went into session.
restrictions? Do you think that the media also went a little overboard, for
instance in its coverage of the Chief Justice's rallies? Would you say that
some sections of the media could be accused of 'sensationalising', so to
speak?
know is that they have devised solutions for the situation with their own
laws (Pemra Ordinance 2002). If they had tried to use the given options, the
situation could be very different. For example, according to the original
Pemra law, there was supposed to be a Council of Complaints comprising
independent people. The media persons claim that through the new ordinance,
the government has erased it, while the government is of the view that it is
still there but it is not quite operational. This can be a very good platform
both for media and the government to solve the problems they have with each
other. I think some TV channels may also have shown irresponsibility, but the
government is not tackling them in the right way.
viewers could remember dialogues of plays and lyrics of advertisements word
by word. The coverage of news and current affairs used to be totally
pro-government and objectivity in reporting was an unheard-of phenomenon. PTV
World and Channel 3 were the other state-controlled channels that cropped up
in the 1990s, years before the mushroom growth of private channels in the
2000s.