'We can't do a PTV and show just one side of the picture'
-- Mushtaq Minhas, anchor person, Aaj TV's show, Bolta Pakistan, that has been discontinued
By Aoun Sahi
The News on Sunday: Your talk show fell a prey to the PEMRA rules, apparently for sensationalising issues. Comment.

'My programme was tough for everyone'
-- Kashif Abbasi, talk show host on ARYOne
By Nadeem Iqbal
The News on Sunday: Would you say the government was not comfortable with your show which was one reason for the clampdown?

'This time it's a complete kill approach'
-- Huma Ali, President, Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ)
The News on Sunday: What kind of pressures are the working journalists facing today?
Huma Ali: Working journalists are faced with all sorts of pressures, ranging from personal security to job security. No matter how objective or impartial you want to be, someone, somewhere finds your reporting objectionable. And, since we as a society have failed to develop the culture of tolerance and dialogue, journalists find themselves on the receiving end. We have seen in the past how the political and military dictators as well as the militant groups have retaliated against the working journalists. In the past eight years, we have lost 25 of our working journalists in the country, while 68 were either abducted, tortured, harrassed or illegally confined by state or faceless militants.

'We're here to resist curbs on media'
-- Hamid Mir, talk show host, Geo TV
The News on Sunday: Precisely when did the government start having troubles with your show, Capital Talk?

But gagged we always were, even if not as openly as now. The freedom we have enjoyed was never absolute; there were always ëno-go areasí, self-censorship was the unwritten rule every journalist was prepared to follow.

Therefore, as the general makes contradictory claims of being betrayed by the media which ëowes its freedomí to him, it is perhaps time to take stock of what these eight years have meant for media in Pakistan.

21 journalists lost their lives in the last eight years which, we are told, is unprecedented in the entire period of 1947-1999. There were over 100 cases of violence against them. Journalists in tribal areas have been forced to leave jobs. Many of them, in other provinces, face trial under Official Secrets Act.

The statistics will obviously look different after the recent repressive measures are taken into account because, as these lines are being written, journalists were beaten and arrested in Faisalabad and Quetta yesterday, more than a hundred journalists were baton charged and arrested in Karachi a day before. And so on.

The only difference between now and before Nov 3 is that no channel can report these incidents live today. In the first eight days after the emergency all private television channels, news or otherwise, were banned. Two of the countryís foremost channels Geo and ARY have still not been allowed to operate. Those that are allowed to appear have done so conditionally, minus their talk shows, and more importantly minus the hosts of these programmes.

If nothing else, we certainly owe this repression to the ëenlightenedí and the ëmoderateí general. Not to forget that media that is under attack is one that was only relatively free; where the channels are believed to have had clear directives to call two official spokespersons to balance two opposition members in the talk shows.

Gagged we were sufficiently -- even before this recent bout. There were times when the government thought of valour as the better part of discretion ñ like in the lawyersí movement against the presidential reference ñ and physically attacked television channels and stopped all live coverage.

Electronic media, given the state of illiteracy in this country, was doing the needful. It was informing people and moulding their opinion too. The guests invited on the talk shows were being trained to state their views in a civilised way and listen to the other point of view patiently. The hosts were learning to stay neutral. The level of debate among the general public was being raised from inanities to real issues.

But today as we see a re-enactment of the now familiar political drama, we have also been forced to debate whether the freedom of media was indeed irreversible. More importantly, it is time for us to take stock of our own actions. Will the liberal elite among the media who minced no words in calling the ëliberalí dictator a saviour of democracy, believed in the fallacy and actually propagated it editorially in the name of ëtransitioní to democracy now stand with the rest of the fraternity to put up a united front?

The incentives to divide the media are many ñ advertisements, ministries and what not ñ but do we have the will to resist them, for our own good?

For this Special Report we have only talked with many of our colleagues in the field -- to get a sense of the situation and maybe a direction for the future.

The reign of silence imposed by the Musharraf regime on all private news channels by ordering cable operators to take them off air till they signed new regulations, and now the targetting of two major channels, marks the latest contest between the State and the right to free expression.

This tussle is not new to Pakistan. It has, in fact, been seen repeatedly, in one form or the other, since the 1950s -- as a succession of governments have attempted to deny the Press, and now independent television channels, the right to free expression.

The backdrop for the battle taking place now was drawn up in 2002, when the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) was set up, consisting of a government-appointed chairman, and eight other members, including five media professionals, to issue licences to private radio and television channels. Within months, at least four new cable-based news channels flickered onto the airwaves, ending the monopoly of the State-controlled PTV, and, indeed of Radio Pakistan as a still greater number of radio channels began broadcasting.

Among the first channels to take advantage of this new and exciting era of media freedoms was Geo, and since then the boom has continued, with channels rapidly multiplying and sub-dividing.

But significantly, just over six months after the constitution of PEMRA, in September 2002, weeks before the general elections, four new, and highly controversial, media laws were rushed through by presidential ordinance -- indicating that like governments before it, the Musharraf regime too was keen to have at its disposal tools that could be used, when required, against newspapers, other publications -- and indeed, potentially at least against television channels.

These laws included the Defamation Ordinance, 2002; the Press Council Ordinance 2002; the Freedom of Information Ordinance, and a new law on the registration of printing presses and publications known as the Presses, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance (PNNBRO).

Each of these laws, including the inaccurately named Freedom of Information Ordinance, placed restrictions of various kinds on the free flow of information. Bodies representing owners and editors also protested that the laws promulgated violated agreements reached previously with these organisations on the draft of the laws.

Much of the protest against the 'black laws' focused around the argument that while some regulations were required governing the media, these were best imposed using an internal 'code of conduct' agreed to by publications.

For its part, the government held that, in the past, similar codes of ethics had been violated.

Since then, through amendments made in 2005, and further changes brought in with the imposition of emergency, laws have been toughened further.

Alterations made in 2005 in the PEMRA Ordinance gave the organisation sweeping powers to ban channels it saw as breaking the law. These powers were used in November 2005 against the FM 103 radio channel, the transmissions of which were stopped for nearly two days. The dispute with the broadcaster concerned the re-airing of BBC news in Urdu.

Nearly a year later, Sindh TV, broadcasting in Sindhi, was shut down for a similar period of time, while the Punjab government, some months ago, stopped cable operators from telecasting the ARY One World channel.

The current crisis with the media, and the singling out of channels, too, revolves around the same issue of the shortage of tolerance for dissent.

This is made obvious in new provisions under the emergency that bar the 'defamation' of leaders, and put in place an entire series of other conditionalities. These have been brought into effect through amendments in the PNNBRO law and the PEMRA ordinance. The measures introduced permit equipment to be seized, fines imposed and channels or publications to be closed down.

The environment that has prevailed since then is, of course, evident to all.

Pakistan's 'rainbow era' of multiple media channels proved to be short-lived. While a number of the channels have been welcomed back, the fact is that a sword hangs perilously over their heads, and it has been made obvious that the levels of tolerance for dissent have been lowered quite drastically.

What the current regime, like others before it, seems unable to realise is that such steps invariably cause more harm than good. Dissent of all kinds, aired over television and through publications, provides people a badly needed outlet that permits them to more successfully tackle at least some of the frustrations they face. After all, in any but the most idyllic social environment, some outlet for anger, some forum for the venting of rage, is required -- and the media offers one such platform. This is particularly true of the admittedly sometimes rather tasteless comic skits, which were extremely popular with people but have caused grave offence in corridors of power.

It is true, of course, that at times the media oversteps the barriers of good sense and its own responsibilities to preserve human dignity. Displaying gory images of bodies ripped apart by bombs, or over-playing relatively minor incidents by building up an almost hysterical frenzy, does little good. Indeed, it can sometimes do harm, as can the sectarianism that sometimes slips across airwaves.

But authorities need to realise that this harm is far less severe than that inflicted by the closure of channels, or threats to owners. Indeed, through dialogue, systems of internal regulation and growing maturity, such issues are bound, in time, to move towards resolution. The damage done to Pakistan's image internationally and the denial to people of their right to the access of information are two facets of this reality. There is also the fact that at least some of the channels have played a key part in creating awareness and moulding opinion to create a more progressive, more enlightened society. The widely followed debate on Hudood laws that ran through 2006, and culminated in reforms in the discriminatory set of laws is just one example of this role.

It is, of course, essential that the ban placed on media channels goes immediately. It has acted only to further stifle society. The protests now taking place go to show that today, such restrictions are unacceptable to more and more citizens. Keeping them in place much longer will result in greater discord between society and the state, and such disharmony can cause only damage within any nation.

The News on Sunday: How do you respond to Musharraf's claim that he gave media freedom to this country?

M A Niazi: He did not give any media freedom which was not won, or which was not dictated by the needs of foreign technology.

TNS: What about the claims within the media that this freedom is irreversible, keeping in view the current situation?

MAN: Of course such freedom is always reversible. We have just seen that.

TNS: Is print journalism under an immediate threat?

MAN: No, I don't think so. Otherwise the crackdown would have started long ago.

TNS: What must the media do to pre-empt such attacks?

MAN: Nothing. What can the media do without becoming a player? It has become a player by virtue of what little it has done, in terms of demos, etc.

TNS: Do you agree that the electronic media has borne the brunt for exceeding their limits and the print has generally been within its ethical limits?

MAN: Look, electronic has an impact which is much more immediate and much more deeply impacting than anything print can do. So electronic has not got as much ethical limits.

TNS: What kind of a code of ethics do you envisage for media?

MAN: A code has always got to be a control mechanism. So you will always get the harshest code that the government can impose.

TNS: What is the alternative for the government control over advertisements?

MAN: An independent board, with only some members named by the government.

The News on Sunday: What, in your opinion, prompted the government to take the extreme measure of blocking Geo transmission in Dubai?

Imran Aslam: This question should be directed to the government. See, we haven't been issued a charge sheet or even a show cause. So, we don't exactly know what the reasons were. Yes, it was a very, very extreme measure that they took. And, it does show a certain amount of desperation on their part to make sure that nothing goes out. It also shows that they are capable of extending their tentacles beyond Pakistan.

TNS: What exactly is the bone of contention between Geo and the government?

IA: As I said, it's a difficult question because as far as we know we were only trying to do our job which is two or three things: One is, of course, reporting events on the ground, and it is not really the fault of the media that certain events did take place in the country. Secondly, I think, we also dared to sort of illuminate the foibles of the government and hold it accountable for some of its actions. And, these are acceptable norms of behaviour, in any civilised society. If we had overstepped the line as they thought we had, then it was important for them -- instead of just going for this blanket blackout -- to first watch out after they had issued the proclamation and see whether we conformed to it or we were defiant. Without even allowing us a chance to show what they would like to call 'good behaviour', we were shut down. So, it's basically a case of us being proved guilty without being given a chance to be proved innocent.

TNS: What legal grounds do you have in pushing your case forward?

IA: Firstly, we need to get a chance to state our case. Secondly, and more importantly, we feel that we are being discriminated against, on the grounds of human rights, because freedom of press is one issue, but the major issue that we are confronting at the moment is essentially the livelihood of thousands of people. What we have seen is that the target was not just Geo news but also our three other channels that were purely entertainment and sports channels and had nothing to do with politics.

But the content of those were also considered to be dangerous and they blanked those channels as well, resulting in huge losses for the group. The idea behind that, obviously, was to try and cripple us naturally. And, these are sort of punitive measures. So, our case that the court is hearing, as I speak, is essentially that we are being targeted, and we have been isolated, and not been given a chance to prove our stance.

The entire network is at risk now. Just take the cricket series where we had the exclusive airing rights, but we lost huge amounts of money, because we weren't allowed to show the very important India-Pakistan series. The advertisers are also a little nervous. And this could eventually lead to us looking at our staff and our staff looking at us. We will try and fight this as much as we can. But, as they say, nobody has deep enough pockets to sustain a situation like this forever.

TNS: Do you see these losses trickle down and affect your prize team members?

IA: It will be a pity if it does. This sure is targeting our professionals -- not just our hosts and anchor persons, but also our broadcasters, script editors, graphic designers, set designers, all of whom are skilled and creative people. Their livelihoods are at stake. It's sad also because Geo has served as a nursery for training these people.

TNS: How long do you think you could sustain, if the current situation persists?

IA: I don't think I could answer that. I don't want to create panic or anything. But, I must say that the fight is on. It's not as if we've given up. And, to the credit of the group owners, they have not acceded to the demands of the government which, as I've always maintained, never came to us in any written form. They are sort of verbal mumblings and mutterings.

TNS: How far do you think the protests have been successful? How much support have you got from organisations such as APNS, CPNE and PFUJ?

IA: It's quite interesting that a bridge exists between the print media and the electronic media. PFUJ, KUJ and various other bodies, not just in Pakistan but also internationally, have all backed us. APNS and CPNE have also been there for us. It's heartening to know that we are not just on our own. You know, a recent rally in the Geo's Karachi office premises was attended by people from all walks of life -- the civil society was there, the lawyers were there, journalists from various other channels were there. And, of course, PFUJ and KUJ were represented as well by their leaders. So, that is all forthcoming.

TNS: What do you have to say about those news channels that have sort of reconciled with the government?

IA: This is their choice. We are not privy to any of the deals or lack of deals that might be taking place. But, they are up and running, and we are not. So, I think, you can understand the difference.

The News on Sunday: Your talk show fell a prey to the PEMRA rules, apparently for sensationalising issues. Comment.

Mushtaq Minhas: I don't buy that. I don't know what problems the government had with my show. It was a mild talk show and we commented on issues while backing them up with views from people from different walks of life. In fact, PEMRA never asked our channel to stop the show. Though they said they'd censor it everytime it goes on air. We told them that we would not insert the deleted parts but we would announce that the show was censored. They didn't allow us that, and so we preferred not to go ahead with the show, because that would have affected our credibility.

TNS: What do you have to say about the present government's claims of liberalising media in Pakistan?

MM: Well, it's not that the government had a magic wand that it waved and the media boom happened. In fact, the journalists have had to struggle to earn their freedom. Then, of course, the rapidly changing global scenario also contributed in this to a large extent.

I was in Afghanistan a few months back, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that Kabul alone has at least nine independent news channels up and running. What if Hamid Karzai started taking all the credit for that? This is the age of media.

TNS: You think that curbs on media in Pakistan are only linked with emergency. What was the situation like, prior to Nov 3?

MM: This phenomenon is not linked solely with emergency. The conditions were dicey even before Nov 3. PEMRA would commonly issue notices to different private channels. According to the law, an organisation like PEMRA cannot directly send notices to the TV channels; it needs to go to the Council of Complaints. But the government -- in a planned move -- inducted the police officials in PEMRA, whereby the SHO of a given area is authorised to order a certain channel or programme to shut down. Why should PEMRA's head and all its DG enforcement be from the police department?

TNS: Do you agree with the notion that the freedom of media is irreversible?

MM: I've always said that freedom is addictive, and the magnitude of this addiction increases with every passing day. The situation that we are in is a temporary phase; eventually, the government will have to give in.

TNS: How do you see the new code of conduct by PEMRA?

MM: According to this new code, no journalist can talk against or discuss the judiciary, the army, the government and even the terrorists. In other words, you can discuss practically nothing that is there to discuss.

TNS: But don't you think there should be some code of conduct for the working journalists?

MM: Yes, there ought to be one, but this should not be devised by the government.

The government must realise that working journalists are the most important stakeholders and unless they are a part of it, no code of conduct can be formulated or will work. In this regard, the government officials always quote examples from the US and the European media, but somebody tell them there is rule of law in those countries. Their courts are free and do not have any regulatory body like PEMRA.

Some five months back, the Punjab government itself -- without involving PEMRA -- stopped ARYOne World's transmission throughout the province. Is it practicable in a civilised society? The government wants journalists to observe the code of conduct to the Tee, but has it ever implemented the constitution in the real sense?

I think the journalists are already working with great care and responsibility. We only reflect on what is happening around us. If there are bomb blasts, what can the media do but report and discuss it? We can't do a PTV and show just one side of the picture.

TNS: Do you think the government has the right to ask different media groups to sack certain working journalists?

MM: This is an age-old tradition in Pakistan: the rulers want to get rid of unfavourable journalists. Isn't this unethical? You know there are very few journalists who can earn a decent living; most of them have to slog in order to make both ends meet. And, now this poor lot is being subjected to physical torture when they are out on the street.

TNS: Are the owners of the private TV channels under tremendous pressure from the government to lay off the targeted journalists?

MM: This is a matter of a clash of interests. Freedom of expression is not the issue of the owners; they are only the investors and they just want to maximise their profits. But, I believe, the electronic media journalists are secure to some extent and the owners cannot risk getting rid of them because they cannot afford to. TV is a relatively new media and it's tough to find trained and qualified people in this field.

The News on Sunday: Would you say the government was not comfortable with your show which was one reason for the clampdown?

Kashif Abbasi: You can't blame individuals. This was a very well thought-out move on the part of the government to shut down TV channels on the pretext of emergency which is ironically a time of extreme political uncertainty. The government wanted to get even with certain individuals who had been most critical of its workings and had been spreading, what it said, 'negativism'.

TNS: Are you one such individual the government targeted?

KA: Yes. My programme and our channel are off air. Even if it goes back on air, the government has directed us in clear terms that my programme shall not be telecast, at least for a certain period of time. Although I haven't received any threats directly as such, whenever our group people have met authorities, the latter have hinted at my programme.

TNS: What exactly was there in your programme that irked the government the most?

KA: The fact that it was hard-hitting. You know, the ministers eventually refused to appear in my show, saying that my questions were too tough or direct. They even accused me of siding with the opposition parties. But, let me say this, once and for all, that my programme was not directed against the government only.

TNS: When you had got this kind of feedback early on, did you try to make changes in your show accordingly?

KA: No. Why should I? It was tough for every one, including the leaders of the opposition parties. Many of them were also not happy with the show.

TNS: Talk shows are a new phenomenon in Pakistan. Would you say they didn't go down well with the government?

KA: Private TV itself is a new phenomenon, and you can say that it has also not gone down well with the government. The kind of PTV you get to see post-emergency has been rejected by the common man. Now there are independent TV channels that challenge the official claims. Particularly, the talk shows have the opposition people turn up and say that such-and-such official moves are illegal. But, the people have the right to see the other side of the picture and then form an opinion.

TNS: In such a situation, do you think there is some redressal mechanism available to the government?

KA: If there are editorial complaints, we do look into them. But if the programme is editorially correct, then it doesn't matter what the government says. This is not the first time that the government has come out with complaints and made laws to curb the free expression of media.

TNS: Where does the electronic media stand today, in your opinion?

KA: It's only been about five years for the independent channels. We are still in the infancy stage and are likely to commit mistakes in our rush to break news. But we are learning and improving with time.

TNS: Shouldn't private channels have a self-regulatory code of conduct instead of pushing the government to the limit where it will slap a ban or its own code?

KA: We have the law telling us the do's and don'ts. The code of ethics will evolve in due course of time. Yes, we should have our own code of conduct instead of the government slapping one on us. Had we devised one we would have a document to present to the government for reference and ask as to which sections of the code were being violated.

The News on Sunday: What kind of pressures are the working journalists facing today?

Huma Ali: Working journalists are faced with all sorts of pressures, ranging from personal security to job security. No matter how objective or impartial you want to be, someone, somewhere finds your reporting objectionable. And, since we as a society have failed to develop the culture of tolerance and dialogue, journalists find themselves on the receiving end. We have seen in the past how the political and military dictators as well as the militant groups have retaliated against the working journalists. In the past eight years, we have lost 25 of our working journalists in the country, while 68 were either abducted, tortured, harrassed or illegally confined by state or faceless militants.

TNS: Do you think the curbs on media are linked only with the imposition of emergency?

HA: Curbs on media are nothing new. Before November 3, we were fighting against the PEMRA ordinance and other issues which I do not want to take up at this time. But certainly, the imposition of emergency and the draconian amendments in the Press Publications Periodical and Books Ordinance 2002 as well as PEMRA 2002 have come as the worst attack on the freedom of information in the 50-odd years of history of PFUJ.

Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and a number of civilian rulers tried many harsh laws and ways to tame the media in the past, but none came up with such a 'deadly' approach as General Musharraf and his media advisors have done. If you read the amendments in the ordinances, you will see that it's no more a threat of imprisonment but also of hefty fines. And, then, there is always a chance of getting sedition charges for writing literally any thing against a government official.

Shutting down of private TV channels, confiscation of radio transmission equipments, and raids on newspaper offices are done in such a way that they have never been done before. In this case, no one is allowed to even raise their voice against this or seek the help of the courts. So, this time round, I must say that it's like a 'complete kill' approach.

TNS: What about the government always makes tall claims of liberalising media in Pakistan?

HA: I don't buy these claims of the government. It's because of the process of evolution that media stands where it does today. It is impossible in this day and age to stop the communication from flowing as it cares for no borders or curbs. Now it's up to the government whether it wants the news to reach the people through individual means such as PCs, SMS, etc., or through open TV channels.

TNS: Do you agree with the code of conduct issued by the present regime?

HA: There is no country in the world where the government has imposed a code of conduct on journalists. It's always the journalists who devise a code for themselves. We have various international bodies, human rights organisations and above all the United Nations Charter declaration which clearly defines the code of conduct for journalists. Even our own constitution has everything written down. And, then, if there is any complaint against any media outlet or media person, there are laws available such as defamation and libel.

Every government has tried its own version (of code of conduct) but none has worked, because we believe that we are doing a job and know our responsibilities. The one that needs a code of conduct is the state machinery that never gives us the right to know, the right to seek information, and the right to have access to information.

TNS: What if the government finds the media as going over the top in reporting certain issues?

HA: PFUJ has all along been asking the government to form a joint committee of APNS, CPNE, PFUJ and now PBA as well, to sit together and devise an agreeable code of conduct which respects the aspirations of all stakeholders. The government, for its part, has always tried to play divide-and-rule between the media owners and working journalists.

TNS: What is PFUJ's stance on the conditions set up by the government for letting the TV channels back on air?

HA: PFUJ believes that all TV channels should be allowed to get back on air without any conditionalities and we hope that media owners would show some resistance in this regard.

TNS: What about those few channels that have agreed to the government's demand of banning the 'unwanted' journalists?

HA: We don't endorse this policy, and we hope that the media owners will find another way out. It's not only a war for freedom of media that we are fighting but also a war for the survival of media and we are hopeful that media owners are well aware of the fact that working journalists are being made a scapegoat by the sitting government.

TNS: Popular viewpoint is that the present restrictions are meant mainly for the TV channels. Comment.

HA: No, these curbs are equally harmful for both print and electronic media. Look at the amendments in the ordinance and you will come to know. It's not only the publisher but also the writer who is going to face the wrath of the government. Likewise, it's the producer/director as well as the anchor person who is going to deal with being jailed and fined.

The News on Sunday: Precisely when did the government start having troubles with your show, Capital Talk?

Hamid Mir: I believe it was after the Oct-8 (2005) earthquake that we began to sense the government's displeasure, for the first time. The day after, we telecast a programme live from district Bagh of Azad Kashmir. This was where no government rescue agency had yet reached. The next we knew, the Geo TV administration had been asked to block Capital Talk. It took us hours of negotiations before we succeeded in averting the order. Two months later, again, I telecast a show from Neelam Valley, in which I spoke to the poor inhabitants who had not yet received any kind of aid. The then Vice Chief of Army Staff Ahsan Saleem Hayat, on the instructions of President Musharraf, immediately packed off to the Valley to investigate if the information we had given was correct.

More recently, post-Mar 9, the pressure started mounting on Geo as well as Capital Talk. In response to my programme about the presidential reference against the then CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry, Muhammad Ali Durrani accused TV anchors of becoming 'judges' in the 'courts' of their talk shows. We told the government that we always wanted to invite ministers to present their side of the picture, but most of them were either hesitant to appear in the show or they didn't know how to defend the government. So, eventually, it wasn't our fault. Former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz once told me that he would personally monitor Capital Talk and Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Saath and if the government representation in the shows wasn't sufficient I should let him know. He even created a cell under APP DG Rai Riaz to ensure the ministers' presence in our shows.

TNS: The present government makes no bones about liberalising media in Pakistan. What is your take on that?

HM: I know for a fact that the Geo TV project was started way back in early 90s, though it materialised in 2002. Even if the present government let the private channels to flourish in Pakistan, there was a reason behind it. During the Kargil War, the Indian electronic media had played a very positive role that served India's interests. One day General Ahsanul Haq called me to GHQ and sounded me out on the role of the Indian media in the war. I told him that we could not achieve such results with the state-run PTV, whereupon he said that Nawaz Sharif would be directed to liberalise policies regarding private TV channels operations.

Although they allowed private TV channels to operate from Pakistan, the government still wanted a controlled media setup and that is why bigger groups like Geo and ARY could not establish their transmission centres in the country. The governments have always had problems with the independent channels. Last year, the Geo administration was asked to put a stop to Ghazi Salahuddin's Main Nahin Manta.

TNS: Do you agree with the PEMRA ordinance for TV channels?

HM: I reject it completely. I refer to it as the 17th amendment for the media. According to this, the journalists cannot discuss the president, the army, the executive, the parliament and the judiciary. This means that after the implementation of the code we will not be able to discuss even the police, the bureaucracy and the people's representatives such as MNAs, MPAs and Senators. It is ridiculous. And, I am very sure this code of conduct has no future in Pakistan.

TNS: Are you for some code of conduct for journalists?

HM: Of course. But by this I don't mean to say that the journalists in the market are not working diligently. But, the government wants just one-sided code of conduct. We will not accept this.

TNS: How do you see the role of the media owners in this?

HM: So far, Geo TV owners are with us and even if they are not, we are here to resist the curbs on media.

-- Aoun Sahi