On Columbia campus, between three and five thousand students gathered to hear President Ahmedinejad speak and register their protests. They protested for many reasons. On the one end of the spectrum, it was outright outrageous and incomprehensible what Columbia University's administration chose to do, and for these people it was about witnessing the Hitler reincarnated in 2007; for most others, it was what the Iranian President says in his flippant remarks about the existence of the state of Israel and the Holocaust. Similarly, for the people on the other side of the spectrum, it was an opportunity to expose the US imperialist policies and they chanted slogans of a different flavour: "We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American Imperialism."

But it was one of those rare occasions where everyone seemed to have a point of view, and for once, the students and the public were unafraid to show which side of the bias they stood.

The problem, however, is this: it was not meant to be this way. Iranian President's address was meant to be an address to the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) Center for Iranian Studies. This speech was meant to augment that educational experience. It was also to be a part of a larger series of addresses at Columbia University by other world leaders visiting New York for the annual UN General Assembly address. There was no doubt, however, that there would be hostility to Ahmedinejad's visit.

Columbia University is one of the world's major centres for Jewish studies and with a sizable body of Jewish students who owe political allegiance to Israel. The pressure they exert as an interest group is immense. Couple this with the sources of funding, which are also tied to the same sources. It all makes for a difficult calculus for people wanting to invite Ahmedinejad for rather benign reasons of academic freedom.

As a case in point, last year Columbia administration caved in to external pressure and withdrew its invitation to the Iranian President. This year, however, they chose to resist external pressure. But as ground beneath their feet was pulled, they shifted grounds for inviting the President of the Islamic Republic: the initial pretext was of academic freedom, then it was of exposure to real world and then at its most desperate, freedom of expression.

In his email to students of Columbia University, President of the University, Lee C. Bollinger made it amply clear that the prime motive was academic freedom:

"I would like just to repeat what I have said earlier: It is vitally important for a university to protect the right of our schools, our deans and our faculty to create programming for academic purposes."

But as the pressure built up, these reasons were beefed up by other, more sensational ones like, 'Let Ahmedinejad experience what America stands for,' or, 'We shall grill him'. At its worst, the dean of the programme, in one of his interviews to a leading right-wing news channel, went as far as to say that even if Hitler was alive today, Columbia would have invited him to speak at the University. Understandably, this spoke not so much of the University policy, but rather about how the Iranian President is perceived in the US.

However, very few, if any, could have anticipated that the event, which was to be a limited university address, would grow so much in scale and significance that it would turn into a world event receiving widespread coverage and commentary from the world media.

People fiercely debated this event: from purely religious and politically partial ones, whose representatives wore T-shirts: that read, 'Ahmedinejad is EVIL'; to those who believe in the freedom of expression and that even alleged murderers have a right to fair trial; to those who believe that liberals like at the helm of affairs at Columbia University should be more aggressive in safeguarding their values and as a rule, must not allow freedoms to those who would use it against the guiding principle itself (freedom of expression, in this case).

The person who came under fire was Columbia University's President. To vindicate his decision of remaining steadfast to his resolution, Bollinger, in his opening address left no phrase unturned in being discourteous to his invited guest, not to mention that there was no acknowledgement of the time he has spared for the event, or a word of thanks for accepting the invite. Bollinger's address opened with Columbia's commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression, and then turned to an onslaught which was loaded with invectives.

"Let's, then," said Bollinger, "be clear at the beginning, Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."

The out-line of Bollinger's speech was very fine, and the questions he raised -- the repression of freedom of expression and academic freedom in Iran, the arrest of anti-government academics in the country, Iran's nuclear ambitions, it's sponsorship of terrorist groups, its denial of holocaust and the destruction of Israel -- and demanded answers were all significant. But this, although seemed to be prompted with reason was delivered with madness. This way Bollinger lost the moral grounds to Ahmedinejad. Here is the closing paragraph of Bollinger's speech:

"Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mind set that characterises so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more?

"I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better."

As a matter of side-interest, Bollinger in his speech made it a point to address those "who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day," and said, "On behalf of all of us we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it."

Ahmedinejad spoke eloquently and without the gall of his host. He answered the raised questions with some conviction and some rhetorical cunning, and importantly, gained sympathy among those on the fence. The obvious exceptions to this were, of course, his unsatisfactory remarks about women in Iran and his denial of the existence of homosexuals in Iran. The latter one was picked up by the national media and was run as a punch-line.

In all this, the group which was caught between a rock and a hard place was the Muslim community. They could not side with the Iranian President, for he was executing academics back in Iran, while, at the same time, they considered the hostility against him unwarranted and uncalled for. The animosity against the Iranian President was even more disturbing because Iran is one of the few Muslim countries where people elect their leaders. In 2005, during General Musharraf's visit to Columbia University, Bollinger introduced him, not as a military dictator, but as follows: "Rarely do we have an opportunity such as this to greet a figure of such central and global importance. It is with great gratitude and excitement that I welcome President Musharraf."

At the end of the day, however, this event still left the two questions, of freedom of speech and academic freedom, unresolved as ever. But undoubtedly, it served the political purposes of the Iranian President back home, where the address was broadcast after being clipped by censors, as expected.

Former Prime Minister and PPP leader Benazir Bhutto, in view of her recent public pronouncements, seems ready to go along with whatever America wants from Pakistan, irrespective of how unpopular it may be in Pakistan. In return, she hopes to have a share in power after the general elections.

Bhutto's understanding with Washington seems to be based on three points: (a) She will provide the international authorities more access to Dr Qadeer Khan; (b) She will allow the US forces to carry out military operations in Pakistan's tribal region to crush anti-US militants hiding there; and (c) to improve relations with India and the resolution of Kashmir dispute as per wishes of Washington. On the first two points, Bhutto has recently made statements in Washington making her intentions clear. On the third point, she may be keeping a tactical silence until after the general elections.

In her recent address to a select gathering of Washington's power elite at the Middle East Institute, Bhutto said what her audience wanted to hear -- that she would allow the US or other Western countries to interrogate Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan for his role in the alleged nuclear proliferation activities. The Pakistan People's Party (PPP) leader, Benazir Bhutto, took a position which breaks from the national consensus over Dr AQ Khan.

She said that under her rule "the International Atomic Energy Agency would have the right to question AQ Khan." In her view, giving access to the IAEA would satisfy the international community desiring to know more about the network of nuclear proliferators he is accused of heading. She also said that if her party returned to power, parliamentary hearings will be held to determine if Dr AQ Khan alone was responsible for selling Pakistan's nuclear secrets to foreign countries or some other elements were also involved. Dr Khan would reveal his global network, and that he might name army officers who were hand in gloves with him. The Washington press has already stated that Dr Khan had named two army chiefs as abettors in his illegal enterprise in his confession.

Benazir Bhutto has also been critical of the government approach to make peace deals with the militants. She supports the heavy-handed manner in which Gen Musharraf dealt with the Lal Masjid situation. She is trying to present herself as a better alternative in the US fight against anti-US militants in Pakistan's tribal belt. In her interview with the BBC World News, Bhutto said she might allow a US military strike inside Pakistan to eliminate Osama Bin Laden if she were the country's leader. She said: "I would hope that I would be able to take Bin Laden myself without depending on the US. But if I couldn't do it, of course we are fighting this war together and (I) would seek their help in eliminating him."

"I think one really needs to see the information," she said, "But if there was evidence, my first reference would be to go in myself and if ... there was a difficulty on that I'd like to cooperate with the Americans."

No wonder, Bhutto's hard lobbying in Washington produced results in the form of public support for her from top officials of the Bush Administration. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the other day she believes Benazir Bhutto has a role in a future political setup in Pakistan. In an interview to the New York Post, Rice also said that the United States is pressing President Gen Pervez Musharraf "very hard to allow for free and fair elections", which could be viewed as a euphemism for "creating space for Ms Bhutto in next political setup."

Reminded of corruption charges Benazir Bhutto had faced previously, Rice said: "There needs to be a contested parliamentary system, but whether or not she is able to overcome that and whether Pakistanis are willing to allow that is really up to them."

All that is emanating from Washington indicates that the US establishment has made up its mind to work for having a new political setup with a sharing of power between the military junta and the co-opting civilian politicians like Benazir Bhutto. The US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Richard Boucher, says that any civilian government in Pakistan would be in a better position to fight terrorism.

The results of Washington's 'hard pressing' Gen Musharraf are quite visible. Musharraf's appointment of Ashfaq Parvez Kayani as his successor ahead of his re-election also indicates his efforts to keep Benazir in the loop. But he has been shrewd not to appoint Kayani as army chief leaving room of manoeuvering for himself.

Benazir Bhutto has been posturing for some time that the PPP members may resign on the eve of presidential election if Musharraf goes ahead without retiring from the army. If PPP members quit the assemblies, along with the APDM members, it may not render Musharraf's presidential election illegal but could destroy its political credibility.

Gen Musharraf has been dilly-dallying on yielding space to the PPP. The government indicated its approval in granting amnesty to politicians involved in corruption cases, the chief beneficiary of which will be Benazir Bhutto, but kept delaying the issuance of the ordinance or passage of a bill in this regard. It seems the Musharraf regime has been using its negotiations with the PPP to malign the party and to make it discredited in the eyes of the public while buying time at critical moments.

Given the high stakes of the US in the region, the future political setup in Islamabad is too grave an issue to be left to one person, and it seems unlikely that Americans would leave everything up to Gen Musharraf. Regarding the forthcoming general elections and the presidential election in the country, the US State Department's spokesman Sean McCormack said the other day: "We have a lot at stake; they have a lot at stake. The future course of Pakistan is at stake in this and future elections."

The understanding between Pakistan's military establishment and Washington is based on long-term strategic objectives of fighting against militancy in the region and to create a popular support base for this in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto seems to be part of this broader agreement made at the institutional level. Pervez Musharraf could block her way only at risk of his own survival in the office.

It does my heart no good, but I must confess that it is all coming home to roost! Ever since I reached the age where I could lord it over the young being a 'buzurg', I have become conscious also that there are certain responsibilities that go with it. Like I recalled that things were so much simpler in the old days. Things that needed to be done in the household were done by the household.

In the history books it is recorded how, if someone was to be married, some elder in the family performed the rite without recourse to some crude stranger, and even when someone died, men of the household did all that needed to be done from bathing the body to burying it.

I made up my mind that that was the civilized and cultured way to do things; so young people in the family, and among friends, have at my insistence, been married off by elders in the community, including me.

One young couple, one half of which happens to be a foreign national, have been living happily since, and decided to take a trip to the young man's home town where the authorities insisted that they wanted the 'Nikah Nama' translated and registered in the local languages. So as of now I am in proud possession of an official document which describes me as 'O ministro de culto mu_ulmano'! Serves me right!

As it is, one had been feeling a whit hard done by lately. You see we made it to the finals of the brand new 20/twenty -- I wonder who thought of writing it like that -- and made it quite easily and were all geared up to making it into the Guinness Book as the first champions.

And we got the Indians out for a reasonable score and sailed along to the end -- only to fall five runs short and see the Indians fly away with the championship.And before that the Australian A-Team was here and we sailed through the one-dayers, and thought it would be the same in the Two-Test Series. We were not even fazed when we lost the first Test match because there was another one coming, and we could easily even the test series and bring home the bacon. Rain managed to wash out the second test and the Aussies took home the trophy!

What is more, the trophy was too big to fit into the suitcases of the players, so they gave it in custody of an Aussie official who happens to be a friend and came to lunch bringing the cup. It seems we were so confident of winning that we had already put a label on the cup naming ourselves winners -- and had to hastily scratch it out to affix another label.

Which brings me to the other thing that has been weighing on the mind. I do not know if it is followed in other mu_ulmano countries, but with us an honoured tradition to go with Eid was the 'Eid Card'. They were never great works of art, just silly cartoons for the kids, and raunchy Bollywood starlets for the grown ups, but lately they were getting elaborate and interesting, and many made a quick buck purveying them off long tables on the footpath. Suddenly, it is no more! Everyone has discovered the net and E-Mail and no one wants an Eid Card! Pity!

Mazhar Abbas: Basically it was matter of who was supervising the whole affair and the IG was standing there. Some of our colleagues saw him directing the events. I along with some colleagues tried our best to persuade him that he should not use force. I don't know why they used so much force against journalists which was just not required. They used massive tear gas and many journalists, some carrying cameras, fell down. There was stampede among the two to three hundred people present and there could have been fatal injuries. The IG who was a witness to all this could have saved the situation even if he had not ordered it.

The problem is they often get panicky because the prime minister and the entire cabinet were inside the Election Commission. Sometimes the officials try to act more loyal than the king.

When Tariq Azeem came out, a lot of shelling and damage had already been done and hence he was attacked. We've strongly condemned the attack on him and we're ready to face any inquiry. I was inside the Election Commission compound. Otherwise such an incident would never have taken place. It began with six or seven people holding one cameramen and naturally his colleagues came to his rescue and then everything followed. It was a case of complete mishandling.

TNS: How do you respond to the government claim that journalists have become a party by turning anti-government?

MA: The government should have an open debate on the channels between the government and journalists where it can come up with specific instances. There are five to six thousand journalists working in this country. Some of them may have political leanings, though I personally believe that a journalist must be objective and above party affiliations. One should not use journalism for personal ambitions or bringing them in one's writing. There are some people who are subjective and the government has to come out with some evidence against them.

We've always demanded that whoever accuses the journalists of being on the payroll of intelligence agencies, government or even political parties should come out with a list. I demand here that there should not be a secret fund of Ministry of Information which can be used for its own purposes. Ideally there should be no Ministry of Information.

TNS: What has been the situation like for journalists in Pakistan?

MA: There has never been an ideal situation for us. PFUJ was formed in 1950 and we've been struggling for freedom of expression, rights of workers and raising professional excellence among journalists. Unfortunately we are still struggling against the Black Laws. Even today there are at least 30 Black Laws which can be used against journalists.

TNS: Including PEMRA?

MA: Yes. We've raised serious objections against PEMRA. I myself went to represent journalists before the parliamentary committee headed by Dr Sher Afgan and in my statement I called it a Black Law. I tried to convince all stakeholders and parliamentarians that they should not adopt this law because this will ultimately be used against the electronic media just as the Press and Publications Ordinance was used against print media.

I am not against regulation but some of the clauses like 'national interest' and others were bound to be misused and they were. After this Ordinance became law, they started using it and now every second day we receive instructions in television channels known as 'press advice' in our language. They've used cable operators, they've used the law against FM radios.

Besides, they did not implement some of the few good things contained in the Ordinance like the Complaints Committee. Our position was that the members should not be appointed by the president and it should be run by a parliamentary committee and not serving or retired police officials. It's the police officials who are teaching ethics to us.

At that time we approached Pakistan Broadcasting Association to oppose PEMRA but they wanted licenses and hence supported it. Now there's hardly any channel which has not been persecuted or faced problems.

We've also said that Pakistan Broadcasting Association should not make a code of ethics with the government but only with journalists and broadcasters.

TNS: What kind of support are you looking for from bodies like APNS and CPNE?

MA: In the last seven years 21 journalists have been killed, 10 have been abducted and there have been over 100 cases of violence against them. This is unprecedented in Pakistan's history. So many journalists were not killed in the entire period between 1947-1999. Then there are some journalists still facing trial in Sindh under Official Secrets Act.

Alongside this violence, the situation has improved for freedom of expression, especially when compared with the period of Ziaul Haq. Since 1986, the print media has been free and exposed the alleged corruption cases against the rulers. As a matter of fact, the charges against removal of governments were mostly those that had been reported and exposed in the media.

Now with the massive expansion of television, and without any proper training in conflict reporting, we are taking huge risks. It should be mandatory for the organisations, print and electronic, to provide the technical training on how to cover dangerous assignments.

Owners must also provide us life insurance and complete medical cover. In recent cases where journalists died, their organisations hardly helped. When we demand economic rights or professional training, the organisations or owners think it is unnecessary. But actually it is in their favour because such people then become a vital asset for them.

Also if journalists lives continue to be in danger, we will ultimately be demanding compensation from the government which we should never do.

TNS: What is the future strategy of PFUJ?

MA: Our position is that we always come to the help of journalists whether they are our members or not. We also come to the rescue of the owners whenever they are in a difficult position. In doing this we have to face pressure from our own members. Whenever the government advertisements have been withdrawn from newspapers we have been the first ones to oppose it. We raise these concerns internationally and due to these international pressures, the government is forced to give certain concessions and take certain measures.

We also provide medical help and we were the first ones to take our colleagues to hospitals on September 29. We are also supported by the International Federation of Journalists and they raise voice for us. We also pressurise the civil society to come forward in instances like attack on Geo, Hayatullah's murder etc.

TNS: On a personal note, do you worry about your own safety?

MA: I do face pressure from my family. But then I always believe death is inevitable. Some people thought I shifted to Islamabad after the incident of bullets pasted on the windscreen of my car. Actually, it was only because of my new job with ARY television.

But I think we should act more responsibly now. Because a few instances of irresponsible reporting embarrassed us. Besides, the Supreme Court has also advised us to me more patient and responsible.

September 29 will be remembered as a day when the authorities opted for mindless violence against protesting lawyers and other members of civil society as General Musharraf's loyalists drove towards the Election Commission.

Upset by the live coverage of events, the print and electronic media-persons were accorded special treatment starting with verbal assaults to teargas shelling and baton attack on their heads. The cables of TV cameras were snapped to deny the people second-by-second coverage of a gory drama happening on the Constitution Avenue, all in the name of gradual transition to democracy.

PEMRA ensured that the news channels remain blacked out for telephonic beepers of their correspondents from the scene.

This unprecedented lawlessness against lawyers as well as media persons was being unleashed on the direct instructions of Inspector General of Police Syed Marvat Shah. Efficient assistance came from DIG (operations) Shahid Nadeem Baloch but he escaped the camera lens. The entire capital administration was being assisted by brutally notorious contingents of the Punjab Police besides hundreds of plain-clothed men for security and intelligence agencies.

Ironically, the police rampage coincided with the presence of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, his cabinet members and the Punjab chief minister inside the Election Commission for scrutiny of presidential candidates nomination papers.

The government might cast doubt over the lawyers struggle for the restoration of the rule of law, but there can be no defence for thrashing journalists and blacking out the news coverage.

The journalist fraternity was being punished for exposing the farce that this exercise in 'self-righteousness' by a general in uniform was not resulting through much-trumpeted transition of power.

As unquestioned leaders of opportunists -- Benazir Bhutto and Fazlur Rahman -- continue to roll the dice with the devil and pray alongside the faithful, the resignations from the APDM platform deprive the presidential election of any moral basis whatsoever.

In an exceptionally pro-active move on Sunday, Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry issued notices to the interior secretary, Punjab additional advocate general, IG police, chief commissioner, deputy commissioner and senior superintendent of police, Islamabad, to appear before court in connection with police violence against lawyers, the media and representatives of human rights and civil society organisations.

The Supreme court also directed private TV channels, including Geo, ARY and Aaj, to produce recordings of the incidents, especially any occurrences of violence, that were telecast live on these channels.

Appearing before Chief Justice of Supreme Court Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on his judicial notice, the top officials of two Islamabad hospitals -- PIMS and Poly Clinic -- admitted that the intelligence agencies have been harassing their staff, forcing them not only to amend the medical record of the hospitalised journalists and lawyers but also to prematurely discharge ones with serious injuries.

None other than the chief justice had to order re-hospitalisation of seriously injured lawyers and journalists and the expenses to be paid by the government.

The chief justice had to force his orders on a reluctant interior secretary (a former IG police), Syed Kamal Shah, to issue suspension orders of recently promoted and appointed IG Marvat Shah. The SSP and deputy commissioner too received suspension orders while the chief commissioner could miraculously escape any reprimand.

Though the hearing has been adjourned with scores of issues to be settled in the Supreme Court on October 23, the civil society is in high spirits despite the most depressing times in recent history. The media organisations of TV channel and newspaper owners, editors and journalists have all expressed unprecedented unison against the last Saturday's state terrorism.

Though September 29 clearly reminded the journalist fraternity of General Zia's repressive martial law days, General Musharraf cannot put the genie back into the bottle. The electronic and print media freedom cannot be curtailed anymore as there is immense public appetite for live and objective real-time coverage of unfolding stories.

Email: navid.rana@gmail.com

The media and press in this country come under immense pressure whenever things heat up for the government. I suppose that is true in most countries of the world, but then in many other nations there are institutions in place to check this oppression, and in most cases civil society is strong and vibrant.

Of late, the Supreme Court, while hearing petitions challenging the eligibility of Present Pervez Musharraf to seek re-election in his post, a member of the bench remarked in response to comments made by the attorney-general that private TV channels tended to invite people to speak on constitutional and legal issues but that these individuals were not exactly experts and hence not really qualified to comment on such matters. However, the state-operated industry regulator, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, used this, especially the remarks by the attorney-general (who had gone into a tirade against private TV channels) to issue a warning to the channels to desist from airing any programmes that examine issues that are sub judice since that would not serve the public interest.

Prior to this, at the height of the whole controversy surrounding the government's suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, PEMRA had issued notices to private TV channels asking them not to air live coverage of protest demonstrations. In both instances, the warnings only served to further the interests of the government leaving many to wonder that perhaps the regulator was not really all that independent and more interested in serving the concerns of the government.

Any good industry regulator -- and while we have several but none really carry out their job properly -- should balance the interests of all stakeholders. In the case of PEMRA, this would be the government, the TV channels themselves and the viewing public.

By serving its notices to the TV channels, all that PEMRA does is to act on behalf of the government, while ignoring the interests of the viewing public. For example, in the case of the most recent notice, isn't it only reasonable and sensible that people in the country who watch television and/or newspapers would be interested in developments in the presidential re-election, especially since so much else hinges on it. How can a TV channel, or a newspaper for that matter, be expected to ignore any discussion on a matter of such importance and to say that this threatens the public interest is nothing less than pernicious.

Of course, media organisations, like any other sector of the economy, need to have in-built mechanisms in place to ensure that the final product conforms to some quality standard that are based not on censorship but on matters such as ethics, objectivity and so on. However, this doesn't mean that issues that are controversial must remain untouched. After all, the government cannot and should not expect private TV channels to become PTV clones. There is a wealth of evidence -- and of course first-hand experience -- to strongly suggest that the government-owned network is not exactly relied on by Pakistanis as their first source of news and in this context the last thing that independent news channels would want to do is replicate PTV.

The only thing that a directive to TV channels to not air discussions and talk shows on issues that are topical and of interest to viewers does is to lessen the public interest. It is tantamount to harassing the media to not carry out its professional duty, which in this case would be to primarily scrutinise government policies and measures and examine them with impact on the public good as a yardstick. So the argument against such a prohibition is not only that people want to know more about a particular issue but rather that they should and need to know. The urgency of this need depends on the topicality of the issue and its impact.

So for instance, a rise in the price of roti from three to four rupees (which is something that has happened this Ramzan) would, in most cases, goad a thinking newspaper/TV channel to carry some analysis on it, examining the reasons for the rise, its possible impact (by doing stories quoting people affected by it) and offering perhaps recommendations/suggestions to the government on how to lower the price.

Would, or should, the state-owned electronic media regulator curtail such coverage, citing that since it deals with a sensitive issue, it could harm the public interest? Of course not -- because the public interest can only be furthered if people at large are informed of the ways in which certain vested groups (in the 'roti' case this may be the hoarders mafia) collaborate together to profit at the public's expense by raising the price of 'roti' and atta artificially high. Furthermore,what such critical media coverage can usually do -- or that's how it works in a system which is self-correcting and has an ability to learn from mistakes -- is to prevent such exploitation from being repeated.

In the Pakistani case, that may sometimes not materialise at all, but even then such coverage is worthwhile and necessary because at the very least it informs ordinary people on how they are being taken for a ride and this can in itself build pressure on the government to act to safeguard the right of ordinary people to be able to buy bread at a reasonable price. The same goes for the sugar scandal or the oil price-fixing controversy, where extensive media coverage at least spread among those who wanted to listen and read the methods of exploitation employed by certain corporations and powerful individuals to profit at the public expense.

At least one be accused of making unreasonable analogies -- comparing constitutional challenges to the price of roti -- one would like to say that the issues are more or less the same. In both cases, the media would, and should, cover the topic and do programmes on it analysing it from all angles -- because they rank heavily in terms of news worthiness and the public's right to know.

Since anyone who reaches the post of president will have immense power and authority to influence government policies that could affect just about everyone, it is only in the fitness of things that people be informed on merits and demerits of the whole selection and election process. That is precisely what the talk shows and discussions aired by private TV channels were doing and PEMRA's failure to not see this reflects quite poorly on the media regulator.