As government and military officials look more and more to China, members of Pakistan’s journalism community should take notice of certain recent developments. Chinese authorities announced this week that they are tightening regulations governing journalists, specifically, rule that require reports to fact check and have actual evidence before publishing sensational claims and conspiracy theories.

The new rules also require journalists to produce at least two sources for any “critical” news reports and to personally conduct interviews when gathering information.

False reports must be followed by corrections and apologies, the statement said, and serious violations could lead to the suspension or even the revocation of a news outlet’s government-issued license.

“False reports not only seriously hurt the interests of the parties involved, but also seriously undermine the credibility of the news media, or even seriously affect the social and economic order,” the agency stated in a question-and-answer article released by the state news agency Xinhua.

Because this blog does not support government restrictions on reporters, we hope that our colleagues in the journalism profession in Pakistan will implement a code of conduct to ensure professionalism voluntarily. The Zardari-Gilani government has demonstrated that it will allow all sorts of malicious rumour-mongering and conspiracy theories to be published without using the power of government to take revenge on the media, but no one can know if the next government will be as patient.

On Monday, Mubashir Luqman discussed the supposed American threat of attack on his show Khari Baat. At the end of the programme, though, surrounded by his invited guests Maleeha Lodhi and Hamid Gul, Luqman lashes out at Najam Sethi (forward to 8:51).

This seemed to be a strange turn for the conversation to take, but what was even more strange was when Luqman went out of his way to attack Najam Sethi on PTV’s Morning Show.

As you can see, Noor becomes visibly uncomfortable with Luqman’s unprompted attack on Najam Sethi. Some might think that Luqman’s strange behaviour was the result of a personal feud between the two men, but then our attention was pointed to another article attacking Mr Sethi which appeared on a website ‘Views Times‘.

Like Mubashir Luqman’s attacks, the article accuses Mr Sethi as a tool of American policy. Only, this piece goes even further and makes the bizarre claim that Najam Sethi is advising the American government.

The Americans were left with no choice–they halted the 800 million in aid to the Pakistani military. They were banking on the advice given to them by Mr. Njam Sethi and gang.

Though he is an internationally renowned and award-winning journalist, it’s rather far fetched to claim the American government was taking policy dictation from Najam Sethi.

In stark contrast to Najam Sethi’s career, his attackers are mostly non-entities from an exposed propaganda ring. The website, Views Times is one of several fake news sites associated with propagandists like Ahmed Quraishi and Major Raja Mujtaba.

Actually, a Google search for a random line in the piece on Views Times found 49 results – all fake news sites like ‘Times of Bombay’ and ‘Times of Kabul’ and ‘Karachi Telegraph’. Oh, and the incredibly well funded PKKH, a project of Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, and Hamid Gul.

Like too many of our fellow journalists, Najam Sethi has already suffered for giving voice to views that were unpopular in some quarters. He was ‘preventatively detained’ by Gen Zia, and later imprisoned by the government of Nawaz Sharif for exposing corruption. Of course he was accused then with the all-too-familiar charge of ‘treason’.

For his unwillingness to cower in the face of intimidation, Najam Sethi has received the Journalism Under Threat award from Amnesty International and the International Press Freedom award from Committee to Protect Journalists.

Whoever is behind this campaign to attack Najam Sethi, the question that must be asked is whether Pakistan’s media is truly ‘free’ so long as journalists are smeared, threatened, or worse when they report views that some do not like.

The Nation

The first question that must be asked when approaching the topic of censorship is who is to decide what is censored. According to the LHC, the websites that should be banned contain blasphemous content. But who decides what is blasphemous?

It is easy to point fingers at websites like Facebook that include pages like the immature “Draw Muhammad Day”. But what about Ahmedi websites? Are these ‘blasphemous’ also? Is Malik Ishaq to be the judge of content? Will we see all Shia websites blocked also? Will the censors be Barelvi or Deobandi? What about Sufis?

One year ago, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, Emir of Tehreek-e-Azmat-e-Islam told Daily Nawa-i-Waqt that 80 per cent of the Constitution is un-Islamic. Should government websites be banned also? Extremist groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir that democracy itself is un-Islamic while some religious scholars say that Islam is firmly rooted in democracy. Who will decide what should be banned? Or should we just ban everything?

These problems also directly affect freedom of the press. When this same issue of internet censorship was raised last year, we wrote that internet censorship should worry the media.

The truth is, such an unchecked power of censorship is too easily open to abuse. Today we may be blocking access to some cartoons under the justification of anti-blasphemy laws. But tomorrow it might be a newspaper or TV station that is banned for the same justification.

Freedom of the media is a vital part of our democracy. That means even allowing the media the freedom to be wrong. The alternative may sound good at first, but it always ends up the same – and that is no freedom at all.

If the Media Mullahs decide that Facebook or Google is un-Islamic and should be banned, what is to stop them from deciding the same about Geo or Express 24/7 or even The Nation?

The Nation says that ‘the Western world needs to analyse its notions of freedom of speech and individual liberty’, but it is precisely this freedom of speech that has made Islam the fastest growing religion in the West. Censorship can never stop false or illegitimate or blasphemous ideas. Only by allowing freedom of speech can falsehoods be properly argued and corrected. This is the proper role of media – to present the facts and correct false information. By defending censorship, The Nation seems to be saying that it is unable to do its job. That says more about The Nation than the West.

Geo/Jang Group has consistently accused the government via PEMRA of blocking transmission of Geo Super as a method of retaliation for Jang Group’s constant attacks on the government. But as blogger CPM points out, Geo Super has not been taken off the air, it has simply stopped airing programming. This is why we are subjected to a screen with Jang Group’s new advertisement that shows a red cross over the Geo Super logo. As CPM correctly notes, in order for this to appear on the screen, it must be broadcast. This is clearly not something that the government would be broadcasting, so who is it? It appears to be Geo Super.

Actually, PEMRA has issed show cause notice due to Geo Super’s suspending its own transmission.

Another show cause notice was issued by PEMRA to Geo Super for suspending its satellite transmission since April 5 in contravention to Section 28 of PEMRA Ordinance 2002 and clause 24.1 (c) of the licence terms and conditions which prohibits any broadcast media or distribution service operator from ceasing or suspending broadcasting.

Therefore the question must be asked, if Geo Super has suspended its own programming – not PEMRA –  then why is it telling people that the government has ordered it to stop transmission?

As Cafe Pyala points out, Geo has begun “a campaign to get the citizens of Pakistan to grant them a “public license” to resume broadcast (whatever that may be)”. In fact, this is where the answer may lie.

While it is not clear what Geo means by “public license” – a term they may have invented – the petition features an interesting bit of ‘small print’ next to the demand.

If you cannot read the screengrab, the petition says in large letters:

As a Pakistani citizen, sports lover and in national interest I hereby give license* to GEO SUPER to broadcast my country’s first and only sports channel from Pakistan.

Notice the star? If you look below, in smaller letters, it says this:

*I also request the regulator and courts to enable GEO SUPER to broadcast from Pakistan

Ahhhhhh!!!!

As Cafe Pyala correctly mentions, Geo Super is registered in Dubai, and therefore broadcasts via international uplink. This is confirmed by the APP article explaining (a bit late) PEMRA’s position.

In this regard, it is clarified that Geo Super is up-linking its transmission from Dubai and is authorised to market and distribute only in Pakistan though a local company i.e. ‘M/s Birds Pvt Ltd’. The channel management has suspended its transmission at its own since April 5, and has launched a baseless media campaign against the regulator alleging for banning its transmission which is factually incorrect.

Geo Super continues to broadcast, only it has suspended the transmission of usual programming and replaced it with a crossed out Geo Super logo and begun a campaign that appears to demand fair treatment for Geo, but is actually asking the public to force the regulators and courts to gran Geo a domestic uplink.

Is this all a game by Jang Group/Geo to blackmail the government into providing it a license to uplink domestically without following proper protocols and regulations? Geo supporters claim that the government has banned Geo Super transmission to hurt Jang Group financially as revenge for critical reporting. But it has been shown that the government has not banned Geo Super transmission, therefore this explanation cannot be true.

The story that is unfolding appears to expose a disturbing possibility – that a media group, confident in its ability to sway public opinion, is attempting to pressurise government agencies and the courts to grant it special privileges. Such a scheme would not be necessary to ensure programming reaches the people, rather it would be a direct assault on the authority of the government and the courts and a power grab by media owners.

Just as the government should not interfere with media, media should not attempt to interfere with government also. This story should be watched closely as it appears there could be more to what is going on than is being truthfully reported.

Aasim Sajjad Akhtar brings up an interesting case of media ignoring an issue, and the issue failing to be addressed by the responsible in his column for The News today which looks at why APCOMS continues to issue unaccredited degrees to students.

Students across the country protest various administrative abuses on a daily basis. A cursory survey of major newspapers and TV channels suggests that editors are quite happy to run stories of many such protests. Yet APCOMS has been magically exempt from public scrutiny via the media. Any objective observer would agree that there is no meaningful defence of the APCOMS administration for its refusal to secure PEC accreditation, yet what little has appeared in the media about the affair – and not for lack of trying – makes it appear as if a handful of students have incited unrest for no good reason.

Self-censorship in the media is an old phenomenon in Pakistan. Yet over the past two years there has been a noticeable upsurge in media representations of politics and politicians as inherently suspect and attendant representations of the military and military men as upright and patriotic. The students of APCOMS exercised their right to assemble and protest as a means of protecting their rights. If the media refuses to hold a college run by retired military men to account then it is forfeiting its right to be called free.

This is an excellent point. Journalists experience all types of pressure even in countries with a ‘free’ media. Journalists who write articles that are too critical can lose access to influential people. Journalists that are too critical of the wrong people might receive a phone call in the middle of the night reminding them that they are being watched. Neither of these examples quite fall under the dictionary definition of censorship, but they still qualify as improper pressure from authorities and are roundly condemned.

But self-censorship is also a problem that must be addressed. If a reporter, editor, or publisher refuses to address an issue because he wants to protect someone or because he is sympathetic to their politics, this is also a form of censorship that must be condemned. Obviously, editors must make choices about what is important enough to deserve space on the page or during the TV show. But those decisions should be made based on the public good and the public’s right to information, not the editor’s personal politics or those of his friends.

Aasim has now broken the media silence on this issue. Will any other journalists have the courage to follow?

I’m a little bit uncomfortable with Nadeem’s statement that perhaps the media needs to show ‘self-censorship’. Whether censorship is dictated by a government bureaucrat, a military officer, a party official, or an editor, it is still illegitimate. No one person, party, or group should stop someone from publishing or saying something in order to promote or hide a specific agenda. Perhaps Mr Nadeem Paracha had a different meaning for “self-censorship”, but I wanted to make this point for the sake of argument.

Obviously, editors are responsible for reviewing articles to determine that there is a line between opinion/editorial content and factual reports. And editors can make decisions about when a story is ready to report. Too often, in the age of electronic media, there is a failure on both counts – editors allowing all sorts of biased and inflammatory remarks to boost advertising sales and instant reporting of rumours even before the facts are determined in order to have the “breaking” story that improves ratings.

If media reports are hyperventilating partisan talking points or outlandish conspiracy theories, the media outlet that presents them ultimately discredits itself. Yes, it may see advertising revenues or ratings increase in the short term, but in the long term it will see itself wither away. It is like a candle that burns on both ends. It shines brightly for a moment, but then it consumes itself.

Nadeem gets to this point, too, in his conclusion. Those media voices that cry foul while they themselves are guilty are not respected enough to be taken seriously. They may have a legitimate complaint, but nobody wants to listen as it becomes their “just desserts”.

Till then, I am afraid, all those hysterical spiels by populist media outfits about free speech just do not hold much credence in my eyes; though I would not condone the banning of any channel.

And this is also what sets Nadeem Paracha apart from many others: “I would not condone the banning of any channel”. To this, I think that the answer to Nadeem Paracha’s question as to “how suitable or justified are we to wave the free speech flag?” is: Quite justified. Individuals may be upset about a particular story or the way it is reported, but that does not give license to threaten a journalist, destroy newspapers, or shut down TV broadcasts. Two wrongs do not make it right.

The best – in fact the only – antidote to media bias, conspiracy theories, and propaganda is for reasonable, rational people to publicly correct this misinformation. When media make false or biased claims, they are doing so with the expectation that they will not be caught out. Once they are exposed, they will face a choice: correct their practices to conform with responsible standards, or be discredited and fade away.

This blog has been from its start dedicated to correcting misinformation in the media. Some of this misinformation is the result of laziness on the part of journalists who are too comfortable in their own lives to do the hard work of research that goes into proper reporting. Other misinformation appears to be more likely the work of political operatives who are trying to use the media for their own ends.

I and my fellow bloggers on Pakistan Media Watch will continue to write posts that point out the mistakes of journalists and news organizations because we believe in the old saying that “the best antidote is sunshine.” Information and education are the building blocks of a free democracy. Exposing misinformation and political propaganda is the best way to counter its effectiveness.

While we are regular critics of journalists like Shireen Mazari, Ansar Abbasi, Shaheen Sehbai, etc. etc. we do not call for them to be censored. Actually, we believe that poor reporting only serves to undermine those responsible when it is corrected publicly. Of course, they are free to say what they want, even if it is nonsense.

The ongoing Internet censorship by the courts is worrisome because it is a good example of a ‘slippery slope’ of censorship. First, the court ordered that Facebook be blocked until the end of the month because of a stupid page on the website. Then, YouTube was blocked for having offensive content. Next, Wikipedia was blocked for the same reason. Today, Dawn reports that access to these websites may not be temporary after all.

Pakistan acknowledged the ”suffering” caused by its bans on Facebook and YouTube, but said it would only consider restoring the websites if they take down pages considered offensive to Islam, the information technology ministry said Friday.

So, who will be next? And who will be the judge of what is ‘offensive to Islam’?

From the moment that it is decided to be okay to block access to one website for being offensive, where do you draw the line? Certainly there are some Jamaatis who will say that Nadeem Paracha is offensive to them. There are plenty of liberals who find Ahmed Quraishi quite offensive as well.

The truth is, such an unchecked power of censorship is too easily open to abuse. Today we may be blocking access to some cartoons under the justification of anti-blasphemy laws. But tomorrow it might be a newspaper or TV station that is banned for the same justification.

Freedom of the media is a vital part of our democracy. That means even allowing the media the freedom to be wrong. The alternative may sound good at first, but it always ends up the same – and that is no freedom at all.

In The News today, the top stories include one article about the historic constitutional reforms – the same number as about Shoaib’s marriage. No fewer than four stories are about the Swiss case. The constitutional reforms are a historic event, regardless of what political party anyone belongs to, and yet they are receiving less reporting than a legal debate.

And it’s not just the number of articles that is troubling. Consider the language that is being used in what are supposed to be news reports (not opinion columns). Take a look at the language used in the News article about the historic constitutional reforms.

Nowhere in the article is President Zardari mentioned by name, despite the fact that he was integral to the proposition and passage of this historic package. Instead, the article is reported as if Raza Rabbani had invented and passed the package of reforms all by himself. Actually, the reforms required the leadership of the PPP, the political party Zardari co-chairs, and could not have been enacted with his support.

Consider how this same package is being reported in the international media. The Christian Science Monitor wrote:

“It’s a massive political boost to [Zardari],” says Cyril Almeida, a political columnist for Dawn, Pakistan’s leading English-language daily. “It’s not the standard practice in Pakistan to give away powers. It’s more the reverse, where people consolidate or accumulate powers.”

Mr. Almeida points out, however, that Mr. Zardari will retain leverage over Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani in his capacity as co-chair of their ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).

“The President is honoring our party’s commitment to restore the 1973 constitution and undo the usurpation of the authority of the people’s house by military dictators,” says Farahnaz Ispahani, Mr. Zardari’s spokeswoman, referring to former Pakistani ruler Gen. Zia ul-Haq.

…

The 27-member parliamentary committee, which included all parties and was led by the PPP, announced late Wednesday that it had reached a consensus, almost 10 months after convening. They approved the draft of the constitutional amendment, which is set to be presented for a vote in the lower and upper houses of parliament.

With the draft bill alone, however, the reforms are essentially a “sealed deal,” says Rasul Baksh Rais, a professor of political science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

It is a “gain for democracy and democratic forces in the country,” he says.

Consider also the reporting from The Telegraph:

The deal was last night hailed by President Asif Zardari who told The Daily Telegraph it was a “historic moment” for the country’s democratic forces, and the fulfilment of his late wife Benazir Bhutto’s dream.

“The pledges made with the people to restore the 1973 Constitution have been honored. It is a victory for the democratic forces, a culmination of decades old struggle and a fulfilment of the dream of my wife Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto,” he said.

“All political parties and democratic forces deserve credit for it. The Pakistan Peoples Party is specially pleased as it marks the end of distortions introduced into the Constitution,” he added.

The agreement was also welcomed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the main opposition Pakistan Muslim League (N) who said it was a welcome example of consensus. “This proves that political leadership in Pakistan, once it joins hands, rising above petty differences, can resolve the most difficult of issues,” he said.

These are fair an un-biased reports that do not favor any particular political party or agenda. They are simply providing the information to their readers who can then make up their own minds. Why can’t our press report like this? Instead, we have national media groups putting out articles about constitutional reforms that do not even mention the name of the President!

Pakistan’s media has sacrificed too much to free itself from censorship. Why would it now decide to censor itself. Please, do not sacrifice the facts for some political agenda. Instead, report the facts without any bias and let the people make up their own minds.

It has been 9 days that over 150 workers at Pearl Continental Hotel Karachi are protesting against the sacking of 4 union and over 98 other workers. In protest they have occupied the basement of the 5-star hotel for the last 9 days and despite police raids and bullying and threats by security guards they have not left the site of occupation. This is a historic protest by workers in Karachi, the largest industrial city, where workers movement is generally luke-warm in manners. Occupation by a large number of workers at a prime site means that they have been pushed against the wall.

However the media in Karachi are pretty quiet about the situation. The PC management, chaired by the 5th richest person in Pakistan Mr Hashwani, has managed to keep the media silent, the police raids and arrests of male and female workers and their manhandling all have been hushed-up.

The only media which is reporting about the strike is the stinking right-wing press named Daily Ummat. The entire liberal, pro-democracy, pro-human rights English and otherwise ‘fighting for freedom of media and democracy’ press have managed not to report the protests, arrests and the occupation of PC workers in Karachi.

Today, March 04, 2010, Express TV crew came to cover the protest at the 2nd site of the protest ie the camp in front of PC and interviewed and filmed many agitators. Reportedly their entire story was killed by one Director named Fahd Hussain for no obvious reason. The only reason is ‘its is not allowed’.

PC hotel workers share a very tiny fraction of the billions earned by the Hashwani group. Since 2001 about 250 sacked workers have been protesting but their is no response. Now a new layer of sacked workers and those showing solidarity with them have been targeted by the rich management. It is time media wakes-up and express its neutrality about the protest.

A commenter on the original post, Mr. Aamir Mughal sheds more light on the situation:

Mr Kamran Khan [Senior Correspondent of Daily Jang/GEO/The News] is a very close friend of Sadruddin Hashwani [Owner of PC] hence the news in censored. I wonder how does Kamran Khan maintain/afford houses in Defence Society Phase 6 and another house in PECHS [RAZI ROAD] Karachi and both the localities are considered Posh and “Costly” residential quarters of Karachi. How many Senior Journalist can afford a sport car like Mr. Kamran Khan do? By the way Kamran Khan was also very “closed” to Brigadier Imtiaz [since the days Imtiaz was only a Colonel in Karachi].

This looks very bad, indeed.

Last week Brigadier Hussain Abbas was killed by the Taliban in the Waziristan area. The newspapers wrote as usual about the “martyrdom” of an army officer at the hands of the “militants” and not the Taliban. But the electronic media was even more curt. The news anchors vaguely spoke about the martyrdom of Brigadier Hussain Abbas, which was very unusual given that death of a high-level officer is discussed ad nauseum in the media as a part of the ideological-nationalist myth about the role of the Army in Pakistan’s “nation building”.

Last Saturday Brigadier Hussain Abbas’ dead body was brought to his native village near Gujranwala for burial. The media as usual descended on the area interviewing people and relatives of the brigadier. Some journalists even forced his little kids to speak about their father and made them cry by asking sensitive qurestions (“Will you miss your father?”) which was an extremely heartless thing to do. But then this is common in Pakistan.

What was interesting to know that not a single channel showed the actual burial and/or the funeral prayer of the brigadier, which was unprecedented because the media always shows these two events only to prove the Islamic side of martyrdom. But Brigadier Hussain Abbas was not given this honor. And the reason is not hard to find: He was a Shia Muslim.

Since the Talibanic journalists, backed by Saudi and Al-Qaeda money and facilitated by the ISI, took over Pakistan post 9/11 (though they were in the field before 9/11, but not in command), the Shia suffering in Pakistan has been ignored. Everyone knows that the Taliban consider Shias kafir/inidel and routinely carry out acts of Shia carnage. But the media has never condemned the Taliban. This carnage is backed by the Deobandi-Wahabi fatwas that those who kill the Shias will go to paradise straightaway. Corrupted by petrodollars of the Wahabi Saudis and the drug money of the Al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Urdu media has turned complicit in the Shia persecution. Although the Saudi royal family and the Al-Qaeda are enemies, they are one when it comes to the hatred of the Shias. Both are Wahabi.

The Urdu media’s boycott of the funeral of Brigadier Hussain Abbas was not an isolated incident. In 2008-9 the Taliban captured hundreds of Pakistan army soldiers in Swat. They separated Shia soldiers from Sunni soldiers. They gave every Sunni soldiers one thousand rupees each and asked them to go home. But they lined up every Shia soldier and slaughtered him. This is why, even today the place where the beheadings of the Shias were carried out is knows as “Khooni Chawk” or Bloody Square. At that time the media completely blacked out the beheadings. It was only a few Sunni soldiers who narrated this to people and it became known, but later they were asked to shut up by their superiors.

In complicity with Saudi Wahabis and the Al Qaeda-Taliban axis of Islamofascism, the Urdu media does not want the people of Pakistan, the majority of whom want to live in peace, that the Shias have anything “Islamic” in them. The Shias are portrayed as a deviant sect of Islam which should be wiped out of existence. (This is what has been happening in Saudi Arabia for decades.) You will never read in any newspaper or find out on a TV channel that the creator of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a Shia Muslim.