TV THOUGHTS: PBA responds to Pemra, talks straight and tough; insanity of violence against media

This column will appear on Saturday the 6th of October, on which date will be held the presidential election in the country, a theme that the country, as indeed the TV channels have been faithfully focussing in the last few months.
It is being written late on Wednesday night (3rd October), and there is uncertainty in the air. And there is speculation. What next? It is a decisive, dramatic period in the nation's history.
But as I write I find that it is difficult to decide where to begin from. The options are many and each one is very worrying. Even scary. Each theme discussed on TV contains within itself many grim and bleaker sub-themes, and each one of them reflects the disjointed, fragmented state of this society. A society searching for answers, and one is unsure of whether the pursuit is truly sincere most of the time. How much of collective expediency? That seems paramount.
That is the sort of picture that the collage of images on our channels presents. I want to pick up just one of them here; it appears to be the most worrying in many ways. The TV images (shown live) of law enforcing agencies beating up journalists, and on a scale that is nightmarish.
What has happened to us in our drive to exercise power in as brutish a manner as possible. What were the law enforcing agencies in Islamabad trying to prove on 29th of September (last Saturday)? Watched in disbelief, and I watched in shock, and as I write I am unsure of what can lie ahead, if conscious, deliberate efforts are not made to stop law enforcing agencies from resorting to violence in this society, especially in such situations when political processes need to be unhindered if this society is to realise its long cherished, much denied dreams of being democratic ever.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has taken suo motu notice of the incident. Three top officials of the Islamabad administration were suspended after the apex court passed orders which held them responsible for the use of force by law enforcement agencies against lawyers, journalists, and other civil society representatives. This was obviously a major story on the TV channels.
The three officials suspended are the Islamabad Inspector General of Police, Marwat Ali Shah, Senior Superintendent of Police, Dr Naeem Khan, and the Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, Chaudhry Mohammad Ali. Needless to say that public interest in this story also is very high.
MEDIA DISTRUST:
It surely is a mirror of our times that the electronic media in Pakistan is being viewed with concern and even censure by the authorities, and in this case it is the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. It does remind one of the times, (political movements and otherwise) when the government (read Information Ministry and the Press Information Department?) would try and manage (read manipulate) the print media in Pakistan. The radio and Television (read PTV) were state owned and comfortably state managed, and the dissidents were carefully kept out.
The times have changed and mercifully at that. The electronic media (both private TV and some FM radio channels?) have undergone a personality change. The private TV channels have in the last six months (since March in particular) played a strong interactive role, integrating with a public that does seek to know more about politics, than what is generally perceived. Perhaps the Pakistani public has a deeper commitment to politics than is commonly perceived.
In the context of the political climate that exists in the country today, there is an interesting assertion that is heard in which it is argued that it is the media that is creating problems whereas in reality they don't exist and were it not for the TV channels, the crisis would be manageable. Or hopefully all would be well.
It is here that I would like to refer to what one anchorperson, the forthright and reasonable Syed Talat Hussain (Aaj TV) has been saying on this subject: That this country has had other major crises in the past, and there were no TV channels. What were the causes or the aggravating factors then?
I believe it is understandable that there are such sections of society who will always insist that the private non-official media is misinterpreting the situation. Or painting unreal pictures of gloom and doom. There will be loyalists always. This distrust of the media has a long history.
The times have changed. Technological advance that is public friendly has revolutionised information and communication means and strategies, and it continues to do that. It is not just a challenge to governments in power but to societies as a whole. Distrust is to look the other way. And in today's world that is not the way out. Should not dialogue replace distrust?
PBA RESPONDS TO PEMRA:
It is another sign of our times that the Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA) has strongly refuted all the allegations that any of its members have broken the rules and regulations laid down in the Pemra Ordinance. The PBA Secretary General, Arshad Zuberi, said on Tuesday evening, in a response to the Pemra warning that came last week, that the members have not gone beyond limits and bounds of freedom that is allowed in the Constitution. The Pemra warning was sent to all the TV channels last week.
The PBA Secretary General has said categorically that the "airing of discussions, current affairs programmes/talk shows are not prohibited under any law, and freedom of expression, speech and information is a basic right of every citizen of Pakistan. Given this perspective, the warning letter issued by the Pemra is a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. PBA reserves its right to challenge it in a competent court of law," said the PBA spokesman.
It was further stated that the "current affairs/talk shows are merely an exchange of views and thoughts on constitutional provisions, its interpretations and implications and the participants simply deliver their opinions and views in an academic manner. The hosts/anchors are just facilitating the talk shows and only placing different questions for collecting opinions from both sides. No anchor has ever assumed a role of a judge and no judgement was delivered by any host as wrongly alleged in the Pemra letter".
The PBA Secretary General pointed out that "in fact a wrong picture was painted by the Attorney General about certain current affairs programmes before the Supreme Court and the honourable judges had passed certain comments in this regard." He further said that "immediately thereafter you issued this notice as was planned between you and the Attorney General. It is significant to note that only after a few days of issuing the said notice the media were brutally beaten up in Islamabad (29th September)".
Arshad Zuberi further said that the PBA had come to know that the government was intending to amend the Pemra Ordinance and it expected (hoped?) that no amendment would be brought into the Ordinance without consultation and recommendations of the PBA. The Pemra has been reminded that negotiations and deliberations between the Pemra and the PBA are still in progress, and have not been finalised. These relate to various provisions of the Ordinance and a code of conduct for programmes and advertisements.
The PBA Secretary General has indicated very explicitly that it now intends to approach the court of law for a redress of its grievances. In this regard, it has noted that from the "date when the Pemra was given under the control of the Ministry of Information the quantum of various explanation letters, show-cause notices on petty matters have been increased massively just to pressurise and harass the electronic media."
The PBA has suggested that being a regulatory authority Pemra should not become instrumental in the hands of the ministry and they must apply their independent minds prior to issuing such types of warnings or show cause notices. This is quite unfortunate that the laws of Pemra are only applicable to private enterprises, but the state owned television and radio stations are immune from the clutches of Pemra under the garb of 'National Broadcasters'.
ENSURE MEDIA FREEDOM:
And it is significant that the United States has, while calling for unhindered media freedom in Pakistan, also said that it had conveyed its concerns to the Pakistan government "both publicly and privately" urging it to "ensure that the media are free to report what's happening in the country."
The United States has also urged the journalists, the lawyers and the government to "behave responsibly" and to take steps to ensure that the situation did not deteriorate any further.
I am reminded here of what some TV panel discussions were fearing after the 29th September 2007 incident wherein Islamabad police beat up journalists who were performing their duties. They expressed the apprehensions that this was an indication of the tougher times that are to come for the media in view of the general elections that are in sight, and the overall political climate that is warming up.
The US focus on the Pakistan media in the light of the above incident last Saturday pronounced very categorically at a regular briefing in Washington, which was reported in Pakistan. The State Department's deputy spokesman, Tom Casey, noted that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had taken notice of Saturday's incident, he also noted that the Supreme Court had already ordered the suspension of Islamabad's police chief and other officials.
The State Department has urged the Pakistan government to make certain that the journalists are free to perform their duties "without intimidation and without fear of reprisal".
Another State Department spokesman told a newspaper in Washington that "in terms of media freedom in Pakistan, we want to make sure that all legitimate media representatives are able to help inform the Pakistani people of what's happening now and in the future."
FUTURE AT STAKE:
The US State Department, at another briefing in Washington, a day later, said that Pakistan's future and its ties with the United States were at stake in the country's presidential and general elections. There is indeed much to think about in this statement. That the United States is a constant direct or indirect theme in many of the TV discussions is something that needs to be underlined here. A spokesman of the State Department Sean McCormack was quoted as saying: "We have a lot at stake; they have a lot at stake. The future course of Pakistan is at stake in this and the future elections."
These comments were described as "unusual" by a national daily and they came in the wake of a question on the United States view of the naming of a new general in Pakistan to replace Pervez as the Army Chief if he was elected as President. One would like to mention here that these have been major news stories on the TV channels. News stories of developments in the political world, and the Supreme Court have been occupying prime time on the channels, and in the people's minds and hearts for several months now.
Sean McCormack was also quoted as saying, "President Musharaf's decision to doff his uniform and bring another general as the Army Chief is linked to the larger question of political transition in Pakistan."
RICE ON BENAZIR BHUTTO:
As Pakistani TV channels enhance their focus on the Benazir Bhutto theme, and her scheduled return to Pakistan on the 18th of this month after an eight-year exile, and speculate on what could be her terms of reference for any arrangement with the present regime, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has expressed her views in the matter. Ms Rice has said categorically that former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has a role in the future political set-up in Pakistan.
The New York Post interviewed Ms Rice. She also said that the United States was pressing President Musharraf "very hard" to allow for free and fair elections in Pakistan. It makes one wonder whether the United States has done this in the past also, and whether this is something that needs to be emphasised. Should it not be the right of the people of Pakistan to have free and fair elections and a transfer of power subsequently? One is reminded here of the East Pakistan tragedy.
Ms Rice was reminded of the charges of corruption that Benazir Bhutto has had to face in the past, and to this she responded that "there's need 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."