The way the mainstream media spread fake news in reporting a Lahore High Court order pertaining to a case of repeated commission of contempt against higher judiciary should give a pause to all. After hearing several petitions challenging Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority's (Pemra's) failure to stop broadcasting of anti-judiciary speeches by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz, and their men a three-member bench of the court had ordered the regulator to ensure against airing of anti-judiciary speeches, also directing it to decide on merit all pending complaints-including those of the petitioners-about objectionable content within 15 days. Nowhere in its order the bench had asked for putting a ban on Sharif and company's speeches. Yet that is how it was presented by the pro-government media. Soon enough, the fake news became real news, and the subject of print media comments and penal discussion on TV channels.
Given the sensitive nature of the 'news' Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar immediately took notice to clear the air, summoning the Attorney General to explain where in its order the LHC had called for putting a ban on the respondents' speeches. Acknowledging that no ban had been imposed, the AG said an investigation would be launched to determine the source of the fake news. According to a press report, he has written letters to intelligence agencies to find out what created the wrong impression. There is no need for an investigation. It is a simple case of the media lapsing into group behavior. It seems the pro-Sharif section of the media deliberately put a spin on the court order, and the others just followed. In a race not to be left behind almost all electronic media outlets have been exhibiting a tendency to imitate rivals without a proper fact check.
For arguments sake let's assume it was an honest mistake. Which leads to the question, was it fair to frame the issue as one of freedom of expression? If yes, it comes across as fanciful notion of democratic rights considering that in any decent democracy there are limits to what people can say. For one hate speech is a big no, no. And defamatory statements damaging the reputation of an individual, business or profession is an actionable offence. More relevant to our current situation, the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, prohibits bringing the judiciary into disrepute. Anyone can criticize a court verdict but not insult the judiciary. Criticism can have positive effect on future decisions while insults, like being hurled by Sharif, undermine the authority of apex court in the public eye, which should be unacceptable to anyone interested in seeing the ultimate arbiter act without fear or favour.
Unfortunately, as part of a well thought-out strategy aimed at securing his political survival, the PML-N Supreme Leader has declared an open season on the judiciary since his ouster in a Panama Papers scandal related case. He has constantly been ranting against the Supreme Court for disqualifying him. In so doing he has been using fallacious arguments to mislead public opinion, telling people in disqualifying him "five people" (honourable judges of the court) violated the sanctity of their votes. Those in the media, surely, are aware of two important rules of the game: One, that votes hand a leader the mandate to deliver good governance not to enhance personal fortunes. Second, rule of law being one of the core values of democracy, all people, elected or unelected, are equally before law. A prime minister is just as answerable before courts as any other citizen. Hence the judiciary cannot, must not, be maligned for holding an elected leader to account for an alleged offence, in the present instance, purchase of properties in London worth multimillion dollars through hitherto unexplained resources.
Yet Sharif and company's fulminations have become a staple of the print and electronic media news and comments. A section of the media takes a partisan position, ostensibly in defence of the democratic project, and in all probability to protect and promote self-interest. But others, especially in the electronic media, have another affliction: absence of editorial oversight. To make a bad situation worse, more often than not reporters lack professional training, and are ill-conversant in the ethics of their line of work. They are also under pressure to be first with whatever goes as news, and not to miss any important item carried by competitors. No wonder, in the present case almost all carried the fake news (this paper reported the court order sans the spin).
The episode underscores the need for the media to institute a self-regulatory mechanism. As regards Pemra, at present it is a mere appendage of the federal government. It can play its due role if and when it is free of governmental control. According to well-informed journalists, its previous chairman, a political appointee (forced to step down by the Lahore High Court on grounds of lacking requisite qualifications) in a shocking attempt to prove his loyalty to his controlling authority had gone before a Senate penal to propose 30-year jail sentence together with a horrendous amount of fine for violators of Pemra rules - with the intention of targeting the ruling party opponents. For obvious reasons his proposal remained ignored. The Supreme Court has now set up a committee, headed by the Planning Commission's Deputy Chairman, Sartaj Aziz, and comprising two senior government officials, representatives of the All Pakistan News Papers Society, and President of Pakistan Broadcasters Association, for the selection of a new chairman. That may help, but something also needs to be done to ensure fake news does not become the new normal rather than an aberration.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.