Electronic Media Democracy and Extremism by South Asian Media Net

Electronic Media Democracy and Extremism

Day I Session I Never lose a holy curiosity Mustansar Javed

Time for media to reflect its role Imtiaz Alam

Electronic Media Of ethics and public interest Husain Naqi

Discussants Saima Mohsin, Sajjad Mir, Nadia Naqi, Sohail Warraich

Panellists Rehana Hakim, Dr A. H. Nayyar, Zafar Abbas, Professor Khwaja Masud

Open House

Day I Session II Terrorism and Media Excerpts from Nazir Naji's article

Discussants Mohsin Raza, Nasir Malick, Asma Shirazi, Mujahid Barelvi, Nusrat Javeed

Panellists Shireen Pasha, Ghazi Salahuddin, Munir Ahmed (Munnoo Bhai), Agha Nasir

Open House

Day II Session I Discussants Iftikhar Ahmad, Meher Bokhari, Anjum Rashid

Panellists Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy, M Ziauddin, Husain Naqi, Dr Jabbar Khattak

Open House

Day II Session II Panellists Shireen Pasha, Nasreen Azhar, Munir Ahmed (Munnoo Bhai), Ashfaq Saleem Mirza

Discussants Zubair Ghauri, Shahid Mehmood Nadeem

Open House

Resolution: Media Round-Table Conference

Rapporteurs Aatekah Mir-Khan, Amara Javed, Bushra Sultana, Khalid Hussain, Mehmal Sarfraz Compiled and edited by Mehmal Sarfraz Designed by Design 8

Media Round-Table Conference November 29-30, 2008 Islamabad, Pakistan South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) held a Media Round-Table Conference in Islamabad from November 29-30, 2008. The purpose of the conference was to evaluate the role of the electronic media in promoting democracy and tackling with extremism. The discussants and panellists debated on whether the electronic media was: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Sustaining or Eroding Democracy-in-Transition. Safeguarding Public Interest or Creating Panic. Promoting Extremism/Terrorism or Tolerance. Facts or Passions; Rationality or Rhetoric (economy, security). Following or Flouting Professional ethics.

The discussants included famous TV anchors, producers, director news and other people from Pakistani TV channels â&#x20AC;&#x201D; both public and private TV channels. The panellists included important media persons, intellectuals, academicians, experts and analysts. The two-day conference focused on the impact of the electronic media on the public, how it was being used by some elements in promoting a negative image of the new democratic government and how extremism was being promoted by the news channels, both advertently and inadvertently.

Day I Session I Chair: Mustansar Javed General Secretary SAFMA Pakistan

Welcome Address

Never lose a holy curiosity Mustansar Javed

akistan faces a multitude of crises today. A tottering economy and a deteriorating security situation, heightened by our geographic location, have handed Pakistan the biggest challenge any nation could face â&#x20AC;&#x201D; the challenge of survival. I know I sound rather gloomy at the start of the day, but perhaps truth is the only virtue which cannot be tampered with. In these stressful times, our concerns are increasing because of rebellious forces which are throwing up challenges in our way to weeding out the troublemakers. The rebels, we know too well by now, are way too obedient to their commanders and what they profess as their 'cause'. Hence it would not be farfetched to say that we as a nation have fallen prey to this obedience more and rebellion less. At this juncture I am reminded of the contemporary British novelist C P Snow, who wrote: â&#x20AC;&#x153;When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.â&#x20AC;? When rebellion and obedience intended at disobedience coincide, it makes news. And this is where the role of journalists assumes large proportions. In today's fast-moving world, the print medium has been overtaken by the electronic to a large extent, thereby making heroes out of TV journalists. With the advent of 24-hour news channels, Pakistan has also produced many a famous and impactful TV journalist, many of whom are present here. But at a time when we are inundated with news, it is a challenge for journalists to pick the news from the chaff and see that the news and not the chaff gets aired.

This is why people have begun to question the role TV journalists are playing today. Are they there for sustaining or bashing the ongoing processes; safeguarding public interest or create panic? This is what we shall learn more about in our conference. My friends from various news organisations will share their views with us and later the house will open for a rebuttal session. Albert Einstein, therefore, rightfully suggested us to never lose a holy curiosity.

Objectives of the Round-Table

Time for media to reflect its role

welcome you all to this roundtable conference. This media dialogue within the media is perhaps unique. Increasing criticism posed in the media and the debate in the media as well as the concern being shown by civil society and the citizens on the role of the media prompted us to hold this conference. The purpose is to respond to this public outcry and criticism. Media freedom is the main concern for SAFMA and all media bodies. Our struggle has been going on for decades. We have stood and fought for years to this end and have been consistent. When we held a media conference last year when the military regime had placed curbs on the freedom of media, we were of the view that media freedom is intrinsically linked to democracy, rule of law, an independent judiciary and enforcement of fundamental rights. We also formulated that media is inherently adversarial in character but plays its role in public interest.

Media bodies all over the world have developed a code of conduct. We demand the right to know and freedom of speech, and believe in pluralism, but we also accept responsibility at the same time that we will not be stimulant, sensationalist, and sexist or invade the privacy of anyone. We are aware that news and opinion are different things. Facts can be interpreted in different ways. We are quite happy that the electronic media in Pakistan has grown in a short span of time. The electronic media is not even a decade old, whereas the print media is quite old. In the print media we used to go through the mill â&#x20AC;&#x201C; one would first start as a subeditor, and would then be promoted with the passage of time. In the electronic media, there has been a sudden rise. This was due to the rise in foreign investment in the telecommunications sector, which gave revenue boost to the electronic media. Due to the boom in the electronic media, newly established organisations were rushing to fill the spots and this led

Imtiaz Alam, Secretary General SAFMA, addressing the delegates Imtiaz Alam, Secretary General SAFMA, addressing the delegates

4 4

Mujahid Barelvi and other delegates

to untrained people being hired to fill those spots. People who could not handle cameras were given cameras, editorial boards had inexperienced people, which is why observers argue that there has been a lack of responsibility and that the electronic media is going haywire.

These days, there is slum and recession in the market. Revenue is drying up, which is why some newspapers and television channels are closing down. There has been massive downsizing and many small media houses will not survive. That is the call of economy and in Darwin's words: 'survival of the fittest'.

Media bodies like CPNE, PUFJ, and others asked the new government that media laws fro m Musharraf's time be amended. Ministry of Information is not yet ready to amend PEMRA, Defamation, Press Council and Registration of publications laws. According to the ministry, there is enough media freedom as it is, but we will persist in demanding that black laws be amended as proposed by media bodies.

Media is no more a mission; it is simply an industry. Media houses have corporatised themselves. There should be corporate responsibility of corporate owners of the media industry, but we see little responsibility. Visuals have to be sensational in the electronic media; it has become a compulsion. Unfortunately the shortcoming of the corporate sector to their responsibility to the public has led to nothing but speculation. The media has turned the economic

Listening intently: Zafarullah Khan and Abdul Wadood Qureshi

Meher Bokhari and Tanzila Mazhar

crisis into something else; people who do not know the basics of economics have become gurus of economy right now on television channels.

are in fact 'know-nothings'! BBC's 'Hard Talk' would be the same even if it is not hosted by Tim Sebastian because the research team behind the show is there.

Similarly, same is the case of security and law and order situation. The Indian media jumped the gun on the first day of the Mumbai terror attacks by saying that Pakistan was responsible for it. In response, all Pakistani television channels blamed India for being part of a Jewish conspiracy, according to which Indians hatched these attacks themselves so that they could blame Pakistan. Our media is going on about how we are ready to fight the Indians. We are proud of Vinod Sharma who said let's not jump the gun and wait for the investigation. He also cautioned against the rising animosity between the two countries and warned of dire consequences. There is a tendency in the media to jump the gun due to competition and 'breaking news' syndrome. People have been declared dead when they were alive, people have been asked to come on talk-shows and when they are responding to a question, they have been taken off air while the anchor-person takes charge and launches a tirade against that person.

People in our part of the world have a problem. They do not admit if they do not know something; they pose as being experts on everything. I myself am guilty of this â&#x20AC;&#x201C; we like giving statements as if we know everything. In the West, people admit to their shortcomings. A professor or any other intellectual, when asked about something outside their field, will say that 'I do not know this sir, kindly ask someone else'.

There is hardly any investigative report visible in the electronic or print media. We see anonymous quotes by a senior journalist while there is no checking of facts. Media-persons think they are demigods, thus we do not find any editorial section or research section which could actually guide them. These know-it-alls

The role of the media to inform people is now becoming inverse. The media must benefit the public with knowledge and inform them through investigative reports, etc. If the media is creating panic and not helping the country, is it promoting a pluralist culture or not? Is the media promoting democracy or not? Liberalism is an antidote of fascism. This conference is not in any way a kind of onslaught from one point of view to another. This is a friendly, democratic, pluralistic exchange within the media as we have a responsibility to inform the public. We call upon the corporate sector which has made billions through the media industry to spend money on research, human resource development and editorial sections. Only then will there be better debates and conversations on television channels.

Electronic Media Of ethics and public interest Husain Naqi

lectronic media in our country remained under exclusive control of the government for more than half a century till the last militarydominated regime was persuaded through international prodding and financial assistance to allow private sector entry into the field. With the introduction of news channels free of bureaucratic control, expectations of the audience were raised about independent and objective coverage. These expectations were fulfilled especially after the March 2007 episode at the office of the then COAS President that was followed with the manhandling of the Chief Justice of Pakistan by a cop in uniform. The footage of the incident that the channel dared to air shocked and provoked the viewers. That telecast was a milestone erected by a privately-run television channel and heralded the new era of electronic media in Pakistan. The incident was followed with the May 12 [2007] mayhem in Karachi on the day the Chief Justice was to address the High Court Bar in the Sindh metropolis. The events of the day were telecast live and people were aghast while staying glued to the television sets witnessing the carnage in broad daylight with terrorists aiming their guns in the direction of a TV channel premises. Viewers saw the glass panes of the channel's news section broken by gunshots.

further attack through the electronic crime ordinance that was imposed soon after the slaying of country's popular mainstream political leader Benazir Bhutto.

The daring coverage by privately-run television channels enhanced their status to 'independent' electronic media. It also gave extra-confidence to the journalistic staff of television channels and their managements to continue with courageous coverage of happenings in different parts of the country. So strong was the impact of the electronic media on public opinion that the authoritarian establishment, which was taking credit for bringing freedom to media on an unprecedented scale, panicked and moved to take some of the most coercive actions especially against the private sector electronic media in the year 2007. The most damaging, both for the media and the people of the country, was the ban put on the live coverage of events that also barred telecast of certain programmes. The electronic media came under

As the viewers of privately-run television channels had multiplied during the period, it could exercise freedom with credibility, its marketing and business sections engaged themselves in more aggressive efforts for enhancing their share of the advertisements for the media and succeeded to multiply the incomes of media houses, particularly those already experienced in filling their coffers through the print media. The year 2007 also brought further windfall profits for quite a few privately owned news channels from their coverage of political leaders returning from exile. Their political activities attracted large crowds to their meetings and an even larger audience for the television channels covering their address to the public. Round the clock coverage that included live telecast of a couple of tragic incidents which took place

in the country on the arrival of popular mainstream political leaders gave further boost to the credibility of private sector television channels, particularly those that were being operated by print media barons. There was widespread acclaim for Pakistani television channels at the national and international level. Quite a few television commentators, anchor persons, correspondents, even news readers became celebrities for the viewing public. Their market value multiplied as one or the other media house wanted to grab their services and multiply their earnings. The private sector electronic media fraternity had some unscrupulous individuals who misused their popularity amongst the viewers who had reposed confidence in what they were to report and comment upon. These elements in connivance with greedy media barons got engaged in unprincipled and unethical practices pretending to keep their channel at the 'top'.

Ghazi Salahuddin and M. Ziauddin

indulged in by some notorious individuals. They were alleged to have demanded and received a share in the advertisement revenue earned through their contacts for the programmes aired by the media channels. Enough evidence was available about widespread indulgence in including material in telecasts at prime time that incited prejudice, hatred, contempt and ridicule for others' faith. There were instances of unwarranted intrusion into private lives without any public interest in the matter. Glorification of some heinous crimes and their blatant propagation claiming religious sanction continued on the electronic media It is worth mentioning that some of these as well. Imbalanced coverage of sectarian violence 'independent' media persons and media barons with potential for causing incitement and further indulged in serious violations of professional ethics for incidence of violence was not taken care of. The rights their own benefit. The first and foremost violation of vulnerable sections of society, including members of related to media's commitment to respect for truth minority communities, women and children were and fairness. Accuracy in the presentation of facts ignored in their portrayal. Stereotyping was the order instead of distorting and falsifying facts or censoring of the day as quite a few channels ignored the need for them was another violation being witnessed. More professionally competent editors in handling sensitive disturbing was the phenomenon of getting involved in material. The viewers who had been ignoring the accepting bribes, undue favours and succumbing to shortcomings of electronic media and media persons inducements. Reports carried by the media point to who had not been through the mill have started yet another violation of the basic professional ethics protesting about noticeable tilt in the news coverage and comment by channels claiming independence. They need to realise that the loss in viewership of state-owned television channel was caused for the very same reason even when there was not any local channel available other than international news channels and the channels from across the border. The proliferation of television Mushtaq Malik (Chairman PEMRA), Khalid Hussain and Agha Nasir channels in a couple of years

Human rights activist Tahira Abdullah and filmmaker Shireen Pasha

created a genuine shortage of professional human resources. Fresh and enthusiastic youth still studying for their graduation in mass communication departments were recruited (some of them for their social connections.) Again, only a couple of channels took the trouble of getting their staff the required training by professional experts. Space opened up for the entry of non-professional, inexperienced and gullible individuals into the electronic media. This trend upset the balance created by responsible professionals in the presentation of verifiable information and free and fair comment. Facts were twisted to gain edge over rivals and to create unwarranted excitement among the viewers. Purely fabricated stuff was dished out with impunity to propagate what was most unfit for being served to receptive and, largely, ignorant but trusting audience. Few channels cared to apologise or even offer regrets about stories put on air as what is claimed to be 'breaking news', which subsequently proved to be untrue. Even worse were continuing with these programmes run by certain channels that motivated the criminals and other anti-social elements, particularly the bigots who professed killing of those belonging to other faiths. Another vicious addition was promoting superstition that was indulged in by channels whose ownership, management and editorial control was in the hands of those who claimed to be 'liberal faithful'. The opportunity to become popular with the most

retrogressive elements in society was exploited by channel owners for profit-earning motive alone. That attitude and practice of the channel managements encouraged various vested interests with their perverse agenda to buy telecast time and engage in propagating views that were against public interest. Many a shady business house patronised private producers and anchors who would purse their designs about creating panic in society, at stock as well as in commodities' market, etc. The worst examples of misuses of electronic media channels was conducting media trial of individuals, groups, organisations and institutions for different motives â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not excluding pure and simple blackmail. It was worth taking note of that the very same media persons who observed little restraint and discretion were extra-cautions while reporting about the activities of fascist and blood thirsty elements. Once competence was pushed to the backseat, the viewers were served a menu that was, to put it politely, shocking. Instead of serving as credible watchdogs of public interest, quite a few television channels were found engaged in either exaggerating trivial issues or scandalising and sensationalising problems of serious concern for the viewers who expected to be enlightened by learned discourse on these channels. The situation calls for serious introspection and taking corrective steps.

Discussants

Responsibility and regulations

Act responsibly Saima Mohsin (Dawn News) I host a news programme on Dawn News called 'News Eye'. I have a slightly different background, as I have worked in BBC, Sky News, etc. Everything that everyone has said so far has rung many bells. Particularly when I first moved to Pakistan and had not immersed myself in Pakistani news media, I realised the need for certain regulations, at least in understanding, that we in the media should be doing things in a responsible fashion. Many of you are seasoned journalists from the print media, but in terms of electronic media, it is true that many youngsters are coming in for the glamour factor. But journalism is not about glamour. It is about having ethical owners and journalists. You just guide the viewer to present a balanced view. Do not form an opinion and present it. You always have to remain impartial. My opinion does not matter. For me a journalist is merely a 'guide' who must always remain impartial. I am not the expert and I know that, I am just the person who has to bring the experts to the people and let them judge. Recognise the audience, a lot of them are not well informed and do not have a lot of information. For many people, what they hear on television is the gospel truth. When we present our facts to them, we should make sure that they ARE the facts. Our views can incite violence. More focus should be on media laws.

Need for self-regulation Sajjad Mir (News One) Mr Imtiaz Alam talked of a different perspective, Husain Naqi being so senior has pointed out the right things. It sounds like a charge-sheet. The issues they brought up are quite serious and the electronic media should think about it. Freedom without responsibility is nothing. It applies to everyone in the world. It is an inbuilt thing that there is irresponsibility in the electronic media. It happens everywhere. There was a case in the USA once where one of the judges on a panel was not getting up after the session had ended. She got up much later and while walking she was limping a bit, so the electronic media started speculating on her health. Later on it was learned that one of her shoes was broken, which was why she got up at the end as she did not want to get embarrassed. But who knew the media would come up with such stories! Visuals shown on our television channels are more horrifying sometimes. But when there is no editor between the reporter and the viewer, such things would happen. Electronic media personnel should be more responsible. People come out of universities and become anchorpersons without any training or background. Just as the evil of democracy can only be rooted out by more democracy, the evil of the electronic media should be rooted out by giving more freedom to the media. A regulatory system should just

be regulatory, not more than that. The bad people in the electronic media will be exposed sooner or later. When our market expands, we will get more freedom as we would not have to rely merely on government sector advertisements. A self-regulatory system should be in place and there should be more responsibility.

visuals. Indian media showed more responsibility while showing the visuals of the Mumbai attacks. Also, when it comes to reporting, we should not invade the privacy of others. Ethics come with freedom. The government should not regulate the media, but we should do it ourselves.

Ethics come with freedom

Media not promoting extremism

Nadia Naqi (CNBC) I feel that I am too young in this field. I started as a news presenter, three months down the line I was asked to host a programme 'Awam ki awaz'. Now I cover issues that the public faces. It is more of a learning experience for me as I have radio background. I always do programmes on issues that I have researched on. Experts and anchors are just repeating rhetoric these days. Field reporting is what anchors should do. We should not just sit in the studios and conduct our programmes.

Sohail Warraich (GEO) Mr Husain Naqi pointed out bribes and grants given to anchors and TV channel owners, but if we go through the history of print media, we will see that the print media got it more. The electronic media is economically more independent than the print media; we can afford to look eye to eye with the Information Ministry and other government departments. We do not cross our limits. Freedom's only accountability is freedom itself. The anchors would lose their credibility when people realise they are unethical. If something horrible takes place, how can we hide it from the public? We have been hiding the truth from people for 50 years, we should not be doing so anymore. People can face the truth now. Viewers need to face reality so there should not be too much censorship.

What we are showing, should we show this as 'breaking news'? Do we realise that by reporting everything as 'breaking news', the image of Pakistan is being affected in the international community. Facts have to be dealt with responsibly. We have shown so much bomb blasts on television now that our audiences have become immune. When a blast takes place and 4 people die, our children say, 'Oh it was not a big blast, only 4 people were killed.' Is this not sad? We show dead bodies, which should not be done! The Western media is more responsible when it comes to

I do not think that the media is promoting extremism. I have a firm belief that terrorism and militants have inherent contradiction with free media. The final fight will be between the two because there will be a clash of economic interest. Free media will have to fight the militants out.

Panellists

Talk shows and their impact kept asking the government to carry out an operation against it and when that happened, everybody totally switched sides and made the people who died in it martyrs. Why this imbalance?

No balance in talk shows Rehana Hakim (Editor News Line) Is there any realisation in the electronic media about the way the war on terror is being carried out? The entire focus of the media is on the government, the Americans and the army. Militants are being heralded as the victims despite their barbarianism. Anchors are not coming down hard enough on the militants. Since the ultimate battle is with them, the media should come down hard upon them. What is the role of an anchorperson? An activist and negotiator, like the role they played during the Lal Masjid episode? Are you going to be one of the characters of the story or just present that story? Talk shows are dominated by people with right-wing views. A show like 'Aalim Online' incited people against the Ahmediyya (Qadiyani) community and led to the murder of three people. Why is this programme still on air? This is a society where the literacy level is very low and religion can easily be used as a tool. There is no balance in the talk shows. We see 3 people from one side and only 1 from the other side, so where is the balance? There should be a critique of how the Lal Masjid issue was tackled. First the electronic media

Commercialism in journalism is a problem Dr A. H. Nayyar (Educationist) My view is from the outside since I am not a journalist. My first reaction to this discussion is: what is so new about it? The print media has the same problems. Jang would have a lot of things that are beyond wisdom, but they promote such things. Visual media and radio's reach is a lot. Thus their impact is more. Commercialism in journalism is a problem. Not only are anchorpersons responsible for this, but especially the owners since they want to increase their income. To get an audience they do stuff which they should not. Religious anchorpersons need to be responsible. They should be controlled. FM Radio stations in FATA and NWFP promoted lawlessness and hate material. Why did PEMRA not crack down on them? Around 40 odd FM channels are still there. Regulatory mechanisms should have internal mechanisms as well. If they are working with a certain agenda and/or vested interest, they need to be controlled. The electronic media

should pay the experts, which would eventually make the debates more interesting and credible because the media would not want to waste money on bad experts. Zafar Abbas (Resident Editor, Dawn) Since readership has always been low due to low literacy level, the print media has had less impact on the masses. Television has more impact, thus there is more debate on its role. As for the criticism on anchorpersons, well, most of these people have come from the print media. They were frustrated that their views were not being read by people, no reaction was shown. Now when they go on TV, they know they are being heard. Their views on sectarianism and other such ideologies become more dangerous. The damage is being done by the older lot, not the newer lot. They have been working in the print media for years and trying to damage society. People are trying to learn now. The very fact that the TV channels are open to have a debate on the mistakes they have made is a good move. There is a realisation, which is for the good. News coverage is different from discussions. When there is a bomb blast, it does not mean that we have to show visuals of dead bodies. The coverage of such incidents has to be done in a responsible way. Do not show graphic visuals. Consciousness has been started due to electronic media. Politicians are being exposed due to the electronic media. Self-regulation should be done. As for liberal fascism, or 'jihadi journalist', this is a debate between the media people themselves. Our society is divided on

the issue of whether those dying in FATA are militants or terrorists. Media alone is not glorifying them; the politicians are doing the same thing. Our debate is still going on. Pakistan needs to have a unified view on this point. Chaudhry Shujaat and someone from the PPP would have different views on whether those who died in Lal Masjid were militants or terrorists. Only then would sobriety come in the media. Mustansar Javed How long should this debate go on? For 10 years, 20 years or 50 years? When Halaku Khan came in Baghdad, such a debate went on for a long time and

Wajih Akhter, a guest, Khalid Farooqi, Siddiq Baloch and Dr. Jabbar Khattak

then the whole of Baghdad was destroyed. Zafar Abbas We should not be afraid of a debate, we should be afraid of guns. Professor Khwaja Masud (former Principal Gordon College Rawalpindi) Everyone contributed something good, something new to the discussion. I will discuss the debating points as given by SAFMA. Following or flouting professional ethics is the most important issue. As far as our newspapers are concerned, you are a better judge. There are some newspapers which have flouted professional ethics. They do it so that they create readership and they can do it only if they do or say or write what they want the people of Pakistan to think. Professional ethics is the last thing which they stick to. The trouble now is that Pakistan is passing through a very critical period. I would suggest that we need professional ethics thoroughly, so far as the print media is concerned. Those who are flouting professional ethics should be punished. As for 'facts or passion, rationality or rhetoric', what we need are facts and those facts to be supported by rationality. The third point is 'promoting extremism/terrorism, or tolerance'. We need tolerance. Without tolerance, we cannot do away with all that is going on here in Pakistan. Many thousands are killed because of lack of tolerance. We should deal with terrorism by dealing with the mischief-makers in our streets, mohallas. We believe not in doing things but talking about things.

creating panic. If they just give up on creating panic, then this problem can be dealt with. Another point is, 'sustaining or eroding democracy in transition'. Well, how can you judge it? The MNAs do not care that what they say will create trouble. They should be sustaining democracy of the people, by the people, for the people. We do not want democracy in words only. We must be very careful about not only maintaining democracy but acting democratically. We do not nurture it, instead we just talk about it and do not do anything concrete about strengthening democracy. Starting from colleges, schools, mohallas, we should see to it that these terrorists and extremists are dealt with properly.

Public interest must be safeguarded but media is

Agha Nasir, Munnoo Bhai, Mehmal Sarfraz and Imtiaz Alam

Open House Agha Nasir: Democracy and media are both in transition. There are different viewpoints, but after some time it will all settle down. We will reach a conclusion, though we cannot reach one at the moment. Channel owners found it very convenient to get lots of revenue from sensational programmes. They hire an anchorperson, ask three or two panellists to join in, take two-three experts on telephone and the programme is ready. It is like a film where two-three dances, a few fights, some drama is needed and the thing is ready. Nobody in the electronic media is very careful about a wardrobe, a backdrop, etc. These are small and important things that need to be worked out. People in the print media have to go through a whole lot of research. We need a good tempo, be witty and civilised in the electronic media, and not play a boxing game. Tanzila Mazhar: Everyone was so positive in this session but no real questions were asked. What about the producer's policy line, owner's interest? Who decides what happens? Zafar Abbas: Somewhere the editor decides, somewhere the producers, somewhere the owners, somewhere the anchors. Switch on to another channel if you do not like what is being shown.

Tahira Abdullah: It is not a fair question to answer whether we are stabilising or destabilising the new democratic government. Where we criticise the media, we can also criticise the government. We [civil society] will play our role of monitoring and being a watchdog. Zehri and Bajarani's inclusion in the federal cabinet must be condemned. Dr Amir Liaquat should come and rebut. He has incited to death 3 people and we MUST name him. Meher Bokhari: How can we deny the fact that we have a social responsibility and that we are related to the masses. You are the one who has to determine what we have to show. Pacify them or make them angrier. Afzal Khan: Media is under scrutiny, under spotlight. A year ago this was not so. During the last regime, the issues were clear and there was a clear enemy, i.e. military dictatorship. The media, both print and electronic, played a constructive role. After February 18 elections, everything became juxtaposed. We think democracy is here but the media is confused whether this is the same democracy they worked and fought for. Yes, democracy should not be destabilised, but which direction is this democracy taking? The rulers have taken the people for granted, so why should democracy not be criticised? One thing that I would suggest for the electronic media

Shakeel Turabi, Barrister Danish Iftikhar, Shahabuddin, Dr Abdul Jabbar (Executive Director PEMRA)

Asiya Khwaja and Ali Imran

is to have a reference section so that youngsters can be trained properly. Extremism in our part of the region has increased due to the American intervention after the Taliban were ousted in 2001. Why have the Taliban not been eliminated yet? The Americans have been in Afghanistan for 7 odd years now. Anjum Rashid: 'Objective', 'fair' and 'balanced' are three words that have been used extensively today. When the Americans carry out drone attacks, collateral damage is there. We should show it, but with that we should also show the schools being bombed by the militants. The havoc they are creating in our society, we should show it.

war we found out how media was manipulated during the campaign leading to that war. When there was a blast in Samjhota Express, the Indian media jumped the gun and blamed Pakistan for it. In the end, it was uncovered that actually some Indians were responsible for it. During the Gujarat riots, a lot of local newspapers in Gujarat did not raise their voice against it. The media at all times must behave responsibly and give an unbiased view. There was a news item some months ago that General (retired) Musharraf had resigned, but it was not true. It led to a lot of uncertainty. Such things should be avoided. Shahabuddin: I am from the area [the northern areas] which is in the line of fire. There have been baseless allegations by experts on TV channels. Many Taliban are still alive yet were reported dead by the electronic media. Afghan ambassador is still missing. There were some training scams which some elected members of the Awami National Party (ANP) hinted

During the lawyers' movement, the media should have facilitated the public, but should not have given its verdict. Media must have a balanced view. Both the terrorists' and anti-terrorists' views should be given. Danish Iftikhar: Media should be criticised. In Iraq

Guests listening to the ongoing debate

Afzal Khan making a point

countries, state intervention is there. Media should not have grown so much. It is time to think where we are heading. Without research, seminars, serious discussions, people are going to the media.

Something interesting !

The media houses are getting so much profit, yet they do not pay the experts. Someone forcefully called me on a show and when I asked the host whether I would get any compensation for the show, that host insulted me.

at, but the media did not put their views on air. In Swat the situation is such that if the security forces have a check-post at a certain point, right next to it would be another check-post of the militants. But nothing has been done about it. No one is satisfied with the Swat operation. I reported something against the militants and there was a fatwa against me by the militants that I was wajib-ul-qatl (liable to be murdered). Dr Abdul Jabbar: I am from PEMRA. Our law says illegal FM stations cannot be run. But in FATA, our law does not apply and only the federal and/or provincial administrator can shut down illegal FM stations there. In Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), we have shut down some illegal FM stations. Wajih Akhtar: Are there no parameters to allow air time to an anchorperson during an activity that is going on? There are many ways of presenting news. If there is a blast, then just report facts, do not create panic. S M Naseem: Media is always praised for its important role in this country but I would slightly disagree with it. Because I think that in our society there is an unbalanced development. Media boom has happened suddenly. It has led to problems in all sectors. Our youth is taken in by the glamour of the media. In all

Shireen Pasha: We are in a transition phase. It is right that a lot has taken place during this phase. Many channels opened and sprouted. People who are extremely educated should come into this field now. No investigative reporting has been done in years. Researches takes time and is very expensive, yet it is in-depth and with proof. We should do it. Behavioural change takes place when such a thing is done. Real work should now begin! Khalid Hussain: Do not catch the thief, catch his mother. We need to look at the state's role in shaping the media as it is today. The state has formed the media in its present line. By not enforcing rules and regulations on private TV channels, PEMRA led to this deterioration. All TV channels are employing people from the cable operations in the cities for running the DSNG, whereas

Dr Rashid Ahmad Khan, Nasir Malick with a guest

Tariq Warsi, Anjum Rashid and Wajid Bukhari

the regulations say that those handling the DSNG should be fully qualified, duly licensed to know what micro-waves they are dealing with. But in this digital age, these things are still going on in Pakistan. Imtiaz Alam: Our focus should not be on media's one characteristic. We are not here to discuss the anchorpersons, but structural weaknesses. We must discuss the political economy of the electronic media. Are the media organisations capable of running a national network? I have not seen a proper studio, which is technically sound. Media which is creating such public opinion and having important debates, does it have any empirical, educational background? You give so much money to the anchorpersons, but don't spend on research. Media should spend some money on researchers as well because an anchorperson is not Tarzan! Editorial caution has ended; the editor's role has ended. Since the owners have become the editors, it has led to a vacuum. What is the ideology of the media? Is it neutral? There have been incidents where columnists have given out SAFMA's address to incite violence against us. There should be a limit to freedom of media. No one in the media has the right to incite violence against someone.

What is the denominator for TV ratings? Will we have fascism, extremism and intolerance as popular denominators? Where is the social responsibility of media organisations? I think that anti-democracy, anti-constitution, anti-people, anti-law, anticivilisation, anti-culture are the most popular denominators of TV ratings. When you play on the superstitions of the public, does that become a denominator? PTV is not doing any public service despite being a public sector television. Every government uses PTV as its instrument. This government too wants PTV to become its instrument. Why does any network not give half an hour for public service? Ninety-nine percent of Indian media took a position against the communalist angle when the Gujarat riots took place in India. What is the benchmark in Pakistani media? Honour-based analysis is going on all over the media. It is not a fight between secularism and religion. It is a feudal ideology which is leading to such analyses on television. Mustansar Javed: What about advertisers? Who can say anything against Mobilink or any other advertiser?

Nadia Naqi, Saima Mohsin, Asma Shirazi, Bushra Sultana, Amara Javed, Aatekah Mir-Khan and Husain Naqi 18

Day I Session II Chair: M Ziauddin Senior Journalist

Terrorism and Media Excerpts from Nazir Naji's article

he crushing of freedom of thought is the first sign of the state being destroyed. In 1969, National Security Affairs was created under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting whose primary purpose was to crush intellectual freedom. As a result, access to any kind of real information was not possible. Millions of East Pakistanis were declared traitors and speaking in their favour was considered equivalent to denouncing one's patriotism. I was branded 'unpatriotic' when I opposed military action in East Pakistan by General Tikka Khan. When I look back at the time, I always wonder if we, as a nation, had lost our ability to see the truth. Those of us who wanted to find out the truth started doubting ourselves and our convictions and wondered if those who we thought were lying were actually telling the truth. But the election results proved that people were able too see through the lies of the state media and those who proclaimed that they represented the public opinion.

and that all the blame rests with America; if they were to call back their army from Iraq and Afghanistan, all will be well. Yet why are innocents being targeted in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq? Everyone tells us that we should destroy terrorist bases and camps in Pakistan but we have been unable to do that in seven years. We admit that we are unable to establish the state's writ in those areas. Our compatriots are being held hostage by the terrorists. They are not allowed to leave and as a result, whenever the Pakistan Army or coalition forces attack terrorist bases, many innocent lives are lost. The Army has tried its best to protect the citizens. Many accords and pacts have been signed, promises been made and demands have been met but terrorist bases have not been eliminated.

Though now times have changed as have circumstances and the kind of lies being told but those who try to discuss things rationally rather than emotionally or through the lens of religion are being meted the same treatment.

Britain, Afghanistan, the US and international agencies all agree that Pakistan is the base from which terrorists operate all over the world. We, ourselves, are fighting a war in Bajaur and Swat, our security forces and civil administration in those areas are being targeted as a form of resistance by the terrorists; a resistance that isn't ensured by any religion or law. However, their cause is advocated in such a way that those who point to the dangers that their presence poses look crazy. America, China, Spain, Italy and Afghanistan are all crazy; all of them are against Islam and want to obliterate Muslims. Only we are telling the truth and are not accountable to anyone. Rather the world is accountable to us. We thought the same in 1970 and at the end we had to give up 'our truth'.

Today, once again, the world is speaking out against terrorists but we are being told that the world is lying; that the victims of terrorism in the US, UK, Spain and Italy deserved what they got because they are the enemies of Islam. It might have been easier to believe them had they not targeted us as well.

Today, once more, we are bent upon making the world accept our version of the truth â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a thought in which there is no place for the real truth. Once again we have entered the vicious cycle in which the crushing of freedom of thought is the first sign of the state being destroyed.

However, instead of accepting the results, the quarters of power tried to crush the will of the people through the use of media and brutality. Only those who supported military action in the East were allowed to express themselves, while others were subjected to a Machiavellian treatment.

The number of people who died as a result of terrorism in Pakistan far exceeds the number of all those 'nonbelievers' who were killed in Europe and America. But even now, we are being told that the terrorists are right

Discussants

Criticism is unfair Mohsin Raza (ARY One World) Nazir Naji probably wants an FIR against the electronic media. Where rating is concerned, if people are listening to an anchor and want to, I do not understand why their programmes should not be shown. There is no criticism on pornographic channels but we criticise the right-wing religious programmes. The positive role of media should not be ignored. I would say that the media owners have suffered financially and stood for their principles when they were shut down not so long ago. Geo, ARY and some other channels were taken off air at that time. The criticism on anchors and especially electronic media only is unfair because these people and channels have shown courage during General (retired) Musharraf's era. They should be applauded for their efforts and not be criticised.

Need for ombudsman Nasir Malick (Dawn News) I do not agree with Mohsin Raza that the scrutiny of media is not right and that the media anchors have played a big role. I think we are passing through an evolutionary process and if we are under scrutiny from

society, maybe it is because we have failed to come up to their expectations. We should not be hesitant to admit our mistakes. But we are still toddlers and are learning how to walk. All local television channels are in their initial stages. We are organisations. No television channel has become an institution and we cannot become an institution overnight. This selfaccountability will probably take us to the level where we will be able to play a responsible role in society. Of anchors â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and here I talk as a viewer â&#x20AC;&#x201C; when I watch channels, I feel that to be popular among the people, some anchors feel that if they take a popular position, their ratings will go up and their programmes will be financially viable. An anchor is also creating his/her own market. He/she should be a neutral person and a moderator and should facilitate discussions, but some anchors take sides for the sake of popularity. I also agree that we give many news stories which are proven wrong later on. We start with a higher figure of deaths and then bring it down. This may be because of the pressures of competition. The advertisers are limited and you have to capture the market. Leaving aside two or three channels, most of the channels are in loss. Because of the idea of 'us first' and competitive streak we tend to forget the rule of cross checking our 'source'. We now do not even bother telling our viewers that we were wrong in giving some information. These are our weaknesses and we do not have trained manpower since there has been a massive mushroom growth in the electronic media. It will take years before we are able to walk on our own feet but please let the process flow. The question is that should there be an institution that is imposed on us for accountability or should it be self-accountability. I agree that regulation should come from within us. But newspaper editors have not been able to form a code of ethics for themselves who are also owners of television channels. Civil society must come forward and demand a code of ethics for the media. Somebody has to stop the uncontrolled defamation that is going on these days. For that you need a newspaper and television ombudsman to whom a common man can go for his grievances. Asma Shirazi (ARY One World)

ourselves. We have gone through censorship. People who listen to us criticise us. It is our responsibility that if fingers are pointed at us, we should explore where we are lacking. If we are blamed that we are non-media actors, then we should defend whether we are able to represent the whole nation. Matters started to get out of hand during the coverage of Lal Masjid. Many famous anchors criticised the state for not defending its capital city. When the government came forward and confronted those challenging the writ of the state â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and that too after many consultations with the media â&#x20AC;&#x201C; there was an immediate change in the tone of the media. The state suddenly became the villain. My opinion on the operation aside, there is something called morality in journalism. If you do not honour your word, surely the people then have the right to point fingers at you. People like Mangal Bagh, who challenged the writ of the state, were made heroes by the media itself.

We should take criticism also I decided to attend this conference when I read its title. The boycott by some anchorpersons is not justified because if we keep talking and criticising democracy, then we should also have the ability to take criticism on

What kind of democracy is this where we criticise others but tell others not to criticise us. We resolved to tell the truth to society, to educate the viewers and not to play mind games with them. But we have tuned people to so much negativity now that they are not willing to listen to anything positive now. This is the fault of the media. The day we do not bash the government in our programmes, our ratings go down.

Sajjad Mir and Zafarullah Khan

We do not have the courage to point fingers at the army or to tell the viewers that many non-state actors are ruining this country. How do I accept that in a programme, there is propaganda against an anchor, then there are followup stories on him the next day and the third day he becomes an anchor for the same channel that started this whole campaign against him. I do not blame the anchor since anchors should be questioned, but what about the ethics of that channel? We use the word 'national interest' quite frequently. There should be an actual discussion on what exactly constitutes national interest. I would also like to know whether there is an editorial board in media organisations that can take responsibility of what their reporters/anchors say. As for capacity building, electronic and print journalists should be trained differently. We need editorial boards at institutional levels, not at state level, which are impartial and they can guide us as to what is ethical or not. Why can people like Munnoo Bhai, Ghazi Salahuddin, Husain Naqi and others like them not be formally inducted into these editorial boards? As anchors, we need to know our responsibilities and we should also be able to take criticism. Mujahid Barelvi (CNBC) It is a tragedy that the electronic media has no giants of the likes we had in the print media. I am amazed that the people who just joined the electronic media are talking about sacrifices made by them. I do not understand what their definition of sacrifice is. They should look at the 60s and how the newspapers used to be printed and what hardships they had to face. Nisar Usmani, Mazhar Ali Khan, Charagh Hassan, Sibt-eHassan, these are the names that need to be remembered and we need to learn from them. Please talk less of sacrifice of the electronic media and talk more of those who actually suffered in the print media. I do not think there is anyone in the electronic media who has had to spend months in jail or who has had to be jobless for months. People from the print media have suffered a lot more than the ones in the electronic media. They were flogged by rulers and they did not earn as much money as those in the electronic media do today. Those who did not belong to the electronic media

Questioning anchors joined it. Today, no one holds me accountable for my television show. But I know that if I was working with Mr Ziauddin or Mr Husain Naqi, I probably would not have been able to do the third programme. They are people with professional ethics. This gap cannot be filled. We should learn from such people. Commercialism has engulfed the media today. We are able to question the politicians today because politicians like Wali Khan and Bizenjo are not there anymore. We would not be able to ask them any questions. Today's politicians are just the same as the anchorpersons today. Nusrat Javeed (AAJ) Let's do some soul-searching. I have done nothing but journalism since 1975. In 1988 I got married. Despite being a high-profile journalist, my salary was not even enough to pay the rent of my house. I was supported by my wife. After just one year in the electronic media, I have made enough money to support my family. If I do what has been suggested by people here, my wife would have to work again and my 'husband empowerment' would be lost. Then they say that there are people in media who have no background. What about Faiz Ahmed Faiz,

Muhammad Ali Johar, Charagh Hussan Hasrat? They had no background. So when television started, how many people knew of it? They went from radio to television and learnt on job.

Let's do some soul-searching

Electronic media is a new medium, so let it flourish. And if we are criticised, I welcome it since we should learn from our contemporaries, especially the younger generation. If there is advancement and youngsters are getting interested, we should encourage it. Give it time. Our electronic media is still not as vibrant today as the print media was in the 70s. Slogans like 'Sau yahoodi, aik Maududi' [a hundred Jews and one Maududi] were being used in those times. Can we do it today? No we cannot. Those times were much more vibrant. There is a criticism on the media that we promote jihadi culture. During the Lal Masjid episode, I refused to call Maulana Abdullah a 'shaheed' [martyr] and I was threatened after that but I did not care. The head of an intelligence agency warned me that if I die then the responsibility would be put on Musharraf. I said that I know Musharraf would be behind it. There was another incident recently where I made a comment about Maulana Tahir-ul-Qadri after which people were ringing the bell of my house till 3:00am. I have two daughters and I do not have any weapons for my protection. The next day when these people came to surround our office, someone from the AntiTerrorism Squad told me that they need to use Tahirul-Qadri to root out jihadis from Punjab, so I should not question him. This is what is happening under a democratic government. A child in Miranshah, who gets Rs 2,000, how can you expect him to say 'Jihadi haaye haaye'. It is a place

where the president of this country, the chief of the army staff, a commando cannot dare to go there and say such thing. Those who ask the child to say this are the ones who have been taking dictation from the MQM for the past five years! General (retd) Pervez Musharraf is the real culprit. Just by balancing a whiskey glass on your head and dancing, you do not become 'enlightened'. His liberalism was just a farce. He was a dictator! When we were banned by a man with pistol, we were told that we [the media] should have limits and we should not cross a line. What about the line that a dictator crossed when he proclaimed to be the president?

Asma Shirazi, Nusrat Javeed, Mujahid Barelvi, Nasir Malick, Mohsin Raza

I request people to consider the jealousy element that comes with the celebrity status of the journalists. If there is TRP, then anchors would make money. Our very senior friend Khaled Ahmed criticises the anchorpersons most academically. He came up with the term 'anchrocrasy'. I met him once and said to him that in the USA they say that 'if you are that smart, why are you not rich?' I said to him that since you host a programme yourself on Samaa TV, why you do not make it interesting so that people stop watching jihadis like Hamid Mir and wait for your programmes anxiously. If you cannot produce or host a television programme and cannot attract audiences, what is the fault of Anjum Rashid or Sohail Warraich? Build your capacity so you can sell your message as an electronic media package. If you have such a good message why do you not have your own fan-following and are sought out by the media? I am not an anchorperson. I follow the tradition of 'bhaand' in my programme. I am not neutral. I am trying to do something against the 'Paatay Khan' [the ruling class] of today through humour. Imtiaz Alam (SAFMA) Our colleagues from ARY thought this was a chargesheet against them. They think that SAFMA is becoming part of the great conspiracy by the government to give a bad name to them and the media. This perception is very prevalent. On individual or institutional level, we always try to convince them

Shaukat Khattak, Shahabuddin, M. Aftab

No investment in human resource otherwise. For SAFMA, free media is our first priority and we will not compromise on it. There is also no compromise on capacity-building since there is no investment in human resource.

Panellists

Media and audience without hope at all since I see the potential of students who are about to enter the media market. I think there

Regulation needs sensibility Shireen Pasha (Filmmaker) It was a very interesting session. Many important things were brought up and floodgates have opened for the information-starved audience. Gradually we have come to a stage where we are feeling that more deep things lie ahead. Technology is being questioned as we are being given the kind of things which were not available before. The literati and exceptional people that have come out show there is no dearth of intelligence in our society. We have witnessed it since the 70s. It was a golden age. And these people did not come out of any academy but their work was exceptional. There was no code at that time. The 80s were a dark period in history when a lot of things stopped and the atmosphere of the newsrooms completely changed. PTV was such a controlled medium and we came through a lot of pressures into the privatisation of the 90s. The idea of regulation is dealt with difficulty but there can be something positive in it too. We need people of that par who can run the regulation board with sensibility. I asked the PEMRA official who was present in the morning session here today how many members there are in PEMRA. He said that there should be 12 members but there have only been four, and even those were people with uniforms. I am not

Media requires a tolerant society is a great future of the media. Ghazi Salahuddin (Media Analyst) I think we can keep the discussion in two different spheres: the performance of electronic media, and secondly the conceptual framework on which we have not talked much â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the role of electronic media in Pakistani society. A phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan comes to my mind. He said that â&#x20AC;&#x153;the medium is the messageâ&#x20AC;?. He believed that every new medium brings some change in the thinking of the people and the content does not affect it much. The coming of the television itself is a big thing. In a country where there is no democracy, this medium spreads discontent. In Ayub Khan's era when media was very controlled, there was no new media, yet there was no benefit from television to Ayub Khan. In fact, television created restlessness since people saw how other people lived outside. When television came here, the biggest thing it did was to show the picture of this country to the citizens of this country. Now if there is restlessness or anger, a sense of panic, it is due to the electronic media. But I do not think so. This electronic media has shown you the genuine picture of this country, whatever the analysis

may be. If a child falls in a manhole, if there is poverty or an accident, electronic media shows that. It is a revolutionary step to show such a true picture. There is a lot of talk about the freedom of the media. What are the uses of this freedom? Why do I need this freedom? Freedom does not mean that you keep ranting against somebody. Freedom means that you unearth some truth. How much money does investigative reporting take? When the story about Dogar's daughter came out that her marks were increased, it did not serve much purpose. If Nixon had not resigned after Watergate, this freedom of press would not have mattered much. Freedom of press is conditional in terms of other institutions of the state. If they do not respond, then there is no freedom. It breeds cynicism. How many stories will you publish when they would not have any affect on the politicians, on the judiciary, etc? Till these things happen, there is no concept of press freedom. Now let's take a look at the environment in which the electronic media came. Electronic media can be seen and understood by everyone â&#x20AC;&#x201C; literate or non-literate. Not everyone can afford to buy newspapers or read them. If the society cannot relate to the intellectual infrastructure of the country, then you would not be able to understand the weaknesses of the media. There was a question about the academic basis of people working in the media. Since there is rampant illiteracy and no intellectual debate on campuses, where would intelligent people come from? There would be no good debate in this scenario. There is a cultural degradation. Another important thing is the moral basis of a society. When there is no social and intellectual capital in society, what would you do? I can vouch here that there are more people in the media than in any other profession who have proved their integrity. Ours is an intolerant society. Media needs a tolerant society. We need press freedom to interpret things in society. If there is no openness and plurality in society, we cannot get freedom. There is no talk of principles and morality in our society anymore. If Justice Dogar is still the Chief Justice of Pakistan, then there is no such thing as freedom of press. Munir Ahmed (Munnoo Bhai) (Columnist) Nazir Naji raised a question in his article that did we go

Reality hard to see, be shown crazy 25 years ago? I want to ask that are we in our senses after 25 years? For the last 61 years, Pakistan has been going through critical times, which is our tragedy. When our eyes are covered with pride, prejudice, bias, likes and dislikes, we cannot see the reality. Nor can we show reality. If I like Benazir Bhutto, I would not see the faults in her. Likewise, if I dislike Nawaz Sharif, I would not see his qualities. We should analyse things without any bias. German poet and playwright Berthold Brecht said that people say that the Russian school shows the reality, the true picture of aggression. He said that I would not show this horrid reality because I do not want to scare my audiences. I will show all this with a different angle in my dramas so that I show the weakness and cowardice of the aggressor. I do not know why we call terrorists 'askariat-pasand'. 'Askari' means military. We just make things more difficult. Somebody asked what 'gumshudaah' [lost] means The other person answered, 'mafauq-ul-khabr' [a difficult word for gumshudaah]. This is how we have made terrorists something else. Why not use the real term for a terrorist? Why make it difficult? I attended the funerals of renowned journalists Syed Amjad Hussain and Zaheer Babar. I only saw grayhaired people there. No young journalist was there. It means that the younger generation does not recognise the icons of our history. It is also our fault that we have not reached the younger lot. I had not written any drama before I wrote one for television, but Agha Nasir, Fazal Kamal and Aslam Azhar taught me how to write it. I learnt from them. They paid me well, but I justified it too by writing popular and good dramas. We should take care of our people too. When the members of the Lahore Press Club were given plots,

those journalists who died fighting for press freedom were not remembered. Their widows and orphans should have been given plots in remembrance of those journalists. It is very unfortunate.

and our private media has been imprisoned by the corporate sector. But we need to fight it. The struggle must go on. Self-assessment is a good practice and is quite constructive.

Education in our schools is more dangerous than what is being taught at the madrassas (religious seminaries). It is more of sermonisation than

As in the words of Faiz Ahmed Faiz: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Abhi nijaat-e-deedaawar ki gharri nahi aayi, Challay challo ke who manzil abhi nahi aayi.â&#x20AC;?

Self-assessment is good education. It is such a tragedy. Agha Nasir (Veteran TV personality) Those of you from the print media are very lucky. You cannot even comprehend what kind of media have I come from â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the government media. I spent 45 years there. It was like being in a prison. You people are very lucky because what you have gained since our times is remarkable. It is also very fortunate that now things do change when the public listens to you. In those days, if there was a railway accident somewhere in Pakistan, the Deputy Commissioner (DC) had to release a press note about it. The DC, being a clever person, would issue the note at 9:00pm so that we could not take it in our main news bulletin. If we needed to get the press note before the bulletin, we would use our personal contacts with the DC. And even then he would make us report that only 10 people died when in fact 44 had been killed. At the most we were allowed to report that 14 people had died. We struggled a lot. We wanted PTV to become something like BBC. Now when I see the private television channels, I am very happy and very hopeful about our electronic media. Things do not change overnight. We are still not free from the state media,

No freedom yet M Ziauddin (Senior Journalist) I completely agree with Agha Nasir. I remember in 1964 or 1965, a journalist friend and I were discussing journalism and I said if the culture of press note finishes and we get freedom, what will happen? What I am seeing here today makes me so happy because I had never imagined such a debate would ever take place. In the print media we used to vehemently practice selfcriticism. As Ghazi Salahuddin said, 'freedom in isolation means nothing'. Even today we have freedom in isolation. Our parliament is not strong, our judiciary is weak, and we are not fearless either. Without rule of law, without an independent judiciary and without a functional parliament, we cannot have actual freedom. Mohsin Raza said that media should give to the audience what it wants. Agha Nasir said the opposite and said that we should give the audience what we think they need. Nusrat Javeed talked about truth sense, that is what he meant. Asma Shirazi said that accountability is very important and there should be self-criticism.

Open House Imtiaz Alam: We do not write history, we either write condemnation or praise. We do not accept criticism, because we are not democratic or tolerant enough. We are a bunch of narcissists. If a critic of literature and poetry is asked to write a novel or a poem, or if a singer asks a poet to sing, it is simply not possible! I am saying this in context of what Nusrat Javeed has said about Khaled Ahmed. Khaled Ahmed is the only critical content analyst in Pakistan. He is one of the few learned editors of our times, someone who is very well-read. Since his name came up in his absence, I would like to defend him. It was said that we would accept Khaled Ahmed as a good analyst only when he becomes a good anchorperson himself. Ninety-five percent of the anchorpersons do not know Urdu or English properly. In our electronic media, no one has any communication skills or voice training. They do not know where to pause or where to stress; they talk in a language that is neither Urdu nor English. Furthermore, there are usually a lot of grammatical as well as spelling mistakes in the English tickers that run on local television channels.

Mujahid Barelvi, Husain Naqi, Tanzila Mazhar, Shamim Akhtar, Meher Bokhari

There has been no change in the state of journalism. Is the electronic journalism still not statement-based? There are almost no investigative reports. There has been an overall decay in the media. I disagree that there has been any information revolution in the electronic media. There is no programme which has any information in it, except for sports programmes. Anchorpersons should keep in mind that the more the ignorance, the more the snobbery; the more the knowledge, the more the humility. Zafarullah Khan: Everyone here has been saying that the electronic media is still new in Pakistan. It has been six years! That is longer than a parliamentary term. To justify our mistakes by saying that we are still infants should be stopped. We should get out of this syndrome. We reviewed the curriculum of journalism recently. There were no books in it by Zameer Niazi and those books being taught are really bad. Our media is not a monolith. There is a problem with the news genre. The talk show genre is pluralistic and draws in many

opinions. There is abundance, not pluralism. There is a need for a debate on all this in our society, as it is a divided society. If the other institutions of the state are not working, to put the entire blame on the media would perhaps be a na誰ve expectation. Sajjad Mir: I want to bring to notice one thing. It has always been a problem of every government to monitor what the electronic media is doing or the columnists are saying. They used to call editors and/or columnists for briefings. Then General (retd) Musharraf started calling the anchorpersons to his briefings. Unfortunately, after the democratic government came into power, I have seen this rising trend that a lot of 'liberals' are 'advising' the government to come hard on media persons, especially anchors. I would have taken their names if they were present here, but since they are not here, I will not take any names. They are criticising the media a lot these days despite talking a lot about freedom of press in the past. SAFMA should take notice of this and it should not be a part of that same group which is trying to take away the freedom of the media. Shaukat Khattak: I have been associated with the electronic media for many years and I have worked in the tribal areas most of the time. Munnoo Bhai [Munir Ahmed] said that journalists do not have the guts to call terrorists 'terrorists'. Nazir Naji said the same thing in his article. Both Munnoo Bhai and Nazir Naji live in Lahore. They should come to Peshawar or Miranshah and FATA and call these people terrorists.

A fatwa would be issued against them on the FM channel and a suicide bomber would be sent after them. No one here is aware of how much danger we face in our lives. Our families are threatened. When a journalist reported that the army killed civilians during its operation in Swat, he was killed right in front of his family. Qari Shoaib's case is an example. If we write something that they do not like, we can be murdered by the army or the militants. We have lost count of how many journalists have been killed in the tribal areas. Their murders have not even been investigated. Nobody knows whether they were killed by the army or by the Taliban. The media giants do not have the guts to say that the Pakistan army has failed in its operations in the tribal areas. Nobody has raised voice against the violation of my rights in the tribal areas. This is my question to you all. Mazhar Arif: I would like to ask three questions. One, why were so many channels allowed to start in the time of a dictator like Musharraf? Two, what is the difference between freedom of commercial media, freedom of press and freedom of expression. Three, I see no difference in what CNN reports and what our television channels report. What is the difference between our channels and American channels? Are they all not just propagating American agenda? Ghazi Salahuddin: It is not like Musharraf invented the electronic media. In fact, Pakistan was the last

Participants during the Open House

that will protect journalists, educate them and train them. We do not protect our journalists. Tanzila Mazhar: I worked for 3-4 years at PTV. I learnt a lot there but I saw that all governments used it as their mouthpiece. When we talk about media's role, we should focus on the content. There should be more fieldwork. We do not see any documentaries on our television channels. Juniors are not allowed to come forward in the television channels.

Tahira Abdullah

country in South Asia to have private television channels. The electronic media was long overdue in Pakistan. It could not have been avoided in this age of information revolution. Musharraf's 'love' for freedom of media was unearthed after November 3, 2007.

Nusrat Javeed: I would just like to make one thing clear here as President SAFMA Pakistan. As Sajjad Mir said that a platform like SAFMA should not be part of the great conspiracy against some anchorpersons. I think some people actually believe SAFMA is part of this conspiracy. I think this image is because of Imtiaz Alam's association with the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). Imtiaz Alam is an individual, he is not SAFMA, he is one of SAFMA. But I want to make it clear that SAFMA will never compromise on freedom of media and freedom of expression. We are not focusing on anchors here but are trying to address the structural problems of the electronic media. Imtiaz Alam: I am not bothered about what people

Anjum Rashid: This is with reference to what Shaukat Khattak said. I admit that I am afraid of calling a terrorist a 'terrorist' but the point is that I would never glamorise a terrorist. Secondly, government should be criticised but it should also be kept in mind that we are not being used as a tool in the hands of those powers, especially the military, who want to destabilise the government and take over again. We do not want another marshal law. Thirdly, the media in the USA represents the people, whereas it is different for our media. Jabbar Khattak: If you remember, GEO and ARY were shut down in Karachi but no channel said anything about who the culprits were since the government said that it was not responsible. We all know who did it, but no one has the guts to say it. Abdul Wadood Qureshi: The need is to protect people who are not protected. The owners are not willing to spend money on protecting those who work for them. The need of the day is to have an institution

Zahid Hussain

say about me. Whatever the aims of this government may be against freedom of the media, we at SAFMA would be the first ones to take a stand against such aims. But should we not have self-appraisal? What about the children being traumatised after seeing the visuals on television channels. My daughter was traumatised after seeing the visuals of the Marriott blast. Is this journalism? Just because we are having this debate does not mean that we are part of some anti-democratic campaign against the media. We should be a responsible media. Tahira Abdullah: I would like to point out that there is a gender imbalance in this conference. Anyway, I want to say something with reference to what Dr Jabbar Khattak said earlier. If the title of this conference should have been 'Democracy, terrorism and extremism', then I would have taken the name of MQM Karachi, MQM Hyderabad here. When ARY and Geo were taken off-air in Sindh, civil society was called for a protest. When we reached the venue, no one from the media was there! Finally I called up all my media contacts and though some did come, the event was not covered on any television channels and in newspapers. I asked the TV channels why they had not sent anybody to protest against the closure and they said that their Sindh office had been set on fire because they had reported that their channel was taken off air. Even the Information Minister did not take the name of MQM on television. Why are we scared? Why should we support Asif Zardari when he has done wrong by not restoring the judiciary and going against signed pacts? He is a pretender to the throne. Mustansar Javed: Not all journalists are neutral. But when you are reporting an event, be objective there. Everyone has an opinion but it should not show during the reporting of an event. Nasir Malick: A reporter is supposed to be neutral when reporting as a professional. He has to present all points of view. Some journalists have incited people to violence, this should not be done! Just like Shaukat Khattak said that we can call the Taliban 'terrorists' while sitting here but cannot say this when we are living in the tribal areas, the same thing goes for MQM. You can call MQM a terrorist organisation while sitting in Islamabad but cannot do so in Karachi. Our society has not yet decided whether the Taliban are terrorists or mujahideen.

Nigar, political cartoonist

Wajid Bukhari: In Pakistan, the electronic media is the only silver lining apart from the lawyers' movement. With the passage of time, things will improve. Wajih Abbassi: Though media has generated a good debate in society, there are also a lot of negative things that it is responsible for. People have gotten a lot of information about their rights from television discussions. But in some talk-shows, it seems as if the anchors want the participants to fight. There is no indepth analysis. Nothing new comes out of such discussions. Shahabuddin: Even people in power in the NWFP do not take the names of terrorists like Mangal Bagh because they are afraid of being killed. Anjum Rashid: The best journalist is the one who is neutral even while having an opinion.

Day 2 Session I Chair: Imtiaz Alam Secretary General, SAFMA

Speaker: Ejaz Haider Op-ed Editor of Daily Times and Consulting Editor of The Friday Times

Imtiaz Alam: Some great points came up yesterday such as ratings, corporate responsibility, issues of media ethics and responsibility, the ideology behind our news coverage, analysis and talk shows. We approach all issues from a feudal perspective and base them on 'national honour'. Ultimately, media freedom ended up in the hands of the owners. We should focus on structural issues today so we proceed to some constructive resolution. This will be the concluding session on private electronic media. Ejaz Haider: As a practitioner, I have to say that all concepts are problematic. One, in terms of their intrinsic problematic nature, and second how we are going to deal with them. Let's talk about sustaining and eroding democracy in transition. When I wrote a piece on transition, it was a time when everyone was charged â&#x20AC;&#x201D; in print and electronic media. I was looking at the entire thing from a different perspective, not from a normative one, or what ought to be since that was a given. Outrage had been committed. As a student of political science and as an analyst, I was trying to look at various structural impediments to the movement which everyone thought would get rid of Musharraf and the army from the system. My response was that it is unlikely to happen at this point. Especially when the Chief Justice

was restored, I was of the view that this game must not be lost. It then forced me to write a piece to say that it is legitimate for me to shut down my laptop, go out on the street to protest as a citizen. But when I sit in front of my laptop I have to make a decision about where I draw the line, whether I want to look at the situation objectively or I need to go out and protest. Once I make the decision to protest, then the problem arises that do I bring the protest to my column or programme? It is a very tough call. There is no such thing as objectivity. The idea of looking for truth is a problem since we are looking at facts, which are not truths. Any student of social science knows you are bound by the analytical framework that you are using. This is a problem that we have not been able to solve, and we are unlikely to solve. In human affairs there is no such thing as a final solution. I have a lot of scepticism as regards of absolutism of anything. We begin to debate over where we draw the line. Another difficulty is how you react as a dispassionate analyst if you work against a body that is working against the press, which means you are pulled in the political development. Now you are in the fray. We have not even begun to discuss these issues, much less

Imtiaz Alam and Ejaz Haider amused at something

Delegates at the conference

respond to them in a structured manner. How do you define 'public'? Is there a presupposition that there is one good that runs in the society or different types of interest? What interests will be picked up for representation? Given the time of competition and rivalry, there is a sense of zero sum competition going on among media organisations, which is absurd because it should not preclude media organisations to handling certain issues professionally.

lies on people who are misrepresenting facts or dealing with counterinsurgency from a different perspective. Adding to the difficulty, one of the reasons we are facing this is because we have not been able to work out the primary structures of governance. India has

As for promoting extremism, do we really believe that we are facing the menace of extremism? There is utter confusion. Two months ago I was talking to garrison officers in Sialkot who walked up to me and had one bitter complaint, especially against television channels. They were of the view that television channels make no effort to tell the public of the hardships that the soldiers face, and they present the militants as the 'Islamic soldiers' as opposed to the Pak Army fighting them. Soldiers know that if you do not identify your enemy you cannot go in battle. You are fighting among your people for the most part so it is difficult to differentiate between the sides. There has not been much debate. Official policies have been opposed to public opinion. What we represent in terms of pluralist ideology, the ground is being cut from under our feet with this concern. I can tell you much blame

Khalid Hussain

Shahabuddin, a guest and Abdul Wadood Qureshi

been able to bring about the concept of institutions â&#x20AC;&#x201C; separation of power, separation of judiciary, etc. Since we have not worked it out, we have created a kind of nationalism which, instead of letting people relate to modern requirements like economy and trade, makes them relate on the basis of religion as a binding force. The problem is that while there are sections that have swallowed this religious ideology, there are others who have not and thus are labelled as being outside nationalism. This has created chaos, which is also reflected in the media. People who are now performing in the media come from this fractured society and they bring their biases to their analysis and project them on the masses again and this becomes a terrible cycle. There is no real idea of a certain kind of qualification that is needed to

enter the media. Therefore, the level of discourse is very poor in this country. This is a reality we have to face with a lot of honesty. I hate to ever say that there is no solution to the problem because it makes you part of the problem. There has been no positive response from media organisations regarding PFUJ's code of conduct. This shows a degree of apathy or disinterest to the idea of having this code. This needs to be corrected. We are also opposed to a regulatory mechanism from outside. But have we tried to do anything to regulate ourselves from within? No efforts have been made. SAFMA has a good forum to at least begin debating these issues. I hope they make a good basis for discussion which is useful.

Guests listening to the speakers

Discussants

Introspection Pakistan, truth and accuracy, bringing the world to Pakistan and Pakistan to the world.

Biases imposed on viewers Iftikhar Ahmad (GEO) Ejaz Haider is right when he says that people who are sitting on screens trying to educate people are not themselves educated. Our own biases are being imposed on our viewers. Print media could not play as effective a role as the electronic media is playing. The most dangerous role of electronic media is that the political parties are using our studios to make speeches on our television screens. It was difficult to have a jalsa on streets. Now a leader comes to a programme and talks about his/her 'vision'. Parties have started their political campaigns through television and it is very dangerous. The role of intellectuals will end if this continues. One leader talks on economics, politics, foreign politics, energy, etc., all within a span of one hour. There is only a handful of people/leaders who come on television. Should we let these people rule our social structure? At Geo we are very clear about our editorial policy. We have a vision document, values, goals and clear biases. Our greatest strength is the representation of the brand: Geo. Our goals are to encourage tolerance in the society and to create an enabling environment for thought and change. We are aimed at public interest, so ultimately the viewer is our employer. We are for

Intra-Media dialogue will serve Meher Bokhari (SAMAA) I was nervous before but you all made me realise that it is very important for the younger generation to know all this. I do not have any media background. What we learn on and during our job is never related to us through any documents and any official briefings. We are only told that if we make a mistake, say 'I am sorry' and then smile. Guidance from senior people like you is the only way we can work towards maturity. Were I given a hardcore guideline document, I would not have performed like this. That would not be me, not journalism, not freedom of expression. Sheer negligence of your work and lack of quality is wrong. Responsibility has nothing to do with age and maturity, you just have to realise the role you play in the larger scheme of things. Media dialogue within the media is the best way to go about it. We need to know what is not in the public interest because what is in the public interest depends on an individual. We are activists and this is the biggest platform we have. The state of affairs in Pakistan is too critical. To be

mere guides is not enough. We have a responsibility to help our people evolve. Therapy has been the most successful in countering terrorism. Theological misunderstandings should be dealt with by therapy. The religious channels are not addressing this issue. They help terrorists. I decide who my guests are, whether they are balanced or not. Without our social commitment, the civil society and government cannot do much. Media is not about politics only, our commitment goes beyond this. As a watchdog we must cater to society at large. Anjum Rashid (GEO) I protest that Imtiaz Alam has only criticised one organisation. Media is only one medium of business, and organisations are making money. If they were not making money, we would not have been sitting here. These organisations do not have political or global goals. But there are individuals who might have these agendas. We are not teachers, but people learn from us; we are not judges, but from what we say comes justice. In Pakistan, we see different trends through the media. We have not determined the ideas of the Pakistani middle class or the elite; they are pre-determined. For human development, some things are negative but these trends have been there for thousands of years. Without making our viewer happy, we cannot have a

Criticism to help us move forward successful newspaper or channel. Media responsibility is that whatever intellectual traditions are there, we need to bring it to light and let the people decide. Such meetings organised by SAFMA should keep taking place. We should be criticised as we need to move forward.

Session in progress

Panellists

Media's role in society required a lot of effort. I got small shifts for editing. But now I am convinced that all that effort was worthwhile because people come up to me recognising that information and wanting more of it. None of the channels spends one minute a day in advances of science, of human understanding of the universe. My first criticism on the media is that you do not spend time and effort on producing such programmes despite the fact that you could do that very easily and improve your ratings. My second objection is that there is no investigative journalism. All we see on the media is anchors talk and talk and talk after inviting three people to their talk-shows. As a consequence we miss out on what the public wants to know.

No investigative journalism Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy (Academic and media analyst) My relationship with the media is only peripheral. I am going to be very harsh on the media, and I am sorry for that. A free media could have done a lot for Pakistan; making it democratic, making it pluralistic, and making the nation believe that reason is important. Today we have a media which is far more enlightened, modern, and free than ever existed in Pakistan. Truth is a casualty in this even though everything can be said today. There was a claim that truth is not possible; that is an academic debate. When it comes to physical universe, truth has to be said. Our society today is not better off by having a free media. The media spends absolutely no time on facts and particularly on the facts of science. This world is defined by science, but I am appalled that it is not happening here. Almost nobody knows about the origins of this universe, almost nobody knows how mobile phones work, almost nobody knows how humans came to this world. Our public does not care about science, and the media is not interested in it because they are only concerned with ratings. I made a series of documentaries about science for PTV, but it

The greatest experiment is going on in the Higher Education Commission (HEC). Is it not your duty to go and see how much is being spent on education? A lot of that has been hype; a lot of money has been wasted. Nine new engineering universities in collaboration with Europe were announced, tens of millions of rupees have been spent yet nothing came of it. No media organisation highlighted this. Three years ago a machine was imported by the HEC worth Rs 400 million for my university. It was 50 years old. It is now lying there and nobody can figure out a use for it. Did the media not realise there was a debate going on about it? Where is your investigation of the abuses? It gets worse and worse. Not only is there no investigation of the abuses but it contributes to ignorance and anti-science sentiment. The media was ablaze with the horrible things that had happened to the earthquake victims on October 5. Various reasons were provided by the bearded ones who said that it was 'Azab-e-Elahi'. For heaven's sake, they are the poorest people of Pakistan; practically all of them were fasting. Islamabad was spared, which has far more sinners. Why do earthquakes happen on the moon when it is divine wrath? Why did the media not go out and find those people who were willing to contest the mullahs and tell them that they lived in the Stone Ages. Why do you not investigate obvious lies? AQ Khan has a PhD in metallurgy, not nuclear physics. So, why is he declared a nuclear physicist? Here is an age of science and technology, why is it that Pakistan has no contribution to make to it? In the 9th and 13th centuries, the Islamic

civilisation was thriving, and provided a lot in that age to education and science. To move our society forward, we need to bring this discussion to our television channels.

Media be watchdog M Ziauddin (Veteran journalist) Being a professor and not a media person, Dr Hoodbhoy has the full right to tell us what we should be doing and not doing. As a practicing journalist, I feel totally incompetent to pass judgment on the electronic media and print media. I will judge people on my own standards. Pakistani media is doing wonderfully. We are doing much better in this age of blogs, internet, You-Tube. There is always room to improve. Journalism is a profession for youth. A social awareness, a commitment, a fire in yourself should be there, only then can you be a good journalist. Do not ever be shy. The western media has been guilty of bashing Iran, Russia, China and some other countries without any facts. Pakistan is a country which has been ruled by military dictators, where information has been denied and there was a time when the rate of inflation was considered highly confidential. We have to play the role of the watchdog no matter which government is in power. Even if it is the most benign dictator, I will still be against him. We must not worry about whether the army will take over again, so we have to be a watchdog of the new government. If we ignore their faults and

not expose them, we would be guilty of creating a situation where the military would definitely come back. Husain Naqi

Media covering terrorism vaguely (Senior journalist and human rights activist) It has not yet been decided what is terrorism as no specifications have been given. When we are told that those whom we consider jihadi and flag-bearers of Islam are indeed terrorists, it becomes difficult to fight them. It is a reality that the electronic and print media are guilty of lending a hand to this confusion due to their presentation. The media presents news in a very vague way and the public gets confused whether the military operation is being carried out against the terrorists or civilians. Baitullah Mehsud is alive, Mangal Bagh is alive, Maulana Fazlullah is alive; how come they never get arrested though they hold press conferences every now and then? We need people like Iftikhar Ahmad in Pakistani media. He should be lauded for his work. It is important that people who are real experts should be called upon and be paid for it. The youth has been very effective in highlighting things in a better way.

Even now when the earthquake came in Balochistan, some channel's signature tune was 'Hum khataakaar hain, hum gunehgaar hain, hamay Allah maaf karday' [We are at fault, we are sinners, may Allah forgive us], as if we are sinners who have been punished. The reason for having this conference is because we think that the electronic media is very important. We need to keep up our watchdog role even for this democratic government. We want the democratic process to continue. Without passing through this process, democracy cannot evolve here. In 24 hours, we can at least give one hour to science programmes. Islamic programmes are very popular, even though they are based on issues that are not even related to Islam. Dr Jabbar Khattak (Editor, Awaami Awaaz) First journalism was a mission, now it has become a business. Print media became an industry and now the electronic media too has become a large industry. Aalim Online has such high ratings, despite the fact that the programme's host is guilty of inciting to murder 3 people! Why has he not been taken off air? There is human resource deficiency in the media, thus the media has become irresponsible in some ways. More investigative journalism is needed. Pakistan does not have an economy that can generate a lot of

Anjum Rashid defending the role of TV channels

Online media is the future money to help sustain all these new television channels. From state media's imprisonment, we are now in the clutches of corporate media. Online media is future vision. After a few years, this trend will get more important. If planned properly, it should be a success.

Open House

Rehana Hakim and Mustansar Javed

Imtiaz Alam: I caution the media against being selfcongratulatory. We cannot define how the nation state has developed. There are some notions that need to be rejected. Our viewers are our employers. Media creates illusions itself, creates trends, fashion, tastes, etc. What if one day honour killing becomes popular, then what? If people are inclined to fascism, should the media be joining that rage? Should journalists be taking sides? Military songs are being played on TV channels right now after the Mumbai attacks. Media will be culprits in pushing India-Pakistan into a war. Should we be adding fuel to the fire or play a positive role? Other channels should also have a code of ethics like Geo has done and then appoint credible ombudsman to see if they are being followed. A culture of retailer has started in the media. With PEMRA, we made a mistake of not asking for the clause of monopoly to be dropped. For SAFMA we want an FM station for education, but I cannot go there for bidding as it starts at Rs 25 crore, which in essence means that poor people, professors, middle class people cannot have their own radio stations. Shahid Nadeem: We should contain the power of the cross-media genie which is now out of the bottle.

There should be some accountability of private television channels. If someone has a complaint against a private channel, there is nowhere to go. Selfcensorship should also be practiced. Geo accepted a tele-film I produced about suicide bombing, but later backed out of it because the channel said there was too much risk in showing it. 'Burqavaganza' was also censored on a channel. We are going too far with the rating games. Instead, the media should be objective and go for truth, not ratings. Tanzila Mazhar: The 'breaking news' phenomenon needs to be changed. Our journalists have stopped doing investigative reports because now they all want to cover the parliament and be recognised. Just news and current affairs programmes are not media; our entertainment sector is also media. Nasim: Social issues should be brought forward like Meher Bokhari does in her television programme. Mustansar Javed: I have some observations to make. One, there is a code of conduct in Geo but it is not being practiced as a liar exposed by Geo was hired

by Geo itself. Two, knowledge is needed before information is dished out. Three, the breaking news syndrome must end, it is sometimes full of nonsense. Or example, a defence minister was declared dead while he was still alive. I would also like to know how the media organisations will deal with the sponsors. Tahira Abdullah: Prime time slots are taken by political shows. It is all about priorities. There is lack of commitment to good subjects. It is all about the money. Enlightened moderation is in English newspapers, but not in their Urdu channels and newspapers. Why? Khalid Hussain: Like the influence of the media in shaping the society, we have been giving too much credit to media for what is happening in society. It may be guilty of promoting the Taliban, but the Taliban

were not created by the media. Wajih Akhtar: What is the difference between need and greed? Community channels' concept should be followed here. There should be separate channels for health, education. Zafarullah Khan: The 'age' syndrome is old in Pakistan where the country still remains a 61-year old child and now we want to look at the media as an infant too. Imtiaz Alam: The concerns of tribal journalists are pressing. Nusrat Javeed also mentioned the various sources of threats that come to journalists to stop them from doing their job. We support the tribal journalists and would extend all help to them. Do let us know how we can support you in organisational terms from SAFMA. It is not the anchors we are focusing on. We are addressing corporate concerns, lack of capacity in editorial departments, etc. attack. Anjum Rashid: We are looking at the general health of the media in Pakistan. You can be objective while being opinionated.

Day 2 Session II Chair: Mustansar Javed General Secretary SAFMA Pakistan

Speaker: Asma Shirazi Anchor, ARY One World

Panellists

The decline of PTV around the referendum in 1985 was totally mediaconcocted. During the 80s, the galaxy of good talent got wasted and dispersed. The golden age of PTV never came back. Looking as a consumer, I wonder what the role of PTV will be. PTV can do so much due to its outreach, yet it is not doing anything and is dying under the burden of being a state-run television channel.

PTV under-achieving Shireen Pasha (Filmmaker) PTV's history is being taught now in our classrooms. PTV's golden age was the period in the 1960s and 70s. It expanded to all provinces with a coloured transmission and burst on the scene with open, liberal policies. The 60s was a period of innovativeness of PTV, the uniqueness of that period cannot be denied. All debatable issues that ignited vociferous debate were discussed on national television. 'Khuda ki Basti' was a serial which showed technical brilliance and is discussed in classrooms even today. There were collaborations with Malaysia and Germany also. In the 1980s, the decline of PTV started. Programmes were slashed and there were very few merit-based appointments. Technical expansion was arbitrarily unplanned and visionless. There was also heavy bureaucratic censorship. Despite all this, PTV had commercial sustainability as it was the only television channel in the country. In the 60s and 70s, good documentaries were being made and had these documentaries not been curtailed, the genre of documentary making in Pakistan would have matured a lot by now. The hype

Better PTV policy needed Nasreen Azhar (Human rights activist) I am proud of my association with PTV as an actor and as a member of the team that launched PTV. In the early days, it was PTV that brought folk music to the listeners. Television has always tried to bring local cultures and real people to the forefront. We used to have a weekly dance programme in those days too. Right now, PTV has to compete in the corporate sector, with the private television channels. PTV must be supported by the state in order to compete with market-driven channels so that artists can experiment. We need to have good programmes so that the public can respond well to PTV. PTV's policy has always been guided by the government in power. Maybe a parliamentary committee of the government and the opposition

parties can solve this problem and come out with a better policy for PTV. I can see that PTV is improving now and is coming out of the dark shadow of the 80s. I wish it the best of luck.

PTV should show history, culture

PTV needs to improve Munir Ahmed (Munnoo Bhai) (Columnist) Like Shireen said, the 1960s and 70s were a golden period and I wrote my first drama during that time. Aslam Azhar locked me in a room and told me to write a drama, which I wrote by the time he got back. This is how I got into writing dramas. I feel that PTV needs to be improved. It is a channel that made cultural penetration in the Indian market with its family dramas. The first setback was when we tried to change social drama into popular drama. Aslam Azhar used to say TV drama is where the film ends while Amjad Islam Amjad brought a filmy touch to the drama. Another setback was Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation that was projected on PTV. In my opinion, there is no glamour without realism and that is what PTV projected. We need to bring realism back and bring our dramas of old back. That is how we can focus on our society's socio-economic aspects. We need not copy the Indian version of drama because we can use our drama to bring out behavioural change in the people. Ashfaq Saleem Mirza (Social Scientist) When we designed this roundtable's programme, we thought that PTV would get bashed a lot, but thankfully it is being praised. I feel that other private

television channels benefitted from the institution made by PTV. We gave compared Zia's period with Bhutto's period over here, but unfortunately, PTV has always erased the history of Pakistan. Whoever came in power erased the previous government's political history. History is the most important part of nation building and it should not be eradicated from official corridors. We have not been able to get PTV away from the Information Ministry. This must be done because policy always influences technique, form and content. Our folk culture can be revitalised by PTV since we do not see it on other channels.

Zar-Nigar, PTV

Discussants

PTV: pros and cons break news, but whatever news comes on PTV is at least reliable. People do not rely on other channels and I am proud of this. Shahid Mehmood Nadeem: I am a critic so I will

PTV is reliable Zubair Ghauri: I understand that PTV may be looked down as 'sarkari' (government) media. Please keep in mind that PTV is a government organisation. If we cannot say anything against the sitting government, people in the private media cannot say anything against their owners either. In the few months that I worked at PTV, I never felt as if something was holding me back. I used to ask all kinds of questions, just like other anchors did on other channels. Anchors are not here as judges or decisionmakers, we are only mediators. People say that conspiracy theories always attract the attention of the viewers, but in PTV we tried to bring out positive things. I also accept that PTV has not fallen victim to giving out trivial news as 'breaking news'. Since we are facing difficult times these days and the hydra of terrorism is staring us in our faces, I am reminded of a Chinese proverb: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Kill one, terrorise thousandsâ&#x20AC;?. Is this the way we are creating tolerance in our society? PTV tries to be a bit restrained and responsible. We do not want to create panic. I am sure that people turn to PTV to get confirmation of news reports because PTV may be the last one to

PTV demoralised not be defensive. I can share some of the glories of PTV. Basically, the image of PTV for me is a wife with two husbands in the same room and on the same bed. You have the government's insistence on establishing its authority and then you have the viewers. The 1990s were like a loss of innocence for us. Before that we could afford to experiment with themes and there was no pressure of ratings. Creative writers and producers had the freedom to explore various issues. With the entrance of private channels, PTV got into a schizophrenic stage â&#x20AC;&#x201D; sometimes we follow the government's line and sometimes we are trying to appease the public and become more commercialised. We are also trying to be competitive. Our demographics are changing, our infrastructure is changing, and we are now taking up issues like terrorism, education, problems faced by voiceless people and focusing more on these issues in our programmes. We are also inviting independent

Athar Minallah, Husain Naqi with other guests

producers, which has never happened before in PTV. There are many constraints that we have to face while working for PTV. Due to many factors, PTV has been demoralised, but it still has a role to play. Its role may not be very dynamic but still it plays an important role due to its outreach all over the country. PTV gets its feedback from areas like Wana and the tribal belt. PTV is providing services to those areas where the private television channels have not even reached yet. PTV also provides authentication to breaking news. We do have our set of problems in PTV. We cannot restructure and retrench the staff. Governments keep changing and whenever a new government comes to power, it makes a 180 degree change in policies. You

might have planned something and set out a particular direction for PTV, but a new information minister or a new government changes everything. The private television channels are a great development in the communication field. They have given jobs to anchors and reporters and an opportunity to artists. It is all very good but they are not here for the love of democracy. The owners of private television channels are not champions of human rights, justice, gender rights or issues like that; their main motive is profit. To earn profit, they need ratings. If they do not earn enough money from the channels, they try to earn profit through the clout they get from their television channels.

Session in progress

Open House Husain Naqi: The code of conduct that we are proposing here should also cover PTV. Our folklore and historical monuments need to be covered on PTV as well since they are being vandalised. PTV should also focus on marginalised people, the minorities and child labour issues. Media should be used for positive projection of ideas. It is really looking at viewers not as citizens but entirely as consumers. Afzal Khan: There has been no mention of radio journalism. It should also be discussed in the future. Asma Shirazi: I started from PTV and left at the time of referendum as I was forced to lie about the voting pool. PTV is responsible for instilling nationalism in our country; more than any private channel has been able to do. The influence of PTV is immense. I went to Nepal last year and there the native women were wearing clothes similar to the ones Shehnaz Sheikh and Marina Khan wore in the 80s. PTV is very important for instilling cultural and family norms in

the country. We need another drama that will make people stay home and watch television; something which will take people away from the political talk shows. If PEMRA is too hard on private media it is because private media is creating trouble, speaking against the government. So, if PTV speaks only in favour that is also one sided and should be penalised. PTV should also have its own code of ethics. Some newscasters should be changed; but I know for a fact that there are some newscasters whom no one has the guts to change. It is time for fresh faces to come. PTV should take advantage of talented people like Pasha and I am glad an intelligent man like Shahid Mehmood is now running the organisation. Mustansar Javed: Thank you all for coming. We look forward to implementing all the suggestions we have received today.

Resolution Media Round-Table Conference

he participants of the Media Round-Table Conference held on 29-30 November, 2008, appreciate and welcome the initiative taken by SAFMA and Pakistan Media Commission to have arranged this interactive and constructive dialogue within media and of course with the participation of the civil society. After thorough discussion, we have arrived at the following conclusions: 1) a)

We appreciate that: the electronic media have expanded its space, reach and content while promoting pluralism and debate on various policy issues; b) media professionals and their bodies have played a commendable role in protecting and expanding the scope of freedom of expression and citizen's right to know; c) the alertness of media to rapidly changing geopolitical situation; d) the great courage and steadfastness being shown by journalists in the conflict-ridden regions and also some of those who have taken great risks in exposing crimes against women and wrongs in certain prohibited areas to reporting; e) the government's adoption of the proposed Draft Information Law and withdrawal of the amendments to the PEMRA and PNNABRO and the restrain being shown by the democratically elected government towards media freedom. 2) a)

We are concerned that: other media ordinances issued by the Musharraf administration are not being amended as proposed by SAFMA and other media bodies; b) harassment of media organisations by extremists and non-state terrorist actors; c) incitement to violence in some programmes and by some media persons against religious sects and minorities and their media colleagues; and a lack of respect for the privacy of individuals and the defamatory slangs and accusations being hurled at leaders and citizens; d) the concentration and emergence of monopolies in the media ownership and PEMRA policy of bidding that prohibits freedom of expression and

diversity; lack of public service and information programmes on both radio and television networks; f) excessive reliance on rhetoric than facts, feudal values of honour and pride instead of a rational and empirical approach towards major economic, security and foreign policy issues; g) erosion and neglect of editorial and quality control in most current affairs programmes and the news coverage and ejection or marginalisation of editors and editorial control and independence; h) absence of sufficient investment in research, analysis, skills and specialisation; i) overwhelming focus on politics and frivolous debates instead of programmes of public interest and consciousness raising; j) lack of any social concern by the corporate sector and advertising agencies in allocating their advertisement budgets and the flawed policy of the public sector advertisements on the basis of favouring big monopoly houses; k) mixing of news coverage with opinion and irresponsible journalism with serious journalism; l) little care and editorial responsibility in projecting economic, security and political scenarios; m) mismatch of so-called expert opinion with the excessive induction of clerics and absence of professional excellence; n) continuing role of PEMRA and public sector media outlets on the rotten autocratic pattern; o) most importantly, the media in India and Pakistan are crossing their limits while promoting tension and misunderstanding between the two neighbours; p) excessive advertisements during prime time programmes beyond the internationally prescribed limits on ads. e)

3) a)

We are of the view that: the corporate sector, including media, should set clear benchmarks on promoting tolerance, democratic culture, respect for human rights â&#x20AC;&#x201D; including women and minority rights â&#x20AC;&#x201D; and winning hearts and minds of the people to isolate

terrorists and extremists and strengthening, peace, rule of law and good governance (all advertisements by the private and public sectors should be benchmarked on clear indicators of social responsibility); b) both electronic and print media must strengthen the institution of editorial, quality control and social responsibility while strictly adhering to voluntarily follow code of ethics recognised by leading media bodies and appointment of knowledgeable and independent ombudsman in each media outlet; c) the greater the expansion of media's role, the more is the need for regulation by civil society through the bi-partisan appointment of the members to these regulatory bodies by the parliament while awarding civil powers to such authorities; d) greater diversification of current affairs programmes with professional input and greater component of information;

e) f)

separating news coverage from opinionating; respect for privacy and strict avoidance of defamation, contempt, scandalisation and blackmailing; a journalist must not personally attack another journalist and respect friendly polemics and debate; respect for difference of opinion and solidarity among the media and civil society to defend freedom of expression and right to know of every individual; the democratic government change the unamended media ordinances issued by the Musharraf administration and show greater tolerance towards difference of opinion and criticism; no room for terrorist attacking our citizens, mosques, imam-bargahs, hospitals, schools and citizens on whatever pretext.