Media freedom

Published January 2, 2017

IF on the face of it the news appears positive, the underlying implications are undoubtedly stark. In its special report launched last week, the Committee to Protect Journalists — an independent organisation that works to promote press freedom worldwide — said that over the year past, it “did not identify anyone singled out for murder in Pakistan because of journalistic work”. This may be encouraging, but the fact that this is the first time the committee has made such an assessment concerning Pakistan since 2001 amounts to an indictment of the impunity with which media personnel have for years been targeted, of the lack of the state’s willingness to prosecute the transgressors, and of the fact that at times, it has been agencies of the state itself that have been suspected of harassing (or worse) journalists.

No media worker may have been singled out and killed for his or her work in 2016, but that does not mean that there have been no violent deaths at all in the community. In August, DawnNews cameraman Mehmood Khan and AajTV cameraman Shehzad Ahmed were killed in the line of duty in a bomb blast at the Quetta Civil Hospital as they took footage of lawyers mourning the murder of the president of the Balochistan Bar Association. And it is not just tragedies such as this that continue to illustrate how media freedoms in Pakistan, and therefore the right of the citizenry to public-interest information, stand compromised. As the CPJ report notes, journalists and media organisations here have, under threat, had to resort to self-censorship in some cases, and several individuals have had to leave the profession, particularly in conflict areas, as a result of coming under pressure from either non-state or state actors. Certainly, Pakistan desperately needs to protect its hard-won media freedoms and ensure safety for media personnel. Yet beyond that there is much more work to be done. Consider the manner in which citizens’ right to information laws have proved helpful across the world in nurturing an environment where public-interest information is able to see the light of day. This country, however, has a sketchy track record; the laws are there but, regardless of their varying levels of robustness, requests made for information tend to be stonewalled by bureaucracy. Perhaps what is needed is a change in optics: information, whether through the media or otherwise, is a public right that the state apparatus cannot withhold.

Published in Dawn, January 2nd, 2017

Opinion

Merging for what?

Merging for what?

The concern is that if the government is thinking of cutting costs through the merger, we might even lose the functionality levels we currently have.

Editorial

Dubai properties
Updated 16 May, 2024

Dubai properties

It is hoped that any investigation that is conducted will be fair and that no wrongdoing will be excused.
In good faith
16 May, 2024

In good faith

THE ‘P’ in PTI might as well stand for perplexing. After a constant yo-yoing around holding talks, the PTI has...
CTDs’ shortcomings
16 May, 2024

CTDs’ shortcomings

WHILE threats from terrorist groups need to be countered on the battlefield through military means, long-term ...
Reserved seats
Updated 15 May, 2024

Reserved seats

The ECP's decisions and actions clearly need to be reviewed in light of the country’s laws.
Secretive state
15 May, 2024

Secretive state

THERE is a fresh push by the state to stamp out all criticism by using the alibi of protecting national interests....
Plague of rape
15 May, 2024

Plague of rape

FLAWED narratives about women — from being weak and vulnerable to provocative and culpable — have led to...