Balancing the idea of freedom of press/expression and ground realities can be quite tricky, especially when the stakeholders are so numerous and so unpredictable.

                                 You can blow out a candle

                                 But you can’t blow out a fire

                                                                                      Once the flames begin to catch

                                                                                      The wind will blow it higher

                                                                                                     —Peter Gabriel, Biko

Perhaps the soul-stirring lyrics from the aforementioned Peter Gabriel song — in honour of murdered South African freedom fighter Steve Biko — are quite relevant when discussing the issue of freedom of the press.

The United Nations declared May 3 World Press Freedom Day back in 1993, but suffice to say, the problems journalists the world over face in reporting the facts even today are still considerable. For -- to paraphrase a thought-provoking quote I once came across -- genuine news is something somebody somewhere doesn’t want you to know. Everything else is just PR.

But there are risks involved, just in case you wanted to ditch the PR and snoop around for real news. Various powerful players -- from governments to political parties to corporations -- try their utmost, using such methods as subtle badgering to outright brutality, to stifle freedom of the press and, by association, freedom of expression.

In Pakistan, the press, or shall we say the media, is relatively free. For if it was not, perhaps hard-hitting press reports and lampooning of the ruling elite as well as opposition figures on television would regularly attract the ire of those not amused, as it has in the not-too-distant past.

Let’s face it: Pakistan is not exactly North Korea, where one could not even dream of publicly criticising ‘Dear Leader’ Kim Jong-Il. But still, things are far from perfect in the local media scene. Journalists still have to put up with intimidation and threats of different kinds -- some overt, some covert -- from various quarters while carrying out their professional duties. Here I will not attempt to sketch a history of freedom of the press in Pakistan, as that has been done previously by such luminaries as the late Zamir Niazi. Instead, let us focus on the goings on in the recent past that have threatened media freedom, and secondly, let us look within as media professionals for solutions to our problems.

As I have said, the media is relatively free in Pakistan. But off and on journalists receive jolts that remind them that if certain invisible lines are crossed, the consequences can be very dire. Perhaps the most obvious and ugly recent example of state censorship was the blackout of certain channels by the previous government in November 2007, following Mr Musharraf’s imposition of the much derided emergency.

Obviously, some quarters within the establishment felt that too much information was not a good thing for the proletariat and hence, pulled the plug. Though the print media was also threatened with not so subtle language, to my knowledge, no newspapers were closed down, whereas some popular news channels were off the air for months.

Apart from the government, political parties (both in and out of power), ethno-sectarian groups and just about anyone else with muscle power can also intimidate journalists with warnings and in extreme cases even with death in case the journalist/s in question are not toeing the line. The recent murder of a journalist in Hub, Balochistan, was the latest grisly example, while last year, some leading journalists in Karachi received bullets wrapped inside envelops as a message that someone, somewhere really didn’t like what they were doing.

Also, as the media concentrates more on turning a profit (which is perfectly legitimate as salaries have to be paid, overheads have to be taken care of etc.,) rather than public service, corporate and business interests sometimes begin to dictate what news should be published/broadcast and what shouldn’t. For example, if a news item is deemed harmful to the image of a client, it might well be dropped from broadcast/print, or perhaps might get watered down to the extent that it becomes little more than filler.

All these are stark realities which must be considered and, like it or not, might as well be parameters to work within. So the idealistic notion of freedom of the press/expression must be peppered with a healthy dose of realpolitik and conventional wisdom.

After all, those doing the reporting are ultimately human beings, and despite their very genuine commitment to press freedom, at the end of the day they have families to feed and keeping themselves away from unnecessary danger must be a definite consideration.

Yet so many brave men and women in this country and across the world have fallen in the line of duty or have been locked up or tortured for doing their job. We salute their commitment to duty. But as are the cruel ways of the world, many more will fall. The least that can be done by the powers that be is perhaps provide life insurance to journalists, so that their families can get by if, God forbid, something unfortunate were to happen.

With freedom comes responsibility. Media freedom does not mean license. The media should not give Orwellian official watchdogs the slightest opportunity to clamp down. There should be sensible self-regulation. For instance, though one is sure every journalist stands by the noble idea of freedom of expression, some within the media community exploit this freedom.

One remembers during the Lal Masjid siege last year, a TV anchor was actually playing intermediary between the militants holed up inside and the government. I’m sorry, but I missed the chapter which mentions that the media is supposed to play peacemaker in highly sensitive situations in my Communications 101 class.

A more recent example is of a TV network taking Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s immortal nazm, Hum Dekhein Ge, as sung by Iqbal Bano, and making a music video out of it, egging on the ‘countdown’ to the deposed judges’ restoration.

How can the media so blatantly stake sides in a cause however noble? Granted, total neutrality is quite impossible, but we can at least put up a façade of journalistic ethics.

In the West, perhaps fuelled by arrogance, perhaps by malice, some have used freedom of expression to launch a frontal attack on the religious sentiments of over a billion of the world’s people. Some apologists say that one does not have to view the blasphemous sketches or inflammatory film if it offends them. But the fact that in parts of Europe where denying the Holocaust -- a historical event -- or even debating its specifics is a crime, using freedom of expression as a shield to tick off a large part of humanity smacks a bit of hypocrisy.

Ultimately, balancing the idea of freedom of press/expression and ground realities can be quite tricky, especially when the stakeholders are so numerous and so unpredictable.