This comes amidst a recent move by the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting, which announced a week ago that laws would be adopted restricting what could or could not be broadcast. Ironically, according to the minister for information and broadcasting, this decision was made in response to 'overwhelming pressure' by both coalition and opposition parties to formulate regulations restricting the unfettered independence of the electronic media.

As I have argued in this space before, the independence of the media is meaningless unless the media also take upon themselves the grave duty of honest and responsible reportage. While it is by no means possible to defend the arbitrary laying of curbs upon the media by a state or government – for that would amount to censorship – it is up to news organisations to themselves come up with methods that internally regulate the content of what is being broadcast or printed. That Pakistan’s major news networks have now taken an initial step, therefore, is very encouraging. If adhered to and fine-tuned over time, this agreement will lead to more responsible reporting; it represents, as it were, a coming of age of the country’s electronic media, and a growing recognition of the public trust reposed in the media.

And it comes not a minute too soon, for the country finds itself at war with certain parts of itself, and loyalties are, of course, divided. Even amongst newspersons striving towards objectivity, one finds personal political beliefs and leanings at play – and this is all very natural. Therefore, the answer lies in the media industry framing guidelines about what can and cannot be considered acceptable reporting – for it to regulate itself. By taking this step, furthermore, the parties in agreement have undermined the legitimacy of the state stepping in and laying down curbs.

What is now needed is a similar sort of initiative from entertainment channels, since apart from the coverage of acts of terrorism, the other big debate vis-à-vis the media is that of ‘obscenity’ on television. Quite recently, we were treated to a vociferous demand made in the National Assembly for the banning of 'obscene' fare from television, including Indian content that is, apparently, leading our youth astray.

The problem with such an argument – 'they shouldn’t be allowed to air this' – is that it begs the question of who should do the allowing. There are those who continue to argue that the state should have the authority to pull the plug on ‘unacceptable’ programming. This presupposes not only a consensus on exactly what is objectionable, but also that a very clear line distinguishes that from the acceptable.

This course of action – the state playing Big Brother – is dangerous because such authoritarianism can rapidly spin out of control. Since there is no consensus – in fact, there cannot possibly be total societal agreement on such issues – on exactly where the line lies between the objectionable and acceptable, it always comes down to the persons making the judgment call.

The news is every day full of illustrations that what is obscenity to man is a right to another: the Taliban felt it was obscene for women to receive an education; thousands of Pakistanis felt last year that it was improper for their wives to cast a vote; the NWFP’s former conservative government felt that cinemas promoted obscenity and undermined societal values. In other parts of the country, these so-called obscenities are called the rights to education, participation in governance and the right to choose one’s activity of leisure.

Giving the state the authority to clamp down on an avenue of expression is a dangerous precedent because governments change, as does their nature. Today, beards may wag in approval if, for example, the government bars fashion shows. But that gives the next government, or any one down the line, the potential authority to bar all unveiled women – or even women altogether – from television if that government’s ideological nature so dictates. Or, to turn the thought on its head, what if some future liberal-leaning government that wanted to take this country into entirely another direction, and used the precedent to bar religious programming or to bar veils on television. It happened, after all, in Iran, when the Shah tried to ‘modernise’ the country.

The point is, then, that freedom of expression, and the independence of the media, works in both directions. Where there is FTV and MTV, there is also QTV and Peace TV. It is the viewers’ right to choose what they like, and the broadcasters responsibility to put nothing out on the airwaves without due consideration.

The solution, as the news distributors have realised, lies in media organisations developing their own codes of conduct. Once that is adhered to, viewers have the ultimate right to choose to see what suits them, and pass over what doesn’t. The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting was prompted to attempt curbs on the news media because there were indeed examples of poor journalism in evidence. In recent years, particularly with regard to terrorism, there certainly were times when it invisible lines were crossed and barriers of good taste breached. However, what if at some point in the future, “poor journalism” is redefined as reporting on corrupt politicians or armed conflict within the country? The decision then, as now, would be made by a mere handful of people with the might of the state and precedent on their side.

This does not mean that the media industry should consider itself above the law, regardless of the existence of its internal codes of conduct. Regulations are necessary — up to a point and implemented through the courts. The purpose of law is to create a system of checks and balance, where legitimate action can be taken against any party that breaches a law that is reasonable, justifiable and was framed after due debate. The law must not be based on the whims and likings of whoever happens to be in charge.

– hajrahmumtaz@gmail.com