IN recent years, media owners and senior decision-makers in newsrooms across the country have found themselves in increasingly difficult positions. Faced with external pressures, they have frequently had to make tough calls — often at the expense of their editorial judgment. These pressures have come from certain institutions within the state. At times, these institutions have sought to generally expand their influence; at others, they have wanted coverage of a certain kind or demanded that something — or someone — be censored or not reported. A recent incident serves as a stark reminder of the consequences that can arise when editorial independence within news organisations is compromised. This Thursday, the Supreme Court summoned the owners and senior executives of 34 television channels to account for several speeches that were broadcast from their platforms and were rightly considered contemptuous of the judiciary. The speeches in question had been made earlier this year by lawmakers Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal at the height of a stand-off between senior members of the judiciary and the incumbent regime. Both lawmakers had quickly issued apologies after being hauled up by the apex court, and were eventually let off with a warning. However, the media houses found themselves caught in the crossfire.

Though the Supreme Court took a decidedly lenient view of the incident, the media channels were nonetheless required to air their own apologies during prime-time slots, quoting relevant court orders as part of their compliance. The industry, already vulnerable to external influences, now faces an even greater challenge: it must decide how to safeguard its independence and credibility in the face of the increasing push and pull of various external stakeholders. The contempt episode offers an opportunity for reflection: is it time for owners and senior decision-makers at media houses to form a united front and resist undue external pressure? After all, they showed unity while tendering an unconditional apology before the court — why not extend that same unity towards preserving their independence as well? Reputation is a media channel’s most valuable asset. By defending their right to independent decision-making, media owners can ensure that their platforms uphold the principles that are fundamental to their role in society. Without collective resolve, incidents like the latest one will continue to impact not just their credibility but also the broader landscape of media freedom.

Published in Dawn, September 14th, 2024