IS the Pakistani media, often described as vibrant, bold and fiercely independent, suddenly facing its Waterloo? The heart wishes to say an emphatic no but the head forces a reality check and an acknowledgement of facts.

Even when battling the Zia regime and attempts by the dictator to divide and rule, large chunks of the media remained united in standing up to the oppression of the military ruler. It defended its freedom robustly.

My personal recollection does not date back to when journalists were jailed and lashed as I was a student then but I still vividly recall working in the newsroom when almost every evening ‘Press advice’ arrived via the telephone mostly where the news of the day could show Zia in a bad light. It always did.

This advice was on top of the self-censorship which saw even the best editors erring on the side of caution lest they rocked the boat and incurred the wrath of the Zia regime. I remember one of the boldest and finest editors then admonishing me for trying to push the frontiers.

The argument was that it wasn’t I who was responsible for the health of the newspaper, the organisation and the continuing jobs of the journalists it employed but the editor. And he knew what the boundaries were and, therefore, asked us to strictly follow his guidelines.

Media freedom was not just defended in the courtyards of the press clubs via meetings and slogans or in merely speaking the truth before summary military courts. It was also defended by responsible journalism; by the ebb and flow of attempts to test the waters, to push the frontiers.

The few occasions I was summoned to the editor’s office for a slap on the wrist for not ‘consulting’ anyone else on what I thought was ‘innocuous enough’ to be included in the next day’s paper and for causing endless anxiety to the editorial management as it received a talking-to first thing in the morning from Rawalpindi, there was always another element.

While the editor’s warning was being delivered to the errant sub-editor in a stern tone and in all seriousness, there was something in his eyes which was always remarkable and I never failed to notice and feel: affection, even admiration.

Perhaps, because deep down the editor’s thoughts were no different from the young rebel’s, who was the latest addition to the staff. Of course, this was little consolation then as a young headstrong journalist could hardly be expected to understand the meaning of responsibility.

Such were the balancing acts editors were called on to perform and many did do with immense merit. While warding off the military regime with a tiny compromise here and there they kept the spirit alive and never lost sight of the bigger picture, steering their ships subtly and gently in the desired direction.

The media survived the oppression of the military regimes as it did the antics of the elected leaders to muzzle it over the years. Led by some amazing men and women journalists and often supported by their owners who seemed to understand the value of independent journalism, it waded through the most troubled waters it came across.

Today, when it has more freedom than possibly ever before it seems to have tripped over this very freedom and how it chooses to exercise it. The rivalries of yesteryear for example between Jang and Nawa-i-Waqt were almost always about getting this scoop and that exclusive.

In the past the owners and journalists alike have had functional forums to discuss and decide professional matters. Now we don’t see anything even resembling that, particularly where the booming and influential electronic media is concerned.

This is so because where the ego of the more pedigreed owner got bloated because of their media group’s pre-eminence in terms of audience and revenues, the newcomer wasn’t a pushover either and had jumped onto the media bandwagon after making billions elsewhere and mainly to safeguard the interests of a vast business empire.

An impasse was what followed. Appeals by journalists’ organisations, governments and saner elements in society to the electronic media to voluntarily agree to a code of ethics, evolve principles to govern 24X7 output fell on deaf ears.

Wary of not bringing into question their democratic credentials, governments also shied away from pushing those responsible for the multitude of channels to develop their own rules to play the game. Neither did they legislate themselves.

Anarchy was to follow where journalistic values and considerations were sacrificed one after another at the altar of the owner’s commercial interest or egotistical fantasies. The worst thing that could have happened was the near extinction of the office of the professional editor. (As it is, it was rarely in evidence in all its glory anywhere except in one organisation.)

This has enabled the state institutions, which felt their unquestionable power under threat from the media, to strike back, using not just surrogates in the media but more ominously zealots at their beck and call to intimidate the media.

One hopes there is enough sense left in media houses to understand that they can be the first to use religion but will never be the last. From personal experience I can say each media group still has a sizable contingent of the professional, decent journalist.

It is time for this journalist to stand up and be counted; most significantly within.

The writer is a former editor of Dawn.abbas.nasir@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, May 17th, 2014