Moin Khan Now threats to stop work are enough instead of threats to life

Name: Moin Khan

Roll no: 2k18/MC/80

سیلف سنسر شپ: ’اب جان کی دھمکیوں کی بجائے کام بند کرانے کی دھمکیاں ہی کافی ہیں’

Self-censorship: Now threats to stop work are enough instead of threats to life.

Relations between the government and journalists in Pakistan are often tense with freedom of expression. Journalists have been complaining about censorship from government agencies for a long time. This complaint came in front of the general elections of July 25 this year. Openly trying to suppress the criticism of state institutions on social media also became part of this censorship.

The process of targeting underwriters continues continuously. Opposing the official statement, news channels are trying to suppress anti-voices by moving back and forth on the cable and influencing the delivery of newspapers and the distribution of advertisements. BBC Urdu has tried to find out in its series what the situation of censorship in Pakistan is. Read the comments of senior journalist ShahzebJilani.

A few days ago, news came that violent incidents against journalists in Pakistan have significantly decreased, but at the same time, it was said that the media has become more self-censorship under military pressure rather than being free. How effective this method of putting the media in silence can be gauged by the fact that on the day the world organization committee to protect journalists issued its comprehensive report on this issue, most of Pakistan's channels and newspapers either completely avoided running this news or buried it somewhere below. Self-imposed restrictions in our media are no breaking news, a daily reality. In every democratic or semi-democratic era, self-censorship has been with us in some form. As long as AltafHussain's order was in Karachi, the media considered their ability to survive. The days when the Taliban's bloodshed was on the rise, we avoided openly condemning their terrorism. We are still very respectful to those who spread religious hatred and sectarianism that if they get angry, they will get rid of life. No restrictions on yourself. These compromises are often forced. If you live, there will be journalism. If you do not know what you're looking for, then do not worry about it. These were the challenges of old Pakistan, with whom we learned to live like a third. For the new Pakistan, the restrictions that have been imposed are different. Now instead of threats to life, threats to stop work are enough.

In my view, this attitude started to make a regular policy at a time when someone took Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to walk. During the Panama case, it was declared controversial by some circles, and it was said by the affected parties and some political observers about the judges, and it was reported that their attitude was biased. Operation change builders took this treatment that the media also decided to put an end to it. Some time ago, if you ask a journalist what is your red line here, he would have mentioned the issue of forced disappearances in the army and Balochistan along with other things. During the last year, this red line has gone on and on. This line of restrictions is conceptual. According to my information, most media houses do not have any editorial policy documents. In such an environment you don't know what to say, what not to say. I was attached to an institution like the BBC for 15 years. Reporter and editor remained had the opportunity to work with great journalists from different countries, worked inside and outside Pakistan.

It has never happened to me in this period that facts and certified information have been stopped or censored because of someone's pressure or fear.The Pakistani media that is working under pressure has spread dangerously the fear of annoying the army here and sorting out this kind of unjustified.

Take the country's three major and old media groups: during the last one, the war/geo, the dawn, and the new time, they know everything in the industry but no one is ready to speak. The apparent fault of these institutions is the initial reluctance to kneel before the powerful institutions of the state. It is probably the punishment of free journalism that the army and its subsidiaries start to destroy a channel. Stop the circulation of a newspaper in the city, city, cantonment areas, and turn off ads.

No matter what the role of big media houses in the past and how much money they make, today their internal conditions are so overwhelming that employees are not given salaries for many months, staff are being expelled or are leaving on their own.

Many journalists heard how to please the army, media groups had to submit their institutional decisions to uninformed people and had to reprimand their journalists. A TV channel separated one of its senior analysts from their program for a while.

There was also talk of an unannounced ban on some analysts who considered the army's unwanted. Some prominent journalists of Islamabad had to stop expressing their views on twitter etc. Some organizations stopped broadcasting the entire program of some of their anchors.

When someone expressed outrage against this unjustified censorship on social media, there was more pressure to delete their posts, which they had to do. I had to go through this kind of experience during reporting in election days.

On the one hand, journalists and journalistic institutions are being tightened and on the other hand, new channels are being launched. Who is behind them? Where is the money coming from? How will these new channels be different or better than the two dozen channels already available? It's not all clear.

The army is the most powerful institution of Pakistan and its shadow is present on every important aspect of national life, politics, journalism, court, foreign affairs. So if the army and its intelligence agencies cannot be reported then what is left to inform the public?

In the eyes of the army, perhaps the ideal media is the one who tells the story of political leaders' corruption day and night and does not make any effort to mess up the elected leadership of millions of people. Play a role in weakening parliament and the constitution and making a mockery of it.

But why? Because it is necessary to make every movie hero a superhero, the bad deeds of the villain should be exaggerated. The main purpose of targeting political parties in the name of accountability on the first day has been that the people do not have confidence in the democratic process, and the nation consciously or unconsciously considers the same institution as their messiah and the survival of this country.

The compulsions are of everyone. Media owners are more concerned about their BusinessEmpire than things like country, nation, and democracy. Anchor says what the truth is, what lies is just the show. The journalist wishes as if the third bus was employed. Some of us are happy to become the first column of the state propaganda, so some are trying to improve as much as possible with a heartfelt heart.

The old Sinner of journalism in Pakistan says that if you want to move forward, you should have flexibility. The question is only when this decision is not yours to show who is life, who is not, and who can come on TV, who is not. Whose column can be published, not whose? What can say what no, then what is left? Which journalism, what kind of freedom that people can trust a little bit.