The media needs to be more discreet

The news repot by Cyril Almeida in daily Dawn regarding deliberations of briefing to a high level meeting at the Prime Minister house created quite a stir. The media, particularly some electronic channels in their bid to outmaneuver their rivals tried to read too much between the lines. The editorials and comments in the print media also attributed varied interpretations to the revelations made in the news report. The entire media also expressed unqualified solidarity with Cyril defending his action to have that report published as freedom of expression.

A discernible effort was made to highlight the often trumpeted rift between the civilian and military leadership and to rub in the impression that the story was deliberately leaked to the reporter by the official circles to malign the security establishment for its alleged support to the militant groups. There was a deluge of comments on the issue without anybody bothering to investigate the matter properly, paying heed to the sensitivities involved, impact that it created within and outside the country and whether the journalist and the newspaper concerned should have published the story or not.

The story undoubtedly was a negation of our national narrative in regards to dealing with the militant outfits against which the government and military claim are being targeted indiscriminately and there is a zero tolerance for the terrorists. It is pertinent to point out that the enemies of the country and some global powers have persistently been trying to project Pakistan as a cradle of terrorism and fomenting terrorism in the neighbouring countries. Blaming the security establishment of its support to militants by the civilian government as the story suggested is indeed a very serious breach of national security as it reinforces the cause of the detractors of Pakistan.

The impact of the story was that on the internal front the political opponents found it convenient to have a swipe at the government, particularly Imran Khan referring to the story blamed the government of maligning its own Army and dubbed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as a security risk for the country. Indian government and Indian media immediately picked up the story and unleashed venomous propaganda against Pakistan and the Army. International media also found it convenient to malign Pakistan.

The government and the security establishment rightly felt incensed by the publication of the news report and unanimously decided to have the issue investigated and fix the responsibility for the reported indiscretion. Even this move was misinterpreted as burgeoning cleavage between the civilian and military leadership without waiting for the outcome of the initial probe that had been ordered to ferret out the truth. The removal of the Information minister as a consequence of the initial investigations by the government somehow was also interpreted as an admission of government involvement in the issue.

The haze was finally been removed by the interior minister who was heading the initial probe at a press conference on Sunday. First of all he categorically denied the contents of the news report saying that he was present in all the meetings and the briefing by the foreign secretary in which the reported issue transpired. The inference one can draw from his assertion is that the story was completely fabricated. Who fabricated and with what purpose remains yet to be determined and that task has been assigned to a high level committee of the intelligence outfits. In regards to removal of the Information minister he said that his probe only found him responsible to the extent that he failed to persuade the journalist not to publish the fabricated story when the latter came to meet him for his comments on it and did not even talk to the editor of the daily in view of the sensitivity of the issue. That also absolves the Information minister of the alleged involvement in feeding the story to the journalist as has persistently been implied by some circles. The other thing that is clear now is that the whole episode and the media hype was a speculative stuff on an issue which deserved restraint and sense of responsibility.

Now, let’s come to this “freedom of expression” syndrome. There is no denying the fact that in a democratic dispensation or for that matter under any other system of governance the people have the right to know. The freedom of media and freedom of expression derive their legitimacy from this right of the people because the media represent the society. But nowhere in the world is the media allowed unbridled freedom. It has its limits and going beyond those limits does warrant intervention by the government because it is ultimately the responsibility of the government to ensure that all entities within the state including media act with responsibility and do not cross the Rubicon.

The Social Responsibility Theory propounded by Dr. Huchison which is regarded as the magna Carte of freedom of expression and role of media in a society recognises the fact that media is under obligation to act with responsibility and safeguard the national interests. All ethical and professional codes of conduct for media at the international and national levels also recognise and emphasise this aspect.

Since the story irrespective of the fact who fed it to the concerned journalist was against the national narrative on fight against terrorism and raised an accusing finger at the security forces for showing leniency to the terrorist elements, the reporter should have realised the sensitivities involved and on his own decided not to file it. And if the reporter failed to realise and judge the repercussions of the story then the editorial panel should have taken care of it. From the contents of the news story it is quite obvious that the source of the news report clearly had some sinister motives and used the concerned media outlet to achieve the desired objective. It is hard to say whether it was simply a matter of oversight or lack of judgment on the part of the reporter and the newspaper but one thing is clear that it did muddy the waters. In my view media needs to be little more discreet in regards to what it reports. Freedom of expression does not mean compromising national interests or jeopardising national security. In view of the facts unfurled by the Interior minister media is well advised to refrain from commenting on the issue until the final findings of the newly formed investigative committee are known. Issues that promote fissiparous tendencies within the society and those which tarnish the image of the country at the global level must invariably be avoided by the media