Daily Times

It is said that “history repeats itself”, and in Pakistan this is certainly true. It was in early 1999 when the Sharif brothers held exactly the same offices as they do today, that they tried to crush a certain media group, but failed. In 2014 an attempt is now being made to shut down the television channel of that same media group. A written complaint, sent by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) through the federal defence minister to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), seeks the closure of this most popular television channel. I wonder if it is just a coincidence that whenever the Sharifs are in power, institutions collide and attempts are made to crush the media.
The written complaint accuses the channel of having breached the code of conduct and of mounting a vicious campaign to slander the ISI, the legendary spy agency. The private news channel portrayed the ISI and its chief as being responsible for orchestrating an assassination attempt on Hamid Mir, a prominent journalist and famous anchorperson, somewhat prematurely and without any dependable evidence. As the complaint is a response to the way the channel reported the unfortunate event, was the news channel reporting according to high journalistic principles?
Stieg Larsson, the late Swedish journalist and author, gives one of the best job descriptions of a journalist. In one of his novels he says that a journalist should question and scrutinise most critically. He adds that a journalist cannot afford to repeat claims uncritically no matter how highly placed the sources are. In Pakistan, as we all know, television channels love to air sensational news rather than worrying about journalistic standards. The attack on Hamid Mir was big news, which attracted a great number of viewers. So, why bother to be objective and worry about principles?
While on his way from Karachi airport to his office, Hamid Mir’s vehicle was fired upon by an unknown assailant. He received six shots in the lower parts of his body. Mir had already said that if anything happened to him the director general of the ISI and some of its officers would be held responsible. Amir Mir, his journalist brother, repeated the statement and had every right to do so. However, the news channel repeatedly aired this statement along with a picture of the spy chief, and thus declared him guilty.
Hamid Mir is a prominent journalist and suspected the prime intelligence agency of orchestrating his death. The news channel was therefore faced with a delicate duty to perform; it had to report the statement recorded by Hamid Mir but, on the other hand, it had to report the event in an unbiased and objective manner. It was also required to analyse the event impartially, taking into account Mir’s current assignments and his very claim itself, which held the ISI responsible.
While Hamid Mir was still undergoing emergency surgery, and without a single bit of evidence, the news channel drew the battle-lines and aimed its guns at the ISI and its chief. Within hours, it spread across the globe that the ISI had tried to settle a score with a journalist through gunfire. It seemed that the agency was not a body of security professionals at all but a band of immature gangsters who enjoyed killing anyone it did not like.
Certainly, the news channel could have reported a lot more responsibly. Some of our best journalists are on its staff and they know very well how to deal with such delicacies. However, the manner of reporting suggested that the channel’s administration had badly been looking for an opportunity to make the ISI its punching bag and show its muscle. Later, the views aired and stories published in its papers proved this point. In short, after the event, journalistic principles were the last thing the channel cared about.
Pakistan, where journalists are constantly under fire from different sides, has never been an ideal place for the media. Hamid Mir, with a proven record of excellence in the field, must be painfully aware of this fact. Hopefully, he will recover quickly and will soon resume his duties. Certainly, it was not only the ISI that was not happy with him. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) tried to plant a bomb under his car, and there may be many others watching for an opportunity to wish him ill. In this perspective, it is quite logical to question what made Mr Mir hold only the ISI and its chief responsible if anything happened to him. It also means that he wanted the agency to be held solely responsible, no matter who did him ill. It could also mean that he tried to motivate antagonists to take action. Perhaps, consciously or unconsciously, he had been framed in some ‘fishy’ arrangements.
Pakistan’s current nostalgic government loves living in the past. The way it treated Pakistan’s armed forces is quite obvious by the way it appointed a new army chief, by its negotiations with the Taliban, by the trial of only Musharraf and by the statements of its ministers. One need not be a genius to know what made General Raheel Sharif, the army chief, within five months of his appointment, say that the army would preserve its honour at all costs. In a national security meeting the ice between the government and military melted, and the prime minister’s visit to Kakul helped strengthen their relationship. However, the attack on Mr Mir made the Pakistan army a punching bag once again and the ISI chief was portrayed as a murderer. Even if we believe Hamid Mir’s assumption that the ISI planned his killing, does the time, place and nature of this attack, and the situation before and after the attack make it logical to believe that the ISI was involved in this incident?
Pakistan’s armed forces play the most important role for the geographical security and integrity of the nation. They have committed many mistakes in the past, like all other state institutions, including the media itself. However, this is the only institution we have that our politicians have failed to make corrupt and inefficient. We are in a state of war and it is only our armed forces that stand firm in the face of terrorists. Any effort, whether it is by the media or politicians, to undermine the armed forces, only helps to strengthen enemies of the state.
Considering the delicacy of the situation, the closure of the news channel may not be the best solution as it will be considered an attack on the press. The prime minister has announced a judicial commission to investigate the matter thoroughly. Also, the ISI may launch its own enquiry and bring the real culprits to justice. Until then, we should behave in a responsible way and avoid any unnecessary adventurism.

It is said that “history
repeats itself”, and in Pakistan this is certainly true. It was in early 1999 when the Sharif brothers held exactly the same offices as they do today, that they tried to crush a certain media group, but failed. In 2014 an attempt is now being made to shut down the television channel of that same media group. A written complaint, sent by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) through the federal defence minister to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), seeks the closure of this most popular television channel. I wonder if it is just a coincidence that whenever the Sharifs are in power, institutions collide and attempts are made to crush the media.
The written complaint accuses the channel of having breached the code of conduct and of mounting a vicious campaign to slander the ISI, the legendary spy agency. The private news channel portrayed the ISI and its chief as being responsible for orchestrating an assassination attempt on Hamid Mir, a prominent journalist and famous anchorperson, somewhat prematurely and without any dependable evidence. As the complaint is a response to the way the channel reported the unfortunate event, was the news channel reporting according to high journalistic principles?
Stieg Larsson, the late Swedish journalist and author, gives one of the best job descriptions of a journalist. In one of his novels he says that a journalist should question and scrutinise most critically. He adds that a journalist cannot afford to repeat claims uncritically no matter how highly placed the sources are. In Pakistan, as we all know, television channels love to air sensational news rather than worrying about journalistic standards. The attack on Hamid Mir was big news, which attracted a great number of viewers. So, why bother to be objective and worry about principles?
While on his way from Karachi airport to his office, Hamid Mir’s vehicle was fired upon by an unknown assailant. He received six shots in the lower parts of his body. Mir had already said that if anything happened to him the director general of the ISI and some of its officers would be held responsible. Amir Mir, his journalist brother, repeated the statement and had every right to do so. However, the news channel repeatedly aired this statement along with a picture of the spy chief, and thus declared him guilty.
Hamid Mir is a prominent journalist and suspected the prime intelligence agency of orchestrating his death. The news channel was therefore faced with a delicate duty to perform; it had to report the statement recorded by Hamid Mir but, on the other hand, it had to report the event in an unbiased and objective manner. It was also required to analyse the event impartially, taking into account Mir’s current assignments and his very claim itself, which held the ISI responsible.
While Hamid Mir was still undergoing emergency surgery, and without a single bit of evidence, the news channel drew the battle-lines and aimed its guns at the ISI and its chief. Within hours, it spread across the globe that the ISI had tried to settle a score with a journ