Daily Times

The media in the developing countries and transitional societies often behave in ways where concerns for law and ethics are easily bypassed for petty and partisan perks. The Pakistani media is no exception. Take the example of the recently decided Panama Papers case in which the Prime Minister of the country, Nawaz Sharif, was not judged guilty by the Supreme Court of Pakistan but, despite the court’s 3-2 verdict, the media’s wrath is falling on the PM and, ironically, for no legal reason.

Indeed, the media’s highly partisan coverage and analysis of the Panama case started from the first day, with some TV anchors and others trying their best to influence the courts by projecting the Sharifs as chronically corrupt whereas opposition figures received a total whitewashing. And this happened despite the fact Mr Khan and his close associates too owned offshore companies — if that in of itself is a problem. Moreover, even when the respected judges were busy announcing the verdict in Courtroom No 1, pages from the judgement were already viral on the media.A few television newscasters and anchors, with inadequate grounding in media ethics and practices, are consciously busy building an anti-democracy, anti-parliament and anti-politician narrative that suits their ideological and material designs.

Now that the SC has done its job by appointing a JIT to probe the Panama-related allegations, the whole affair ought to have been left to the commission and the Court. But strangely enough, some elements in our media assume themselves to be above both legislature and law, and so they are engaged in a constant effort to politicise the Court’s verdict by unduly magnifying the minority view. It is sheer ignorance of legal norms and practices to reject the majority judgment and solely rely on the individual reading of two judges. Unfortunately, former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry also contributed to the problem by weighing in with his own spin on the implications of the judgement. For a progressive Pakistan, it is a must that the media behave within — and not above — the law, and stop attempts aimed at influencing the courts. The courts, it goes without saying, must also stay vigilant and never let the media make a mockery of the law and its custodians. So, perhaps it would be in the service of state and society if the Supreme Court were to take notice of undue efforts to influence its proceedings in important matters. *