Freedom of Speech in Pakistan

[Indus Pakistan]

Show me one media outlet in Pakistan that goes against Pakistani State's narrative on Kashmir?

I think you misunderstood me. Western media tends to be more in congruence with the establishments of their respective countries then the Pakistani media is. Also what BBC, ITV, Sky, newpapers report tends to be more on the same page then Pakistani media. This probably emanates from a bizzare reality. There is too much democracy, too much divergence, too much conflicted ideas in Pakistan whereas in the west societies have been squeezed through the mincing machine with has produced a very consistent, consolidated polity.

 

[313ghazi]

Show me one media outlet in Pakistan that goes against Pakistani State's narrative on Kashmir?

Show me a single British media entity which goes against the government narrative on Northern Ireland, or the Falklands? Why would they? The general public would label them traitors to the state. Journalists are not aliens, they are as much a part of this state as anyone else.

Also there are plenty of journalists critical of the government in Kashmir. Go on twitter and look at @WajSKhan

What is our government doing in Kashmir that requires criticism?

I suspect you haven't heard of Owen Jones or the dozens of journalists and camera crews that get attacked in the UK. It's a risk of the job - when you get in people's faces, some people will lash out. Not saying it's right, just saying it's a risk.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...cing-growing-number-of-attacks-from-far-right

The likes of Taha Siddiqui have used these things as an excuse to get asylum in the west and get well paid jobs and funding from anti Pakistan lobbies so they spend their days writing hatchet jobs against Pakistan and it's people.

Read their content since these people "escaped", try and tell yourself with a straight face that these people don't hate our country and our values.

These people also have a penchant for making things up. Who was it that was "kidnapped" only to be found drunk somewhere earlier this year?

 

[Chak Bamu]

I think you misunderstood me. Western media tends to be more in congruence with the establishments of their respective countries then the Pakistani media is. Also what BBC, ITV, Sky, newpapers report tends to be more on the same page then Pakistani media. This probably emanates from a bizzare reality. There is too much democracy, too much divergence, too much conflicted ideas in Pakistan whereas in the west societies have been squeezed through the mincing machine with has produced a very consistent, consolidated polity.

You are still writing from a security-centered perspective. I got rid of it completely in 2014. We do not see things the same way.

Western countries have spent centuries as nation states. Pakistan is relatively new to this game. Pakistanis tend to have multiple identities and thus their narratives differ based on their perspectives and priorities. This is absolutely normal and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The key is to maintain constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and not compromise on them at any cost.

I am surprised at your comment about too much democracy. Are you sure? Has Pakistan not spent half its life under martial law regimes, and most of the other half as an uneasy hybrid system? How can there be too much democracy, then?

 

[Chak Bamu]

Show me a single British media entity which goes against the government narrative on Northern Ireland, or the Falklands?

So?

Why would they? The general public would label them traitors to the state. Journalists are not aliens, they are as much a part of this state as anyone else.

General public? You seem to be saying that the 'fear' or 'threat' of general public keeps them (dis)honest?

Also there are plenty of journalists critical of the government in Kashmir. Go on twitter and look at @WajSKhan

No thanks. Criticism regarding conduct of policy is OK and not something that should be debatable.

What is our government doing in Kashmir that requires criticism?

Reading relevant material dispassionately and with patience might answer your query. There can be multiple perspectives and difference of opinions and that is OK. The state of not having them should be a cause of worry.

I suspect you haven't heard of Owen Jones or the dozens of journalists and camera crews that get attacked in the UK. It's a risk of the job - when you get in people's faces, some people will lash out. Not saying it's right, just saying it's a risk.

The role of namaloom afrad is very well known. Denying does not make them go away. Getting in people's faces is what journalists know very well. Its getting in face of security-centered narrative that gets them beaten up like that. Common people do not have the power to make security cameras malfunction at their convenience. Denial just makes you look silly.

The likes of Taha Siddiqui have used these things as an excuse to get asylum in the west and get well paid jobs and funding from anti Pakistan lobbies so they spend their days writing hatchet jobs against Pakistan and it's people.

This is the standard nationalist excuse and its gotten very very boring. Most anybody that goes from Pakistan to a Western country gets paid better in comparison, no matter what job they do. So, money is a non-issue. The real story here is that the likes of Taha Siddiqui get their voices amplified because they are at the receiving end of the coercive organs of State. I do not like Taha or his writing - never did actually. I hope you can understand why I am against targeting these people and giving them relevance.

Read their content since these people "escaped", try and tell yourself with a straight face that these people don't hate our country and our values.

My face is perfectly straight when I tell you that you do not understand constitutionalism and that viewing matters from a purely security-centered perspective is a mistake that keeps on happening and makes Pakistan what it has become.

These people also have a penchant for making things up. Who was it that was "kidnapped" only to be found drunk somewhere earlier this year?

Now I can not keep my face straight ( ) when I ask you if you believe such BS? Why is it that only a distasteful journo is found drunk, and not someone like Mushy? Did you believe undisclosed sources when it was alleged that Ahmad Noorani was beaten up by some guys because he was allegedly friendly with their sister? Funny that (as usual) no cameras were functioning at that time and at that place. *happens *every *time

 

[VCheng]

My face is perfectly straight when I tell you that you do not understand constitutionalism and that viewing matters from a purely security-centered perspective is a mistake that keeps on happening and makes Pakistan what it has become.

Therein lies the basic problem with regards to the issue: What you call a mistake - a purely security -centered perspective - is the holy goal for many others to be kept above all. Thus, what Pakistan has become is a desired objective, just like what PDF has become what it has been made into, by design, constitutionalism be damned.

 

[Nilgiri]

So?



General public? You seem to be saying that the 'fear' or 'threat' of general public keeps them (dis)honest?



No thanks. Criticism regarding conduct of policy is OK and not something that should be debatable.



Reading relevant material dispassionately and with patience might answer your query. There can be multiple perspectives and difference of opinions and that is OK. The state of not having them should be a cause of worry.



The role of namaloom afrad is very well known. Denying does not make them go away. Getting in people's faces is what journalists know very well. Its getting in face of security-centered narrative that gets them beaten up like that. Common people do not have the power to make security cameras malfunction at their convenience. Denial just makes you look silly.



This is the standard nationalist excuse and its gotten very very boring. Most anybody that goes from Pakistan to a Western country gets paid better in comparison, no matter what job they do. So, money is a non-issue. The real story here is that the likes of Taha Siddiqui get their voices amplified because they are at the receiving end of the coercive organs of State. I do not like Taha or his writing - never did actually. I hope you can understand why I am against targeting these people and giving them relevance.



My face is perfectly straight when I tell you that you do not understand constitutionalism and that viewing matters from a purely security-centered perspective is a mistake that keeps on happening and makes Pakistan what it has become.



Now I can not keep my face straight ( ) when I ask you if you believe such BS? Why is it that only a distasteful journo is found drunk, and not someone like Mushy? Did you believer undisclosed sources when it was alleged that Ahmad Noorani was beaten up by some 'girl' whose brothers got angry at him? Funny that (as usual) no cameras were functioning at that time and at that place. *happens *every *time

Study any country long enough and neutrally (as possible), you will (quickly or slowly) find what the biggest chips on shoulder are. Discussing "why" those chips exist is a much more larger endeavour.

But most do not get to the 1st step at all.

 

[Hamza913]

Doesn't exist.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Show me a single British media entity which goes against the government narrative on Northern Ireland, or the Falklands?

Spot on. British media is modulated choas. Raucous but always restricted within invisible red lines. No British [mainstream] would ever go against the establishment views on broader contours of the British state -

• Northern Ireland
• Falklands
• Russia
• Israel
• China
• Iran
• Gays/Lesbians or homosexuality in society
• etc

Members sat in Pakistan have this weird thought that western media is not tethered to the establishemts/elites of their respective countries. Far from it. Indeed I would argue that many most of the media in western countries like USA is more tethered then in Pakistan.

@VCheng @Chak Bamu @Mangus Ortus Novem

*here I am talking about the mainstream that actually matter. Not the fringe that get drowned out and have almost negligible reach.

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

Spot on. British media is modulated choas. Raucous but always restricted within invisible red lines. No British [mainstream] would ever go against the establishment views on broader contours of the British state -

• Northern Ireland
• Falklands
• Russia
• Israel
• China
• Iran
• Gays/Lesbians or homosexuality in society
• etc

Members sat in Pakistan have this weird thought that western media is not tethered to the establishemts/elites of their respective countries. Far from it. Indeed I would argue that many most of the media in western countries like USA is more tethered then in Pakistan.

@VCheng @Chak Bamu @Mangus Ortus Novem

*here I am talking about the mainstream that actually matter. Not the fringe that get drowned out and have almost negligible reach.

MarasiMedia is a maffia and National Security Threat.

The present day choas and confusion has MarasiMedia at its centre which lacks any intellectual capacity or sense of what National Interests mean... put Lifafa on top of that the Truth gets burried deep under the din of lies.

PMIK's UNGA Speech was PathBreaking yet we have MarasiMedia bringing ZAB... where is comparison?

E.g. MirFasad and others who have supported antiPakistan Narrative. Cui Bono?

 

[VCheng]

Spot on. British media is modulated choas. Raucous but always restricted within invisible red lines. No British [mainstream] would ever go against the establishment views on broader contours of the British state -

• Northern Ireland
• Falklands
• Russia
• Israel
• China
• Iran
• Gays/Lesbians or homosexuality in society
• etc

Members sat in Pakistan have this weird thought that western media is not tethered to the establishemts/elites of their respective countries. Far from it. Indeed I would argue that many most of the media in western countries like USA is more tethered then in Pakistan.

@VCheng @Chak Bamu @Mangus Ortus Novem

*here I am talking about the mainstream that actually matter. Not the fringe that get drowned out and have almost negligible reach.

In other words, we should be more accepting of the current state of freedom of speech in Pakistan since it is the same all over the world?

 

[313ghazi]

In other words, we should be more accepting of the current state of freedom of speech in Pakistan since it is the same all over the world?

Yeah. Get with the programme. Developed nations all over have media which behaves in a sensible, so called "self regulated" manner, but the truth is, those who own the media and those who run the country are in the same circles, they scratch each others back - to an extent. People generally do what they consider right for the greater good.

Media chaos is only encouraged in third world nations where they want the guise of "freedom of speech" to actually pay media to pitch narratives to the public which suit the agendas of world powers, and may undermine the government line. Prime example in Pakistan - aman ka asha.

Everyone has freedom to speak, that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for what you say.

 

[VCheng]

Yeah. Get with the programme. Developed nations all over have media which behaves in a sensible, so called "self regulated" manner, but the truth is, those who own the media and those who run the country are in the same circles, they scratch each others back - to an extent. People generally do what they consider right for the greater good.

Media chaos is only encouraged in third world nations where they want the guise of "freedom of speech" to actually pay media to pitch narratives to the public which suit the agendas of world powers, and may undermine the government line. Prime example in Pakistan - aman ka asha.

Everyone has freedom to speak, that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for what you say.

As I said above:

Therein lies the basic problem with regards to the issue: What you call a mistake - a purely security -centered perspective - is the holy goal for many others to be kept above all. Thus, what Pakistan has become is a desired objective, just like what PDF has become what it has been made into, by design, constitutionalism be damned.

The program is clearly for the media to serve the security perspective above all else, and those who do not get with it are culled. I have no problem with that at all, considering it is a national prerogative to set such goals for any country for itself.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

In other words, we should be more accepting of the current state of freedom of speech in Pakistan since it is the same all over the world?

No, we need to focus on feeding that poor kid, bringing literacy to that little girl, taking care of that old man instead of beating about and thrashing issues that even the ample fed west has NOT resolved.

 

[VCheng]

No, we need to focus on feeding that poor kid, bringing literacy to that little girl, taking care of that old man instead of beating about and thrashing issues that even the ample fed west has NOT resolved.

I can agree with a list of priorities that places freedom of speech far below the basics of social development as you mention.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

The fact is in the west, order and economic prosperity has been achieved by creating a largely constructed 'artificial' homegeneity and their media reflects the suffocating convergence of political thought. Iran is pretty well evil in every western media and Israel a victim even it is displayed often as a rude victim.

This suffocoating homogeneity merely reflects the consolidation of the entire western economic system by one order. To be able to operate you have to survive and feed on the oxygen provided by this economic order. This means all media houses in west are broadly owned by groups/individuals that are part of the same capitalist elite. So all you get from them is differant perspective of the same product. Politics reflects that. Take USA. A country of 300 million people yet politics has been mincedmeated into two narrow funnels each of which has divergence of a hair thickness. Republicans/Democrats.

Now compare Pakistan. PTM, MQM, PTI, ANP, JFL, TTP and more with views so divegent that it's like one are on Mars, other on Saturn, other on Pluto and your trying to get them to work together. The media in Pakistan reflects this conflict.

I can agree with a list of priorities that places freedom of speech far below the basics of social development as you mention.

May we place at same level as USA?

so called "self regulated" manner, but the truth is, those who own the media and those who run the country are in the same circles, they scratch each others back - to an extent.

10/10 bullseye.

"but the truth is, those who own the media and those who run the country are in the same circles, they scratch each others back"

This is western, free media. So many, so raucous, so free. But you struggle to find differances between them. Such is the manufactured homogeneity which of course reflects the unified power elites made of the economic, political, establishment, intelligentsia etc