Saifullah Sani
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,339
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
In an observation which is critical of the editorial independence of TV content, the Commission noted that advertisers influenced the prime time content in Pakistani media.
By Arshad Sharif
Islamabad, July 13: The sensitive task of informing the public about important news and current affairs is in the hands of media persons who lack adequate and comprehensive training in print and broadcast journalism, said the final report of the two member Media Commission appointed by the Supreme Court.
Lack of adequate, comprehensive training in print journalism and in broadcast journalism before persons are given the opportunity to become reporters, anchors, news readers, content controllers etc, the Commission said while identifying the negative aspects of the media in Part-II of its report submitted before the Supreme Court on May 31st, 2013.
The Supreme Court appointed a two member Media Commission comprising Senator (R) Javed Jabbar and Justice (R) Nasir Aslam Zahid on 15th January, 2013 and submitted the first part of its report on 21st March.
Part-II of the Media Commission report contains 17 annexures including versions of Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA), Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and other stakeholders.
The observations of the Commission were also echoed by PFUJ which admitted the absence of professional skills in journalists who had entered the field of electronic media.
Unlike the print media where the journalists undergo training whether in the field of reporting or editing, in the electronic media freshmen were recruited into senior position without any aptitude or experience resulting in utter chaos, PFUJ said in its official stance before the Media Commission.
In an observation which is critical of the editorial independence of TV content, the Commission noted that advertisers influenced the prime time content in Pakistani media.
Advertisers virtually dictate prime time content preferences by using a narrow, relatively non-representative, heavily urban and consumption oriented rating system to pressurise channels into cut throat competition and to a lowering of standards of content, the Commission said in its findings.
PBA in its version before the Commission accepted the need for content regulation.
The absence of parallel sources of revenue such as the subscription revenue had made the media dependent upon advertising revenue and as a natural corollary there was competition for ratings within the industry. Assured revenue would provide opportunity to the channels to devote more time to content regulation instead of trying to be one up to the competitor, PBA said in its statement before the Commission.
PBA informed the Commission that TV channels were facing cash flow problems and therefore at times the disbursement of salary to the staff got delayed.
PBA said that 90 per cent of the news TV channels were in the red and the cost of news gathering had gone up phenomenally.
Pakistan Advertisers Society (PAS) informed the Commission, the ad-spend in Pakistan is approximately Rs40 billion and the share of the print media is about 30 per cent.
PAS expressed its regrets before the Commission that views and news had lost the distinction as certain anchors openly forced their views upon the public and in this context cited the role of anchors in Malik Riaz case and the assassination of Governor Salman Taseer.
The Commission took a scathing view of the breaking news culture and blamed it for promoting hysteria, hype and trivialization of issues. Moreover, the media is blamed for promoting acrimony, conflict and grievances in the society by the Commission.
In what is perhaps the most secretive aspect of most business enterprises in Pakistan, the Commission identified lack of financial transparency in the media.
Non-transparency in financial aspects of media, e.g. advertising rates charged, grants or support received from overseas sources, fees and salaries paid to staff, assets and income of media owners etc, the Commission observed.
The observation of the Commission about foreign sources of funding was based on PEMRAs allegation.
In its version before the Commission, PEMRA claimed: A couple of media houses are reported to have received large grants in the form of advertising contracts from overseas sources. It is said that one such grant is 20 million British pounds. Some part of this amount may be for paid advertising or sponsorship of a programme. The actual facts are not conveyed to the public or to PEMRA. It is also said that all, or part of this amount is received by an entity which is part of the media group and is used to sponsor non-advertising campaigns. Any attempt by PEMRA to probe such matters immediately leads to claims that there is an attempt to curb freedom of the media and there is always the recourse to obtaining a stay order if an inquiry is held. (Click to see Para (t), Page 103 of Media Commission Report, Part-II).
Specifically identifying the programmes which received funds from foreign sources, the official statement of Chairman PEMRA Chaudhry Rashid Ahmed, Executive member Dr Abdul Jabbar and other officials before the Media Commission alleged that Zara Socheeya had received sponsorship to the tune of Pounds 20 Million.
Citing another instance of Aman ki Asha the PEMRA officials alleged the programme was being funded by Norwegian NGO named Friends without Borders.
Going into the background of the funding to this programme, it was found that the footprints lead to Indian sponsors including the Indian state television, the Doordarshan, PEMRA officials alleged. (Click to see Page 204 of Media Commission Report, Part-II).
Reportedly the spokesman of Jang and Geo denied all these charges and warned that a defamation case would be filed against all those who made these baseless allegations against the Group infront of the Media Commission members.
Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman, the owner of Jang/Geo Group, flew in especially from Dubai to appear before the Commission and narrated how the group had been victimized by successive governments from Zia-ul-Haq to the present time.
The Group had suffered a loss of Rs140 Billion during Musharraf regime when GEO was put off air for such a long stretch of time, Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman told the Commission, adding, the figure could be verified from the documents about the quantum of advertisements just it was put off air and the quantum of advertisements after being allowed to go back on air. (Click to see MSR version, Page 240, Media Commission Report, Part-II).
In an interesting disclosure before the Commission about an entertainment channel Urdu 1, PBA said the channel was owned by Rupert Murdoch and two Afghan brothers (Mohsini brothers) who were based in Dubai.
This channel (Urdu 1) was granted landing right much before it went on air anywhere in the world, PBA told the Commission, arguing, that channels which came to Pakistan under landing right license should not be allowed to compete with local channels by dubbing programmes in Urdu language.
Interesting, PBA told the Commission that the trail of how the license was granted pointed towards Musa Gillani, son of former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani and Faryal Talpur, sister of President Asif Ali Zardari. (Click to see Page 230, Media Commission Report Part-II).
The Commission believed some sections of the media compromised national security at a time when the country faces varied threats by linking it to criticism of civilian and military institutions.
The Commission observed: Tendency on the part of some sections of media to conduct criticism of civil and military institutions in terms that are remarkably similar to criticism of the same institutions by sections of overseas media including Indian media, thereby adversely impacting internal national cohesion and solidarity during a time when the country faces harsh internal as well as external threats.
Interestingly, the Commission failed to identify the important watchdog role of the media which has highlighted corruption and abuse of authority in the civilian and military institutions while discussing the positive aspects of the media.
In its observations on the positive aspect of the Pakistani media, the Commission highlighted the professionalism of working journalists to risk life, especially in covering conflict, and that too without any protection.
Willingness of working journalists to render the ultimate sacrifice: over 20 Pakistani journalists have been killed between 2001 and 2013 in the line of duty, mostly in conflict areas where they have worked without protection, the commission observed without giving any recommendations as to how the families of these journalists could be taken care of.
The Commission gives credit to the media industry for covering wide range of topics despite preoccupation with politics and development of new talent and skills by substantial capital investment and creation of new employment opportunities.
MEDIA COMMISSION EXPOSES THE UNDERBELLY OF PAKISTANI MEDIA
By Arshad Sharif
Islamabad, July 13: The sensitive task of informing the public about important news and current affairs is in the hands of media persons who lack adequate and comprehensive training in print and broadcast journalism, said the final report of the two member Media Commission appointed by the Supreme Court.
Lack of adequate, comprehensive training in print journalism and in broadcast journalism before persons are given the opportunity to become reporters, anchors, news readers, content controllers etc, the Commission said while identifying the negative aspects of the media in Part-II of its report submitted before the Supreme Court on May 31st, 2013.
The Supreme Court appointed a two member Media Commission comprising Senator (R) Javed Jabbar and Justice (R) Nasir Aslam Zahid on 15th January, 2013 and submitted the first part of its report on 21st March.
Part-II of the Media Commission report contains 17 annexures including versions of Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA), Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ), Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and other stakeholders.
The observations of the Commission were also echoed by PFUJ which admitted the absence of professional skills in journalists who had entered the field of electronic media.
Unlike the print media where the journalists undergo training whether in the field of reporting or editing, in the electronic media freshmen were recruited into senior position without any aptitude or experience resulting in utter chaos, PFUJ said in its official stance before the Media Commission.
In an observation which is critical of the editorial independence of TV content, the Commission noted that advertisers influenced the prime time content in Pakistani media.
Advertisers virtually dictate prime time content preferences by using a narrow, relatively non-representative, heavily urban and consumption oriented rating system to pressurise channels into cut throat competition and to a lowering of standards of content, the Commission said in its findings.
PBA in its version before the Commission accepted the need for content regulation.
The absence of parallel sources of revenue such as the subscription revenue had made the media dependent upon advertising revenue and as a natural corollary there was competition for ratings within the industry. Assured revenue would provide opportunity to the channels to devote more time to content regulation instead of trying to be one up to the competitor, PBA said in its statement before the Commission.
PBA informed the Commission that TV channels were facing cash flow problems and therefore at times the disbursement of salary to the staff got delayed.
PBA said that 90 per cent of the news TV channels were in the red and the cost of news gathering had gone up phenomenally.
Pakistan Advertisers Society (PAS) informed the Commission, the ad-spend in Pakistan is approximately Rs40 billion and the share of the print media is about 30 per cent.
PAS expressed its regrets before the Commission that views and news had lost the distinction as certain anchors openly forced their views upon the public and in this context cited the role of anchors in Malik Riaz case and the assassination of Governor Salman Taseer.
The Commission took a scathing view of the breaking news culture and blamed it for promoting hysteria, hype and trivialization of issues. Moreover, the media is blamed for promoting acrimony, conflict and grievances in the society by the Commission.
In what is perhaps the most secretive aspect of most business enterprises in Pakistan, the Commission identified lack of financial transparency in the media.
Non-transparency in financial aspects of media, e.g. advertising rates charged, grants or support received from overseas sources, fees and salaries paid to staff, assets and income of media owners etc, the Commission observed.
The observation of the Commission about foreign sources of funding was based on PEMRAs allegation.
In its version before the Commission, PEMRA claimed: A couple of media houses are reported to have received large grants in the form of advertising contracts from overseas sources. It is said that one such grant is 20 million British pounds. Some part of this amount may be for paid advertising or sponsorship of a programme. The actual facts are not conveyed to the public or to PEMRA. It is also said that all, or part of this amount is received by an entity which is part of the media group and is used to sponsor non-advertising campaigns. Any attempt by PEMRA to probe such matters immediately leads to claims that there is an attempt to curb freedom of the media and there is always the recourse to obtaining a stay order if an inquiry is held. (Click to see Para (t), Page 103 of Media Commission Report, Part-II).
Specifically identifying the programmes which received funds from foreign sources, the official statement of Chairman PEMRA Chaudhry Rashid Ahmed, Executive member Dr Abdul Jabbar and other officials before the Media Commission alleged that Zara Socheeya had received sponsorship to the tune of Pounds 20 Million.
Citing another instance of Aman ki Asha the PEMRA officials alleged the programme was being funded by Norwegian NGO named Friends without Borders.
Going into the background of the funding to this programme, it was found that the footprints lead to Indian sponsors including the Indian state television, the Doordarshan, PEMRA officials alleged. (Click to see Page 204 of Media Commission Report, Part-II).
Reportedly the spokesman of Jang and Geo denied all these charges and warned that a defamation case would be filed against all those who made these baseless allegations against the Group infront of the Media Commission members.
Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman, the owner of Jang/Geo Group, flew in especially from Dubai to appear before the Commission and narrated how the group had been victimized by successive governments from Zia-ul-Haq to the present time.
The Group had suffered a loss of Rs140 Billion during Musharraf regime when GEO was put off air for such a long stretch of time, Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman told the Commission, adding, the figure could be verified from the documents about the quantum of advertisements just it was put off air and the quantum of advertisements after being allowed to go back on air. (Click to see MSR version, Page 240, Media Commission Report, Part-II).
In an interesting disclosure before the Commission about an entertainment channel Urdu 1, PBA said the channel was owned by Rupert Murdoch and two Afghan brothers (Mohsini brothers) who were based in Dubai.
This channel (Urdu 1) was granted landing right much before it went on air anywhere in the world, PBA told the Commission, arguing, that channels which came to Pakistan under landing right license should not be allowed to compete with local channels by dubbing programmes in Urdu language.
Interesting, PBA told the Commission that the trail of how the license was granted pointed towards Musa Gillani, son of former Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani and Faryal Talpur, sister of President Asif Ali Zardari. (Click to see Page 230, Media Commission Report Part-II).
The Commission believed some sections of the media compromised national security at a time when the country faces varied threats by linking it to criticism of civilian and military institutions.
The Commission observed: Tendency on the part of some sections of media to conduct criticism of civil and military institutions in terms that are remarkably similar to criticism of the same institutions by sections of overseas media including Indian media, thereby adversely impacting internal national cohesion and solidarity during a time when the country faces harsh internal as well as external threats.
Interestingly, the Commission failed to identify the important watchdog role of the media which has highlighted corruption and abuse of authority in the civilian and military institutions while discussing the positive aspects of the media.
In its observations on the positive aspect of the Pakistani media, the Commission highlighted the professionalism of working journalists to risk life, especially in covering conflict, and that too without any protection.
Willingness of working journalists to render the ultimate sacrifice: over 20 Pakistani journalists have been killed between 2001 and 2013 in the line of duty, mostly in conflict areas where they have worked without protection, the commission observed without giving any recommendations as to how the families of these journalists could be taken care of.
The Commission gives credit to the media industry for covering wide range of topics despite preoccupation with politics and development of new talent and skills by substantial capital investment and creation of new employment opportunities.
MEDIA COMMISSION EXPOSES THE UNDERBELLY OF PAKISTANI MEDIA
