Amending Pemra

On first reading, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Bill, 2023, approved by the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting on Friday, seems to be a mixed bag. First, the good: under section 2, which clarifies definitions, the bill has sought to take on the monster that is ‘disinformation’ and fake news – an issue that has now become a hydra-headed challenge to journalism in a post-truth world. The amendment has tried to make a distinction between ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’. The amended law makes allowances for unintentional mistakes by journalists, or an errant error that is later clarified by media editors and media houses. This, according to the amended Pemra law, would fall under ‘misinformation’. Disinformation, on the other hand, is about intentional misleading news or views that are defamatory and agenda-based. Campaigns in the garb of news, stories run without taking the point of view or without reaching out to those the news is about would qualify as ‘disinformation’. A word of caution is of course needed but, while regulations in Pakistan are regularly used to silence the media, it is also important for media professionals to realize that countries around the world are now taking action against disinformation which has led to dangerous spread of fake news. In fact, this is also Journalism 101: verify, verify, verify.

The second good to come out of the bill is the acknowledgment that journalists and media professionals in all capacities cannot possibly be expected to work without salaries. Under new sections to the law – 20A and 20B – the government has decided to ensure that every media organization that falls under Pemra purview is obligated by law to pay its employees’ salaries not later than two months or else face a ban on government advertisements “till the payment of pending salaries. Good news indeed for an industry whose workers face not just challenging work cultures but also immense fiscal difficulties. That said, one wonders why the two-month timeframe was seen fit. Are journalists supposed to assume that they will not be paid per month as is their right? A third good is the inclusion of representatives, one each, in Pemra from PFUJ and broadcasters. However, since their position in the thirteen-member Pemra will remain ‘honorary’ and non-voting it remains to be seen how much moral pressure they will be able to exert in decision-making. This though is a step in the right direction at least in an Authority that for years has been seen more combative than compromising in its approach towards the media. A better decision by the amended bill has been to give the power of shutting down or suspending a TV channel to a three-member committee instead of just the Pemra chairperson.

Moving to some of the less stellar parts of the Pemra law, section 27 which sets out details regarding the ‘prohibition of broadcast media or distribution service operation’ remains as is, and is in fact added to somewhat by the amendments. The section has for years been criticized due to the arbitrariness of what all can be given as reasons to clamp down on a TV channel. Media law experts, journalists bodies and others have for years critiqued the paternalistic attitude of the state when it comes to what can and cannot be shown on TV. Perhaps the new amendments to the Council of Complaints may reduce such arbitrariness but it should be emphasized that Pemra’s job should be to make sure that channels follow the law and do not indulge in hate speech. It should not become a censor that sets an official line for all programming to follow.

In a country like Pakistan, it is important that an independent body make decisions regarding the impact news or programming has had on society. This is why the independence of the electronic media regulator is so important. An institution like Britain’s OfCom – a state approved regulator but completely independent – would be a good example to follow. Minister of Information Marriyum Aurangzeb has said that the Media Joint Action Committee was consulted regarding these amendments, which took 11 months to be finalized. The Pakistan Broadcasters Association (PBA) on its part has endorsed the bill. But it may be best to also try and reach out to those journalists and media bodies that have reservations regarding these amendments before the bill is passed by parliament. Governments always have a difficult relationship with the free press. In Pakistan’s context, this balance has severely been tilted against journalists who have been resisting various forms of censorship since the country’s founding, sometimes paying the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit of their profession. Our society cannot go back to the times when the media was at the mercy of state officials who in most cases had no love lost for democratic norms. There is little doubt that Pemra finds itself faced with a rather unenviable task, something that ideally should have ideally been left to the media themselves. That said, there is a need for responsible action by regulators. That means taking to task those who do not follow the basic tenets of journalism without punishing journalism which lives up to its mission of speaking truth to power.