pitafi
01-01-2007, 09:25 PM
The noose of censorship
By Farrukh Khan Pitafi
From parochialism to absolutism free speech has uncountable enemies since the dawn of the civilisation. Censorship is the poisoned axe that has repeatedly fallen on everyone who wanted to share unfettered thoughts with others. Socrates is believed to be the first martyr of free speech who preferred to drink a cup of hemlock rather than adhering to the official code of censorship. First censorship laws in China were established in 300 AD. The origins of censorship as a term date back to 443 BC Rome where the office of censor was established to manipulate the public opinion, ensure moral standards and to keep the senators under the thumb. The first Index of Prohibited Books was drawn up by order of Pope Paul IV in 1559. The lists were published about twenty times by various popes, the last instance of its issuance being as recent as in 1948 before being finally suppressed in 1966. The Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope wrote a secret memo to the clergymen highlighting the need and the ways to hide the cases of child molestations in the church.
Professor Craig A. Depken of University of Texas at Arlington defines censorship in his monograph 'The Demand for Censorship' as "the moral or legislative process by which society 'agrees' to limit what an individual can do, say, think, or see." Wikipedia explains the term and its processes in the following terms: "Censorship is the editing, removing, or otherwise changing speech and other forms of human expression. In some cases, it is exercised by governing bodies but it is always and continuously carried out by the mass media. The visible motive of censorship is often to stabilize, improve or persuade the society group that the censoring organization would have control over. It is most commonly applied to acts that occur in public circumstances, and most formally involves the suppression of ideas by criminalizing or regulating expression."
In most cases an environment of fear and perpetual insecurity is cultivated by the rulers through whipping up the public paranoia regarding the possibilities of socio-political and economic instability or socio-cultural diffusion. In other cases where the consumers have to buy premium media content, the public perception of constructs like good and bad content is encouraged through the negative and positive advertising by the ruling elite. Once people adhere to the content quality categorisation established by the elite, a value is attached to both categories of the content. Common citizen then seldom finds time or capital to squander over the 'substandard' information content.
Censorship indeed has many forms and manifestations. Most powerful in popular appeal among them remains the moral censorship. Since faith plays crucial role in the lives of the mortal beings, its name is easily invoked to filter out information that has potential ramifications. Until fairly recently the political censorship was considered the most powerful tool in the hands of the new world autocrats but now the flourishing capitalism has introduced corporate censorship as the most powerful nuisance of the day. There are people who think that the war on terror and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have taken place to protect the interests of the big business. It is the prowess of the corporate censorship that keeps such perceptions away from the mass media. The situation has been complicated further owing to the ownership of the international broadcasters like the CNN and Fox Network by the big businesses. Military censorship is also still relevant in the current mushy times. Prior to the Iraq war a new agency called the Office of Special Plans was instituted by the imperial nutters like Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to engineer fake intelligence evidence to implicate the Iraqi regime. In 1995 Cathy O'Brien shocked many conspiracy theorists through her book TranceFormation of America in which she claimed that the CIA abused her since her childhood through its mind control programme called Project Monarch meant to use its victims' services through inflicting them with multiple personality disorder to keep them unaware of their own activities they are forced to engage in through subliminal means. The countries like Pakistan where military stays in power in one way or the other the disappearance of the dissenting media persons and intellectuals often takes place in the "greater interest of the nation".
The postmodernists often use the Buddha's simile of the blind man's elephant to illustrate how controlled information can be employed to manipulate minds. Since reality has more than one dimension, the best way to manipulate is through the overemphasis on a certain favourable aspect of the reality. International journals like the Economist employ this effectual technique in their support for the western capitalism. They first reproduce all possible aspects of an issue and then very skillfully choose the one which fits their agenda and emphasise on it. Fox News does the same but in a rather rash manner. If you have ever seen The O'Reilly Factor you'll know what I mean.
When the noose tightens:
Every time anyone from the official side brags about the government's mercy towards the media today, we, the media persons of this country, are left with little choice but to interpret it as yet another attempt to intimidate us by reminding us of the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. It is a more sophisticated way to point out what the government is capable of if its patience is repeatedly tested. As the government gets more irritable and its failures exposed, there is no doubt in our minds that the black days of censorship and press advice are soon to stage a comeback. While for the journalists of the land it may pose only a few more difficulties given the arduous times we live in, for the autocratic military dispensation this may prove to be the last nail in the coffin. Such is the might of the modern day media.
But the media was not so powerful even in the very recent past. Let us revisit some chapters of our own checkered history. Our journey begins with the passage of the repressive Security Act of Pakistan which had special provisions enabling the government to extract per force from the newspapers the information regarding the source of any particular news item. Likewise an anticommunist witch hunt was launched apprehending many respected names like Faiz Ahmed Faiz. If that was the beginning it was nothing compared to what the media corps of the country had to face once the first autocrat took over the country. Ayub Khan introduced The Press and Publications (Amendment) Ordinance, 1963 through which it liquidated the Progressive Papers Ltd, the newspaper group counted among the most conscientious and the objective groups of the day. Then a National Press Trust was established to takeover about fourteen national newspapers and periodicals including The Pakistan Times, Imroze, Morning News, Dianik Pakistan and Mashriq. Likewise the wire service Associated Press of Pakistan was also taken over. Other excesses of the regime saw the closing down of daily Ittefaq, weekly Purbani Dacca and weekly Chaatan, Lahore. And advertisements were as usual denied to Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore, Ibrat, Hyderabad and various other papers.
While Yahya's regime and its uniformed information minister had to focus more on the journalists from East Pakistan and abroad owing to the national crisis, Zia broke all the records of censorship. The notorious press advice system in which refusal to follow dictates meant that the one who "contravenes any provision of this regulation shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall be liable to fine or stripes [lashes] not to exceed twenty-five." But fortunately journalists had also become organised enough to weather the storm and keep struggling for their rights. PFUJ and APNEC did a commendable job in opposing the oppressive regime. Many thought that the dark days of media management would go down along with Zia's plane never to return. Yet they indeed erred. The People's Party governments proved also to be ineffectual facilitators of the free media. Yet we must also not forget to point out that it was during Benazir's first regime that PTV was relatively liberalised and the first ever private television network of the country was also born. Nawaz Sharif's government at best proved to be so incompetent that it forgot whether it was a dictatorial regime or a representative government. The News International was denied the newsprint and Najam Sethi interned. Musharraf's book reveals that Nawaz even wanted to 'court martial' Sethi.
Such has been the history of free speech in the so-called democratic republic of Pakistan. Yet after Zia the successive governments have been forced to gradually reduce the grip over the media owing to a host of factors. In a previous article we had dwelt upon the factors contributing to the proliferation of free speech in the recent years. However before take into cognisance the present state of the media in the country and internationally let us revisit some of these important factors.
Technology comes to rescue:
It is only too simplistic to think that an autocrat can give up his strongest weapon – the control over the media – readily and willingly without any compulsions. It is clear today that if the private television channels are allowed in this country it is out of the fear of letting the foreign countries wield control over the market.
Most significant among the changes that took place was the satellite revolution. The end of the cold war witnessed also the proliferation of dish antennas. With the passage of time the cost of the antennas fell to an affordable level and the monopoly of the state run PTV came to a close. Now you could see small antennas being installed even on the village tea shops for public viewing. Several foreign television networks also showed their readiness to air their footage free of charge. The government had no choice but to facilitate the introduction of cable networks owing to the relative ease with which such networks can be regulated on one side and allow the private Pakistani channels to function on the other.
The second most marvelous change came with the advent of the internet. Internet has become the source of great information revolution and has catered to the needs of free expression. With the growth of the internet we have come across the terms like e-democracy and closing the digital divide. Internet has rapidly become a matter of concern for those powers also who actually introduced the technology in the first place. But for the people of the world it has been highly helpful. And as the technology progresses further with improved storage system, better development skills, cheaper rates and faster connectivity it is bound to revolutionise everything. Take for instance the case of Second Life – an online community which provides you fully functional three dimensional space. Once virtual reality and artificial intelligence unravel themselves fully the contours of human civilisation will change beyond recognition.
Still the internet technology was really expensive. But thanks to the advancement in mobile telephony things have improved even further. As the mobile technology progressed from the second generation to the third it became really clear that the marriage between the internet and cheap mobile handsets was indeed possible. Now you can browse internet and check your emails through your cost effective mobile sets. The prices of fully powered mobile sets are also coming down hence making things easier for the citizens across the rich poor divide. Now only a blind despot can think of using the old heavy handed techniques. For the purpose of the censorship the new authoritarian regime needed new techniques. Let us see how that was accomplished.
New ways of the assassin:
The new regime chose to don the cloak of media friendliness. The best way it found was the deluge of media venture. The more the merrier. Since uncountable new options were now available to the consumers the policy initially worked. The citizens were left confused on the matters of choice. Meanwhile the government found it easy to keep using its heavy handed tactics on a limited scale. Journalists kept disappearing albeit in the name of the war on terror. Journalists like Shaheen Sehbai had to flee the country to save their skins. The prime time shows of big networks could easily be coerced into self censorship. Another interesting effect of the new techniques was production of substandard content. Instead of introducing the media capacity building initiatives it was in the interest of the new regime to allow substandard content to be played on the networks. Favouritism was also exercised and at times the media right groups were shocked to notice that less capable organisations were given the licenses instead of the more deserving ones.
Subversive use of bad content. It is believed that in many instances bad content was actually planted by the authorities to waylay the credibility of the media and to produce unnecessary noise in order to make it difficult for the meaningful content to reach the consumers. A blasphemous letter was published in a national daily originating from NWFP sometime back. In no time the paper office came under a mob attack and was gutted down. Ironically the publication of letter took place during the days of the government's active interest in nabbing the owner of the paper for his alleged involvement in drug trade. Likewise despite a blanket ban on the Indian channels, carefully chosen Indian content is allowed on the Pakistani networks. The reason for this seems to be the government's desire to create competition in the production of soap operas and reduce the incentives for serious political dramas with a potential to challenge the moral authority of the military regime. Hence a deluge of substandard entertainment meant to stifle the healthy growth of an informed society
McCarthyism on the rise. The military regime also brought with it a coterie of sycophants who shamelessly parrot the official statement handed to them. A very intelligent skill used was to develop an environment of perpetual insecurity. While the rulers keep capitulating before the foreign pressures people are compelled to feel as if the country is under grave peril. While this might well be true in a few cases, the new brand of McCarthyism overlooks the fact that this insecurity is a product of the government's own blind policies. The recent years have witnessed the slander campaigns against people like Akbar Bugti, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, Mukhtaran Mai, Dr AQ Khan and uncountable others. Those who become the victims of the government's ire are declared traitors and publicly humiliated. Unfortunately in the world of politics and media you find people who are ready to co-opt with the government to vilify their own fellow citizens. Thorough background check takes place of the dissenting few and even issues pertaining to their families and relatives are used to vilify them.
Using clout with foreign powers for censorship. Thanks to the government's blind appeasement of the imperial powers it is in the position to emotionally blackmail some of the foreign powerful governments to get things done. Sometime back when the Balochistan Liberation Army was accepted internationally as the terrorist organization, many of the websites sympathetic to the Baloch cause were also closed down by the west. One such example is of the Baloch Voice. Likewise Shaheen Sehbai who is now based in the US also suddenly announced to close his website South Asia Tribune sometime back. Some see foreign hand behind this move too.
Exploiting the moral issues. Religion still is the easiest excuse to silent the dissenting voices. It is one of the important places where you realise that the current apparent animosity between the establishment and the religious groups is a smokescreen. Indeed during the days of the massacre in Sabra and Shatila the religious parties launched the movement against Fahashi (obscenity) and Uryani (nudity) to divert the popular attention and by doing so to help the authoritarian regime in place here. During the first Benazir government they also joined hands with the establishment on the issue of Salman Rushdie controversy in order to destabilise the elected government. Nudity and vulgarity and then blasphemy are quite effectual tools to stifle any dissenting voice. A host of websites were recently banned using the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy as an excuse. Unfortunately the government doesn't realise that in this age it is virtually impossible for any government to filter out such websites because proxy sites exist to facilitate access. And those who we creating such controversies in the name of free speech should know what we have to go through when such cases are used to usurp our rights.
And then in the recent years there has been a marked increase in the instances of Televangelism. These televangelists are later employed to maneuver public opinion through religious means. Likewise the moral conundrums like the issue of the parental control over child's access to the media are also allowed to be exploited by the religious elite.
Censorship through incentives. It is perhaps one of the oldest forms of censorship and yet is highly productive and relevant for the media spin doctors. Given the poor living standards of the journalists it is easy for the successive governments to manipulate journalists through various incentives. One instance is the regularly bribes to strategically chosen desk staff who are requested from time to time to place or kill any given story according to the official predilections. The other instances include incentives like foreign tours, awards and prizes, provision of anchoring opportunities in the official electronic media and exposure to important official events.
Propagating defeatism and other means of coercion. Another effective measure adopted is the creation of an environment of defeatism and nihilism. The help of some official intellectuals is taken to portray the current regime as absolutely invincible. People are convinced through the popular media that since there is no chance of a change in the government there is no point in indulging in antigovernment activities.
The use of intimidation, violence and direct coercion are also highly relevant today. In short while the media space continues to expand, special measures are continuously being adopted to manage its outcome and the resulting public reaction.
The writer is an independent columnist and media expert who can be reached through his website www.pitafi.com . Your comments are welcome at pitafi@gmail.com.
By Farrukh Khan Pitafi
From parochialism to absolutism free speech has uncountable enemies since the dawn of the civilisation. Censorship is the poisoned axe that has repeatedly fallen on everyone who wanted to share unfettered thoughts with others. Socrates is believed to be the first martyr of free speech who preferred to drink a cup of hemlock rather than adhering to the official code of censorship. First censorship laws in China were established in 300 AD. The origins of censorship as a term date back to 443 BC Rome where the office of censor was established to manipulate the public opinion, ensure moral standards and to keep the senators under the thumb. The first Index of Prohibited Books was drawn up by order of Pope Paul IV in 1559. The lists were published about twenty times by various popes, the last instance of its issuance being as recent as in 1948 before being finally suppressed in 1966. The Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope wrote a secret memo to the clergymen highlighting the need and the ways to hide the cases of child molestations in the church.
Professor Craig A. Depken of University of Texas at Arlington defines censorship in his monograph 'The Demand for Censorship' as "the moral or legislative process by which society 'agrees' to limit what an individual can do, say, think, or see." Wikipedia explains the term and its processes in the following terms: "Censorship is the editing, removing, or otherwise changing speech and other forms of human expression. In some cases, it is exercised by governing bodies but it is always and continuously carried out by the mass media. The visible motive of censorship is often to stabilize, improve or persuade the society group that the censoring organization would have control over. It is most commonly applied to acts that occur in public circumstances, and most formally involves the suppression of ideas by criminalizing or regulating expression."
In most cases an environment of fear and perpetual insecurity is cultivated by the rulers through whipping up the public paranoia regarding the possibilities of socio-political and economic instability or socio-cultural diffusion. In other cases where the consumers have to buy premium media content, the public perception of constructs like good and bad content is encouraged through the negative and positive advertising by the ruling elite. Once people adhere to the content quality categorisation established by the elite, a value is attached to both categories of the content. Common citizen then seldom finds time or capital to squander over the 'substandard' information content.
Censorship indeed has many forms and manifestations. Most powerful in popular appeal among them remains the moral censorship. Since faith plays crucial role in the lives of the mortal beings, its name is easily invoked to filter out information that has potential ramifications. Until fairly recently the political censorship was considered the most powerful tool in the hands of the new world autocrats but now the flourishing capitalism has introduced corporate censorship as the most powerful nuisance of the day. There are people who think that the war on terror and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq have taken place to protect the interests of the big business. It is the prowess of the corporate censorship that keeps such perceptions away from the mass media. The situation has been complicated further owing to the ownership of the international broadcasters like the CNN and Fox Network by the big businesses. Military censorship is also still relevant in the current mushy times. Prior to the Iraq war a new agency called the Office of Special Plans was instituted by the imperial nutters like Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to engineer fake intelligence evidence to implicate the Iraqi regime. In 1995 Cathy O'Brien shocked many conspiracy theorists through her book TranceFormation of America in which she claimed that the CIA abused her since her childhood through its mind control programme called Project Monarch meant to use its victims' services through inflicting them with multiple personality disorder to keep them unaware of their own activities they are forced to engage in through subliminal means. The countries like Pakistan where military stays in power in one way or the other the disappearance of the dissenting media persons and intellectuals often takes place in the "greater interest of the nation".
The postmodernists often use the Buddha's simile of the blind man's elephant to illustrate how controlled information can be employed to manipulate minds. Since reality has more than one dimension, the best way to manipulate is through the overemphasis on a certain favourable aspect of the reality. International journals like the Economist employ this effectual technique in their support for the western capitalism. They first reproduce all possible aspects of an issue and then very skillfully choose the one which fits their agenda and emphasise on it. Fox News does the same but in a rather rash manner. If you have ever seen The O'Reilly Factor you'll know what I mean.
When the noose tightens:
Every time anyone from the official side brags about the government's mercy towards the media today, we, the media persons of this country, are left with little choice but to interpret it as yet another attempt to intimidate us by reminding us of the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. It is a more sophisticated way to point out what the government is capable of if its patience is repeatedly tested. As the government gets more irritable and its failures exposed, there is no doubt in our minds that the black days of censorship and press advice are soon to stage a comeback. While for the journalists of the land it may pose only a few more difficulties given the arduous times we live in, for the autocratic military dispensation this may prove to be the last nail in the coffin. Such is the might of the modern day media.
But the media was not so powerful even in the very recent past. Let us revisit some chapters of our own checkered history. Our journey begins with the passage of the repressive Security Act of Pakistan which had special provisions enabling the government to extract per force from the newspapers the information regarding the source of any particular news item. Likewise an anticommunist witch hunt was launched apprehending many respected names like Faiz Ahmed Faiz. If that was the beginning it was nothing compared to what the media corps of the country had to face once the first autocrat took over the country. Ayub Khan introduced The Press and Publications (Amendment) Ordinance, 1963 through which it liquidated the Progressive Papers Ltd, the newspaper group counted among the most conscientious and the objective groups of the day. Then a National Press Trust was established to takeover about fourteen national newspapers and periodicals including The Pakistan Times, Imroze, Morning News, Dianik Pakistan and Mashriq. Likewise the wire service Associated Press of Pakistan was also taken over. Other excesses of the regime saw the closing down of daily Ittefaq, weekly Purbani Dacca and weekly Chaatan, Lahore. And advertisements were as usual denied to Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore, Ibrat, Hyderabad and various other papers.
While Yahya's regime and its uniformed information minister had to focus more on the journalists from East Pakistan and abroad owing to the national crisis, Zia broke all the records of censorship. The notorious press advice system in which refusal to follow dictates meant that the one who "contravenes any provision of this regulation shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall be liable to fine or stripes [lashes] not to exceed twenty-five." But fortunately journalists had also become organised enough to weather the storm and keep struggling for their rights. PFUJ and APNEC did a commendable job in opposing the oppressive regime. Many thought that the dark days of media management would go down along with Zia's plane never to return. Yet they indeed erred. The People's Party governments proved also to be ineffectual facilitators of the free media. Yet we must also not forget to point out that it was during Benazir's first regime that PTV was relatively liberalised and the first ever private television network of the country was also born. Nawaz Sharif's government at best proved to be so incompetent that it forgot whether it was a dictatorial regime or a representative government. The News International was denied the newsprint and Najam Sethi interned. Musharraf's book reveals that Nawaz even wanted to 'court martial' Sethi.
Such has been the history of free speech in the so-called democratic republic of Pakistan. Yet after Zia the successive governments have been forced to gradually reduce the grip over the media owing to a host of factors. In a previous article we had dwelt upon the factors contributing to the proliferation of free speech in the recent years. However before take into cognisance the present state of the media in the country and internationally let us revisit some of these important factors.
Technology comes to rescue:
It is only too simplistic to think that an autocrat can give up his strongest weapon – the control over the media – readily and willingly without any compulsions. It is clear today that if the private television channels are allowed in this country it is out of the fear of letting the foreign countries wield control over the market.
Most significant among the changes that took place was the satellite revolution. The end of the cold war witnessed also the proliferation of dish antennas. With the passage of time the cost of the antennas fell to an affordable level and the monopoly of the state run PTV came to a close. Now you could see small antennas being installed even on the village tea shops for public viewing. Several foreign television networks also showed their readiness to air their footage free of charge. The government had no choice but to facilitate the introduction of cable networks owing to the relative ease with which such networks can be regulated on one side and allow the private Pakistani channels to function on the other.
The second most marvelous change came with the advent of the internet. Internet has become the source of great information revolution and has catered to the needs of free expression. With the growth of the internet we have come across the terms like e-democracy and closing the digital divide. Internet has rapidly become a matter of concern for those powers also who actually introduced the technology in the first place. But for the people of the world it has been highly helpful. And as the technology progresses further with improved storage system, better development skills, cheaper rates and faster connectivity it is bound to revolutionise everything. Take for instance the case of Second Life – an online community which provides you fully functional three dimensional space. Once virtual reality and artificial intelligence unravel themselves fully the contours of human civilisation will change beyond recognition.
Still the internet technology was really expensive. But thanks to the advancement in mobile telephony things have improved even further. As the mobile technology progressed from the second generation to the third it became really clear that the marriage between the internet and cheap mobile handsets was indeed possible. Now you can browse internet and check your emails through your cost effective mobile sets. The prices of fully powered mobile sets are also coming down hence making things easier for the citizens across the rich poor divide. Now only a blind despot can think of using the old heavy handed techniques. For the purpose of the censorship the new authoritarian regime needed new techniques. Let us see how that was accomplished.
New ways of the assassin:
The new regime chose to don the cloak of media friendliness. The best way it found was the deluge of media venture. The more the merrier. Since uncountable new options were now available to the consumers the policy initially worked. The citizens were left confused on the matters of choice. Meanwhile the government found it easy to keep using its heavy handed tactics on a limited scale. Journalists kept disappearing albeit in the name of the war on terror. Journalists like Shaheen Sehbai had to flee the country to save their skins. The prime time shows of big networks could easily be coerced into self censorship. Another interesting effect of the new techniques was production of substandard content. Instead of introducing the media capacity building initiatives it was in the interest of the new regime to allow substandard content to be played on the networks. Favouritism was also exercised and at times the media right groups were shocked to notice that less capable organisations were given the licenses instead of the more deserving ones.
Subversive use of bad content. It is believed that in many instances bad content was actually planted by the authorities to waylay the credibility of the media and to produce unnecessary noise in order to make it difficult for the meaningful content to reach the consumers. A blasphemous letter was published in a national daily originating from NWFP sometime back. In no time the paper office came under a mob attack and was gutted down. Ironically the publication of letter took place during the days of the government's active interest in nabbing the owner of the paper for his alleged involvement in drug trade. Likewise despite a blanket ban on the Indian channels, carefully chosen Indian content is allowed on the Pakistani networks. The reason for this seems to be the government's desire to create competition in the production of soap operas and reduce the incentives for serious political dramas with a potential to challenge the moral authority of the military regime. Hence a deluge of substandard entertainment meant to stifle the healthy growth of an informed society
McCarthyism on the rise. The military regime also brought with it a coterie of sycophants who shamelessly parrot the official statement handed to them. A very intelligent skill used was to develop an environment of perpetual insecurity. While the rulers keep capitulating before the foreign pressures people are compelled to feel as if the country is under grave peril. While this might well be true in a few cases, the new brand of McCarthyism overlooks the fact that this insecurity is a product of the government's own blind policies. The recent years have witnessed the slander campaigns against people like Akbar Bugti, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, Mukhtaran Mai, Dr AQ Khan and uncountable others. Those who become the victims of the government's ire are declared traitors and publicly humiliated. Unfortunately in the world of politics and media you find people who are ready to co-opt with the government to vilify their own fellow citizens. Thorough background check takes place of the dissenting few and even issues pertaining to their families and relatives are used to vilify them.
Using clout with foreign powers for censorship. Thanks to the government's blind appeasement of the imperial powers it is in the position to emotionally blackmail some of the foreign powerful governments to get things done. Sometime back when the Balochistan Liberation Army was accepted internationally as the terrorist organization, many of the websites sympathetic to the Baloch cause were also closed down by the west. One such example is of the Baloch Voice. Likewise Shaheen Sehbai who is now based in the US also suddenly announced to close his website South Asia Tribune sometime back. Some see foreign hand behind this move too.
Exploiting the moral issues. Religion still is the easiest excuse to silent the dissenting voices. It is one of the important places where you realise that the current apparent animosity between the establishment and the religious groups is a smokescreen. Indeed during the days of the massacre in Sabra and Shatila the religious parties launched the movement against Fahashi (obscenity) and Uryani (nudity) to divert the popular attention and by doing so to help the authoritarian regime in place here. During the first Benazir government they also joined hands with the establishment on the issue of Salman Rushdie controversy in order to destabilise the elected government. Nudity and vulgarity and then blasphemy are quite effectual tools to stifle any dissenting voice. A host of websites were recently banned using the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy as an excuse. Unfortunately the government doesn't realise that in this age it is virtually impossible for any government to filter out such websites because proxy sites exist to facilitate access. And those who we creating such controversies in the name of free speech should know what we have to go through when such cases are used to usurp our rights.
And then in the recent years there has been a marked increase in the instances of Televangelism. These televangelists are later employed to maneuver public opinion through religious means. Likewise the moral conundrums like the issue of the parental control over child's access to the media are also allowed to be exploited by the religious elite.
Censorship through incentives. It is perhaps one of the oldest forms of censorship and yet is highly productive and relevant for the media spin doctors. Given the poor living standards of the journalists it is easy for the successive governments to manipulate journalists through various incentives. One instance is the regularly bribes to strategically chosen desk staff who are requested from time to time to place or kill any given story according to the official predilections. The other instances include incentives like foreign tours, awards and prizes, provision of anchoring opportunities in the official electronic media and exposure to important official events.
Propagating defeatism and other means of coercion. Another effective measure adopted is the creation of an environment of defeatism and nihilism. The help of some official intellectuals is taken to portray the current regime as absolutely invincible. People are convinced through the popular media that since there is no chance of a change in the government there is no point in indulging in antigovernment activities.
The use of intimidation, violence and direct coercion are also highly relevant today. In short while the media space continues to expand, special measures are continuously being adopted to manage its outcome and the resulting public reaction.
The writer is an independent columnist and media expert who can be reached through his website www.pitafi.com . Your comments are welcome at pitafi@gmail.com.