Media Freedom in Pakistan - Term Paper Example

Democratisation in Pakistan: The socio-cultural impact of media freedom and its implications for public expression and information accessibility Introduction This essay examines the social and cultural changes brought about as a result of the increasing media freedom in Pakistani society and especially the impact this is having in terms of public expression and information accessibility. A brief historical overview is given to show how transitions to democracy have developed over the years and what distinguishes the present attempt in terms of media freedom. This leads to firstly establishing the importance of media freedom and describing the state of media freedom in Pakistan. Focus in given to how the media helped to restore the judiciary besides other benefits of the media freedom. The downside of this freedom and its limitations are also discussed in order to give a balanced picture of the impact and relate how free the media really is at this stage. Finally, an examination is made of how the media can help to make democratisation succeed. Democratisation in Pakistan Officially, democracy began in Pakistan with the 1973 constitution after General Yahya Khan allowed the conduction of a free and fair election in Pakistan for the first time in 1970 (Bahadur, 1998: 13). It was a parliamentary democracy that allowed for democratically elected representatives to rule. Prior to that, his predecessor General Ayub Khan did allow the country to experience a ‘basic democracy’ under the 1962 constitution after usurping power, but it was rightly called a ‘constitutional autocracy’. Democratic institutions were still suppressed and a mass movement arose to guarantee the principle of one-man one-vote would be applied. However, the quality of the democracy in Pakistan during the last quarter of the 20th century has been questionable, and arguably it still is. It was again largely absent during Zia-ul-Haqq’s military rule from 1977 to 1988. Political parties were then allowed to participate in proper elections this time in 1988 but the transition to democracy has been a continuous struggle between the military and civilian organisations. In short, where some democratic practices have been permitted, they have usually been partial, controlled and incomplete under the rule of the military (Zaidi, N.d.) or else manipulated under the occasional civilian rule. The pattern that emerges from this brief historical overview is that the degree of democracy has been generally (though not steadily) increasing in Pakistan over the past few decades. It has been a difficult process of political development however, as Pakistan has had to struggle with all the associated problems since its independence from British rule in 1947, such as “identity, legitimacy, integration, penetration, participation and distribution” (Bahadur, 1998: 14). Still, one essential element for implementing a true democratic framework only came about at the start of the present 21st century. That element is media freedom. Previous transitions to democracy lacked the degree of freedom of the media that is present today The importance of media freedom Media freedom allows the citizens to be better informed and therefore become involved in important issues or even challenge the government when necessary in order to ensure a healthy democracy. With the increasing complexity of modern society, it is necessary more than ever for ordinary citizens to be able to express themselves on public matters and access information that concerns them and which they have a right to know about. As Dahr Jamail (2006) said, “Since an informed citizenry is the basis for a healthy democracy, independent, non-corporate media are more crucial today than ever before”. Although these words were spoken in the context of reporting in Iraq and the pandering of the mainstream media to the American government in spite of its atrocities, these words are equally relevant in general. A democracy can therefore be established without media freedom but for the democracy to thrive, media freedom is essential. In the words of Amy Goodman, “The media is absolutely essential to the functioning of a democracy” (Klamm, 2009: 23). It is actually not the media per se but a free functioning media that is essential, i.e. independent of the government. A structural reformation of the media system is therefore necessary for a serious functioning of democracy (McChesney, 1999: ix), and to ensure transparent governance. Media freedom in Pakistan Media freedom is a recent phenomenon in Pakistan’s history. With the freeing of the media in Pakistan, the media landscape is very different now compared to how it was in the past. Previously, in the 1990s there were only a limited number of private operators, i.e. in addition to the state media. The power wielded by the state controlled media was evident, for example, when General Zia-ul-Haqq mandated a massive media campaign to discredit the popular civilian leader Zulfiiqar Ali Bhutto who was later executed. During Zia’s era, the power of the judiciary too was restricted. The degree of liberalisation that is enjoyed by the media today began in March 2002 when General Pervez Musharraf established PEMRA (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulation Authority) and allowed private media ownership (Yusuf, 2009). At first, this took the form of a substantial increase in the number of private television channels. Independent print media has a longer history in Pakistan. This is now regarded as the dictator’s greatest gift to the nation (Waseem, 2009). The main purpose at the time was to discourage reliance by the Pakistani public on Indian news channels through satellite transmissions as the alternative source for information. The media has continued to expand even more rapidly under the present Zardari government. However, it has not been a smooth transition to freedom for the media. The relationship between the Musharraf government and the private media has been both favourable as well as obstructive. The media has had to struggle to maintain its freedom. There have been a number of both verbal and physical attacks on some private media offices and personnel by the government. There have also been periods of intense political pressure and during which bans have been imposed discussed further on. For example, during the imposition of emergency rule between 3 November 2007 and 15 December 2007, there was a crackdown on private television channels, a move that was in stark contrast to 2002. The vulnerability of the media in creating “an opportunity for the systematic, sustained, and nationwide use of new media platforms” showed during this time (Yusuf, 2009). The situation also created a vacuum for reliable news information for the public. Nonetheless, the biggest role that the (private) media has played in democratisation was in supporting the Lawyer’s Movement for the restoration of the Judiciary (2007-2009). The current judicial independence was therefore largely made possible by the mass media. Thereafter, it also helped to bring an end to military rule in Pakistan and restore civilian rule again. How the media helped in restoring the judiciary The independence of Pakistan’s judiciary was seriously jeopardised when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary, was dismissed on 9th March 2007 by the then president-cum-military dictator General Pervez Musharraf. The official reason for the dismissal was an alleged ‘misuse of office’. However, it was apparent that the General perceived the judiciary as a threat because it was starting to exercise independence from the executive (HRW, 2007: 12). This was in stark contrast to previous chief justices that did not dare to do anything else but lend support to dictators during military rules. Iftikhar Chaudhary had become an upholder of human rights including women’s rights, and he also prevented the privatisation of Pakistan’s Steel Mills in the interests of the country (Sulehria, 2007). However, his most sensitive decision that provoked the government was in demanding investigations into the numerous kidnappings and other human rights violations against innocent people that were taking place in the country by the government in collusion with the CIA under false pretences of fighting terrorism. The implementation of the doctrine of the ‘separation of powers’ among the three branches of government (executive, legislative, judiciary) is understood to be necessary in order to prevent excesses by any one branch. Although it is not essentially a democratic necessity (Kelsen, 2007: 282), it is integral to a liberal democracy (Khan, 2003: 27). In order to restore the rule of law and uphold the constitution, a massive nationwide Lawyers’ Movement began in the country. During the state of emergency, the government attempted to suppress this movement and violence was used against the lawyers and their supporters including journalists. The situation was most serious when 52 people were killed, of which 6 people were burnt alive, in Karachi on 12th May 2007, now referred to as the Black Day in Pakistan’s history. The mayhem was covered thoroughly by the media showing the world how the thugs were able to run amok, how the police and rangers just stood by and watched, how the routes were blocked, how innocent people were being killed, and so on (Sarwar, 2007). The MQM party, which was supporting the government against the movement, was responsible for the violence and deaths. A similar mayhem occurred on 9 April 2008, again in Karachi, involving fewer deaths but it was no less severe in terms of the torture, beheading, abductions, looting and burning (AHRC, 2008). This kind of environment was closer to a dictatorship and anarchy than to a democracy. The social impact of this event was a deterioration in the law and order situation in the country and a curtailment of people’s freedoms and hence a weakened democracy. If the military rule had imposed itself supremely in the country again, then it would have been a serious blow to democratisation in Pakistan. Fortunately, the judiciary was eventually restored. The media played an instrumental role in helping to restore the judiciary; the chief justice along with fifty other high court judges. The media was, for example, able to expose the nexus between Musharraf and the MQM (Schmidle, 2010). It was also a very vocal critic of the Musharraf government, which helped to bring about his eventual downfall. Another major step towards democratisation thereafter occurred in 8th April 2010 with the 18th amendment to the constitution. This repealed the damage done to democracy by dictators and effectively restored Pakistan’s system of parliamentary democracy (Jetly, 2010). Other benefits of the media freedom The public has benefitted from the freedom of the media in 21st century Pakistan in a number of ways. The country has also benefitted in economic terms with the growth of the private media, and the literacy rate has also improved (Mezzera & Sial, 2010). It has helped to increase awareness of current issues and general knowledge, assisted in various developmental efforts including education, and has supported democratisation. In terms of information for example, people were able to witness two of the greatest tragedies that took place in the country in recent times. One was the earthquake in the Northern Areas in October 2005, and the second was the great flood that swept the country in July and August 2010. The media was also able to portray the shortcomings of the government, which did not go down well with them. Such coverage of disasters in graphic detail was only possible on the private television channels. As far as public expression is concerned, according to Jalal (2010), the media freedom has led to “an unprecedented freedom of expression and an ever-increased awareness in the public”. A well-known example is the case of Mukhtaran Mai who was gang raped (Khan, 2011). She was let down by the justice system and the government, but the media highlighted her case and of several others like her. Before private media existed, such injustices and crimes would have been ignored. The media provides an outlet for victims to have the grievances redressed. During the occasions when the media has been banned, the public has accessed news information in various ways. The major TV channels simply continued broadcasting from their other offices outside of Pakistan. People either resorted to using satellite dishes to receive them or accessed the information via the Internet. Live streaming was arranged on the channels’ websites and clips were also made available on other websites. Yusuf (2009) mentions a number of further ingenious ways people accessed information during the emergency rule. These included blogs, text messages and discussion groups on social networking sites, which were used to inform each other about developments and also to coordinate protests. In addition, he mentions how FM radio traffic news broadcasts were used to inform the public of dangerous areas to avoid while the carnage was taking place in Karachi to obstruct the Lawyers’ Movement. Giving out news information on political events was banned but traffic news was permitted so the channel resorted to regular ‘traffic reports’ to protect people from the violence. Some members of the public also phoned the station to reassure their family members of their safety. Areas with heavy congestion were understood to be safe whereas sporadic traffic was understood to indicate the danger areas and sites of possible gun battles. In addition to traditional form of media, online social media is also providing further outlets for public expression and information accessibility nowadays. The Internet based media is therefore also playing a role in facilitating social changes. The recent events in the Middle East, such as the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, have demonstrated how much power social media can exert. As happened during the emergency rule imposed in Pakistan by General Musharraf, the Internet could prove an important avenue for expression and information access during difficult times when people are not able to access the television media. The downside of media freedom Although the media has proved to be beneficial overall for public expression, information accessibility, recourse to justice and democracy, it is not a perfect institution. On the downside, the greater media freedom also led to commercial interests being given greater consideration in the face of intense competition, and gradually, the quality of the journalism has degenerated to sensationalism (IMS, 2009). The media in Pakistan is “suffering from perceptual poverty, information corruption, manipulations of facts with a twisted approach to provoke chaos, confusion and democratic crisis” (Qaiser, 2010). The problem is that the media in Pakistan also tends to unduly promote right wing views that give a distorted view of the state of affairs. For the public, this has meant a general decline in the quality of information accessed through the media, and therefore a general weakening of democracy. All these problems weaken democracy and are an obstacle to promoting peace and equality. The media landscape in Pakistan also reflects the stratification of its society, so it could be argued that the media has also strengthened the social divide and helped to sustain the conflict. This divide is roughly delineated between the Urdu and English media. The larger Urdu media is accessed by the masses whereas the smaller English media is accessed largely by the elite strata of society. The former wields a smaller influence compared to the latter, which has a much greater influence on politics, the business world and other social thinkers and planners. As far as the quality and quantity of information from journalists is concerned, the greatest lacking is with information related to reports from the conflict-affected areas, namely FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly NWFP). The problem is of safety and security. Journalists have to risk their lives in these areas, which are rightly acknowledged as the most deadliest places on earth for journalists. Democratisation would therefore require raising awareness of the distortion this makes to information from the region and to improved security for all media workers in such regions. To an extent, the media is therefore also viewed as anti-democratic because of its distortions, biased coverage, obstacles to freedom of expression, greater focus on right-wing views, etc. (Right wingers deny the public of real information). There is also a greater attention on sensationalism, outrageous statements and opinions instead of professionalism, ethical standards, serious and mature coverage, and giving factual information. The media has been described as quickly becoming “a noise machine” (Pakistan Media Watch) instead of a national asset. The majority of the country’s population is illiterate and rely almost entirely on the media as their main source of information. The greater sensationalism is easily explained by pointing out that Pakistan’s independent media is still relatively young. However, this denies people from getting balanced coverage and quality information. Only a free media can allow greater freedom of expression. On the other hand, the effect of the media can also be seen negatively as promoting radicalisation. The role of the media in promoting radicalisation has been discussed at length by Azam (2008). It is shown that sometimes it is done both consciously as well as unconsciously through propagating and advertising content that promotes radicalism. Its role in socialisation has largely been to make the public sympathise with radicals, although he argues that this has always been the case, even when the media was less free. The media has induced changes through “reinforcing and reinventing some beliefs and practices while displacing others” (Abdul Qadeer, 2006: 136). However, Farhana (2008) showed that the media has no doubt been one among five determining factors for the increase in violence after the September 11 attacks in New York. Other major tools of radicalisation are education and religion (Azam, 2009). The media is therefore very much responsible for shaping the social cultural changes in Pakistan in recent years. It is difficult for democracy to thrive in the face of the aforementioned deficiencies. In addition, the CIA-RAW-MOSSAD sponsored terrorism in Pakistan in the name of the TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan) is dampening the voice of the liberal majority. For example, a renowned scholar Dr Sarfraz Naeemi spoke out against the spate of suicide bombings in Pakistan declaring the practice as illegal on religious grounds. Unfortunately, he himself fell victim to a suicide attack in his mosque in June 2009. This and other such incidents show that free public expression is still not a reality in Pakistan despite having a freer media. The process of democratisation in Pakistan will therefore require more than a free media. It requires a supportive media that presents balanced views and promotes peace and equality. Most importantly, it also requires an end to the American government’s terrorism in the country, as a peaceful environment is necessary for a country to make progress. As far as the media is concerned however, it needs to evolve to being less sensational and positively geared to upholding democracy and by helping to establish positive social changes. After all, the media does not exist merely to generate advertising revenue. It plays an important and integral role in modern society. Only a limited freedom Henry Mencken famously said, “Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one”. This is true of state owned media and societies in which there are only a few media organisations and little competition or incentive to promote freedom of expression. Pakistan has plenty of media organisations and competition, and the media is freer than it ever has been in the past, but the institution that gave it freedom in the first place, i.e. the government, now imposes limitations. This problem is in addition to the need for the media to mature. The news channel Geo News is the most vociferous of the television channels, and also a very popular source of news information in reporting any item against the government. Its offices and personnel have been attacked on several occasions and the channel has also been banned many times. One was in March 2007 when the police raided the offices of Geo TV and caused extensive damage for broadcasting live coverage of the Lawyers’ Movement for the restoration of the judiciary. General Musharraf then amended the PEMRA Ordinance of 2002 imposing severe restrictions on the media and allows their equipment to be seized in order to contain the growing movement for democracy (Sulehria, 2007). Another occasion was during a ban on Geo TV ahead of a Long March by lawyers on the capital wanting to restore the judiciary. The Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Sherry Rehman, appeared on the channel and spoke out in support of freedom of the media, but the president, Asif Zardari, could not tolerate this. He then ordered his party’s activists to besiege her home for several hours in retaliation. The government also threatened the Information Minister and her family. This incident demonstrated the split within the government over the issue of freedom of the media. In the end, the Information Minister resigned when the ban on the media was imposed and the president refused to lift it (Geo, 2009). Other channels however, continued to broadcast the Long March to support the Lawyers’ Movement. Again, in August 2010, a ban on Geo TV led to countrywide protests by supporters of media freedom and the free flow of information (Geo, 2010). It is not only the television media that has had limitations imposed on it. Recently, a number of popular Internet sites were temporarily banned in May 2010 (BBC, 2010). Although this was stated to be for preventing sacrilegious content being viewed by Pakistanis, some links were also of anti-government and anti-Pakistan military content. Regardless, this seriously curtailed people’s freedom to access the Internet and express their views. Although the government is now used to some criticism from the media, the media and the public in general is still not immune from criticising Pakistan’s military even while the military is not in power. The journalist Kamran Shafi, for example, is a well-known critic of the military and its influence over the state. He is a former army major and a vocal advocate of democracy in Pakistan. He was targeted on 27 November 2009 when shots were fired at his house (Trionfi, 2009). Kamran Shafi likened the attack to an attack on the freedom of the press and believes that “A free and unbiased media is the cornerstone to a healthy and stable democracy” (Shafi, 2009). This incident shows how dangerous it is to openly express personal views in Pakistan, especially if it concerns the military establishment. Another journalist, Umar Cheema who was also a critic of the military was abducted on 4th September 2010, then tortured and later dumped 120km away from his home (Eiferman, 2011). In his articles, he openly questioned the conduct of both the government and the military but stepped over the line in making allegations of corruption against the president and in giving details of a court martial relating to the government’s attack on the Red Mosque in Islamabad. The struggle for freedom of the media is by no means peculiar to Pakistan however. The Chinese government for example, is also notorious for controlling access to the Internet in China. Even in other countries that claim to have a free media, it is hardly the case that the majority are able to express themselves and access information freely. Rather, the media is used as a tool to shape public opinion to favour the interests of the global elite. This is demonstrated most conspicuously by the blind support given to America’s dubious ‘war on terror’ whereas in reality it is engaging in a ‘war by terror’ itself around the world. The media’s role in making democratisation succeed The International Media Support (IMS, 2009) group conducted a study in early 2009 to examine how the media could best promote democratic governance and practice. They consulted a number of stakeholders, carried out a needs assessment and identified likely future partners. They concluded that this time round democracy has a much stronger chance to establish itself in Pakistan with a free media unlike in previous attempted transitions. Pakistani journalists were recognised as having “demonstrated an unprecedented ability to act as catalysts in civil society efforts to strengthen democracy” (IMS, 2009: 39). This is in spite of the numerous problems they have faced discussed above. The problem has also been compounded by the present economic problems from its impact on limiting available resources. In regard to reporting of the conflict affected areas, they recommended greater security, improved Afghan-Pakistan media relations, addressing the distortion and vacuum in information from conflict regions and generally improving the quality of information. Conclusion If a democracy requires that people and the media are free to express their views, then Pakistan has come a long way towards that ideal but only in this century, more than fifty years after its independence. Earlier attempted transitions to democracy failed because the freedom of the media element was not present. However, Pakistan’s transition is not yet complete because, as this paper showed, media freedom is still not a complete reality. While on one hand, the Pakistani public and media are freer than ever before in expressing themselves, accessing the information they need and getting recourse to justice, there are some serious limits to the freedom. In particular, the authority of the military is still demonstrated despite operating under a civilian government and the radicalisation of society. Moreover, the largely sensational degree of reporting suggests the media is still in its infancy, which happens to be a very turbulent one. It will take time for the media to mature, for the public to become even better informed and educated, for the power of the military to be more controlled under elected civilian governments, for the enemies of Pakistan to back off, etc. before the democratisation can truly succeed. References Abdul Qadeer, Mohammad. 2006. Pakistan. London: Routledge. AHRC. 2009. Pakistan: Immediate actions required to prevent a possible civil war in Pakistan. Asian Human Rights Commission. Available at http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-094-2008 [Accessed May 2011]. Azam, Muhammad. 2008. Radicalization and media: who influences whom and how in Pakistan? PIPS Research Journal of Conflict and Peace Studies, Issue 2008, Number 1, pp. 21-44. Azam, Muhammad. 2009. Radicalization in Pakistan: Sociocultural realities. Conflict and Peace Studies, Volume 2, Number 1. Bahadur, Kalim. 1998. Democracy in Pakistan. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications. BBC. 2010. Pakistan blocks access to YouTube in Internet crackdown. BBC News. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10130195 [Accessed May 2011]. Eiferman, Pauline. 2011. Umar Cheema: Their efforts to intimidate me backfired. Committee to Protect Journalists. Available at http://www.cpj.org/blog/2011/04/umar-cheema-their-efforts-to-intimidate-me-backfir.php [Accessed May 2011]. Farhana Jahangir. 2008. Violence in pre and post 9/11 scenario. International Conference on Terrorism & Extremism: Social-Psychological Perspectives held at the Dr. Muhammad Ajmal National Institute of Psychology, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad on 15th-17th October 2008. Geo. 2009. GEO Pakistan: Sherry Rehman resigns. Geo TV. Available at http://www.geo.tv/3-14-2009/37255.htm [Accessed May 2011]. Geo. 2010. Geo Pakistan: Countrywide protests against Geo ban. Geo TV. Available at http://www.geo.tv/8-9-2010/69724.htm [Accessed May 2011]. HRW. 2007. Destroying legality: Pakistan’s crackdown on lawyers and judges. Human Rights Watch. Available at http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2007/12/18/destroying-legality-0 [Accessed May 2011]. HRW. 2010. World report 2011: Pakistan. Human Rights Watch. Available at http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/pakistan [Accessed May 2011]. IMS. 2009. Between radicalisation and democratisation in an unfolding conflict: Media in Pakistan. International Media Support. Available at http://www.i-m-s.dk/files/publications/1491%20Pakistan.final.web.pdf [Accessed May 2009]. Jalal, Talha. 2010. Media ethics in Pakistan. CIME. Available at http://www.cimethics.org/newsletter/october10/TalhaJalal.htm [Accessed May 2011]. Jamail, Dahr. 2006. Dahr Jamail. Available at http://www.heroesofthe21stcentury.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:dahr-jamail&catid=34:heroes-j&Itemid=67 [Accessed May 2011]. Jetly, Rajshree. 2010. Restoring parliamentary democracy in Pakistan. ISAS Brief, No. 158. Available at http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/ISAS_RestoringParliamentaryDemocracyInPakistan.pdf [Accessed May 2011]. Kelsen, Hans. 2007. General theory of law and state. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange Ltd. Khan, L. Ali. 2003. A theory of universal democracy. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Khan, Hamza. 2011. How Pakistan’s media is getting justice for Mukhtaran Mai. Muslimah Media Watch. Available at http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2011/05/how-pakistans-media-is-getting-justice-for-mukhtaran-mai [Accessed May 2011]. Klamm, Andreas. 2009. Liberty, peace and media: Amy Goodman and the freedom of the press – Excellent journalists in extraordinary times. Paris: Andreas Klamm Grace MedCare. McChesney, Robert. 1999. Rich media, poor democracy. New York: The New Press. Mezzera, Marco & Sial, Safdar. 2010. Media and governance in Pakistan: A controversial yet essential relationship. IFP Democratisation and Transitional Justice Cluster. Initiative for Peacebuilding. Available at http://www.initiativeforpeacebuilding.eu/pdf/pakistanOct.pdf [Accessed May 2011]. PMW. 2010. Are there no consequences in Pakistan media? Pakistan Media Watch. Available at http://pakistanmediawatch.com/2010/10/22/are-there-no-consequences-in-pakistan-media [Accessed May 2011]. Qaiser, Junaid. 2010. Pakistani media leading to chaos or consensus? The Liberal Press. Available at http://junaidqaiser.wordpress.com/2010/01/30/pakistani-media-leading-to-chaos-or-consensus-–-by-junaid-qaiser/ [Accessed May 2011]. Sarwar, Beena. 2007. Eyewitness: Karachi, May 12, 2007. Teeth Maestro. Available at http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/05/30/eyewitness-karachi-may-12-2007 [Accessed May 2011]. Schmidle, Nicholas. 2010. To live or to perish forever: Two tumultuous years in Pakistan. New York: Henry Holt and Co. Shafi, Kamran. 2009. The ISI’s attack on Kamran Shafi was just a trailer. Let Us Build Pakistan. Available at http://criticalppp.com/archives/2051 [Accessed May 2011]. Sulehria, Farooq. 2007. Pakistan: US double face on media freedom and democracy. Green Left. Available at http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/37802 [Accessed May 2011]. Trionfe, Barbara. 2009. Attack against Pakistani journalist’s house still unpunished. International Press Institute: Defending Press Freedom for Over 60 Years. Available at http://www.freemedia.at/site-services/singleview-master/4635 [Accessed May 2011]. Waseem, Muhammad Fahd. 2009. A look at media freedom in Pakistan. Helium: Asian culture. Available at http://www.helium.com/items/1594314-media-freedom-in-pakistan [Accessed May 2011]. Yusuf, Huma. 2009. Old and new media: Converging during Pakistan emergency (March 2007-February 2008): Media vacuum: Blocking independent television in Pakistan. Center for Future Civic Media. Available at http://civic.mit.edu/watchlistenlearn/old-and-new-media-converging-during-the-pakistan-emergency-march-2007-february-2008?page=0%2C1 [Accessed May 2011]. Zaidi, S. Akbar. N.d. The improbably future of democracy in Pakistan. Paper prepared for the Project on State of Democracy in South Asia, Lokniti (Programme of Comparative Democracy) Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. Available at http://www.democracy-asia.org/qa/pakistan/S.%20Akbar%20Zaidi.pdf [Accessed May 2011]. Also in Economic and Political Weekly, 3 December 2005. Read More