Stifling TV anchors’ opinions

PEMRA’s latest directive to bar TV anchors from offering their opinions during talk shows is just another move to impose curbs on the media and against freedom of expression. This will give impetus to concerns about rising state-sponsored censorship.

Many were caught off guard by the scathing directive that was published on the PEMRA’s Twitter account, directing anchors not to appear as experts on their own shows or on other channels. Media houses have been advised by the media regulator to select guests in talks shows based on their knowledge and expertise in that particular field.

It is unclear what led to this directive but earlier notices were issued to many journalists for speculating a purported deal regarding the bail of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The Islamabad High Court has also taken notice of attempts by anchorpersons to malign the judiciary and other state institutions.

These directives are a clear attempt to interfere with the editorial policy of media channels. After all, anchors are citizens and the constitution grants the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to any reasonable restrictions. The notion that an anchor is not entitled to their own opinion just because they have a separate talk show is mindboggling.

The role of an anchor has changed dramatically as the media has evolved; altering expectations from them. They are not merely moderators, as PEMRA expects them, but their roles have broadened as they became the face of their networks. They secure viewership for their channels and have turned into celebrities with a great deal of influence.

Anchors should adhere to a code of conduct and news stories should be reported accurately, objectively and fairly without any personal bias on the subject. In case there is any inaccuracy then anchors should be tried for libel or defamation but they cannot be barred from sharing their opinion on television.

In the latest directive, PEMRA also wants to stop discussion, analysis or speculations on subjudice matters or TV channels would be responsible for any propaganda against the judiciary. PEMRA has repeatedly been used as a tool to stifle dissent; instead of working to promote media freedoms, it has time and again suppressed freedom of speech and expression.

The media is under attack around the world. Even Donald Trump has termed the press as the enemy of the people calling unflattering opinions of him as fake news. News channels are now struggling to find authoritative TV anchors in the new media landscape, and with directives like the one by PEMRA their role would soon be diminished.