We’ve been covering DAWN’s conflict with the government for some time now (here and here). The open letter that we had put up on the 28th March has now been summarised in the form of an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. It is well argued and puts forward DAWN’s case clearly and cogently. I had commented then, ‘For the time being DAWN is trying to give the government a fight. However, I am not too sure how long they will be able to resist.‘
As time goes by it seems that the DAWN management is getting more and more desperate. They’re now looking for international help and for pressure to be put on the Musharraf government.
Don’t know how high up the priority list DAWN is right now for the government with so much else going on in the country. There is no doubt that this government has done more for the freedom of press than any other government, but it seems to be waging a covert and, at times, overt war against the media which might undo all the good work that it has done in the past.
Sunset at DAWN? by Hameed Haroon
The Wall Street Journal
A critical point has been missed in much of the reporting on recent unrest in Pakistan: The people protesting in the streets are liberals, not religious extremists. The “rainbow coalition” opposing President Pervez Musharraf’s infringement of judicial independence is composed of lawyers’ associations, journalists’ unions and other mainstream groups striving to bring Pakistan under the rule of law. It’s a marked departure from the post-9/11, pro-bin Laden marches by right-wing religious extremists. But what is the rest of the world going to do to support today’s protesters?
Unfortunately, it looks like the answer is, “not much.” Western countries have relied on Mr. Musharraf’s authoritarian regime to help fight the war on terror. For the past three years, the influential English-language publication group I manage — which includes our flagship daily, DAWN, its sister the Star, and a newsmagazine, the Herald — has been a victim of Mr. Musharraf’s crackdown on the remnants of Pakistan’s liberal, independent press. We have come under fire precisely for exposing his failure to firm up the country’s security situation. We have reported on the ongoing pattern of ad hoc deal-making between the Pakistani government and pro-Taliban militants along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, not to mention the government’s continued covert support for Kashmiri militants.
Matters came to a head in early autumn last year, when DAWN reported on leaked cease-fire agreements reached with pro-Taliban militants in the troubled western province of Balochistan. Senior officials from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting made a series of visits to newspaper offices and television channels throughout the country, demanding a blackout of additional reporting on security crackdowns in the troubled area. Newspapers were threatened with the total withdrawal of government advertising, which constitutes between one-third and one-half of all advertising revenues. (Government advertising in Pakistan includes commercial advertising by the public sector and by government ministries as well as regulatory notices issued by government departments and public utilities.)
DAWN was faced with the prospect of an overnight loss of approximately 15% of its advertising revenues. For the vernacular print media, losses could average anywhere between one-third and one-half of advertising revenues. For existing television news channels, the probable consequences of failure to comply are even grimmer: A cancellation of temporary television uplinking permission, coupled with a boycott by government-regulated cable operators, would result in permanent closure.
Add to this the specter of government levers deployed frequently against the press in the past — such as the harassment of dissenting journalists, the cutoff of imported newsprint supplies and the cancellation of a newspaper’s permission to publish under emergency public order laws — and the vast majority of newspapers and TV channels concluded they had little choice but to comply with the government’s requests, although we at DAWN have stood firm in the face of this intimidation.
Mr. Musharraf’s government took the news of our reluctance badly. In late December, the volume of government advertising in DAWN suddenly declined by around two-thirds of its normal volume. Financial conditions within DAWN worsened when the television license for an upcoming news channel in English (which already had 350 journalists and technicians on its payroll) was turned down by the government regulatory authority for electronic media. This despite a landmark ruling by a superior court that earlier ordered the grant of a license to DAWN, and by implication to any affected newspaper that might apply to the court for relief.
The government’s regulatory authority and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had both consented in court to the grant of this license, and with the passage of 60 days have lost the right to appeal against this judgment. At first the government continued to prevent its officials from implementing the court’s orders. Then a decision was made to issue DAWN a temporary uplink permission valid until the end of May, in lieu of a license.
Privately, senior officials in government advise us that the DAWN “matter” will soon be rectified by direct presidential intervention, given that the government has no legal options left to reverse the court’s ruling. The argument runs thus: What Mr. Musharraf’s government cannot withhold legally, it may as well grant gracefully.
It is increasingly difficult, however, for us to accept private assurances when publicly the rule of law is more about words than action. Government machinations against us are steadily increasing the risk that my corporation could face an uncertain future before we receive a valid permanent license to which we are legally entitled. We are forced to spend money preparing to broadcast beyond May so that we are ready if and when such a license arrives. But if we aren’t given our due soon, justice delayed will become justice denied.
And if we go, who will fill our shoes? Societies in this region are trapped in a vise between militant religious extremists on one hand and military-dominated authoritarian regimes on the other. Space for civil society has been reduced to a minimum.
We and others like us represent the ideals that supposedly animate the Western governments fighting the war on terror. Yet we are becoming collateral damage stemming from Western support for authoritarians like Mr. Musharraf.
Victory in the war on terror will depend in no small part on our ability to reshape the Middle East and Central Asia in a way that allows Western-style liberalism to triumph over religious extremism. Support for authoritarian regimes is at best an imperfect means to that end, but should never become the end in itself.
Whatever the level of Mr. Musharraf’s cooperation in the short-term battles of the war on terror, he should not get a free pass for subverting the conditions — like a free press — that will ultimately sustain true democracy in Pakistan.
— Mr. Haroon is the publisher of the DAWN group of newspapers in Pakistan.
I’m lost: This article was published on 11th May. To my knowledge before then and since (notably, there is an advertisement by the Ministry of Information/Broadcasting today on ‘giving Karachi a healing touch’)I’ve seen advertisements by government agencies/ministries. So then, why is Dawn getting more desperate?
I’m guessing that this is to highlight that they’ve lost a huge share of the government’s advertising revenue, but not all. The advertisement in today’s paper is an example of one of the very few (according to Hameed Haroon) that are still being placed in DAWN. Please note that today’s advertisement is a special advertisment which required widespread circulation.
Basically, from what I can gather, Hameed Haroon is saying that there is a quota on advertisements placed in all major newspapers based on the strength of their readership and in that regard DAWN is the highest ranking amongst all English language newspapers. However, the allocation of advertisements since this conflict started does not reflect this. He is not saying that there has been a complete ban on placing government ads in DAWN, but a partial one which can cause huge financial problems and lead to forced lay offs.
They’re probably getting more desperate because they’ve had the report about the conflict on their website for almost two months and I am sure they had been taking other actions prior to that but the government has failed to rectify the problem.
Ahhhh…okay. I am quite amazed at Dawn’s reliance on government advertisement given the number of cell phone operators, television manufacturers and banks etc. who are trying to sell their products.
My (rather academic) point of view away from the reality of things is quite different from what Hameed Haroon is trying to achieve by trying to get government advertisement back. It is that the heavy reliance on government support through advertisements is really a two-edged sword for a media organisation (as obviously Dawn is finding out now). Though obviously it helps revenues, the fact is that in order to be effective in its reporting, Dawn and others have to be quite critical of government policies and that criticism and neutrality maybe lost if there is such heavy reliance on government advertisement. I have no doubts as to Dawns ability to maintain its reporting in the light of its financial problems but I think they should be looking for long-term solutions by trying to divert away from such reliance. Otherwise, it is likely that the current problems may well come back to haunt them with another government.
One answer is to make an archive available online with the current issue and charge customers for its online paper. I believe (although, I benefit greatly from it) that making the newspaper available free is a wastage of an opportunity (and makes no economic sense) when there is such a large population that would be willing to pay a nominal fee to access it. I’d rather pay than see the sun set on Dawn.
I think we need to focus on the principle instead of getting involved with ad counting.
The Musharraf regime has been increasing pressure on the media. For this it uses all means, including advertisement cuts. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), the media equivalent of Amnesty International, has repeatedly said that threats, kidnappings and even murder of local journalists (i.e. the guys who publish in Urud, Sindhi or Pashtu) are widespread.
Hameed Haroon’s article should be read in the wider context of an onslaught on press freedom, not just in relation to Dawn being desperate or not.
Incidentally, Saad, even as the biggest English language newspaper in Pakistan dawn’s circulation is tiny compared to Urdu and even Sindhi newspapers. All English lnaguage newspapers in Pakistan, combined, have only ten percent of the circulation of only one Urud newspaper, Jang.
Bear that in mind when you say you know a large number of people who will pay to read Dawn online. But even if 10,000 people pay to read Dawn online (which is much higher than the actual number of people who actually do) and they charge say $ 30 as annual subscription, that would yield only $ 300,000, which is only a fraction of Dawn’s production costs (reporters, editors, newsprint, contributors, wire services, printing, press workers’ salaries etc.)
I read somewhere that the newstand price of newspapers and the online subscriptions of papers that charge it (e.g. Wall Street Journal) accounts for less than 10 percent of the costs of running a newspaper.
Sometimes we think the people we know, even if they are in hundreds, are a lot of people. Given the size and scale of things, that is not the case. I find this problem in the Pakistani blogosphere often. (Like one person insisting that prosperity in Pakistan was growing because there were so many Porsches in Lahore. “Everyone I know has a Porsche so how is Pakistan poor,” was the naive comment of someone who did not realize that he knew only a fraction of a fraction of the country’s people.)
Dawn is a national institution, founded by the Quaid-e-Azam for the Pakistan movement. Government advertisements to it have traditionally been a sort of subsidy to a national institution and Musharraf is undermining that.
That is the real issue.
Again Wasiq I find myself completely at odds with some of your points (and I sigh whilst saying this).
Of course I do not doubt that there is truth in increasing government intolerance at press freedom but I also do not doubt that the way forward is by suggesting solutions to problems and not only focusing on the principles. I can spend an entire day at agreeing with you that the principle of press freedom being attacked is wrong but then that won’t get us anywhere (and would be pointless) in the discussion because we are at agreement. To suggest an example which is particularly relevant in the current scenario: Let’s say that a person holds a gun to your head so that he can force you to do something. The solution to the problem is not in pointing out that the gun holder is wrong (which he is) but instead to ensure (1) that gun holder is punished for his actions and in the long term (2) (one solution would be in) ensuring that the person(s) cannot get access to a gun (that he can hold to your head). That my friend is no way a detraction from the principle.
Wasiq you seem to assume that I know a lot of people (in the hundreds as you say) that read Dawn online. Instead, my reliance is completely on the assumption that millions of Pakistanis who live abroad want access to Pakistani news (tv channels are making good use of this) and that Dawn would be one of the obvious choices. Therefore, your entire para on this is distorted in its point of view when you go on about ‘we think that because we know people who read that we know everyone who reads.’ That is simply not the case.
Again, I am no expert at the costs and sales of newspapers but my suggestion was merely a suggestion and just ‘one’ of the solutions that a newspaper can adopt.
Saad,
While making suggestions one should know something about what he is trying to solve.
Americans often say they want to solve the world’s prblems but because they do not put in the effort to understand the world, they only get themselves and the world into deeper problem. With due respect, I find apolitical Pakistanis similar in their outlook.
A solution has to be in the context of the problem. Not knowing or wanting to understand the problem and sighing at those who explain it to you is the engineer|physician|
accountant|banker|information technology person approach to politics. And yes, freedom of the press is a political problem and in politics repeatedly pointing out the fundamental problem and mobilizing opinion against it is more important than coming up with “let us do xyz” solutions.
Paistan’s problem is political-the lack of constitutional rule. Dawn’s problem is a subset of that problem. The only reason I responded to you was to try and keep your focus on that reality. Your technical solution of how to raise money takes away from the real issue.
Firstly, although you’re try to (I’m assuming) cover as many professions as you can think of, which Pakistanis are mostly engaged in- I’m afraid I’m not an engineer/physician//accountant/banker/IT person. Of course you missed out eoonomist- I’m not an economist either, in case you’re wondering.
Secondly, although I can say much to counter your views there is only one point that I want to home in: Yes, it is important to point out fundamental problems and yes, mobilising opinion is important but once that is done it is continued to be used as an answer by Pakistani politicians to avoid solving the problem. To solve a problem, you need solutions- whether you’re an engineer, physician, accountant, banker, IT person, economist or a lawyer. When these politicians (may I add that many of them have been engineers, physicians, accountants, bankers, IT persons and economists) start to understand this they would spend less time boycotting Senate sessions, calling strikes and wasting the time and expense of the public.
Marie Antoinette was also suggesting an alternative when she supposedly said, “If they can´t get bread, why don´t they eat cak.´
My point, Saad, is that before you propose the way forward, recognize the way that is. What upsets me is your general unwillingness to recognize the core issues. For example, in your assumptions about “millions of Pakistanis living abroad wanting to read Dawn” you neglect my factually based information about newspaper readership patterns of Pakistanis. You assume since you read Dawn, others must want to as well (a bit like Marie Antoinette, I must say)
The boycotts of Senate etc are legitimate political tools to force the hands of a dictatorship. If you spent some time studying the process of politics instead of just thinking up technical solutions to political problems you would learn how nations use various tools of opposition to gain fundamental rights.
It is interesting that you find the expense on boycotted senate sessions unbearable even though it is only a fraction of massive military spending. Shows how much your view of politics has been shaped by the anti-politics propaganda of assorted military regimes.
As I keep saying, Pakistan´s politicians are flawed but a nation can move forward only with politics. Training in wrestling is no preparation for a career in cricket.
My reference to certain professions was just a sarcastic attempt to point out that a lot of people propose apolitical solutions to political issues in the Pakistani blogosphere because of their own lack of political knowledge or experience. While I cannot practice medicine, for example, because I have no background in that field, the beauty is that everyone can comment on politics.
I would have no problem with physicians or engineers or whatever commenting on politics who had at least read something about fundamental political concepts. Unfortunately, in the blogosphere many Pakistanis comment on politics without much knowledge of key concepts in political processes or of history. They just repeat drawing room chatter, which admittedly annoys me, leading to posts that make you sigh.
So let us try and solve this, should we? We should exchange information about a few books and key articles on how nations succeed in building political institutions and rule of law and then apply that knowledge to our discussion of Pakistan instead of just commenting superficially, albeit with good intentions.
“As I keep saying, Pakistan´s politicians are flawed but a nation can move forward only with politics. Training in wrestling is no preparation for a career in cricket.”
It seems pitiful that Wasiq himself in one fell swoop discounts the venerable benefits to be had from an interdisciplinary approach to political questions. Whether wrestling or cricket, to use the analogy, fitness and agility will nonetheless be much appreciated in either sport. Same too, the merits of interdisciplinarianism.
“My reference to certain professions was just a sarcastic attempt to point out that a lot of people propose apolitical solutions to political issues in the Pakistani blogosphere because of their own lack of political knowledge or experience.”
What does Wasiq suggest- that we all sign up for Political Science classes at our nearest Universities? Even after 3-4 years of cursory readings and critiques, many of us will be none, or less, the wiser. And if Wasiq would take his Rubiconesque statement to its tragic conclusion, he will understand the folly of the above tirade.
All experience is in some dimension political or politics-related- medicine in the UK, for example, is a highly politicised issue with the new MMC reforms. Even doctors have highly cogent political views, whilst doing their day jobs properly. As Wasiq will no doubt remember, one of the greatest political theorists of all time summed up this inherently pervasive and ubiqituous character of politics: “politics is the master science”.
Freddie,You make my point exactly. If politics is the master science than the apolitical approach of several people here reflects ignorance, not an inter-disciplinary approach.