JOURNALISM is neither entertainment, nor commerce, nor a political instrument; it is a sacred and responsible profession.
It serves as the eyes and ears of both the state and society. A journalist observes with clarity, listens with care and conveys what is seen and heard to the public without fear, without greed and without prejudice. True journalism pairs information with reform, inquiry with responsibility and criticism with moral integrity. A professional journalist is neither a political party worker nor a spokesperson for any institution, nor an admirer of any leader. He is neither partisan nor adversarial; he stands only with the truth. Regrettably, journalism in Pakistan departed from this ideal long ago.
Today, journalism has receded while political brokerage has flourished. Alongside journalists, a growing number of television anchors, YouTubers and other media personalities have assumed partisan roles, aligning themselves with specific political interests. Their programmes no longer report news; they promote narratives. They do not ask questions; they issue judgments. Analysis has been replaced with provocation and studios that once hosted debate increasingly function as platforms for agitation and propaganda.
This deterioration did not occur in isolation. Over the past several years, traditional and digital media spaces have been misused to intensify political polarization and erode institutional trust. During this period, politics, democracy and parliamentary processes were repeatedly undermined. Dissent was often equated with disloyalty, questioning with defiance and criticism with hostility. Operating largely from abroad, certain individuals disseminated unverified content, exaggerated claims and emotionally charged material that further inflamed public sentiment. In several instances, anti-state narratives were presented as expressions of free speech, blurring the line between legitimate criticism and incitement.
In this context, the recent judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court in Islamabad has drawn significant attention. Following the events of 9 May, the court sentenced Adil Raja, Haider Mehdi, Sabir Shakir, Moeed Pirzada, Shaheen Sehbai and Wajahat Saeed after finding them guilty under the relevant legal provisions. The court awarded life sentences along with additional terms of imprisonment and monetary fines. The judgment reinforces an important legal principle: freedom of expression does not extend to actions that promote violence or deliberately undermine state institutions.
At the same time, Pakistan’s history suggests that enforcement and consistency remain the real challenges. Judicial decisions must be upheld in both letter and spirit to maintain public confidence in the rule of law. Any perception of selective accountability or reversals under political pressure risks weakening the very message such judgments are meant to convey. For now, however, this ruling serves as a reminder that accountability applies equally in the digital sphere.
This moment should also prompt introspection within the media community. Journalism cannot regain public trust unless clear distinctions are restored between reporting and activism, analysis and advocacy. Journalistic institutions, press clubs and media houses must reinforce professional standards, enforce ethical codes and ensure that political alignment does not masquerade as independent journalism.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right and a cornerstone of democracy. However, its misuse to inflame hatred or encourage disorder undermines both democratic values and national cohesion. Journalism has already lost much of its credibility. Without timely reform, it risks losing what remains. Separating journalism from political partisanship and news from propaganda is no longer optional; it is essential for the profession’s survival and for the health of the state.
—The writer is Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, Usman Law Professional Corporation, based in Canada.
