Censorship in Pakistan Goes From ‘Pleasant’ to ‘Unpleasant’

PEMRA directed Pakistani satellite television channels to stop broadcasting, rebroadcasting, or providing live coverage of “unpleasant incidents.” The order specifically includes explosions, blasts, firing, and terrorist attacks. It also requires channels to use verified information from the concerned department or law-enforcement agency.

The order is designed to control how dangerous events appear on television. Channels must use time-delay mechanisms and follow editorial safeguards. This gives broadcasters a chance to check reports and remove material before it reaches viewers.

The directive changes live crisis reporting in Pakistan. It limits immediate images and commentary during attacks or other violent incidents. The article presents this as another move from officially describing conditions as “pleasant” toward tighter control of unpleasant news.

PEMRA stands for Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. In the article, it is the body supervising satellite television licensees. Its authority includes issuing directions about what channels may broadcast and how they must handle sensitive or dangerous news.

For example, PEMRA ordered channels to avoid live coverage of explosions, blasts, firing, and terrorist attacks. It also required verified information, time-delay mechanisms, and independent editorial boards. The notification referred to PEMRA laws, a Supreme Court judgment, and an Islamabad High Court order.

This means PEMRA can shape both the content and timing of television coverage. Its directives affect all satellite TV licensees covered by the order, rather than only one individual broadcaster. The article shows this power operating through formal notifications and compliance requirements.

The order is broad in both its audience and its subject matter. It applies to “all satellite TV channel licensees,” according to PEMRA’s notification. It is therefore framed as a sector-wide instruction for Pakistan’s satellite television broadcasters.

The incidents listed include explosions, blasts, firing, and terrorist attacks. The restriction covers original broadcasts, rebroadcasts, and live coverage. Channels must also use verified information warranted by the concerned department or law-enforcement agency. PEMRA directed them to use time-delay mechanisms effectively.

The order reaches beyond one event or one channel. It establishes a general rule for reporting future violent or rapidly developing incidents. The article also connects it to requirements for independent editorial boards under PEMRA laws, a Supreme Court judgment, and an Islamabad High Court order dated September 5, 2022.

Pakistani television channels stopped showing Imran Khan’s name and image after protests triggered by his arrest on May 9, 2023. PEMRA told television licensees to ensure that “hate mongers, rioters, their facilitators and perpetrators” were “completely screened out from media.”

The notification did not name Khan directly. However, the article says television channels understood its message. They therefore avoided broadcasting his name and image. This was an example of indirect censorship: a general instruction produced a specific reporting practice without explicitly identifying the person affected.

Channels later developed substitute labels for news about Khan’s court proceedings. Anchors used “chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf” or “PTI chief.” One satirical anchor used “Kasim ke Abba,” referring to Khan’s elder son. These euphemisms allowed discussion while avoiding the prohibited name.

When cyber authorities do not define anti-national or disruptive content, people cannot reliably tell which speech is permitted. The article says any comment or discussion may be construed as anti-national or as disturbing public peace. That uncertainty can make even harmless posts risky.

A post itself may seem innocent, but a comment beneath it could be viewed as attacking a government department. In that situation, the original user may still face the government’s wrath. The article presents this as a danger for both journalists and ordinary social-media users, because the unclear standard can reach everyday discussion.

The result is self-censorship. Mohammed Hanif describes a future in which Pakistan’s cyber authorities enforce the old restaurant rule against political discussion. He jokingly recommends cooking recipes as the safest topic, while warning that fear of a midnight knock may replace open conversation.

Time delays and independent editorial boards create checks before sensitive footage or claims reach viewers. A delay holds live material briefly, allowing a channel to verify facts, remove graphic or dangerous content, and avoid amplifying false reports. This is especially relevant during explosions, firing, and terrorist attacks.

An independent editorial board provides another review layer. Rather than leaving every decision to one anchor or immediate producer, the board can apply agreed editorial standards and question whether information is verified and warranted. PEMRA’s notification required both measures, referring to its laws and court orders.

These tools can make reporting more cautious and consistent. They may also slow the public’s access to developing news and give regulators greater influence over coverage. In the article’s context, they form part of a wider system that limits live reporting and demands official verification during crises.

Censorship is the suppression, removal, or control of speech, images, or information by an authority. In this article, it appears through restrictions on live coverage, official verification demands, and the removal of a politician’s name and image. These controls matter because citizens need information to judge events and public officials.

Governments commonly regulate media to protect security, prevent panic, limit incitement, or preserve public order. Some safeguards, such as checking unverified reports, can reduce harm. But restrictions become troubling when rules are vague or when officials can decide broadly what counts as anti-national or unpleasant.

Democratic systems treat freedom of expression as a basic principle because open debate supports accountability. The article shows the tension clearly: PEMRA invokes safety and editorial controls, while journalists and users face uncertainty about what they may say. Broad or unclear censorship can encourage self-censorship and hide harsh realities from the public.