August 12, 2010

I don't particularly like GEO. For the most part, I think they're more politicized than any news/entertainment channel has the right to be. By which I mean their reporting is biased, and I'm convinced that other channels offer me a less dramatized, more informative world view. That said, GEO is currently under attack by PPP jialas (supporters) for having an interview with shoe-wala-babaji and then airing (I think) that interview online. According to my mom (since I don't switch the television on more than once a week) the channel has been sketchy (mostly offline) for three days. Says the government: this is due to some internal issues with GEO. According to Karachi residents, I.I. Chundrigar has witnessed some fairly brutal attacks on the GEO office, staff and publications.

As I said, I think media has a responsibility to be be politically neutral, and there are times when GEO has crossed the line. This is NOT one of them. There is no justification for attacking a television channel for reporting what happened and why it happened. The attack on the television channel and subsequent off-airing of GEO news is yet another nail in the coffin of Pakistan's inept system of governance.

It's a fine world, darlings, when 'democrats' are more dictatorial than dictators were. Haina?


Anonymous said...

I dont know if geo has really been banned or not but i think if it has, it deserved it. Seriously with all the disasters going on in pakistan, geo being banned is not a big issue. I dont know why geo has not been showing any news other than how they were attacked, banned, abused and what not since three-four days. And before that, they were all about zardari flying out to firangi land like nothing else was important. Even now the headline news on geo's website is the newspapers being burned. Seriously, if you (geo) care so much abt reaching out to the public, then please show us some real news other than the problems you are facing.

Anonymous said...

Dear anon.,

I think one can fairly criticize Geo for being sensationalist and/or biased (as xeb has done here) but surely it's a bit of jump from saying that to saying they 'deserve' to be banned? The whole point of freedom is that people have the right to express views one may not personally like or subscribe to.