Asif Mahmood

Journalism occupies a vital place in any society. It is not merely a profession but a public responsibility, one that shapes opinion, holds power to account, and informs citizens. For this reason, the press must be granted the freedom it requires to perform its role effectively. However, like every other institution in a constitutional state, that freedom cannot be absolute. It must operate within the framework of the constitution and the law.

Alongside editorial freedom, media organizations also have legitimate economic rights. Advertising revenue, particularly government advertising, is not a favor or charity. It is a recognized source of income for media houses, and withholding it arbitrarily would amount to economic pressure and indirect censorship. A healthy democracy requires that such revenue be allocated fairly, transparently, and without discrimination.

In recent days, claims have circulated that the government deliberately stopped advertisements to a particular media house as a punitive measure. Such allegations, if true, would indeed be troubling. They would raise serious questions about press freedom and the misuse of state power. However, allegations alone cannot be treated as facts.

Today, the Federal Minister for Information addressed this issue with specific figures. According to his statement, the media house in question received advertising revenue amounting to 860 million rupees over a period of 13 months. This is not a vague assurance but a concrete claim backed by numbers. At the very least, such disclosure should help dispel the impression that advertisements were completely withheld or that the organization was financially strangled by the state.

At this point, intellectual honesty demands a shift in the debate. If the government’s figures are accurate, then the narrative of victimization collapses. If, on the other hand, critics believe these numbers are incorrect or misleading, the burden now lies on them to challenge the claim with evidence. In a serious discourse, counter claims must be supported by documents, payment records, or verifiable data. Mere outrage, repetition, and social media noise cannot substitute for proof.

There is a broader principle at stake here. Journalism loses moral authority when it abandons facts for drama. Media credibility is not strengthened by crying censorship at every disagreement with the state. It is strengthened when claims are precise, verifiable, and responsibly presented. Sensationalism may attract attention, but it erodes trust.

Similarly, the government must continue to maintain transparency in its dealings with the media. Publishing advertising data, clarifying allocation mechanisms, and responding to criticism with facts rather than threats is the correct approach. Accountability works both ways. 

If government figures are correct, then unnecessary uproar serves no democratic purpose. It only deepens polarization and damages public confidence in both institutions. Disagreements should be resolved through evidence, not assumptions.

A mature society requires responsible journalism and transparent governance. Freedom and accountability are not opposites. They are complementary.