The assassination attempt on Hamid Mir on April 19 in Karachi and the following claim of his brother, Amir Mir, live on Geo, that the ISI was behind the attack has exposed the internal and external challenges faced by our ‘independent and vibrant’ media.

Amir mentioned Hamid Mir’s coverage of missing persons in Balochistan, army’s role in politics, and of Pervez Musharraf’s trial as reasons which annoyed the ISI.

Rival TV channels, besides criticising Geo for broadcasting a ‘one-sided version’ of Hamid Mir’s brother and for singling out the director general of ISI as the culprit, used the occasion as an opportunity to settle their personal scores with the channel.

Some anchorpersons of rival TV channels accused Geo TV and Hamid Mir of defaming the Pakistan army to please the ‘enemy’ country India. The channel was termed as ‘always working for anti-Pakistan agenda’.

Some anchorpersons came to the conclusion that Hamid Mir and Geo TV engineered the attack as a publicity stunt. In a talk show on a TV channel on April 20, the host and guests even questioned if he had actually been shot. "Why is he still alive and shot in the lower parts of his body, instead of the chest," they said.

It seems the focus of most of the rival channels is to get Geo TV closed for blaming the ISI and its chief. The ministry of defence has already forwarded a reference against the channel to Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra), demanding its closure.

It is pity that at a time when media must show unity, as it is under threat from state and non-state actors in the country, it has ganged up against Hamid Mir and Geo TV. Media practitioners and experts believe that the quality of reporting after the attack on Hamid Mir has not been professional, defying ethical norms.

"The principles of professionalism have not been followed while covering the issue," says Mazhar Abbas, senior journalist and former secretary of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists.

Abbas believes if Geo TV is closed other channels would not be able to survive either. "We are not showing any wisdom while discussing the issue," he laments, adding, "the prolonged converge of this issue is being done at the cost of many other important issues, such as baton charge on families of missing persons in Islamabad and Musharraf’s case."

Abbas says security and safety of journalists should be the top priority of media houses and governments. "Nobody has been taking it seriously. Even in the coverage on attack on Hamid Mir this aspect is completely missing."

A recent report of Amnesty International titled, "A bullet has been chosen for you: Attacks on journalists in Pakistan" also highlights that journalists in Pakistan live under constant threat of killing, harassment, and other violence from all sides, including intelligence services, political parties, and militants.

According to Pakistan Press Foundation, at least 48 journalists have been killed in Pakistan since 2002. The Committee to Protect Journalists ranks Pakistan as one of the five most dangerous places to be a journalist.

Asha’ar Rehman, a Lahore-based senior journalist and resident editor of Dawn, terms reporting on the issue as horrifying. "The divisions in the media that have come to the fore are going to hurt for a long time. It could make speaking the truth even more difficult than before."

He fears that the media is going to be pushed back and will have to work its way back again. "The kind of banners that have come up in the cities to remind everyone how dangerous it can be to have a frank discussion are very intimidating. So, journalists must brace themselves to practising the art of restraint. They will have to probe tentatively what are the limits and will have to be careful how they go about pushing the frontiers again."

Rehman is certain though that it would be extremely difficult to suppress voices now. "Some dissent will filter through, through social media as well as the mainstream media. It is sad that media is being advised to show caution whereas if anybody needs advice it is those people who are trying to forever hide matters from the media and the people at large," he says.

Senior journalists of the Jang group lament that it has become an issue of Jang group and non-Jang group. "I have never seen the media like this, so many people in the media have taken a 180 degree turn in no time. They have jumped to the other side," says Talat Aslam, a Karachi-based senior editor of The News International. "This is a wrong time to settle personal scores. The issue is much bigger. They will find plenty of opportunities to do so in future. Media is needed to come together on a minimum agenda right now. Otherwise, my biggest fear is that whatsoever we have earned in press freedom can be reversed."

Aslam likes the policy of defiance of his group. "We have seen Express Tribune putting more censorship after attack by extremists on its content. I still believe that we would be able to report what we believe in without referring it to others," he says, adding, "My biggest fear is that this privilege of us (even editors) would be compromised as the consequence of media coverage by other channels over the Hamid Mir attack. This would be the saddest casualty."

He does not think the media would learn its lesson from this experience. "I am not excluding my group. There is a need to draw a line that no journalist would be used by his media house."

At present, there are more than 40 news channels in the country. The media is being credited for promoting the cause of civil liberties, democracy, and independence of judiciary in the country. But the flipside of the matter is that media practitioners and media houses have started taking the role of power brokers. "Some personnel of different media houses have put the livelihood of thousands of people at stake," says a senior journalist and editor of an Urdu daily on condition of anonymity.

He believes a new era of censorship has already started after the attack. "The owners have become more powerful. We even cannot take a stand over the coverage of this issue as owners are closely watching developments and making sure the coverage in their respective organisations is done according to their business interests," he says. "Journalists need to understand the difference between a journalist and being an activist. They need to learn how to say sensitive things. The institution of editor needs to be strengthened," he concludes.