HoshMedia has done a great service to media. They sat down with respected veteran journalist Abbas Nasir (Dawn) to talk about fundamentals of good journalism including the difference between opinion and fact, properly using anonymous sources and intelligence sources, and avoiding traps in the ratings race during times of tragedy. The advice in these short videos is excellent, and can really be summed up in one important reminder: As a journalist, your obligation is to the truth, not any particular agenda. But don’t take our word for it, we’ll let Abbas Nasir tell it:
When The News (Jang Group) published an editorial on 6th January questioning Husain Haqqani for claiming that he was concerned about his security without providing some concrete proof of threats, we noted that creating this arbitrary standard of proof of threats was insulting to the courageous men and women of the press who every day put their lives at risk to investigate and report news that is uncomfortable for certain powerful quarters, especially when their own newspapers had carried reports terming him as a traitor.
Imagine our disappointment, then, when we opened today’s edition of The News only to find another editorial, this time giving utmost sympathy to the claims of Mansoor Ijaz about his own security concerns in what appears to be a blatant double-standard.
This is what The News said about Husain Haqqani:
There has been no fulminating cleric calling for Haqqani’s demise, nor protests or rallies against his alleged treachery. Today Haqqani remains in the PM house, and one might reasonably wonder why there and not some other place – his own home for instance, suitably guarded against intrusion or attack. But that is another unknown, alongside all the other unknowns of this curious affair. We wish no ill to Mr Haqqani, but might attach greater credence to his claims of insecurity were he able to support them with something a little less ephemeral than euphemistic references to ‘powerful quarters’. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?
This is what The News said about Mansoor Ijaz:
Can anyone be blamed, then, for accusing the government of trying to intimidate Ijaz into staying away from Pakistan and standing in the way of the memo investigation reaching its logical end? It boggles the mind why the government would want to lose its already tenuous moral ground by shirking from its primary responsibility of witness protection. If the judicial commission fails to complete its work, the assumption of Husain Haqqani’s guilt and the complicity of top government leaders will be recorded in historical memory. An easier way out has already been suggested by Haqqani’s lawyers when they asked the commission to arrange testimony of their witnesses through video conferences. If this can be done for one side, why not for the other? The government must exhibit that it is committed to protecting Ijaz for the sake of the truth, and make every effort to get him to come to Pakistan or get his testimony for both the judicial and parliamentary commissions. On his part, Ijaz also needs to exhibit more faith in the judicial process to which he says he is ready to surrender the truth.
According to The News, Husain Haqqani is crying crocodile tears while he is placed on the ECL and sitting behind armed guards at PM’s house, but Mansoor Ijaz has an understandable complaint while he enjoys the comfort of his home in South France and is able to travel freely. We are not questioning whether Mansoor Ijaz has received any threats, but why are his claims more believable to The News than Husain Haqqani? Is it because The News wants to create different impressions about the two people? Or is The News simply unaware of their obvious double-standard?
This is the worst sort of double-standard because it so obviously takes sides in a case that is presently sub judice. Rather than acting like the media team for one side or the other, Jang Group would be appreciated to inform readers without bias. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?
Maya Khan may have wanted to gain fame and notoriety through a career in media, but this is probably not what she had in mind. Following a clip from her show Subah Sawerey Maya Kay Sath aired by Samaa TV over the weekend, her name has entered countless conversations as a public outcry has grown about the irresponsibility of the host, the producers and even the network that aired the show. But this latest outrage at media irresponsibility is, sadly, only the latest example of a problem that is rooted deep in the media – valuing entertainment over information, and the willingness to sacrifice other people to get ahead.
Not only does Samaa TV’s goon squad invade the privacy of people, it blatantly ignores the consequences of putting these poor people’s faces on air (who knows or cares what their domestic circumstances are) and lies to them about having their mikes and cameras switched off. This is unethical behaviour beyond all limits.
It may be entertaining to watch people yell and insult each other over inanities. But when the line begins to blur between yelling on TV and yelling in the streets, entertainment turns quickly to incitement. We each make our own decisions in life, but these decisions are influenced by those we look to for information and guidance: parents, teachers, friends…and now TV. Perhaps Meher Bokhari did not look into Qadri’s eyes and tell him to kill Salmaan Taseer, but she didn’t have to. The message was already clear.
Reading fatwas against Salmaan Taseer, Meher Bokhari egged on extremists to commit violent acts against an innocent man. In the case of Maya Khan’s actions on Samaa TV, the people who she calls into question are not even public figures. They are private citizens and there is no evidence that they were doing anything illegal or immoral. In fact they were harassed in a public park during broad daylight, not caught in a hotel or sneaking around after dark. But the facts are not what viewers will take away. They will take away the impression, the innuendo that these young people were engaged in illegal or immoral behaviour. Their reputations are a price Maya Khan and Samaa TV are willing to pay to buy some extra ratings. And if, God forbid, some extremist decided to follow the example of Mumtaz Qadri, then will they too use hollow claims of media freedom to hide their shame?
The Embassy also issued an official denial to Dawn, telling their reporter that the US Embassy will not support Mansoor Ijaz with his security or any of his activities if he comes to Pakistan.
The US embassy had a word about Mr Ijaz’s trip, too. It came out with a denial of reports that he had been given any assurance.
Spokesman Mark Stroh, talking to Dawn, said the embassy would not be involved in coordinating his security or any of his activities during his stay here.
The comments came in response to Mr Ijaz’s media interviews in which he had claimed to have been assured by US authorities of support during his stay in Pakistan.
This raises the question if Jang Group knew that the US clearly refused to provide support to Mansoor Ijaz on Saturday, why did they publish an article on Sunday implying that US supports Ijaz? The article contains several statements by Mansoor that could be misunderstood as meaning that Mansoor Ijaz has the support and protection of his government, which had been denied by the US Embassy. But the statements by US Embassy spokesman denying Mansoor Ijaz’s claims do not appear, even though Jang Group had this information a day earlier.
Readers of The News must be scratching their heads and wondering what other information Jang Group selectively leaving out of news reports.
With last week’s piece, we asked if it was possibly “intended as blackmail to prevent a politician from participating in elections”. The latest article makes the situation even more curious. According to Abbasi, his anonymous source “received a copy of the communication sent by Musharraf’s confidante to the ex-US Congressmen”.
So now there is an alleged secret memo written by the envoy of Musharraf and delivered to a retired American official asking for US support in Pakistan. And even though it was a secret carried out only by trusted emissaries, somehow it wound up at the office of Jang Group.
Why does this plot sound familiar…? Of course! The first ‘Memogate’ saga was obviously such a box office success that it was only a matter of time before a sequel appeared. Only it seems that in their rush, the memogate’s producers have forgotten that the first episode of ‘Memogate’ has not even finished before they already rolled out the next episode in the series.
As we wrote last week, Ansar Abbasi does not need to reveal the name of his ‘influential diplomatic source’, but it is becoming increasingly strange that the supposed ‘secrets’ of every unpopular politician are suddenly ending up in the pages of Daily Jang. Has Ansar Abbasi suddenly learned the art of investigative reporting? Or is someone feeding him this information? What is the motivation of these ‘sources’? Who will be the next politician to have a ‘secret memo’ to US officials magically appear in Daily Jang? I guess we’ll have to wait for the next sequel to find out.
Zoha Waseem is not a household name. She doesn’t have her own talk show on Geo, her face is not the center point of full colour ads run in daily newspapers, and she doesn’t spend her days molding the opinions of the masses with a regular column in one of our many daily newspapers. But she does appear to have a better grasp of the fundamentals of journalism that many of those who do. Thankfully, she has taken the time to remind our esteemed colleagues of some of the basics that they may have forgotten along the way to building their successful careers.
Actually, these basics are not new by any means. As she notes in her excellent piece for The Express Tribune blog, they consist of nine principles of journalism outlined in 1997 as part of the Committee of Concerned Journalists Statement of Shared Purpose. The nine principles are:
Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth (read: assemble facts and verify them)
Its first loyalty is to the citizen (read: not to any political party or politician)
Its essence is the discipline of verification (read: separate yourself from fiction, propaganda, and entertainment. Refer to principle 1. Also refer to Shamsul Anwar)
Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover (stay neutral; stay fair. Your credibility as a journalist comes from accuracy, not your devotion to Imran Khan or your fondness for the judiciary)
It must serve as an independent monitor of power (read: journalism can serve as a watchdog over those in power; that freedom need not be exploited!)
It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise (read: we love discussion. Najam Sethi, though whatever his background may be, has one of the most peaceful talk shows. Discussion and foul-mouthed arguments during live broadcasts are two different modes of communication.)
It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant (read: entertainment engages your audience; news enlightens it. Understand the difference.)
It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional (read: know your demographics.)
Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience (read: carry a moral compass)
All of these together could probably be summarized in one simple phrase – “Just the facts!” Something that our celebrity journalists could do to remember. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but just because you are on TV does not mean you’re entitled to your own facts.
A few months ago we warned Shahid Masood and Azeem Mian that Mubasher Lucman had entered the race for PTI Media Advisor and taken the contest to a whole new level. It seems that with the government’s troubles and PTI’s rising popularity, Mr lucman has stepped up his campaign using a popular PTI format – social media.
While not a prolific Twitter user, Mubasher Lucman has over the past 24 hours been quite active. The TV host notes that he is “not in politics”, but then also posts the following question about PML-N’s governance of Punjab:
Now, this is a fair question for a journalist – are you satisfied with governance during recent years. But his question takes on a different meaning when read alongside his following Tweets about PML-N’s competitor, PTI:
and in case you had any doubt how Lucman saheb really feels…
But Mubasher Lucman does not stop at merely praising Imran Khan, he also makes a prediction about the outcome of the next elections:
That’s right. If Imran Khan doesn’t win, it’s because the election was rigged. Why even bother with elections, we wonder? Mubasher Lucman has already decided for us.
But his undying support for Imran Khan is not the only way that Mubasher Lucman is “not in politics”. Here’s his unbiased analysis of the ‘memogate’ case:
All the evidence that it requires to what? Obviously all the evidence that it requires to decide the case, but with his next Tweet, the Dunya TV host makes us wonder whether the Supreme Court is even necessary since Mubasher Lucman has already decided who are “the corrupt few”. It is also telling that Lucman describes the current Supreme Court hearings as a “crusade”, and not an objective inquiry.
Mubasher Lucman is “not in politics” in so far as he has never been elected by anyone to anything. But he has also clearly inserted himself into politics by actively campaigning for his selected favourites and terming anyone he disagrees with (or just doesn’t like) as “corrupt”. That’s what political operatives do. It’s not journalism.
This week marked a dark day in the history of Pakistani journalism. The last refuge of justice in our country closed the door to the journalist community, and sent a message loud and clear that Pakistan’s journalists have no rights when faced with threats from powerful quarters. We are referring, of course, to the judicial whitewashing of the murder of Saleem Shahzad.
It is ironic that so much has been made lately of Article 19A, the right to information, which should be a shield of protection for journalists in a nation with a supposedly free media, and yet it is apparent that the right to expose who is murdering journalists in this country and why has been set aside for reasons unstated. Rather than exposing the Saleem Shahzad’s killers and sending a message to those who would threaten and kill other journalists, the judicial commission instead found no culprits, only suggested a payment of Rs3 Million to Shahzad’s widow. Now we know the value of a journalist in Pakistan – about the cost of two Corollas.
Writing in The News today, senior journalist and former secretary Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) Mazhar Abbas notes that journalists are effectively on our own.
“The authorities are not taking the issue seriously enough, particularly in cases where the “intelligence agencies” come into the equation. Therefore, Pakistani journalists need to fight their own cases with the effective support of their unions.”
This state of affairs has serious consequences not only for the lives of individual journalists, but for the security of the nation itself. Director current affairs at Dunya TV Nasim Zehra on Thursday proposed that “a vibrant media can thwart a coup” by ensuring that,
…the moves of all power players — government, politicians, army, and now the judiciary — are examined for historical precedents, legality, constitutionality, double standards; and whether they are based on individual, institutional, party or national interests.
Having seen that a prominent reporter can be killed with no consequences for those involved is sure to have a chilling effect on the profession. Will those who report critically on the military refrain from doing so in the future for fear that they may end up in a ditch somewhere? The commission has also shown Mr Shahzad’s killers, whoever they may be, that they can operate with impunity.
It is not only Saleem Shahzad who has been killed for reporting information that someone did not like. Zahid Qureshi was tortured and mutilated for his reporting. Umar Cheema was kidnapped and tortured when he reported information that upset someone. Kamran Shafi had his family home strafed with gunfire and received threatening phone calls warning him to stop reporting information that some didn’t like. Samaa TV’s Ghulamuddin and his family have been forced into hiding in their own country. Recently, Hamid Mir has received threats for his reporting. Najam Sethi, who has been the subject of what appeared to be a coordinated campaign of harrassment continues to receive threats for his reporting.
Journalists are not powerless, though. We have the ability to ask difficult questions and press for information that most people are unable or unwilling to. While the nation’s attention is planted squarely on the court, we should take the opportunity to ask, “What about Saleem Shahzad?” What about the rights of the people to information that is supposedly so inalienable? Demanding these answers will not only protect the lives of journalists, it will protect the life of the nation. There are murderers among us, and they must be exposed.
In a detailed front page story of The News on Sunday, Ansar Abbasi asks, ‘How did Musharraf become a billionaire?’ While questions about the source of Gen Musharraf’s personal fortune are legitimate, they typically focus on public information – how was he able to afford his London home? What is his current source of income? But Ansar Abbasi points to new information about Musharraf’s personal wealth, and it is not only the information, but how Ansar Abbasi was able to access it that raises troubling questions.
In his article, Ansar Abbasi spends no less than nine paragraphs listing details of Gen Musharraf’s personal accounts with banks and trading accounts in UAE. Not only does Ansar Abbasi list the amounts each account contains, but the account numbers themselves. All of this information is attributed, as usual, to “a source”.
Musharraf has announced that he will return to Pakistan this month to participate in the next parliamentary elections. The question must be asked who would have access to such private financial information as overseas bank accounts, including their account numbers and amounts? And why would those with access to this information be interested in revealing it to Ansar Abbasi? Is it merely a coincidence that Ansar Abbasi’s “source” has revealed this information at this time? Or is Abbasi’s article intended as blackmail to prevent a politician from participating in elections?
This blog has no way of knowing whether the information provided by Ansar Abbasi is true or false. If it is true, we also have no way of knowing where the money came from – whether from looting the national treasury as seems to be implied by the article, or from legitimate sources such as book sales and speaking fees. It is in the public interest to know that politicians are not building personal wealth through corruption, but it is also in the public interest to know how such private information becomes public. Ansar Abbasi does not need to reveal the name of his anonymous source, but it may be in the public interest to know whether his source is an employee of the bank – which is the bank’s concern, or an employee of some other organization – which may be a concern to democracy.
In an editorial published on Friday, The News (Jang Group) belittles Husain Haqqani’s concerns for his safety as there have “been no fulminating clerics calling for Haqqani’s demise, nor protests or rallies against his alleged treachery”. As journalists, we find it particularly troubling that The News would require such a burden of proof of threats to ones security.
For Jang Group to suggest that fatwas and street rallies are required prerequisites for one’s health and safety to be in grave danger in this country is insulting to the brave men and women of the Pakistani press who every day live in fear of those we are reduced to referring to as ‘powerful quarters’ lest they find us in disfavour. How many times has an editor requested of a reporter to remove any names and references, knowing all too well the chilling crackle on a phone call, the ringing of a doorbell at 4am, or the Corolla that becomes increasingly familiar on one’s regular route?
Perhaps there has been no street protest against Husain Haqqani, but what about when Jang Group itself publishes articles terming him a traitor? Or when Jang Group publishes articles by mysterious authors that term Blackberry data as “the hammer that nails the coffin shut of those who stand accused of committing such heinous crimes against the state”. What about the production and distribution of videos like this one by “security consultant and defence analyst” Zaid Hamid.
Being on the bad side of powerful quarters is not a safe place to be. Something we as journalists know perfectly well. The issue of the memo is presently sub judice as the Supreme Court has initiated a commission to separate truth from rumours. In the meantime, responsible media groups should not engage in publishing articles terming those involved as ‘traitors’ who have committed ‘heinous crimes against the state’. They should also refrain from making light of the very serious issue of security and safety for individuals who are accused of such acts without ever having been even charged with such crimes, much less convicted. The consequences, we know, can be severe. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?
PDF 
