Archive for January, 2010

Journalists Or Political Stooges?

Friday, January 29th, 2010

The embarrassing case of dual nationality and the national media

Pakistan media - journalists or political stooges?

Pakistan media - journalists or political stooges?

Earlier this week a report was widely circulated in the media that some government officials were holding dual nationalities. Only there was one major problem with the story — the journalists did not investigate, and simply parroted what appear to be false accusations. This embarrassing episode raises a vital question about our media: Does our news media employ journalists or political stooges?

Tuesday morning, the headlines screamed across the papers: The News“NA echoes with concerns over dual nationality,” DAWN“Lawmakers oppose dual nationality for civil servants,” Daily Times“MPs want to ban dual nationality holders from public office,” Frontier Post“Govt urged to suspend dual nationality holder officials.” Ill-informed parliamentarians had read off a list of names of public officials who supposedly had dual nationality including Shaukat Aziz, Moin Qureshi, Hamish Khan, Hussain Haqani, Azam Swati, and Salman Farooqi. The newspapers dutifully reprinted these names without ever verifying if they were true, accusing government office holders of having questionable loyalties.

The next day, the newspapers were forced to print retractions and corrections, but by this time the damage was already done. The newspapers failure to verify the accuracy of the accusations they repeated gave readers the impression that they were true. The rumour was already started that these officials are holding foreign citizenships, even though there is no evidence to support the claim.

The scandal here is not so much that some politician would tell a lie in order to make attention for himself or to slander some opponent. Sadly, we have become rather accustomed to that. Worse, the scandal is that the newspapers – all of them – printed these statements without even attempting to verify the claims, despite the fact that they know good and well that such accusations must be verified. This is a serious failure on the part of the media to perform its most basic job.

Proper journalists investigate and verify claims, they do not simply repeat wild accusations. This situation could have been easily and properly managed if these journalists had done their job and simply requested the evidence of dual nationality from the parliamentarians making these claims. If the politicians cannot or refuse to provide evidence of their claims, is that not a key part of the story? The journalists could have easily called the respective immigration authorities in the nation where the official supposedly has dual citizenship. Surely they have telephones in their offices?

And this was not some minor claim that was being reported. These were serious accusations with serious consequences. The Constitution disqualifies for some government offices anyone who acquires the citizenship of a foreign state. One would think that, considering the seriousness of these accusations that the journalists would take a few moments to verify the claims before printing them. But, rather, each of the newspapers ran the story without question, printing the accusations as if they were not journalists but political stooges working in street level politics.

People rely on the media not to be an echo chamber of lies and half-truths used for political gamesmanship. Journalists are supposed to be more than just film stars lip-syncing to the playback of political speeches. The people rely on the media to report hard facts, not rumours and gossip. If the journalists who are writing for major newspapers are not checking their facts, it calls into question the very reliability of the media itself.

The media should do more than issue a correction on their websites. These are serious accusations that these news organizations have simply parroted. They owe their readers and the accused a proper response by investigating the claims and publishing new stories that state very clearly what the facts are in this case.

The Nation Report About Obama Speech Belongs On Opinion Page, Should Be Properly Sourced

Thursday, January 28th, 2010
American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

Today’s The Nation includes a report by an anonymous person known only as “Special Correspondent” on American President Barack Obama’s speech to the American Congress last night which chastises him for not mentioning Pakistan specifically enough. While it is true that Pakistan was not mentioned by name in the speech, the article is clearly meant to suggest a snub against Pakistan and thus belongs more appropriately on the Opinion page of the newspaper. Moreover, the suggestion that a lack of a specific mention of Pakistan in a speech by the American President to the American Congress is a snub is really quite silly.

The Nation’s anonymous reporter begins the article by criticizing Obama for not speaking enough about Pakistan and India-Pakistan relations.

Declaring that the United States has strengthened partnerships with its anti-terrorism allies, President Barack Obama on Wednesday cited his adminitration’s effective fight against al-Qaeda militants but said nothing specific about close ally Pakistan.

Although Obama took note of partnerships in Asia, his first State of the Union address made no mention of Pakistan, a US ally in the war on terror. There was also no reference to India-Pakistan relations and their impact on regional stability. The contentious Middle East conflict was another
major ommission in the speech.

It is true that Mr. Obama’s speech did not mention Pakistan by name, but it also does not mention any other nations that are currently fighting against terrorists. Mr. Obama did mention partnerships broadly, but does not single out any specific nations. For example, he said:

We’ve prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.

Actually, the reason that Mr. Obama did not mention Pakistan or India-Pakistan relations in his speech was not a snub against Pakistan but because his speech was mostly about US affairs only. In fact, the anonymous reporter for The Nation even admits this in his report:

Obama’s address focused largely on economic recovery initiatives that his administration is pursuing…

Additionally, while Mr. Obama did talk briefly about foreign policy challenges, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he did so from an American perspective for his American audience. He did not mention any of the other countries with troops in those wars, not only Pakistan. The anonymous reporter from The Nation does not mention that Mr. Obama also does not specifically mention other nations that are fighting against terrorism, including:

  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • Canada
  • Italy
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Australia
  • Spain
  • Romania
  • Turkey
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Belgium
  • Norway
  • Bulgaria
  • Sweden
  • Hungary
  • New Zealand
  • Croatia

Even though they were not mentioned, none of the media in other countries are writing anonymous opinion articles suggesting they were snubbed and trying to pass them off as ‘news’.

The Nation has a well-documented anti-American position with regards to foreign policy. Obviously, they have the right to this position and it is their right to continue to publish anti-American Editorials and Opinion columns. But such political positions belong on the Opinion page, not in the  sections for actual news reporting. The column in The Nation is clearly meant to raise anger among those people known as the Ghairat Brigade. The fact that the report is sourced to an anonymous “Special Correspondent” makes it even worse than misleading, though, it’s simply unprofessional.

DAWN Report About CEC Inquiry Leaves Out Key Constitutional Articles

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

A report in today’s Dawn says that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) is investigating claims that President Zardari is ineligible to hold the office of President, but the report leaves out a key detail – Article  Constitution.

The report claims that a petitioner has asked the CEC to investigate whether Zardari was eligible to stand for office under under Article 63(2) (3) read with articles 5, 25, 50, 62 and 63 of the Constitution. The petitioner claims that, with the Supreme Court’s voiding the NRO, Zardari has become retroactively ineligible to stand for the office of President under Article 41(2) that says a candidate must be qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly.

The Dawn report fails to note, however, that Article 41(6) of the Constitution states quite clearly that, “The validity of the election of the President shall not be called in question by or before any court or other authority.”

In fact, the only means provided in the Constitution for removing a sitting President are in Article 47: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, the President may, in accordance with the provisions of this Article, be removed from office on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct.”

While it might be of some academic interest as to the retroactive eligibility of Zardari, the fact is that he was elected and Article 41(6) legitimizes that election. Moreover, at the time of the election, all the facts available now were available then, so there is no new information that would have changed the outcome of the election other than the voiding of the NRO, which was, of course, not void at the time of the election. To quote a common phrase, you cannot un-ring the bell.

Readers of Dawn‘s report may be misled into believing that President Zardari’s election could be retroactively voided, causing a crisis of leadership in the government. In fact, the Constitution clearly says this is not true. In the future, Dawn should make sure that it’s reports include all the important facts so that readers are able to fully understand important situations.

Conspiracy Theory Embarrasses Journalists

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Aside from the many problems that conspiracy theories create at home, it also is a problem that these conspiracy theories make us look particularly silly in the rest of the world. Take, for example, a 23 January article in The New York Times, an American newspaper that is read all over the world. The article I refer to addresses the recent visit of American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In the article, Pakistan’s media gets a mention, but not for asking hard-hitting questions about the war or American foreign policy. No, our journalists ask about a worn-out conspiracy theory. How embarrassing.

Pakistani journalists asked Mr. Gates if the United States had plans to take over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons (Mr. Gates said no)…

First, it is time to retire this tired conspiracy theory, born of a paranoid misreading of an article by American journalist Seymour Hersh. Mr. Hersh’s article claims that there are secret agreements between the American and Pakistani militaries to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the unlikely event that Taliban militants overrun Islamabad. A suggestion that the Foreign Ministry firmly denies. It does not say that the US wants to steal Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Even if Mr. Hersh’s claim is true, though, and we have some agreement with the US to defend our nuclear arsenal against militants, that is not the same as the US trying to take our weapons. Let’s look at the facts: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the US possesses over 5,000 nuclear weapons. According to the same group, Pakistan possesses 70-90 nuclear weapons. Now, let us think rationally for a moment. Why would the US, with 5,000 nuclear bombs, want to steal our arsenal of 90? It does not make any sense.

And yet, despite the fact that Mr. Hersh’s article does not talk about stealing our nuclear weapons, and the fact that this worn-out conspiracy theory does not make sense for five minutes, here in the international press are Pakistan’s journalists quoted as asking the American Secretary of Defense if he has secret plans to steal our nukes. This is the state of our media? It’s shamefully embarrassing.

Journalists had the opportunity to ask important, hard-hitting questions of the American Secretary. They had the opportunity to ask about delayed payments for the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), American reactions to sabre-rattling by India, or the transfer of defense technology so that we have the tools to defend ourselves against militants. Instead, they chose to ask about a conspiracy theory. Next time, I hope they do a better job.

GOSSIP ALERT: The Nation Stoops to Reporting Gossip

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

Gossip Alert

The Nation is well known for it’s right-wing politics and sympathy for conspiracy theories. But this week, The Nation has both stooped to a new low by reporting gossip of a type that is more typically used to create controversy and attention for film stars and cricketers.

The issue in question is whether or not President Zardari possibly met with Sharifuddin Pirzada. An article published in today’s ‘Politics’ section gives away the topic as pure gossip by actually posing the title as a question: ‘Zardari seeks Pirzada’s counselling?’

Let’s look at the facts present in The Nation’s article:

1) The reporter claims that “Presidential spokesman, Farhatullah Babar, has categorically denied the meeting.”

2) “Sources close to Sharifuddin Pirzada did not say anything about his meeting with the President.”

3) “Sources close to Sharifuddin Pirzada…confirmed that he was in the Federal Capital on Wednesday.”

These are all the facts that are presented. Everything else comes from some unidentified ‘source.’ Actually, nothing is known about this source at all to judge the merit of his claims. That The Nation even published the title as a question implies that there is some doubt about the truth of the claim.

The problem with this article in The Nation is not that it is necessarily wrong that the President met with Pirzada. The problem is that The Nation has no way of knowing if it is true. They published an article that is so poorly researched that even they felt it necessary to make the headline a question in case they were found to be wrong!

I have no way of knowing if the President has met with Mr. Pirzada. In fact, I would not be terribly surprised if this was true. Although The Nation tries to slander the name of Mr. Pirzada by saying he was “top legal aide of…General (Retd) Prevez Musharraf,” they fail to report to their readers that Mr. Pirzada has actually been advising leaders since he was Honorary Secretary to Jinnah. Why did they not say, “Advisor to Quaid-i-Azam?” Maybe there is some reason not to respect Mr. Pirzada, but The Nation certainly has not given any reason in its very poor article.

The Nation claims to be “the most credible of English Newspapers in Paksitan,” but they continue to destroy any last remaining credibility they might have with very poor reporting such as this. Perhaps The Nation is better suited to the title, “the largest gossip paper in Pakistan.”

Growing List of Citizen Media Watchers

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

A dear reader has written us about his new blog that includes a very detailed research and fact-checking of conspiracy theories. One of the goals of Pakistan Media Watch is, of course, to fact check the misinformation that is presented in the media whenever we see it and to promote responsible, informed reporting and commentary in our press. This makes our dear reader’s submission a quite impressive addition to the Blogroll, which we will be splitting into two sections: Media and Media Watchers.

Another excellent source of media fact-checking is by another dear reader, Aamir Mughal’s blog ‘Chagatai Khan.’ Mr. Khan has been a commenter on this blog since the beginning, and I always look to his blog for inspiration as he is one of the best media fact-checkers around!

In addition, there is some excellent media fact checking available on the blog Let Us Build Pakistan. This is a blog that is openly supportive of PPP, so that must be considered, but their media fact-checking is quite excellent and provides and important alternative to the commercial media commentary that still dominates public dialogue.

The News: No Safe Place

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

The News today includes the following editorial about harassment of journalists in Pakistan.

Journalists in Pakistan do not have to go to zones of conflict to find themselves at risk – they merely have to stay at home. The home of an investigative journalist who works for a local news organisation was attacked by ‘unknown miscreants’ in the early hours of Tuesday morning. His house was pelted with rocks, his car damaged and the family were trapped inside when the ‘miscreants’ put locks on their gates. He (and another of his colleagues) had been receiving threats for a fortnight, allegedly from representatives of a sensitive agency who were displeased with the stories they had filed exposing corruption and malfeasance.

This is disgraceful but not unexpected. Much of the upper echelon of the establishment has yet to adapt to the new realities of a media which is more robust, less willing to be pushed around and increasingly prone to questioning and investigating that which was previously hidden. Accountability is being drip-fed into the veins of the body politic through newspapers and magazines and the myriad TV channels — and the body-politic is by no means sure that the medicine coming its way is to its liking. We therefore offer our support to fellow journalists who all now face the reality of reporting conflict – from the Home Front; and hope that the offer of an ‘in-depth enquiry’ by Interior Minister Rehman Malik into this shameful attack is more than a knee-jerk reaction.

Information Welfare

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

An open and transparent government is a hallmark of democracy. The people must have proper information about government officials and public policy in order to elect the politicians that best represent their interests. But government information must also be looked at through the proper amount of skepticism. Historically, governments have engaged in propaganda to make themselves look better, rather than giving the whole truth to the citizens.

With this in mind, I was encouraged by Minister of Information and Broadcasting Qamar Zaman Kaira’s column in today’s Daily Times. The Minister does a good job of describing the importance of access to information as well as noting several actions that the present government has taken to try to improve access to important information, particularly among IDPs and other vulnerable communities.

I thought the Minister’s column was particularly good reading for media companies who at times have trouble separating facts from political agendas. Take this statement by the Minister:

By choosing information warfare during the Afghan jihad, the involved actors, in fact, produced their own gravediggers. Short-term gains were made at the expense of long-term ones for governments, societies and peoples, which resulted in a huge loss of credibility and legitimacy.

When media outlets like newspapers and TV anchors report wild conspiracy theories that are perhaps more sensational and thus get bigger ratings, they undermine their own credibility and sow confusion among the people, ultimately playing into the hands of the people who are attacking Pakistan.

Talibani militants don’t care about Zaid Hamid or Ahmed Quraishi or any of the other conspiracy wallahs except that they’re probably pretty happy that they’re on the air. During the Cold War, USSR called people like that “useful idiots.” Talibans know that if the people are confused and distracted with fantastic tales of complicated global conspiracies, it will be that much easier to indoctrinate them into the militant ideology.

Suicidal mindsets are driven by ideology and not by mere information packaging. Hence, ideology has to be defeated by ideology. Instead of information warfare, we need democratic, argumentative and critical discourses, which are firmly located in the socio-economic, cultural and political issues of Pakistan, guided by our heritage of ideologies of peace, pluralism, and co-existence.

This is where the Minister hits the nail on the head, as they say.

Who is our real enemy? Our enemy is extremist ideology. How do we dismantle it? By discrediting it and providing alternatives for our audiences. What are our alternatives? They are democratic dialogue, access to information, freedom of expression and opportunity of peaceful political representation.

This is the best explanation of why a free and independent media is so important. The Minister seems to understand this well, and concludes with an excellent offer to the media that again makes the point that a successful democracy requires a healthy media.

Pakistan’s democratic government is committed to promote freedom of expression and access to information in the greater public interest. But democracy, like communication, is a two-way street. To deliver on its promise, the democratic government needs the support of an informed citizenry that can not only identify problems but can also offer solutions for good governance. Our efforts must become collaborative.

Obviously, the media must retain its independence and be able to criticize the government, which governments never like. But it is a good sign that the government extends this hand of friendship to the media. Certainly the Interior Minister’s call for an inquiry into the harassment of Dawn journalist Azaz Syed is also a good sign.

If the conspiracy wallahs used their platform to provide “information welfare” that helps the people rather than confuses them, imagine the potential for positive change that could come.

House of Dawn Journalist Attacked

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

The latest attack on a journalist in Pakistan has taken place against Dawn journalist Azaz Syed on Tuesday morning. The attack prompted a protest by journalists covering the National Assembly who walked out.

The attackers are currently unknown, but Mr. Syed says that he recently filed reports critical of the military.

Syed declined to say who he thought might have been behind the attack but said he had filed reports critical of the military.

“They were not in favour of Pakistan’s military establishment,” he told his television station, referring to his reports.

He said he was about to file another report and had received a communication that he should not. He did not say from whom.

DawnNews has filed complaints with a variety of authorities to bring quick resolution to the matter:

The DawnNews management has taken strong notice of the incident and is dispatching letters to President Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani, Information Minister Qamaruzzaman Kaira, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar and DG ISPR Major General Athar Abbas as well as journalist unions and human rights organizations.

President Zardari has said that government believes in freedom of the media and is committed to strengthening democracy in the country. Let’s hope that he follows through on this pledge by making a full inquiry into this incident and seeing that any attackers are brought to justice. In order for media to be truly free, it must be free from threats and harassment.

The Nation Still Doesn't Know How Democracy Works

Monday, January 18th, 2010

There is a certain irony to government because people do not like politicians, but, by definition, only politicians can run for political office. This makes for complicated relationships not only between the people and their political leaders, but the political leaders in their offices. The Nation, however, has proposed a modest solution that will solve all of these problems. Government leaders who are also politicians should simply quit. Brilliant!

In the editorial, “President in City,” The Nation writes a disjointed argument that starts by saying that President Zardari’s trip to the provinces proves that the country can continue to run when he is not in Islamabad. I am glad that The Nation has figured this out finally. I am worried, though, that these editors were staying home when Zardari was making overseas trips to the UN or to visit other heads of state. Did they think the country was shut down?

But the really funny part is when The Nation finds out that the President is a politician!

…the President may have realised by now that his position as President is in conflict with his position as head of one of the country’s two largest political parties. 

This realization has apparently caused great concern for the wise old men and women at The Nation. How can someone be a politician and be the leader of all people?

…he is supposed to be the foremost representative of the Federation, indeed its symbol, and should be open to all shades of politics, not just to those belonging to one party. However, the co-chairman of a party is expected to give ear to members of the party whenever he moves into the nation outside his capital.

This made me laugh out loud. Who does The Nation believe should be in government? Someone with no political party? Of course, The Nation‘s editorial page often drips with nostalgia for the bygone days of military dictatorship, so this could very well be true. But Pakistan is no longer a dictatorship (Alhamdulillah), and it is a ridiculous assertion that a democracy would be run by people with no political party. Is USA President Barack Obama not the leader of his Democratic Party? Is UK PM Gordon Brown not the leader of his Labour Party? Is Angela Merkel not the Chancellor of Germany and also the Chairwoman of the Christian Democratic Union political party?

Okay, clearly The Nation does not understand how a democracy works. But what is their solution for the confusing situation in which Mr. Zardari is both President and a politician? He must resign! Naturally! It is almost as if this article was written backwards. I can hear the conversation at The Nation‘s offices now:

“Okay, so we want a new editorial that says Mr. Zardari should resign.”

“Yes, but he seems to be doing everything that we are demanding! He has condemned the drone attacks, he has traveled to the provinces, he is working with opposition parties…what new way can we think to condemn him?”

“I know! We will say he is a politician!” 

Lately I have begun to wonder if Mr. Nadeem Paracha is not secretly writing the editorial page for The Nation as it has become some of the best political satire in the country. According to the logic of The Nation, no politician can be president. Brilliant!

It is clear that The Nation has some vendetta against the President and will not be happy until he resigns. That is certainly their right. But perhaps they should just be honest and write an editorial called, “We have a vendetta against the President and do not have any good reason, but would only like it if he resigns.” This would be much more honest and not require them to write such silliness as saying politicians should not be President.