Wajahat S Khan’s column in today’s Tribune is a must-read article for media watchers. While we tend to be very sensitive to the way foreign media uses certain terms to grant an unfavorable impression of Islam or Pakistan, we often overlook the fact that this same problem – using particular terms to give a favorable or unfavorable impression – exists in our own media.
Archive for April, 2010
Media Manipulation
Thursday, April 29th, 2010Where is Amir Mateen?
Tuesday, April 27th, 2010Where is Amir Mateen? When he first returned to The News we were told that he would be doing profiles of the political parties. He then proceeded to publish three very long and somewhat entertaining, if not informative, profiles of PML-Q, PML-N, and PPP. Since then, however, he has gone missing!
This is truly a disturbing situation. Where could Amir Mateen have got to? We are waiting anxiously for his cutting profiles of JI, PTI, ANP, MQM, etc. Because certainly Jang Group did not hire Mateen only to write some slander gossips “profiles” of these three political parties and not the others? Imran Khan is going to have very hurt feelings!
All kidding aside, there must be some reason that Amir Mateen has suddenly disappeared from the pages of The News. Was his writing so over-the-top that even the editors at The News felt that it was making their publication look bad? Or was this always just some excuse to write outrageous “profiles” of the three largest parties so that they could cause controversy?
If it is the first, that the editors at The News have realized their error in publishing these columns, that is a positive sign for the health of our news media. Mistakes are made by everyone, and it is not unheard of for something to make its way into a newspaper that was poorly researched and badly written. If the editors of The News have realized their mistake, we applaud them for setting things right.
But if it is the second, if Amir Mateen was brought in only to write long, ranting slanders against the leaders of only certain political parties as a bit of political favor to those parties not mentioned, this is not only unacceptable from the point of view of journalistic ethics, it calls into question everything else that Jang publishes.
In order to clear the air, we hope that the editors of The News will end the mystery and explain…Where is Amir Mateen?
Media's Latest Conspiracy Theory
Monday, April 26th, 2010
The latest conspiracy theory to circulate in the media is that, by signing the 18th Amendment, Zardari has managed to gain power. Yes, this is the same media who only weeks ago predicted that Zardari would not sign the bill because it stripped his powers. Now that their predictions have (once again) proved wrong, the media has been scrambling to find some new conspiracy tale to fill their pages.
Asif Ezdi explains this latest conspiracy in his column for The News, “Little to Celebrate.” One suspects that, since the media only celebrates failure, the passage of the 18th Amendment would definitely give them little reason for happiness.
Here is the conspiracy in Ezdi’s own words,
Besides, the new Article 63-A on defection virtually empowers the head of the majority party or coalition of parties to dictate who the prime minister will be. Since political parties are no longer obliged under the Constitution to hold intra-party elections, the current practice of hereditary leadership in the parties has now received constitutional blessing.
It is not inconceivable that the law requiring elections in the parties may be held by a pliant judiciary to be unconstitutional after the deletion of Clause 4 of Article 17. The way has thus been cleared for the seamless succession of the next generation of the Zardari-Bhutto clan, the Sharif family and the other illustrious dynasties which dominate Pakistan’s political arena.
A party head, moreover, does not have to meet the qualifications for holding elective office laid down in the Constitution. He could, in theory, even be a non-citizen or someone less than 25 years old, such as Bilawal. More important, he could even be a person who has been convicted of treason or other serious offence such as graft or money-laundering. That means that even if Zardari is found guilty of corruption, which few doubt would happen if the cover of constitutional immunity is taken away, he could still continue as party head and, in that capacity, dictate the choice of the country’s prime minister, if his party has majority support. The period of disqualification on conviction has in any case been reduced under the 18th Amendment from lifelong to five years.
First, let us examine several words and phrases that Ezdi uses in his explanation. These are,
- virtually empowers
- It is not inconceivable that
- may be held
- in theory
All of these words and phrases amount to the same thing. They are a way for an author to say something that is so completely unlikely that it is truly a waste of the readers time, while still pretending that he is making some sense.
Ezdi words can also easily support this sentence: “In theory, it is not inconceivable that President Zardari has superpowers that may be held to virtually empower him to fly.” Ezdi could write this, but who would honestly believe that President Zardari can fly?
Let us look at what Ezdi wrote with the same critical eye. Does he honestly expect us to believe that it would ever happen that a political party run by a 15-year-old Indian money-laundering traitor would place as Prime Minister the head of Israel’s Likud party and the nation would be forced to accept it? Because that scenario fits perfectly with Ezdi’s conspiracy.
Of course, this is too ridiculous to even believe, so Ezdi uses a rhetorical trick by mentioning Zardari, Bilawal, and Nawaz Sharif (just to keep things fair across party lines, I suppose).
But let’s examine what the constitution actually says. This is Article 63A in its entirety:
63A. Disqualification on grounds of defection, etc.
(1) If a member of a Parliamentary Party composed of a single political party in a House-
(a) resigns from membership of his political party or joins another Parliamentary Party; or
(b) votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, in relations to-
(i) election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or
(ii) a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or
(iii) a Money Bill;
he may be declared in writing by the Head of the Parliamentary Party to have defected from the political party, and the Head of the Parliamentary Party may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer, and shall similarly forward a copy thereof to the member concerned:Provided that before making the declaration, the Head of the Parliamentary Party shall provide such member with an opportunity to show cause as to why such declaration may not be made against him.
(2) A member of a House shall be deemed to be a member of a Parliamentary Party if he having been elected as a candidate or nominee of a political party which constitutes the Parliamentary Party in the House or, having been elected otherwise than as a candidate or nominee of a political party, has become a member of such Parliamentary Party after such election by means of a declaration in writing.
(3) Upon receipt of the declaration under clause (1), the Presiding Officer of the House shall within two days refer the declaration to the Chief Election Commissioner who shall lay the declaration before the Election Commission for its decision thereon confirming the declaration or otherwise within thirty days of its receipt by the Chief Election Commissioner.
(4) Where the Election Commission confirms the declaration, the member referred to in clause (1) shall cease to be a member of the House and his seat shall become vacant.
(5) Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Election Commission may within thirty days, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court which shall decide the matter within three months from the date of the filing of the appeal.
(6) Nothing contained in this Article shall apply to the Chairman or Speaker of a House.
(7) For the purpose of this Article-
(a) “House” means the National Assembly or the Senate in relation to the Federation and a Provincial Assembly in relation to the Province, as the case may be.
(b) “Presiding Officer” means the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chairman of the Senate or the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, as the case may be.
Obviously, the article that Ezdi refers to says nothing about allowing the head of the majority party or coalition of parties “to dictate who the prime minister will be.” Ezdi’s assertion otherwise is fundamentally not true. How he can say this is beyond my understanding.
What the article does say is that if a member of a political party stops supporting his party, he does not own his seat. He was elected by the people based on his party affiliation, and if he misled the people, he should not be able to keep his seat in parliament as he is not representing the people but only himself. You can agree or disagree with this, but please be honest about it.
Asif Ezdi, a former member of the foreign service, should know better than to mislead people with twisted facts, misleading rhetoric, and patently unrealistic hypothetical scenarios. He should know better than to call the people of his country “losers”, too. Asif Ezdi does not have to like democracy, the 18th Amendment, Asif Zardari or Nawaz Sharif. But, please sir, do not make up stories and spread unsubstantiated fears that mislead the people.
Ansar Abbasi Misleads Public On 18th Amendment
Saturday, April 24th, 2010The following is a guest post submitted by dear reader Sibtain Naqvi who took some time out of studying for his exams to respond to misleading statements in The News. Please, if you would like to submit a post for publication, or if you see a particularly misleading article in the media, send us an email at pakistanmediawatch@gmail.com
Since the inception of the 18th Amendment, The News has been constantly attacking the newly minted legislation. Being a major publication, it is the paper’s duty to pinpoint the flaws of the legislation and enlighten the public of discrepancies they may find. However, the two main articles that have been published only look to manipulate the public’s perception of the legislation by creating bogus facts or twisting the clauses to misrepresent what has been passed.
In the first article published by The News “PM to stay a puppet”?, Ansar Abbasi suggests that Prime Minister Gilani will still remain a dummy premier, even though he would have amassed all the constitutional powers granted to him. Although the 18th Amendment is a long piece of legislation the important migration of powers from the President to the Prime Minister should not go unnoticed. The President no longer has the authority to dissolve the Parliament or appoint the head of the military. These two powers, previously belonging to President Zardari did not sit well with the “independent” media. From the second Mr. Zardari took his Presidential oath, media personalities constantly lambasted him for retaining such powers. After passing on this authority to the Prime Minister, Ansar Abbasi seems to be dumbfounded.
The author backs up his argument by stating “After the insertion of the 18th Amendment…the PPP-head he can remove the prime minister, get unseated any number of ministers or the members belonging to his party”. He further articulates “there is no more room left for any member to vote according to his or her conscience except at the risk of getting unseated”. Now, to a layperson, such bold statements would truly make our members of government look like lame ducks.
It is the basic art of writing that when one makes an assertion he backs it up with a source. In the 627 word article “PM to stay a puppet”, Ansar Abbasi has not once given a reference from the 18th Amendment. After all, he is making such sweeping statements that the party head can get his politicians removed, I am sure there would be a clause somewhere in the text of the 18th Amendment. Being an amateur journalist, I took the liberty of reading the Constitution of Pakistan and the new legislation.
Article 63A. Disqualification on grounds of defection etc, (1)“If a member of a Parliament Party composed of a single political party in a House
(a) resigns from membership of his political party or joins another Parliamentary Party,
(b) votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, in relation to
i. election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or
ii. a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or
iii. a Money Bill or a Constitution (Amendment) Bill
he may be declared in writing by the Party Head to have defected from the political party, and the Party Head may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer.
The “a Constitution (Amendment) Bill” is the only addition to this article in the 18th Amendment. Therefore, in no way have the political Party Head’s received greater power under the new law. If Ansar Abbasi believes that this is the case, I would request him to show me the article or clause by which he made this assumption.
I was going to take the higher route and let this particular Mr. Ansar Abbasi make himself look like a fool, but when he wrote another article today “Convicts can grab top political posts” it was difficult for me to let this article slide. Being fair to the author, this time around he did manage to give a reference to a particular clause in the 18th Amendment from which he drew his assumption. In “Convicts can grab top political posts”, Ansar Abbasi states “The 18th Amendment inserted a new Article 63 (1) (j). This is not true as such clause was already present in the Constitution. Furthermore, clause (j) as quoted by the author is incorrect, it is actually clause (g) to which he should be referring to.
Ansar Abbasi is trying to make the case that due to the addition of the statement “unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release” to Article 63 (1) (g)(h)(i), all convicts will now automatically become office bearers. I would like to reiterate that in order to become any “public –official” one needs to win an election. The power of the vote lies with the people and if the electorate is content on handing a public office to a convict, than that is the democracy. Furthermore, an elected convict could still be challenged under “Article 62 (1) (d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions” and Article 62 (1) (f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and amen, and there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law”. There are still laws protecting irrational characters from being elected to office. The electorate is a strong minded body and I would ask Ansar Abbasi not to under-estimate the power of the vote.
The purpose of my writing this article is to identify the incorrect and misleading manner by which our reporters have started to pen their assumptions. It is unprofessional and irresponsible for journalists such as Ansar Abbasi to mislead the public by misinforming them of the facts. I should have been studying for my exams instead of writing this article. But since what was written in the newspaper was so outrageous and deceiving, I am going to be getting an earful from my parents about procrastinating on my academics. Thanks a lot The News!
Shaheen Sehabi Explains What It Means To "Have No Shame"
Friday, April 23rd, 2010Amir Mateen’s attempt a script writing seems to have disappointed ‘The Godfather’ of wild storylines, Amir’s mentor Shaheen Sehbai. In today’s The News, Sehbai shows Mateen how to really write an attack column. Sehbai’s column targets his favourite topic, of course, Asif Ali Zardari.
Before we begin, we must mention that The News has published this bit of writing in the National News section, not the Opinion page. Perhaps the editors were confused by the lack of a ‘Libel’ section in the newspaper – something they should definitely consider including. It would make it so much easier on their dear readers.
Sehbai starts his column in a prison, which he seems to have detailed knowledge about. We meet the ‘Evil Genius’ Zardari that Amir Mateen introduced us to, but now he is not just an Evil Genius, but he is running a massive prison gang filled with goons that would make Scarface blush with envy.
Sehbai doesn’t tell us who exactly these people are, or how he has learned any of this information, of course. Rather he just tells us that “a number of mafia-type jobbers, some trouble shooters, a couple of well-dressed attack dogs and a bunch of gun-wielders” are now running the show and that “every other sane voice, adviser or friend” has been suppressed. So, we are to believe that the people elected a national government filled with mafia-type killers.
Do not wait for Sehbai to be filling in the cast later. This is one of his most common plot devices – the ‘Mystery Man.’ Shaheen Sehbai knows that he will quickly be sued for libel if he even hints at a name for one of his these colorful characters who you never actually meet, so he gives no one a name. But here is a question for Mr. Sehbai: If you truly believe what you write – that there are mafia-type killers in the government – why don’t you file some report? Why don’t you, at a minimum, name some names? Surely you will be protected by the courts who will see you are only doing a duty. Unless, of course, you are making it all up.
Sehbai goes on to claim that Zardari lost his powers “despite the best delaying tactics that he could deploy.” Apparently the best delaying tactics he could deploy were to voluntarily push the parliament to pass the 18th Amendment and then signing it. Seems like a strange way to delay a bill, if you ask me. Of course, many of the “failures” that Shaheen Sehbai mentions “may not be entirely visible.” This is more exciting than saying, ‘it didn’t happen.’ Or perhaps this is just more of Shaheen Sehbai’s ‘Wishful Journalism.’
Next, Shaheen Sehbai begins to cry that Zardari and his government “make wild accusations and tall claims and trash the opponents without any decency.” This is really too much! Shaheen Sehbai is accusing someone of ‘making wild accusations’ and ‘tall claims’ and ‘trashing opponents without any decency!’ Oh, I just might fall out of my chair. That is truly hilarious.
Who is the victim of these attacks by Zardari and his friends? According to Sehbai it is “a democracy and freedom-loving media.” Yes, you have read this correctly. It’s okay. I will wait for you to finish laughing.
Shaheen Sehbai spends the rest of his article writing things like this:
[Zardari's] close associates, who talk freely against him when sitting in private drawing rooms, say he will stick to the Presidency to keep his immunity if the courts force him to quit either the PPP office or the Presidency.
How does Shaheen Sehbai know what Zardari’s close associates say in private drawing rooms? Are we to believe that the close friends of the President of Pakistan are stabbing him in the back to give some gossip to…Shaheen Sehbai? Shaheen Sehbai can’t even get himself invited to a military press briefing, but we are supposed to believe that he has insider knowledge from the President’s close friends. It is too much to believe.
Sehbai makes more of his famous predictions, this time about Zardari’s secret plans to place his sister as head of PPP. Sehbai’s evidence for this is that:
…the PPP post is called that of a co-chairperson, when it actually should be co-chairman.
Really? THAT is your evidence of a conspiracy? Perhaps Shaheen Sehbai is a sexist, but that does not make a conspiracy.
After this, things take a turn for the truly bizarre as Shaheen Sehabi then calls on the entire nation to unite against Zardari in order to prevent…”another spell of military rule.” It is almost as if Shaheen Sehbai believes that if he follows one crazy statement with another that is even crazier, that maybe people will forget that the first thing he said is crazy.
Obviously, people can have their own opinions about the 18th Amendment and whether there need to be some more changes made. But does anyone really believe that Zardari is going to usher in military rule? Rather it seems that uniting to overthrow Zardari would usher in the military. I don’t pretend to see the future, but Sehbai’s logic is truly puzzling.
Sehbai next goes on to suggest that the Prime Minister to dismiss all the ministers and government officials and replace them with…well, Sehbai doesn’t say. He just says “credible and respected people” should be appointed. Perhaps Shaheen Sehbai could provide a list?
Most hilarious, though, is what Shaheen Sehbai says about the Supreme Court.
It is unfortunate that through a smart game of politicking the focus on implementation of NRO judgments has been shifted to the tussle between the SC and parliament. This tussle is a long drawn test match but the SC has to complete the T20 match it started on the NRO first.
Does Sehbai really want to call the NRO judgments a ‘T20′ match? T20 may be popular, but it is obviously just flashy entertainment and all show, not a real ‘test’ of the two sides. We have had enough show trials in this country. The NRO judgments should be given more thought and consideration that a T20 match.
And this is the problem with Shaheen Sehbai’s column. It is as if he wrote it while watching a match on television, and hurried to write down whatever nonsense popped into his head. His column is filled with the typical assortment of mystery sources, wishful journalism, crazy predictions, and poor logic. He writes a long and drawn-out attack with a poison pen, and he complains that his victim is hurting his own very sensitive feelings. Once again, Jang Group publishes all of this as news. THAT, dear readers, is the real shame.
The Nation Misrepresents UN Report, Government's Response
Wednesday, April 21st, 2010The Nation‘s editorial from Monday severely misrepresents findings of the UN Report, raising serious questions about whether the editorial’s authors actually read the report. Actually, The Nation‘s editorial even contradicts itself as to the government’s response.
The editorial, “The Benazir murder,” accuses the government of ignoring the reports findings in order to protect the guilty. A quick review of the UN report and recent news reports about the government’s response – including statements from within the same editorial – directly contradict The Nation‘s assertion.
The Nation‘s editorial says that the UN Report “has pointed the finger at the murdered leaders’ own party.” This is misleading to the point of being intentionally so. of the UN report says,
The “Main Findings” on Page 60, paragraph 259.iii say,
Responsibility for Ms Bhutto’s security on the day of her assassination rested with the federal Government, the government of Punjab and the Rawalpindi District Police. None of these entities took necessary measures to respond to the extraordinary, fresh and urgent security risks that they knew she faced.
While the UN report on does acknowledge that PPP attempted to provide some security for Benazir Bhutto, page 19, paragraph 63 absolves PPP of any responsibility for her assassination.
The PPP is a political party, not a security agency. The responsibility for Ms Bhutto’s security rested with the government.
Even the headlines from The Nation read “UN probe finds Musharraf govt responsible“. The Nation‘s attempt to pin the blame for Benazir Bhutto’s murder on the PPP may be wishful thinking, but it is not supported either by the UN report or even The Nation‘s own headlines!
After falsely asserting that the UN report holds the PPP responsible for Benazir’s murder, The Nation goes on to accuse the present government of failing to act on the reports findings. This is also not supported by recent events, including those reported in The Nation.
The editorial makes a potentially libelous accusation that “The PPP may have developed a culture of protecting the guilty…”, and then goes on to say that “…the government must not treat the murder as an internal party matter, as it seems to be doing, but as the national matter that it is.”
But the first paragraph of the same editorial says that the government has acted on the report and is not treating it as an internal party matter.
THE PPP has been apprised of the UN report into the murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and its report has been the subject of a high-level PPP meeting on Saturday at the Presidency, chaired by her widower, the President, and the Prime Minister as well as some members of his Cabinet. The meeting decided to take action against those responsible, including former President Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. The meeting decided that those mentioned in the report would be placed on the Exit Control List. Also, they would be made part of the investigations.
The Nation says this is “inadequate”, despite the fact that this is exactly what The Nation says the government should do.
“…it must ensure that those pinpointed as having some complicity in the murder, should be brought to justice.”
Actually, PPP has publicly vowed to go after anyone complicit in the murder.
Babar added that the report will be examined by legal experts of the Party to recommend to the Co-Chairman necessary steps to be taken in its light. Persons named in the report for negligence or complicity in the conspiracy will be investigated and cases also brought against them in the light of the legal opinion, he said.
News reports from today confirm that the police have registered a case against Musharraf, who actually is fingered as complicit in the murder.
The editorial writers at The Nation were surely surprised and disappointed to read the conclusions of the UN’s investigation. That they continue to publish wishful journalism instead of actual facts is disappointing. If The Nation honestly wanted to see the perpetrators and facilitators of Benazir Bhutto’s murder brought to justice, they would report the facts. Instead, they seem to be more interested in using their newspaper to publish misleading political propaganda. Shame on them.
Is Media Intentionally Trying To Destabilize Government?
Tuesday, April 20th, 2010That’s the concern of Kamran Shafi, who sees the invocation of the name of the Chief Justice as a cynical plot by some media types who are willing to put government on a collision course in order to to increase viewership for their TV programmes.
I was horrified to see recently a private TV channel advertising one of their talk shows with the blurb ‘Chief teray jan nisar…’ and then the names A.H. Pirzada, Akram Sheikh and one other that I do not recall.
The host of the show is the same person who was appointed head of PTV at a whopping salary and even more whopping perks but was sacked for reasons never fully explained, turning fiercely anti-federal government and all who sail in it.
In the event I could not see the first part of the programme for I was entertaining guests at the time so I do not know if the two gentlemen named in the advertising ticker appeared on the show. But I did manage to catch Imran Khan and Qazi Anwar, in the closing minutes, fulminating wildly against the government, 18th Amendment and all.
Now then, whilst it is no business of mine what anyone says about any government or person or matter, it is my bounden duty to protest the use of the chief justice’s name to push a TV talk show. Remember that ‘Chief teray jan nisar, beshumar, beshumar’ was one of the slogans coined during the movement to restore the superior judiciary, and one that I myself have shouted until I went hoarse.
My Lord the Chief Justice was particularly mentioned in the slogan because he it was that took the brave step of facing down an army dictator and his boorish flunkeys. We must remember too that some of those who are now professing (or are alleged) to be My Lord’s jan nisars are the same who were Dogar’s jan nisars during the days he was the so-called chief justice. They appeared in Dogar’s court, when the restored judiciary was incarcerated along with their families and protesting lawyers had boycotted the higher courts. To add insult to injury, one of their number is Ahmad Raza Kasuri who was the Commando’s own lawyer when the dictator was at loggerheads with the CJ. Can you believe any of this, reader?
Let me say that whilst I continue to be a jan nisar of an independent judiciary, I also stand unequivocally on the side of the people’s will as expressed by their representatives in parliament, of the rule of law, of a kind and gentle state which looks after all of its people no matter of which religious denomination or creed.
Whilst I stand for complete freedom of expression, I will loudly object when media houses deliberately goad organs of the state onto a collision course as seems to be happening right now. It is time for all concerned to step back, take two deep breaths, and live and let live.
The Roots of Apocalypse TV
Sunday, April 18th, 2010The following column by Nadeem Paracha is from Dawn. It’s a fascinating tale of the origins of end-of-the-world messages on religious programming and how these shows are used to manipulate the people. What’s most interesting, though, is that the warning that Nadeem mentions from Zia’s regime – the falling of Skylab – never came to be the disaster that was predicted. And yet, even though they were wrong, no one was considered untrustworthy. How often do we hold responsible the people who make false predictions today?
Recently religious programming on TV channels has come under scrutiny for various reasons. One of the biggest concerns is how some of these programmes have gone on to advocate violence against so-called minority sects and religions, and the way they use obscure traditions and biased interpretations of the scriptures to deride certain events and personalities.
Though both sides of the main sectarian divide (the ‘Barelvi’ and the Salafi/Deobandi) are given equal space on the channels, unfortunately, the preachers and TV hosts of both the sides have usually taken extreme positions on various issues. This includes exhibiting animated armchair radicalism by indirectly siding with monsters such as the Taliban and scoffing at the concept of democracy and liberal Islam, attacking them as misguided constructs worthy only of ridicule.But the proliferation of conservative and at times rather demagogic religious shows on television is not exactly a new phenomenon. Its roots lie in the sudden growth of religious programming on the state-owned PTV from 1979 onwards, or two years after General Ziaul Haq’s intransigent military dictatorship started to find some firm footing following the toppling of a democratically elected government in 1977. According to a former PTV man Burhanudin Hasan’s book, ‘Uncensored’ (2000), there was almost a three-fold growth in religious programming on PTV in the 1980s.
This kind of programming was mostly sculpted to propagate the Zia regime’s Islamic credentials and laws, and to also justify and glorify the concept of armed jihad in the wake of Pakistan’s involvement in the anti-Soviet manoeuvres of the (US/ISI-backed) Afghan mujahideen. But is it possible to pinpoint an exact moment that triggered the whole trend of politically-motivated religious programming in Pakistan? It seems there is.
In July 1979, America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) announced that its ‘Skylab’ satellite that had been orbiting the planet since 1973 had developed a fault and was expected to fall to Earth. Nasa was not sure exactly where it would crash, but experts believed that the burly satellite was likely to fall either over Australia or over the Indian subcontinent. Though the same experts also stated that the satellite would start burning after it entered Earth’s atmosphere and most probably end up in the sea, the story took a life of its own in Pakistan.
PTV started running regular bulletins on the latest whereabouts of Skylab, usually read by Azhar Lodhi — a newscaster who would go on to become a ubiquitous presence on PTV across the Zia years. Lodhi maintained a sombre tone in the bulletins, and then started to punctuate them with equally sombre pleas for urgent prayers. Suddenly, most Pakistanis who till then had taken the affair lightly began using apocalyptic overtones while speaking (to PTV and newsmen) about the event. Many even went to the extent of wondering whether the fall of Skylab (on Pakistan) may announce the beginning of the Day of Judgment.
A tense strain of fear cut across society. It was as if the Zia regime was purposefully using the occasion (and TV) to instil fear into people’s minds by allowing Lodhi to use an apocalyptic tone, sermons and pleas for prayers, perhaps alluding that in such a testing hour Pakistan required a pious and Islamic regime (which, of course, the dictatorship was pretending to be). Interestingly, in those days, more Pakistanis visited Sufi shrines than mosques, with much of the urban populace going to the mosques only on special occasions such as Eid and sometimes for the Friday prayer.
However, with Zia’s Islamic laws coming into force, many Pakistanis saw themselves being led (mostly by fear) to the mosque as Lodhi continued to dramatically announce the closing in of the falling Skylab. It eventually fell on July 12, 1979, over the ocean and the deserts of Australia, and once the feared day did not come, the episode was forgotten but the apocalyptic outlook that it had triggered lingered. This grim point of view worked well for the Zia dictatorship to intensify its ‘Islamic’ manoeuvres and appeal, in which religious programming played an important role.
Interestingly though, the number of religious programmes actually fell after Zia’s death in 1988. But with the emergence and success of new, more modern sounding — albeit equally conservative and traditionalist — preachers in various urban drawing rooms from 1995 onwards, the new trend was picked up by various TV channels that erupted in the early 2000s.
What we see today on these channels as religious shows is directly linked to the said trend, but this trend’s roots too lie in that bizarre Skylab incident that first triggered and shaped the kind of conservative and alarmist mindset required for such programming to flourish.
Brasstricks
Friday, April 16th, 2010Fasi Zaka’s satirical wit is truly a national treasure. His latest column for Express Tribune takes a light-hearted poke at that brass trickster Zaid Hamid.
Karachi: A student member of Brasstricks is writing to his friends on the net about the failed Pakistan Resolution on March 23 by Syed Samad Bond in Lahore at Al Hamra.
Dear friends in fashionable revolution,
Our army of mummy daddies made a massive show of strength today at al Hamra with the new Pakistan Resolution that shall Inshallah make Syed Samad Bond founder of Brasstricks-i-Hind quarters. All 37 of us there shall be remembered forever. We proudly announced we are the new-cons against the neo-cons.
Tragically, 99,951 of our members could not make it. The ‘Maria B complex’ was also seen in China promoting Islamic sleeveless at the time, a very important front in our geo-political-regional nexus against Jewish and Indian designs. God willing, our naked ambitions for total dominance will be achieved. Ali Dazmat could also not attend because he was fighting a jihad on Facebook, risking his life in a crucial game of Mafia Wars against the global Zionist media.
It is said he will go on one to one against neo-con Paul Phoenix in a game of Tekken on Xbox as Momin Marshall Law next. Our fearless leader made the correct decision to abandon the event because he greatly feared the ulema who had gathered outside against him. They claim he follows a false prophet, but we know that is not true, he only follows personal profit.
We were prepared for any contingency; most of us were wearing Ray Bans and LUMS t-shirts. The smellies from government universities were kept in the background, they make photos look bad. We all gathered on stage like FBI bodyguards with bandanas because we knew someone may try to assassinate our glorious leader, even though there was no audience and all the seats empty, but you know RAW and Mossad are invisible forces.
Luckily there was electricity at the venue and no loadshedding, so it is now confirmed that Wapda is not a Zionist organization. But the samosawalla is a paleed Jewish agent because he only had the aloo variety and no pyaz ka pakora. Inshallah, our new TV programme will begin, we are about to finalise as soon as auditions for a hot chick to ask questions from Syed Samad Bond are finished.
As you know, Syed Samad has knowledge of everything and will explain how he guided Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in Islam, gave speeches that started the revolt of 1857 and how he single-handedly brought down Israeli planes attacking Pakistan with a nine mm pistol. Thanks to Allah we were not born Yahoo-dis. We became what we are due to a fearless leader. Please do not try to contact him this month, he is in hiding, you know how angry mullahs are. We hate these fassadi mullahs for trying to expose our facades.
Your friend,
Jimmy ‘I do the shimmy’ Akhtar
The Decline and Fall of the Pakistani News Anchor
Thursday, April 15th, 2010
The following is the first post from Wajahat S. Khan’s new blog, My Name is Khan. The piece originally published in Aurora, Dawn’s Marketing Magazine, in 2006. Khan was launching Dawn News TV at the time, as Head of the International Desk. You probably know him best from his show TalkBack on Dawn. Today he is not only starting his own blog, but also he is writing some really excellent critiques of the media for the new journal Express Tribune.
Let’s be honest. People watch people. We love it. It’s a part of our natural need and systemic. Some of us get bored and start watching birds or writing columns. The rest of us keep at it – people watching is the modern endemic of man. Its voyeurism’s coup de grace.Thus the TV.
Television is the Henry Kissinger of media. It has survived half a century of questionable policy making with true grit. It’s been criticized and protested against. It has been used and abused by governments, and it has used and abused governments right back. It’s been malevolently targeted and violently attacked. It’s made some terrible errors and affected the lives of millions of people. It has survived slurs like ‘boob-tube’ and ‘idiot-box’ only to come back harder, like Tony Soprano after an anxiety attack, to stake its claim. Out of the Quartet of the Essentials of the Modern Living (the refrigerator, the microwave oven and the W/C being the other three), the TV is probably the most utilized in terms of hours of interaction with human-beings, unless you live in your kitchen or worse, your bathroom.
Now flatter, leaner and meaner, with more functions and less buttons, TV still dominates our lives and (depending on its placement and content), ends up being responsible for how much we love our families, our culture and our country. In effect, TV has become the chosen representative of the human race. If we were Greco-Romans, we would call it Telly: The God of Everyday Life.
And if Telly is our daily deity, then it’s high priest has to be The Anchor.
