One item I came to learn very quickly when I started this blog is that if you start writing about the media, you will suddenly find your email filled with emails from various sources, many of which claim to be representative of ‘Press.’ It can be hard to sift through all of this information to find what is truly informative among all of the propaganda.
Are you a journalist, columnist, reporter, blogger, media worker, media activist working in print, electronic or social media in or related to Pakistan?
Would you like to be connected to a vibrant group of media workers and activists where you have complete freedom to network with other media workers, where you can freely exchange your ideas and opinions in a reasonable manner without any fear of censorship or retribution?
If you are already a member of any such group, are you sick and tired of the biased and manipulative attitude of the group moderator/s?
We are pleased to announce that we have created a new google group “Pakistan Press” with an aim to provide an interactive and impartial email discussion forum to Pakistani and international journalists and media workers.
In addition to our colleagues in the traditional print and electronic media, we also encourage media activists in the cyberspace (blog, facebook, twitter etc) to join Pakistan Press.
One thing we can assure you of, you will have complete freedom (except hate speech and foul language) to express and exchange your ideas and opinions. We will hear your voice and let it be heard.
Dialogue, mutual respect and tolerance are three guiding principles we hold dear.
In order to join this group, send an email to: pakistanteam@gmail.com
The group’s address is: pakistanpress@googlegroups.com
This is a great project and one that could do a lot of good. One of the key goals of this blog is to point out misinformation and problems with media reports not to attack any one person, but because we want journalists to recognize problems so they can fix them.
The West has had ‘free press’ for hundreds of years. Ours is very young, and in many ways I think we are still learning how to balance independence with objectivity. We have suddenly been given this great ability to criticise those in power – which we should absolutely exercise. But we should exercise this ability responsibly. Otherwise, how are we any different from those we criticise?
Jang, for example, we focus on quite a bit and there are certainly some employees of that company that we believe practise very irresponsible and unethical behaviours. But there are may more journalists with Jang who are hard working and do a good job. It is these journalists who could most benefit from a group like this one because by organizing as responsible and ethical journalists who are more interested in reporting than making a famous name for themselves, they will be the ones to make our media as good as it can be.
Ansar Abbasi has been listening to those voices that are his ‘sources’, and they appear to be giving him some pretty bad intelligence. Take his article in today’s The News, “A get-CJ Iftikhar operation on the cards?” in which Ansar hears from his nameless ‘sources’ that all the political parties are plotting to overthrow the Chief Justice. Only problem, the political parties are singing a different tune.
According to Ansar Abbasi,
Feeling insecure from a fiercely independent judiciary because of their tainted past, President Asif Ali Zardari and a group of his advisers, including a few federal ministers, all of whom have their personal grudge against the judiciary, have chalked out this strategy to muster much-required support of political and legal fraternity to target the top judge. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is also said to be on-board.
Sure to win the support of all its coalition partners, including the ANP, the MQM and the JUI-F, all of them not too happy with the independent judiciary because of its decisions affecting them and their leaders, the PPP is also confident to take the PML-N on-board.
Unfortunately, Ansar Abbasi’s ‘sources’ forgot to tell the accused plotters of their nefarious schemes. Not knowing that he is behind a secret plot to overthrow the Chief Justice, PM Gilani has been out praising the judiciary.
Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, addressing course participants at the National Defence University (NDU) on Tuesday, said the government was implementing the decisions of the Supreme Court.
“We respect the Supreme Court and have always worked for the restoration of the judiciary. I released the [detained] judges on the very first day of assuming office,” said the prime minister, adding, “We want independence of the judiciary, a free media and a vibrant civil society”.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani telephoned Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry on Saturday, informing him that the PPP-led government respects the judiciary and to assure the CJ of the government’s full cooperation in all matters, a private TV channel reported on Saturday.
“I telephoned the chief justice and informed him that the government respects the judiciary,” Gilani said while addressing a ceremony at the Lahore Expo Centre.
The prime minister said he assured the CJ that the government would take decisions on the reopening of the Swiss cases in accordance with the law and constitution.
Gilani said both parliament and the judiciary were passing through a process of evolution, adding that a clash among the institutions would not favour the country’s development and the democratic process.
He said he had no hesitation in working with the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and its chief Nawaz Sharif in the greater interest of the nation.
Of course, this should really not be a surprise. Despite the voices in his head that are Ansar Abbasi’s ‘sources’, everyone who he asked said the same.
Information Minister Qamaruzzaman Kaira, however, when approached categorically denied this and asked how the PPP government, which gave its blood during the judicial movement and restored the judges through an executive order, could even think of targeting any of the judges.
‘Neither there is any such thinking nor it will happen,’ he said, adding that the PPP, the government or the Presidency have nothing against any judge. The information minister said the government respects the judges and the courts and is obeying their orders and directions. He said there is no issue of President Asif Ali Zardari as the 18th Amendment was passed by parliament.
PML-N spokesman Ahsan Iqbal, however, emphatically said that his party, which has paid a heavy price for the restoration of the independent judiciary, would not let any attempt aimed at attacking it succeed.
Farooq Sattar (MQM) also told Abbasi that the rumour was rubbish.
Senior MQM leader Farooq Sattar, when approached told The News that no one from the government or Presidency has contacted his party for any such move against the chief justice.
ANP spokesman Zahid Khan also said the rumour is nonsense.
ANP spokesman Zahid Khan told The News that neither he was aware of any such development nor his party leadership was contacted by the government or the Presidency with such a proposal.
Even JUI-F spokesman Maulana Ajmad said the rumour is false.
JUI-F spokesman Maulana Ajmad when contacted said he is not aware of any such move and is hearing it from The News for the first time.
Actually, Ansar Abbasi even goes so far as to admit that he checked out more of the claims of his sources and could find no evidence.
The sources said Zardari’s confidants are also contemplating filing a formal reference before the Supreme Judicial Council against the chief justice.
About the grounds of such a reference, nothing could be ascertained by this correspondent except that the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Qazi Anwar, revealed to The News something is said to have already been received by President Zardari against the chief justice.
All of this raises the question – if Ansar Abbasi’s ‘sources’ tell him some rumours and all of his investigating shows that they are not true – why does he still write an article declaring it to be true?
Last week The News published a column titled, “US asked to stand by forces of law in Pakistan” that calls on the US to oppose the present government. Aside from the obvious problem of publishing an obvious opinion piece as “news,” the article raises several questions about whether The News is acting as a political propaganda machine.
The article is based primarily on another article written in an American newspaper called, The Hill. This appears to be a political newspaper for the US Congress. The article, published originally on 28 May, was written by one Mr Thomas Houlahan who says he is,
a former member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. He served as an election monitor during the 2008 elections in Pakistan
After looking into Mr Houlahan a little bit, though, it seems that perhaps there is more to this story than is being reported.
Many commentators seem to believe that the only reason Pakistan has not developed into a smoothly running democracy is that the Pakistani army is constantly involving itself in politics.
I think those commentators have gotten it pretty much backward. It is clear to me that the Pakistani army ends up involved in politics because Pakistan lacks some of the key prerequisites for the smooth functioning of a democracy.
He went on to say that Musharraf was ‘clearly entitled to run’ and that, by sacking the judges, he saved Pakistan:
The recent state of emergency stemmed from an attempt by the Supreme Court to expand its power.
There was already tension with the judiciary over what the government felt was excessive use of its right to take up issues on its own initiative, known as “suo-motu jurisdiction.” Issues like road traffic, prices, environmental problems, and appointment and transfers of senior officials were increasingly becoming court matters. In addition, government and civil service officials were being called to court with increasing regularity and dressed down by judges.
Musharraf felt that the judiciary’s activity rose to the level of interference with the conduct of government.
It has also been reported that two Supreme Court justices warned Musharraf that the court was preparing to rule him ineligible for election as president.
Such a ruling would have gone against not only any reasonable interpretation of the constitution, but an April 13, 2005 ruling by the Supreme Court on the very same issues.
It may not look good for a serving army general to run for president of a country, but under the constitution of Pakistan, Musharraf was clearly entitled to run.
…
Musharraf’s declaration of emergency may have served his own interests, but it may have also forestalled what would have been a dictionary-definition constitutional crisis.
In fact, while issuing praise for Pervez Musharraf and military rule, Mr Houlahan has some very bitter words to say about Pakistan’s political parties.
The PPP is essentially the fiefdom of Benazir Bhutto, its self-described “chairperson for life.” Before her, it was the fiefdom of her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was executed after having been convicted of authorizing the murder of a political opponent.
The PML(N) is the fiefdom of Nawaz Sharif. In fact, the parenthetical “N” in the organization’s name stands for Nawaz.
Because these parties stress loyalty to the leader over honesty and competence, all four administrations of Bhutto and Sharif ended early due to corruption and mismanagement on a massive scale.
On March 11, I received an e-mail from a Thomas Houlahan who, apart from mentioning that he was the Director of the Military Assessment Program, Center for Security and Science, Washington DC, also drew my attention to his report on the judicial crisis in Pakistan.While my detailed assessment of his report (along with the download link and the tricky quotes from the author) will be shortly available on my website (www.pitafi.com), I must submit that upon reading its 47 pages I was seriously dismayed. Despite the fact that the author displayed considerable knowledge of the Pakistani history, he was quite consciously distorting facts and making some glaring omissions that suited his thesis perfectly. They say an analyst should never start researching with preconceived notions in mind. In this case, however, the analyst had entered the fray with a clear view to vindicating President Musharraf’s stance on the judiciary.
In 2008, the same Mr Thomas Houlahan was on PTV talking with Ahmed Quraishi and saying that the justices removed by Pervez Musharraf should not be reinstated. See the video below:
Thomas Houlahan and Ahmed Quraishi
Actually, Mr Thomas Houlahan is a regular guest of Ahmed Quraishi and has appeared on his shows more than once.
Mr Thomas Houlahan also works for the American Think Tank “Center for Security and Science” which is directed by Mr Stephen R Bowers who is a professor of government at Liberty University – a school that claims to be “the largest and fastest growing Christian Evangelical university in the world.” This school’s website says that:
Everything we do is designed to develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge and skills essential to impact tomorrow’s world.
Just as invitees were jelling in Islamabad, an American appeared unannounced on the scene as “group leader.” Short, fat, bald and given to un-ironic remarks like “listen, I’m from New Hampshire, we invented democracy,” Thomas Houlahan presented himself as almost a parody of the obnoxious American abroad. He’d show up at group meetings dressed in college sweats with his gut hanging out while loudly pronouncing on the Pakistani constitution.“Ya know Fox, CNN, the networks….I’m their go-to guy on Pakistan, there’s nothing I don’t know about what happens here.” Describing himself as a ‘distinguished constitutional scholar,’ he claimed to represent a Washington think-tank, the Center for Science and Security. That he was also ex-US military deeply concerned about the Dutch delegates, representing a peace group. He liked to name-drop, notably General Rashid Qureshi, Musharraf’s senior aide and a man much hated by Pakistanis. When we made a courtesy call on the president, Houlahan took with him his copy of Musharraf’s autobiography while nodding sagely at the strongman’s every remark. I told my colleagues of suspicions I’d picked up from diplomats that CMD was close to Mohammed Ali Durrani, a former information minister and a tight palace ally.
Two days out from the poll, we ousted a very agitated Houlahan in a coup. Munir apologized to the rest of us, claiming he had no idea what this guy was like. Then we tore up the CMD observer procedures and made our own, following EU guidelines. The group would have no official leader. But that didn’t stop Houlahan from spouting his pro-government line to the local press as our ‘leader.’ The rest of us were compelled to make our own media statements stressing our strict neutrality, dissociating ourselves from him and from CMD’s affiliations. Then we headed to the provinces to observe voting.
Obviously this all points to a political operation and not some independent analysis by Mr Houlahan. So why did The News take his words and republish them without doing any independent research? It took me only a few moments using Google to find all of this information. Surely with all their resources, the people at Jang could find even more.
It seems that nobody at The News bothered to check out this Mr Thomas Houlahan or investigate why he would be writing such things. Instead, they saw an opportunity to make a political hit. But that’s not reporting. That’s a political campaign.
Of course, all of this raises again the ridiculousness of a conspiracy theory being peddled by Ansar Abbasi and The News a few weeks ago. If you remember, at the the time Ansar Abbasi was trying to tell that the US media is being controlled by some secret forces in Pakistan’s Embassy in Washington. So again, I ask, was this article by Mr Thomas Houlahan a plant by the Embassy? Or does The News only believe conspiracies about stories that it doesn’t like? Why is one article a plant, and another worthy of front page publication?
Of course, when a newspaper will publish obviously fake stories without doing even a minute’s basic fact-checking, what do you expect?
The News has sunk to a new low in yellow journalism today by publishing an article that titled, ‘Website declares Zardari US citizen.’ Rather than conduct any actual research, The News appears to have simply repeated a rumour. Based on the content of the article, one has to wonder if the author, Azim M Mian, even looked at the website in question.
For the record, below is a screenshot of the profile of Asif Ali Zardari on the website in question, “Notable Names Database,” taken on 14 June 2010.
Screnshot from NNDB.com website
It very clearly says that Asif Ali Zardari nationality is Pakistan. Even if it said something else when Azim M Mian first saw the website, why would he believe it without investigating? Also it raises the question of who sent this website link to the reporter and what was their motive?
The individual who sent Mr Azim the link could have been a political operative who submitted a change to the website (anyone can email in a change to someone’s profile) and then sent the link to the reporter thinking that he is so foolish that he will accept it as fact without doing any actual investigating. Mr Azim should reveal who his source was so that it can be known.
But compare what the website actually says to how Azim M Mian reported the information in The News. He wrote:
A well-known US website, which contains the record of 36,000 prominent figures of the world, has declared President Asif Ali Zardari a US citizen, and said that he suffers from depression and is a diabetes patient.
First, one must ask why the reporter calls this a ‘well known US website.’ What is his reason for saying it is well known? The ‘Notable Names Database’is not a ‘well known US website’ like Facebook or Wikipedia, so if the reporter is going to claim that it is well-known, he should be able to provide some evidence to back it up. I checked how this website compares to actual well-known websites and look at what I found:
Obviously, this is not a ‘well-known’ website by the usual definition. So why did Azim M Mian write this?
Second, the article does not say that Zardari “suffers from depression and is a diabetes patient.” Both of these are misleading to the point of being outright lies. What the website claims is that Zardari has ‘Risk Factors’ for depression and diabetes. But even this claim is supported by absolutely no evidence.
This brings me to the reliability of the website on which Azim M Mian bases his entire report. He says, “The website says it collects such information about famous personalities through general sources, besides its own intelligence and other sources that are not known to the common man.”
The reporter’s claim is ridiculous. The profile of Asif Ali Zardari includes a bibliography of sources that include three sources of information. One is Wikipedia, the other is a website called “Public Information Research Namebase” which is only a blank page with a few links to other news stories. The third is the “Notable Names Database” itself! Looking at the website, it is laughable to know that someone to be so foolish as to believe that this website has “sources that are not known to the common man.” Does Azim M Mian believe anything that is written on the Internet?
Actually, there is no evidence for anything posted on this website’s profile of Asif Ali Zardari, and the reporter appears to have done absolutely no actual investigating of his own. Rather, it appears that this was a blatant attempt to use the media to smear a political office holder with complete disregard for the truth.
Azim M Mian goes on completely recklessly to imply that the Zardari could have taken an oath to “keeping US oath and interests supreme to all other loyalties and oaths.” Not only does the reporter fail to do any actual research to confirm a very public piece of information as a person’s nationality, but he then goes on to make libelous insinuations that the person is possibly not loyal to his country. This is a new low for The News, which should be ashamed.
This is a shameful example of failure on the part of both a reporter and the editorial staff who never should have let such a poor example of yellow journalism as this see the light of day. It does not matter that it is Zardari or someone else who is the target of such irresponsible and incompetent acts. The News and Mr Azim M Mian owe a public apology to their readers and to Asif Ali Zardari for such a failure. In the meantime, they may want to speak to a lawyer about their exposure to a legal case for libel. Truly shameful.
UPDATE: There is a website that says the White House in the US for sale! I wonder if Azim M Mian is going to try to buy it. Perhaps The News will publish an article about how Barack Obama is selling the White House. Because, of course, if it is on the Internet, The News thinks it must be true!
A young British woman joined our newspaper as a reporter in Dubai. It was her first job as a journalist, but on pressure from the local owners the editor assigned her the sensitive crime beat. In one of her first stories, she came back with the following copy: “Two Asian women and five British ladies were arrested for prostitution by Dubai Police on Saturday.”
The Sri Lankan chief reporter ticked her off for a possible ethnic bias in the presumptuous use of “ladies” and “women” to (unwittingly perhaps) underscore the identities of the arrested persons. The Indian news editor detected a lack of consistency because the copy identified the nationality in one case and the geographical location of the other group. But the most instructive criticism came from the genial editor from Pakistan. He reminded the young reporter of the importance of the word alleged. She must insist on using it for anyone accused by police of wrongdoing till they were convicted by a court of law. It is curious how in South Asia, more than anywhere else, the good old-fashioned words of caution have all but disappeared from daily reportage.
Nowadays in India terrorists are arrested or killed in encounters, not alleged terrorists. A Pakistani or a Bangladeshi is accused of this or that crime, not a suspected Pakistani or suspected Bangladeshi. And within minutes of the tragedy last month, all the passengers in the Mangalore plane crash were declared killed, not feared killed. Why have we become so casual with facts? Or perhaps more worryingly, why do the media more and more lean on the side of the mob when they are not busy creating one with tendentious froth whipped up in the name of journalism? I couldn’t go to a three-day media seminar in Goa to discuss the theme “Media and Terrorism”. But I am sure some of these questions must have been asked.
It’s amazing how the home minister or his home secretary get away with toying with the media in Delhi. Their daily handouts are hardly ever put to the test. It’s not that the minister is infallible, quite the contrary in fact. Take the story from the other day about widespread reports of an attempt to shoot a popular “godman” near his Bangalore headquarters. The home minister with all the intelligence paraphernalia at his command confidently told the media that it was no assassination attempt but appeared to be the result of some rivalry between the godman’s disciples. The godman with his divine insights cried foul. He was certain his car if not him was the target of a bullet that hit someone nearby. However, now it turns out that it was a farmer in the neighbourhood trying to scare away stray dogs from attacking his cattle whose bullet crossed into the godman’s compound. This is a matter for investigation, not quick and easy claims. But it is not really the minister’s fault. It is for the media to ask vital questions. For example, when he claims that Maoists have blown up so many schools in the forests, it may be worthwhile to find out if the schools were serving as schools or had they been taken over by the security forces involved in the operations against the rebels.
The minister says the needle of suspicion points to Maoist subversion in a recent train tragedy in West Bengal. His ministerial colleague, the railway minister does not agree at all. And what is the point about a needle of suspicion anyway. A high-level commission which investigated Indira Gandhi’s assassination claimed a needle of suspicion pointed to her senior aide’s involvement. And if my memory is right, the aide remained a member of the sanctum sanctorum in her son’s establishment and continued to enjoy considerable clout with Sonia Gandhi.
Why are the media not asking the good old-fashioned questions that are still interestingly enough in great use in the West? Why did just one journalist have the courage and was allowed to ask of the prime minister at a supposedly open press conference a straight question: how come some named members of the security forces had not been arrested for human rights abuses in Kashmir – this in spite of the prime minister’s promise last year to declare Kashmir a zero tolerance zone for rights abuses?
Yes some journalists will argue back that this is a war zone and in a war on terror human rights of everyone cannot always be protected. Well then let’s look at other examples. Here’s one that does not cross wires with heavy responsibility of nationalist fervour. Take the case of a young schoolgirl Aarushi Talwar who was murdered in her house in May 2008. A few in the media immediately bought the police version with sexual innuendo thrown in. They blamed the servant. But then he too was found dead the next day. They then blamed the parents and the doctor couple had to face jail, courts, police, media before being let off. Even this last Saturday a newspaper persisted, this time asserting that the inquiry was looking at a former police officer and an eye doctor. No alleged. No suspected. No claimed or thought to be. Is Aarushi’s tragic saga a case of collateral damage in the era of terrorism?
Forget the elementary discipline of asking questions, how shall we explain a completely concocted story filed by an Indian news agency a day after an event when all the newspapers had already carried a faithful report of the event? The Press Trust of India claimed that writer Arundhati Roy had dared the government to arrest her for she would not give up her support for the Maoists.
Those who attended the meeting in Mumbai, wrote the following letter to the news agency.
“…The PTI report of the speech made by Arundhati Roy in Mumbai at a meeting organised by the CPDR (Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights) on June 2nd in Mumbai, was in many respects false. The report has ripped sentences and phrases from her presentation and re-arranged them in a way as to completely misrepresent what she said.
“At the meeting Roy went on record to say she was against the killing of innocents and as correctly reported in the Times of India, Mumbai edition, June 3, 2010, that “she was not here to defend killing by any side”. She said that the Maoists were the most militant end of a spectrum of resistance movements all of who are protesting corporate landgrab and that the government deals with all of them with antagonism and repression. Contrary to the PTI report, she did NOT say that “… she will continue to back the Maoists’ armed struggle even if she is put behind bars.” She did NOT call upon the government to put her in jail for supporting Maoists, nor did she offer support to the Maoists. In fact, the Times of India, Mumbai edition, June 3, 2010, reports that she stated that “Maoists have revolutionary methods but not a revolutionary vision” and “their mining policy is not very different from that of the state. They too would mine the bauxite instead of leaving it in the hills, which is what the people they are fighting for want”. The Times further correctly records that she said “We need a vision outside of capitalism as also communism”. Thus, in fact, she posed many serious questions to the Maoists…the most significant part and the real gist of her talk, have been completely and blithely ignored by your staff reporter…”
Oddly newspapers and TV channels whose own reporters had covered the event accurately, then went ahead and carried the agency’s concocted report the following day. One newspaper pounced on it with glee and said the “publicity seeking Arundhati Roy” wanted to be an Aung San Su Kyi. The question is, how do we trust the news any more?
Not all conspiracies or propaganda are obvious. Actually, that is what makes propaganda work. Sometimes, it is a subtle message the reinforces an idea in the subconscious. This is the ultimate form of propaganda, really – producing a message that is not so obvious to the reader so he doesn’t know he’s being influenced. A perfect example of this can be found in an article in The Nation about the Afghanistan war.
The article is very short, two paragraphs only. In fact, it’s hardly an article at all, but really just a quote from the American Defense Minister, Robert Gates. What is interesting is not the article, though, but the image that is posted along with it. Take a look:
Do you notice anything curious about the photo? At first glance, you might not. After all, that is the face of Robert Gates, who is quoted in the article. But look closely. Why they have Photoshopped in an Israeli flag.
What does Israel have to do with this article? Nothing. The point of the image is not related to the contents of the article except that it is meant to reinforce an idea that there is some connection between American military and Israel and Afghanistan. If The Nation has something to report about this, why don’t they report it? Instead, they only write a short article and give you the image to affect your subconscious.
This is a perfect example of political propaganda being pushed in the news media. It more sinister even than a misinformed article because it is intended only to affect the subconscious without his knowing it. You might read about Robert Gates and Afghanistan, but your mind will make a connection between American military and Israel, even though that is nowhere in the article.
The Nation is no stranger to conspiracy theories. Perhaps they should take a look at their own practices, though, if they want to find some really sinister propaganda.
Ansar Abbasi cannot seem to stop play acting as a Supreme Court Advocate. One can imagine him walking around his house in a black robe and wig taking suo moto notice of kabobs. Today, though, he has taken up his mighty pen to duel with Kamal Azfar, who is a real Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court.
Actually, the Court is very well staffed with Advocates who can argue for the government also and argue against the government’s positions also. It does not need Mr Ansar Abbasi to make any case before it. After reading his column today, it is rather obvious why this is the case.
Abbasi tries to find some contradiction in the statements of Kamal Azfar and the Asif Ali Zardari. What he finds, though, is only proof that he should leave the law to real lawyers and go back to doing his own job which is journalism.
Ansar Abbasi’s claim is that by saying that the Swiss case “was closed on merit after the Swiss prosecutor general examined and analysed the evidence on record,” Kamal Azfar has contradicted the president. First, let’s look at Kamal’s statement.
Swiss judicial authorities said on Tuesday they had closed a money-laundering case against Pakistani presidential candidate Asif Ali Zardari and released $60 million frozen in Swiss accounts over the past decade.
Daniel Zappelli, Geneva’s chief prosecutor, said that he had no evidence to bring Zardari, 55, the widower of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, to trial.
Ansar Abbasi says that Kamal Azfar’s statement is contradicted by previous statements by Asif Ali Zardari. For these, he points to a February 2008 petition filed before the Sindh High Court.
Contrary to Kamal Azfar’s claim, Asif Ali Zardari’s February 2008 petition filed before the SHC had stated that after the issuance of the NRO, the government of Pakistan continued to pursue the corruption cases against him both in Switzerland and in Britain.
Abbasi’s problem, here, seems to be one of reading comprehension. The petition filed before the SHC does not refer to open cases in Switzerland, but to the insistence of elements in Pakistan to continue pursuing cases that had been closed by the Swiss.
This appears to be the same problem with the current insistence by some that the government open cases in Switzerland again, despite the fact that the Swiss continue to insist that they will not open them.
Therefore, the contradiction is not between Kamal Azfar and Asif Ali Zardari, but between Ansar Abbasi and the reality of the legal situation being debated.
The other question that seems to be asked at least once a week is why Ansar Abbasi’s opinions are published as news and not opinions, which they most certainly are. Whether the government is correct in its arguments is a decision for the courts and the parliament.
This is important for more reasons that basic journalistic ethics, though. In complex legal cases like the one discussed in this column, the people look to media for some explanation of the facts. By reading about what each side presents, each person can form his or her own opinion on the matter. By confusing the difference between fact and opinion, Ansar Abbasi runs the serious risk of having an improper influence on the outcome of a legal question that goes far beyond any person’s personal feelings about the president.
Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter, but please let’s leave the legal debate to the Advocates before the court. Ansar Abbasi should be doing his job of reporting, not trying to do someone elses job as Advocate. And The News should publish opinions clearly labeled as such so that readers are not misled into thinking that Ansar Abbasi’s opinions are actual facts.
Reading Nadeem Paracha’s column yesterday, I was immediately reminded of a video clip from Shahid Masood’s TV programme that was recently posted on the blog Let Us Build Pakistan. The clip features a conversation between Shahid Masood and Zakir Naik, and purports, in Zakir’s way, to “prove scientifically” that non-Muslims should not be allowed to openly practise their religions in Islamic countries but the Muslims should be going into non-Muslim countries to promote Islam. What was most interesting about this clip was Shahid Masood’s reaction to Zakir Naik’s statements: nothing.
Here is the clip from Shahid Masood’s conversation with Zakir Naik:
Of course, this is not the first time that Shahid Masood has invited controversial figures to his show. Not long ago he got “both sides” from Hamid Gul and Bharat Verma on his show, Merey Mutabiq.
But does an argument between Hamid Gul and Bharat Verma really represent “both sides” of anything? These are both quite extreme voices in their respective countries. Neither represents a large segment of the population, so what Shahid Masood has done, really, is create a Circus of Extremism. This might make for entertaining TV, but what does it mean for the country?
With this question in mind, let’s read an excerpt from Nadeem Paracha:
Many Pakistanis routinely continue to deny the fact that the monsters behind all ‘faithful’ barbarism cutting this country into bits are the mutant products of what our own state and society have been up to in the past 30 years or so. For years a convoluted narrative has been circulated by the state, the clerics, schools and now the electronic media: Pakistan was made in the name of Islam (read, a theocratic state).
Thus, only Muslims (mainly orthodox Sunnis, shall we say?) have the right to rule, run and benefit from this country. ‘Minority’ religions and ‘heretical’ sects living as Pakistani citizens are not to be trusted. They need to be constitutionally, socially and culturally isolated. Parliamentary democracy can’t be trusted either. It unleashes ethnic forces, ‘corruption’ and undermines the role of the military and that of Islam in the state’s make-up. It threatens the ‘unity’ of the country — a unity based on an unrealistically homogeneous understanding of Islam (mainly concocted by the state and its right-wing allies). Most of our political, economic and social ills are due to the diabolical conspiracies hatched by our many enemies (especially India, Israel and the West).
The bad news is that such beliefs are symptomatic of a society that has started to respond enthusiastically to the major symptoms of fascist thought. Symptoms such as a xenophobic exhibition of nationalism; disdain for recognition of human rights; identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause; supremacy of the military (might); obsession with national security; intertwining of religion and government; disdain for intellectual thought and the arts, and an obsession with crime and punishment.
Have not many Pakistanis willingly allowed themselves to be captured in all the macho and paranoid trappings of the mentioned symptoms? Does this not point at a country ripening and readying itself for an all-round fascist scenario?
Certainly there will be some who say that Shahid Masood does the right thing by not injecting himself into the discussions as much and being combative. But the question must be asked what the influence is when Shahid Masood chooses to give airtime to guests who represent extremist ideologies.
Nadeem Paracha makes an excellent point:
We call ourselves ‘moderate Muslims’, and yet applaud or quietly tolerate the hate-spewing claptrap that pours out from our mosques and TV screens. We cheer about the fact that Pakistan is one of the very few democratic Muslim countries with a constitution, and yet we will not speak a word about clauses and sections in the same constitution that have triggered violence and repression against women and sanctioned a religious apartheid that only allows an orthodox, pious Muslim democratic rights to rule the country or run in an election.
Does it matter whether or not Shahid Masood himself says that non-Muslims should be forced to practise their religion in hiding? Or is it enough that he provides a platform for these views to be spoken? Are we really going to find a path to peace from a discussion between Hamid Gul and Bharat Verma? Or is that discussion set up for failure?
One does not have to be an extremist to be a facilitator of extremism. Our media is free to choose what guests will appear and what messages will be aired to the mass audience. With this freedom comes some responsibility, though. As Nadeem Paracha correctly says,
We do not debate. We react and then huddle up behind our flimsy and lopsided historical and national narratives about what being a Pakistani and Muslim is all about, cursing the world for our ills, looking out for infidels and heretics among us, or for scapegoats in the shape of media-constructed punching bags.
It’s time for the media to end this Circus of Extremism, and to use its incredible ability to promote a message of rational discussion. That doesn’t mean it has to take one side or another, but it needs to be factual and it needs to be fair. Right now, its failing at both.
Talat Hussain’s recent adventure aboard the humanitarian flotilla bound for Gaza provides an important lesson about the potential for journalists to impact current events. It also raises an important question: why don’t our journalists risk as much for Pakistan as they will for some other country?
A Google search for the words ‘Talat Hussain Hero’ returned about 137,000 links. Pretty impressive.
To be fair, what Talat Hussain did – putting his personal safety at risk in order to get a first-hand account of what was sure to be (and certainly proved to be) a controversial story – was a commendable act, and one that serves as a model for other investigative journalists.
Where are Pakistan’s Heroes?
The first question that came to my mind when watching Talat Hussain’s story unfold, though, was where are Pakistan’s heroes? Whatever heroism may be deemed worthy of Talat Hussain, it was a heroism for Palestinians, not Pakistanis. Certainly the Palestinians are under siege and are need of some heroes. But are we not under siege also?
I was glad to see Wajahat S Khan’s recent article, I am an Ahmadi. But how disheartening that the discussion of religious freedom in our own country has all but been replaced with a discussion of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It seems there is something of a convenient double-standard, no? We are incensed with Israel’s brutality against Muslims in Gaza, but when it comes to religious minorities here…well, it’s unfortunate, yes, but nothing to miss tea over.
Palestine has its hero, Talat Hussain. Who will be Pakistan’s hero?
Treatment of Journalists in Pakistan
The next question that came to mind was another bit of hypocrisy that can be traced to certain media types. Talat Hussain is a hero for putting himself in the middle of a deadly fight in a country that is not his and trying to report the facts of the situation for an audience deeply sympathetic to one side.
It’s a good thing he did not try that here, or he surely would have been labeled a spy and had his home address published in The Nation.
If we are truly to consider Talat Hussain’s act a commendable one, we must not miss the important lessons. We must look at what our feelings about Talat Hussain’s courage say about ourselves when we are faced with similar situations in our own nation. Who in the media is willing to risk their lives for Pakistani Ahamadis? Why are our foreign correspondents ‘heroes’ while foreign correspondents here are ‘spies’? What does it say about our media that the best and brightest minds in journalism cannot see this critical divide?
What Talat Hussain did took an amazing amount of courage. He very well could have been one of the unfortunate souls who died in that adventure. He put his very life on the line in order to tell the story of a people suffering. The Palestinians in Gaza have a good friend in him.
Reporting on court proceedings and legal matters is an important and legitimate duty of the media. But in doing so, journalists should be fair to both sides of a complaint. After all, it is up to the court to decide the outcome - not a reporter. For Ansar Abbasi, however, that restraint appears to be too much to ask. In today’s The News, Abbasi writes about a complaint filed on Steel Mills that reads like a plea for the prosecution.
Abbasi’s column, “SC asked to intervene immediately,” reports that Watan Party has moved and application saying that the Steel giant is on the verge of collapse. While it may be true that a political party has filed some application with the court, Abbasi appears to have failed to do any independent research, and merely repeats the claims of the complaint.
Abbasi even goes so far as to suggest that the problem is one of political interference:
The PSMC, it is said, has the potential to meet the steel requirements of the country as per installed production capacity of the plant, provided it gets adequate supply of required material, an efficient, honest and professional management and is saved from the political interference.
But even Abbasi is forced to admit that the government has been acting only to remove administrative corruption from the industrial giant.
In August last year, the prime minister sacked the then chairman PSMC Moeen Aftab Shaikh on corruption charges and directed the Interior Ministry to investigate the affairs of the PSMC and to submit a report.
Watan filing a complaint on Steel Mills is a newsworthy story. But it is not proper to take this story as an opportunity to use the media to influence the public or the court to support one side or the other. Abbasi’s writing, unfortunately, does a disservice to the ideal not only of a fair media, but of a fair judiciary as well. How can anyone believe that they will get a fair hearing when they have to defend not only against the prosecutor, but the news media as well.
Please, Mr Abbasi, let the lawyers make the speeches and you only report the facts.
