Archive for July, 2010

Newer Entries »

Tariq Butt's latest column – Is this reporting?

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

The News today features a top story by Tariq Butt that hardly qualifies as serious journalism. The article, “Fortress NAB shuts all doors and windows” is nothing but a polemic intended to smear NAB officials and is supported by no facts or evidence other than the supposed statements of a nameless “ex-official”.

Tariq Butt’s rhetoric is over-the-top, and betrays an obvious bias against the NAB officials. The author begins his article by describing top NAB officials as “handpicked loyalists of the ruling party” and claims that the agency has “shut itself into a cocoon, with all doors and windows closed to keep a lid on its actions and secret plans”.

The reporter then acts shocked when the agency’s acting chairman and prosecutor general do not take his calls on their personal mobile phones. It is interesting to note that harassing individuals on their personal mobile phones is on the same day condemned by another journalist, Mr Kamran Shafi, who complains of this behavior by members of the intelligence agencies. Have Jang reporters begun acting like rogue intelligence agents?

Tariq Butt’s claims are supposedly backed by the statements of yet another one of Jang’s super secret and anonymous “ex-officials” who, of course, no longer works for the agency that he is supposedly giving confidential information about.

This anonymous source, if he even exists, supposedly told Tariq Butt that “all the officers and staffers, who were still with the NAB, were under strict surveillance by an intelligence agency on the orders of the government to know who tries to leak out any information about whatever was being planned inside the NAB.”

But Tariq Butt admits that his alleged source does not even work for NAB, so how would this person be privy to such information? In fact, he wouldn’t.

But Mr Butt does not let that stop him from making the most hysterical and slanderous accusations. He concludes his article by accusing that NAB “is now engaged in devising ways and means to serve a particular set of corrupt people”. For all the complaints about MNAs allegedly lying about their degrees, I wonder when Jang will begin to hold their own employees accountable for the scandalous behaviour that appears on the front page of their own newspaper.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 2 Comments »

The News (Jang) Uses Double-Standard for PPP, PML-N

Sunday, July 11th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)The News has had a difficult time lately with its star journalists using double standards for politicians that they like and don’t like. Mostly this has been making excuses for PML-N and giving no mercy to PPP. This would be fine if it was only on the opinion page, but rather it has been more and more affecting the entire newspaper. The latest example exposes a bias across the entire news team.

PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif is given front-page coverage for speaking out against the PA resolution against media,when it is his party that is responsible for the measure. Shahbaz Sharif (PML-N) also receives prominent coverage for speaking out against the same resolution despite his party being the source. Meanwhile, PPP MNA Sherry Rehman is only covered briefly inside the newspaper for her statements against the resolution.

But it is not simply this giving more coverage to one political party taking a popular position (in effect an attempt to convey that the other party is not speaking out), there is a distinct double-standard at work if you look at how the newspaper treats PML-N and PPP.

The coverage of PML-N leaders speaking out against the resolution that their own members passed is meant to demonstrate this this was the action of some rogue MPAs who were not following the party line. In fact, The News takes this PML-N talking point at face value in their editorial today.

PML-N leader has called for the expulsion of the mover of the resolution, member of his own party and has accused him of trying to cover up his crime of faking his degree. Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif has said that he ‘cherishes the free media as much as he likes an independent judiciary in the country.’ A belated damage control effort within PML-N appears to be underway.

Obviously, it is possible for some MPAs to act out of turn and The News is perfectly happy to give the benefit of doubt to Nawaz and Shahbaz.

But when it comes to PPP, the standard is different. Instead of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, The News takes the position of ‘assumed guilty’! In an adjacent editorial about a leaked letter that is allegedly by NAB Prosecutor General Irfan Qadir questioning the reinstatement of CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry, The News lays the blame firmly on the PPP.

If they were not the views of the government of Mr Gilani, then whose views were they and what was afoot with Mr Qadir seemingly playing a lone game? NAB is under the control of the Law Ministry which itself is piloted by Law Minister Babar Awan. Presumably the Law Ministry is accountable to somebody at a higher level and who else would that be but the prime minister – unless ministers have been given a freehand? Babar Awan increasingly seems to be a law unto himself.

…

So where does this leave Mr Gilani and his statement that Mr Qadir’s views were not those of his government? They might not be the views of his government, but again, his might not be the only government operational today; which might also explain why the law minister is able to act as he pleases – above or below the law.

Do you see what they have done? Nawaz and Shahbaz are praised for speaking out against out-of-line party members, but PM Gilani is insinuated to be a liar and the government is to be held accountable for any misplaced comma of a PPP member. This is a double standard so obvious that it is hard not to think that The News is acting not as journalism but as propaganda to promote one political party over another.

That is not all. Other so-called ‘journalists’ for The News continue to use innuendo to smear politicians they don’t like (PPP only).

Tariq Butt begins his column about the selection of a new NAB chief by insinuating that PM Gilani is trying to appoint a ‘crony’.

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani is incapacitated under the case law and statute to appoint a crony as the chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) because he has to convince two other key consultees about the credentials of such a nominee before notifying his selection, legal experts say.

The remainder of the article discusses the legal process and requirements for appointing chairman of the NAB. There is no presentation of any evidence that Gilani or anyone in government is trying to appoint anyone but the best, most qualified person. Instead, Tariq Butt simply assumes this is the case and smears the PM by implying as much.

The pro-PML-N bias of The News is easily proven today. Obviously, editorial pages are for opinions and the authors can take whatever position they choose. But when the opinions of the reporters and editors are so obviously using double standards and those double standards begin to color the entire reporting – that is not journalism but is political propaganda.

Perhaps Jang Group needs to update the name of its English-language newspaper from The News International to The News (PML-N). Then the readers would at least know what to expect. Better, though, would be for Jang to require some objectivity and fact-based reporting so that The News can be useful to the entire nation, and not only one political party.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 4 Comments »

Media Coming Under Fire

Friday, July 9th, 2010

Media is coming under fire for its double standards, poor research, and ill-informed shouting matches. Dawn reports that the MPA were right to loudly criticise journalists for their reporting on the issue of degrees.

On Wednesday the Punjab MPAs rightly pointed out that the media needed to be careful in reporting on the subject — as it should be careful in its work generally. They were absolutely right in complaining that they are often singled out for flogging by the media while some others are considered too holy for criticism.

The Dawn editorial goes on to offer some relief to journalists, saying,

“…at least in this case, the media was not the principal investigator or the initiator. It can hardly be expected to not report what it sees, just as it is duty-bound to listen to the other side and report it fairly.”

But shouldn’t the media take care not to be used as a political weapon by operatives who are peddling information with a particular goal in mind.

Kill Your TVMeanwhile, in the Express Tribune today, Mahreen Aziz Khan roundly criticises the declining quality of TV talk shows.

With over 80 channels, the majority being so called “news” channels, the Pakistani viewers should be spoilt for choice. Except they are not. Far from it. Most of the “news” channels are miserably short on original content and high on opinion masquerading as reporting, bias dressed as analysis, and rabble rousing substituting for impassioned debate. The multiple political talk shows resemble clones of each other, with standardised sets and unoriginal formats for nightly shouting matches between the political egos that appear as guests. There are of course a couple of notable exceptions where solid research and in depth analysis are presented in an informative and intelligent manner. But, by and large, what is offered is an ungainly assortment of “anchors” browbeating their guests, who themselves are regulars, often appearing simultaneously on multiple channels thanks to pre-recording. The end game is to encourage, cajole or instigate by any means necessary, a cat fight amongst the handful of politicians offered up for the evening. With the majority of anchors gunning for the government of the day, the result is a shouting match — the television equivalent of a neighbourhood backyard argument laced with scurrilous allegations, name calling and low blows.

But Mahreen is not here to bury the media, but to save it. She points out quite eloquently that TV talk shows, by attempting to appeal to the ‘lowest common denominator’ of viewer are driving people away and reducing the quality of their programmes. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Okay it’s not all bad — yes the news/current affairs media has played a constructive role on some issues, most notably in the change in public opinion towards those who commit acts of terrorism on our soil. The self-imposed code of conduct has worked fairly well and stemmed the horrible trend of showing carnage and panic in the aftermath of tragedy, of sensationalising terror acts by adrenaline fuelled breaking news. But the electronic media is crucial for shaping public opinion on key issues, especially in a largely illiterate society and has a much greater duty. Yet the vast majority of these shows are compromising content quality to suit the lowest common denominator rather than raising standards and providing viewers with informed discussions.

I shall resist making appeals to sense of duty, since that has a poor track record for results. So let me exhort self-interest instead. Most news channels are losing ground and revenue due to the downward trend of viewership, so they should take action to avoid losses. Anchors are turning people away from the news/current affairs genre and losing audiences to entertainment — just witness the increase in TV drama productions and ratings in the past year. And, most of all, politicians are damaging their own (little remaining) credibility by taking part in these verbal brawls, so they need to take a stand by opting to not to appear on shows which openly disrespect and lower the tone of our political discourse. The viewers are already voting with their remote controls. They have had enough of this mindless media-ocrity.

Sadly, as long as the CEOs of giant media corporations continue to give more importance to the billions in advertising income that line their pockets rather than to the betterment of the nation and the people, it will be hard to convince some of them to do the right thing.

Perhaps these ‘media moguls’ will recognize the warning signs and take the advice offered to create quality programming that attracts viewers and helps better the country also.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Ansar Abbasi: Double Standards and Smears

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

Ansar AbbasiAnsar Abbasi today is continuing with his sad display of poor journalism and unsupported political attacks. His column in The News is titled “NAB used to target CJ on Presidency’s wishes“, but nowhere in the column does he present any evidence that such a claim is true. Rather Ansar Abbasi uses double standards and bald faced smear tactics to try to create some resentment against the government and promote his own political goals.

It’s ironic that Ansar Abbasi claims that the government is trying to “scandalise and ridicule the superior judiciary”, all the while his same newspaper publishes articles that uses phrases like “the government’s ugly effort” and “desparate”. Abbasi in his column says that “the government has launched this frontal attack against the Chief Justice”, but in another article in the same paper is titled, “Govt attacked, judiciary backed”. Which is it?

But that is not the only double-standard that is obvious. Ansar Abbasi says that in questioning the validity of President Zardari’s decision to reinstate the Chief Justice, NAB “ignored the basic fact that the issues regarding the judges restoration or those reappointed under the Naek formula have already settled and could not be questioned anymore.”

So the judges restoration which occurred in 2009 cannot be questioned anymore, but the Swiss cases which were dismissed in 2008 should be re-opened? NRO which was promulgated in 2007 can be repealed? Is there a rule that only that which can be used as a weapon against Zardari is fair to be questioned, and anything else is “already settled”?

This same logic is applied to the NAB statements about the restoration of the judiciary. Ansar Abbasi says that, “the NAB…has tried to question the validity of the March 2009 restoration of the judges through an executive order issued by Prime Minister Gilani”. He says that this cannot be questioned because “the Supreme Court in its July 31, 2009 decision has already settled all such matters”.

But Ansar Abbasi uses a different standard for NAB. He says that “The NAB’s reply to the Supreme Court in a BoP corruption case is not only contemptuous but is also flawed and filed by a person, Irfan Qadir, who along with the minister in-charge of the NAB Babar Awan is required to be questioned by NAB in the same BoP fraud case.”

According to Ansar Abbasi’s logic, Irfan Qadir and Babar Awan should not be able to file a reply in a BoP case because they may be affected by the case. But it is perfectly acceptable for the Supreme Court to settle the matter of its own restoration!

In fact, Ansar Abbasi tries to smear the names of Irfan Qadir and Babar Awan by saying they are accused by Harris Steel owner Afzal Sheikh. This is a bald faced attempt to smear the names of these men without giving them the proper right to have any complaints or accusations cleared in a court. For someone who claims to care about justice, Ansar Abbasi continues to be selective in who he believes deserves the right of fair treatment and who is guilty by his own decree.

Ansar Abbasi: Challenging Shahid Massod to be Chief Justice of Media?

And after he continues to behave this way, Ansar Abbasi has the cheek to whine that nobody will talk to him! He complains in his column,

The government at different levels was even contacted last week by a staffer of The News Investigations Wing regarding what was cooking up in the corridors of power against the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the superior judiciary but it was again denied.

Can you imagine this phone call?

“Assalamu Alaikum”

“Walaikum assalam. I am a staffer of The News. Please let me speak to the crony in charge of cooking up contemptuous attacks against the Chief Justice?”

“I’m sorry, what are you talking about?”

“You know who I am talking about! He is in the Corridors of Power and works on the ‘Scandalise and Ridicule the superior judiciary’ portfolio!”

“Sir, I do not know what you are talking about. This is the government of Pakistan, are you sure you have dialed the right number?”

“How can you not know what I am talking about! It was reported in The News last month!!! So you are denying me to speak with the crony in charge of conspiracy to target the Chief Justice!”

“Sir, I am going to have to hang up the phone because we have important work to do in the government and do not have time to waste with prank phone calls.”

Ansar Abbasi calls the NAB’s reply “simply disgraceful, unprecedented and unheard of”. His entire column is a poison pen letter that makes accusations with double standards, innuendo, and no evidence. All of this he thinks is okay because his column has been labeled “News Analysis”. But this is not analysis. It is simply a political speech, and another embarrassment for Mir Rahman.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 3 Comments »

Shaheen Sehbai's Defamation Double-Standard

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010
MNA Azeem Daultana quotes Shaheen Sehbai's own words - is this defamation?

MNA Azeem Daultana quotes Shaheen Sehbai's own words - is this defamation?

One would think that after a 42-year career in the field of journalism, Shaheen Sehbai would have grown a slightly thicker skin. Instead, it appears that he’s grown quite a bit of cheek! Apparently the Group Editor of The News had his feeling hurt by an article penned by MNA Azeem Daultana and has responded with a Rs 100 Millions defamation notice. Reading The News report about the defamation notice, one wonders if Shaheen Sehbai is asking to be treated with a different standard than he himself observes.

Shaheen Sehbai’s complaint, filed against two province-based newspapers, claims that,

On May 30, 2010, the Editor-in-Chief of The News International received for publication from the Principal Information Officer of the Press Information Department an article entitled ‘Differentiating between journalism and ‘churnalism’: a case study of Shaheen Sehbai’s (‘Defamatory Article’ authored by Azeem Daultana, PPP Parliamentary Secretary for Information).

Besides making several aspersions on the professional integrity, credentials, character and intentions of Shaheen Sehbai, the article specifically stated that Mr Sehbai ‘sought an ambassadorial position from Asif Ali Zardari and the PPP government and when Mr Zardari and the government denied him the coveted position and office of profit, he embarked upon a revenge mission against Mr Zardari.’

The PPP MNA was given an opportunity by Mr Sehbai to retract his baseless allegations through an e-mail dated June 12, 2010, within one week and tender an apology for the defamatory accusations. Instead of withdrawing the defamatory accusations and tendering an apology, the article by Mr Daultana was given wider dissemination and was published in two province-based newspapers, besides some suspicious blogs.

This defamation claim is particularly curious because the complainant, Shaheen Sehbai, is notorious himself for writing “baseless allegations” and “defamatory accusations”.

Just in the past few months Shaheen Sehbai has written numerous columns that include charges and allegations that he even admits have no factual support.

On 28 June, Shaheen Sehbai wrote:

The latest in the Zardari camp is to attack the judges, on the one hand, threatening to withdraw their Executive order and throw them on the street by Rehman Malik’s executive power, while on the other to secretly encourage General Musharraf to seriously come back and put together the remnants of the PML-Q under his wings and then cooperate with the PPP against Raiwind.

Where is Shaheen Sehbai’s evidence for such a claim? Or is this merely “baseless allegation” and “defamatory accusation” as well?

On 10 May Shaheen Sehbai wrote:

Brimming with self-delusional overconfidence, President Zardari and his closest minions are also quietly planning a similar offensive against the Establishment, which includes both the Pakistan Army and the country’s bureaucracy.

Against the GHQ, the presidency has plans to restructure the top hierarchy of the services chiefs and reports have been deliberately leaked from the top that the heads of the army, navy and the air force may be brought under a Chief of Defence Staff or CODS.

Of course this never happened. Isn’t this also “baseless allegation” and “defamatory accusation” as well?

On 23 April, Shaheen Sehbai wrote:

Inside the prison, the first objective for an influential, moneyed person is to develop a network of loyalists who can bypass the jail procedures, the manual, deceive the jailors, provide facilities to make life easy, bribe or negotiate with captors and judges and find conduits to communicate with the outside world. This is what Zardari did in his years of jail. He developed the hard core of his cronies – a jail doctor, a hospital owner, a business caretaker, a protocol provider, a media handler, a few political artists, a number of mafia-type jobbers, some trouble shooters, a couple of well-dressed attack dogs and a bunch of gun-wielders who he calls as his loyal security guards.

Where is Shaheen Sehbai’s evidence for such a claim? Or is this merely “baseless allegation” and “defamatory accusation” as well?

It seems that Shaheen Sehbai has a very long history of writing defamatory accusations about President Zardari. So why is he shocked when someone writes of him,

The extent of the writer’s venomous hatred for the President of Pakistan, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari, is well known to the readers of this newspaper. It can be judged by a recent piece written by Sehbai titled “Why is the President scared of political actors” published in The News of April 23, 2010, in which he sadly used words like “fiendish” and phrases like “attack dogs” to describe the person and the official staff who – whether we like it or not — represent the office of the President of Pakistan.

Shaheen Sehbai may not like what Azeem Daultana has to say, but at least he has provided some evidence in the form of Sehbai’s own words. That is more courtesy that Shaheen Sehbai ever extended to the president, is it not?

In fact, Azeem Daultana’s supposedly “defamatory” article is filled with quotes from Shaheen Sehbai’s own articles followed by corrections. Does Shaheen Sehbai allege that he has defamed himself?

Sadly, Shaheen Sehbai cannot even help but to make some defamatory statements in his own complaint about defamation. For example, why does he write, “…the article by Mr Daultana was given wider dissemination and was published in two province-based newspapers, besides some suspicious blogs.”

Mr Daultana’s article appears to have been published on the popular blogs Pak Tea House, which is editied by Raza Rumi, a regular columnist for The News, as well as Let Us Build Pakistan, which is edited by a group of Co-editors, all of whom are publicly listed on the website. So why these blogs are called “suspicious”? Is this not yet another example of merely “baseless allegation” and “defamatory accusation” as well?

Shaheen Sehabi has been writing column after column of rumour and innuendo against President Zardari and others. His allegations are regularly made without any evidence, and his predictions have repeatedly failed to come true. He hides behind the cloak of ‘professional journalist’ and uses this title as a talisman to ward off any criticism. Even though Shaheen Sehbai has no problem criticising others, when someone dares to criticise him, he makes a defamation claim. Does Shaheen Sehbai believe he should be held to a different standard than his own?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 5 Comments »

Is Ghazi Salahuddin's Analysis Fair or Factual?

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

Ghazi SalahuddinGhazi Salahuddin caught my attention this morning with his column for The News, “Under Zia’s Shadow”. In this piece, Salahuddin makes the claim that the legacy of Zia-ul-Haq continues to shape Pakistani policy, especially in the struggle against religious militancy. This is an interesting, if not wholly original discussion though certainly one that is necessary. But halfway through his column the author begins to make curious statements about the present coalition government and its supposed unwillingness to take on the Zia legacy and change the path of the nation. I tell you this surprised me.Ghazi Salahuddin known as an intellectual, but is he being intellectually honest?

My eyebrows shot up in surprise when I read the following:

I have alluded to the responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the military to deal with the legacy of Zia. But we now have civilian and professedly democratic rulers. What is their responsibility and how are they discharging it? Irrespective of the limits of the power they possess, they have obviously not taken any concrete steps to revise the policies that are rooted in Zia’s attempts to Islamise our polity.

After all, we should remember Zia not just for his religious fervour and how he invested it in his support for the Afghan jihad. He was the one who committed the judicial murder of the founder of the Pakistan People’s Party. Incidentally it is not only the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto that the present rulers have to avenge, not in any literal sense but metaphorically. There is the more recent and still bleeding wound that the terrorists, Zia’s disciples in some ways, inflicted in December 2007.

Does this not mean that the first task of the present government, led by the PPP, is to mobilise the liberal and democratic forces in this country to change its ideological sense of direction? Democracy is the best revenge, they proclaim, invoking the political wisdom of Benazir Bhutto. However, they have not done much in this direction in more than two years that they have been at the helm of affairs.

It is truly unfortunate that in spite of their coalition with the Awami National Party, itself wedded to the legacy of Bacha Khan, and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, a seemingly secular outfit, no decisive steps have been taken to reverse the tide that was raised by Zia’s Islamisation. Indeed, the 18th Amendment did not dare to tackle laws introduced by Zia, including the Blasphemy Law.

I must say that I find it incredible that Ghazi Salahuddin can suggest with a straight face that parliament has “not done much in this direction in more than two years that they have been at the helm of affairs”.

Any evaluation must be made with some measurement of comparison. An elephant may be giant to a man, but compared to a planet it is quite small. When Ghazi Salahuddin says that the present government has “not done much” to address the Islamisation of Zia, who is he comparing to? Is he comparing to Musharraf who made deals with MMA to pass the 17th Amendment and consolidate power for himself? Or is he comparing to Nawaz Sharif who presented the Shariat Bill to the National Assembly? Yes, Musharraf was finally convinced to ban some militant groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, but wasn’t he also using these same militants during Kargil conflict and in Kashmir? Nawaz Sharif has also lately been making some statements against militants, but the better comparison is really with his time in power, not in opposition. That is not to discount Nawaz’s recent statements, but we must compare ‘apple to apple’ – surely an intellectual like Ghazi Salahuddin would agree.

So now let us look at the facts of the last two years. I will not say that there is not more to be done, but to suggest that the present government is doing nothing against Islamisation and militancy is absurd.

18th Amendment may not have perfected the Constitution, but it was certainly an important work of legislation and much needed. Also, the fact that it was passed unanimously across the parties must be respected. Surely Ghazi Salahuddin believes that building consensus and returning powers is a positive move.

Protection Against Harassment of Women in the Workplace Bill was a historic piece of legislation to protect the women’s rights. Does Ghazi Salahuddin not place importance on women’s rights and empowerment?

President Zardari signs women protection bill

President Zardari signs women protection bill

Actually, the American website Foreign Policy includes a recent post by the academic C. Christine Fair that argues against the inclusion of Pakistan on a list of ‘failed states’ and says the present government is making important progress against militancy. Have we now entered some bizarre world where the Americans are more willing to recognize our progress while our own intellectuals beat a drum of ‘do more’?

Ghaza Salahuddin perhaps reveals the true source of his anger at the end of the column when it comes to the issue of ‘fake degees’. This seems to be a pain to all of our public intellectuals, perhaps because they are so proud of their own degrees that they do not want any challenge to their own elitism. But Ghaza Salahuddin forgets the facts when he writes incorrectly:

But lying on record is a crime that any politician in a genuine democracy must pay with public disgrace and a prison sentence.

Perhaps Ghaza Salahuddin has not heard of a man named William Jefferson Clinton who was President of the United States of America and found to have lied under oath? Bill Clinton was not removed from office and did not face any prison sentence. In fact, he was allowed to continue being president and finish his elected term.

Ghazi Salahuddin is a respected public intellectual and writer, so it is important that when he is given a public platform such as the column of a newspaper that he is both fair and factual. He does not have to present any particular view but his own, but he should have intellectual honesty when he makes his arguments. Today’s column, unfortunately, fails both the fair and the factual test. We hope he does better in the future.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in The News | 1 Comment »

The News Droops Even Lower

Saturday, July 3rd, 2010

The following post is a reader submission received from Muhammad Shahid Khan. As always, we encourage you to email your own posts to pakistanmediawatch@gmail.com if you notice some yellow journalism or factual problem in the media so that we as a community can keep our media held accountable.

The News (Jang Group)The News is no alien to yellow journalism. The whole Jang Group has an immense history of publishing concoted stories based on the unknown sources of investigative journalist in-charge Ansar Abbasi, the imaginations of Saleh Zafar and the conspiracies of Shaheen Sehbai.

But with the story about “lady guides” being given front-page importance by The News, it has become clear once again that it has drooped to the lowest levels of moral, journalistic and intellectual standards.

On July 2, 2010 it published the following story: ‘Lady guides’ hired during Zardari’s Turkey visit not paid

Firstly, the emphasis is again on President Zardari rather than stating that some guides hired for a state tour haven’t been paid. Then, the term is quoted in quotes again and again as “lady guides” and words used include to “facilitate the entourage”. The News without stating it clearly mean to say that the ladies were either escorts/prostitutes or were providing some “special” service. The term combined with the President’s name in the heading makes it clear that The News is trying to make it sound like (intentionally, of course) a sex scandal.

Today, the paper dropped even lower with an editorial on an issue.

The very first paragraph reads :

An FO spokesman has suggested they were interpreters; other accounts say they were ‘guides’. Everyone is of course free to reach their own conclusions. The fact they were hired from an unregistered tour operator, without the knowledge of the ambassador to Turkey at the time, may give further clues. The clandestine – and rather sleazy–nature of the whole affair was made worse by the failure to pay the girls until the intervention of a Turkish court.

The clear focus on “sleazy”, “guides” and the issue being “clandestine” is portraying the editorial desk’s thinking and intentions.Editorials handle important issues with the focus being on a short, all-encompassing rational and thought-provoking issue. When you lamented about editors not doing enough, here you have an editor doing precisely the worst thing possible. The Editorial again hints at the supposed misconduct that it wants to create out of the story. By stating “Everyone is of course free to reach their own conclusions” the editors have made clear their opinion that it is some kind of a sex scandal and linking it not with a state visit but directly to the President, it is clearly conducting the highest levels of criminal journalism. Such pieces of yellow journalism do not demand being given any worthy mention but coupled with the fact that the President is a widower, the newspaper has tried to portray the President as being involved in a scandal so as to capture the public’s attention on its alleged war against the President and deem him as having no moral authority.

Although it published a statement from the Presidential Spokesman as well, the newspaper is clearly and precisely hinting at sexual misconduct from the President.

I would never have covered it for such stories don’t deserve mention but the newspaper’s willingness to publish an editorial demanded that I should, as a responsible citizen, deem this as a crime and bring it to everyone’s notice how one news-media group is personally targeting people.

– Muhammad Shahid Khan

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Reader Submissions, The News | 5 Comments »

Media Muzzle and Media Accountability

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Have some elements of the media gone too far?

The media profession has been all a twitter this week following reports of a meeting between government and military figures to discuss formulation of guidelines for electronic and print media. It is our sincere hope that no such ‘media muzzle’ will come to pass, but we must ask whether some in the media are actually inviting these problems?

Daily Times today includes an editorial on reports that the ministry of foreign affairs, information, and the army’s ‘Joint Staff Headquarters’ (JSHQ) have discussed whether or not there should be media guidelines to ensure national security interests.

The first reaction of any honest journalist should be discomfort with any government constraints on a free press. Constraining the ability of the media to serve as a check on power is a sure path towards abuses of power. But as with any freedom, there are responsibilities. Actions have consequences: Just as eating too much sweets will cause diabetes and rot your health, so can unhealthy reporting rot journalism. Here is what Daily Times says:

Relative freedom of the media has been achieved after great struggle and sacrifice. But there is no such thing as freedom without responsibility. Some sections of the media have used this relatively new found freedom irresponsibly and invited this kind of intervention, as we have been warning repeatedly. The media has failed to self-regulate and hold itself accountable by setting up institutions and structures that provide mechanisms for redress of complaints by the public and affected groups. The Press Council instituted by former president Musharraf failed to become functional and there is no such forum for complaints against the electronic media. Even now, if the media houses come together and, while rejecting this external oversight by essentially the military establishment, produce a code of conduct and structures to regulate themselves, perhaps this ‘sinking’ ship can be saved.

The News (Jang Group)It’s worth noting that Daily Times warning about the problem of irresponsibility and unaccountability in media comes on the same day that The News, a newspaper of the giant media corporation Jang Group, publishes an article by Afzal Khan that could be read as wishing for the president to be assassinated. In an article about his hatred for President Zardari, Afzal Khan writes:

For many it may not be a very pleasant thought that he will not only survive to complete the present term but we may be condemned to bear with him even for another term. It is rather a dreadful scenario of having him as our helmsman and guiding our destinies. Unless he changes his wayward ways and crooked thinking, this is likely to be an unmitigated disaster. Yet it is a ground reality that we may have to face.

Certainly the author will claim innocence and plead his case that he means political survival, not a question of life or death. But why did he not say “stay in office”? Why did he choose the word “survive” which has a very clear meaning of life and death? Even if the reporter, Afzal Khan, could not understand that his article can be read as promoting assassination, was his editor asleep? How did such rhetoric make it to publication?

Even for a company that has admitted that they take anti-government positions to boost their advertising income, on the day following a multiple suicide bombing attack against such a place as the Data Darbar, is it unreasonable for the military and security agencies to worry that media is finally going too far? If a reporter suggests killing the President, is it possible for journalism to become terrorism? If so, at what point will the security agencies step in to stop it?

Despite reporters’ concerns about a crackdown on free press, Zardari and the government have been impressively silent as they suffer daily assaults – often completely unsupported by facts – from all corners of the media. From the moment Zardari was elected, many media elites have seemed determined to topple the government by hook or by crook, and have published a constant stream of ‘wishful journalism’ that is based not on any facts or evidence, but on a determination to cause Zardari to fail. This in itself is irresponsible, unethical, and unprofessional. But Afzal Khan, The News, and Jang Group crossed a line today with what was published.

The Daily Times editorial makes clear that the intention behind discussions of some JSHQ developed media guidelines has been to protect the national security. This is an important and laudable goal. But national security cannot come at the sacrifice of freedoms, otherwise what are we securing? Muzzling the media will only result in blowback from an already hostile press, and invite stern rebukes from the international media as well.

Unfortunately, if Jang Group is unable or unwilling to instruct its publishers, editors, and reporters to uphold a basic sense of responsibility and accountability, it may be that they place the muzzle on themselves. How the people at The News could think it is ever justified to wish for the death of the President of the nation – even if only rhetorically so – is beyond understanding. For the sake of the free press, it is time for the legitimate journalists to take back control of their profession and ensure a basic level of responsibility, accountability and decency. If they do not, someone else surely will.

[UPDATE]Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Qamar Zaman Kaira on Friday ruled out any possibility of imposition of curbs on the media. While this is good news certainly, let us hope that it does not prevent Jang Group and other media corporations from taking their own responsibilities more seriously.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Censorship, Ethics, Jang, The News | No Comments »

Newer Entries »