Archive for August, 2010

« Older Entries

Selig Harrison and Pakistan Media

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Selig HarrisonA column in the New York Times newspaper by American commentator Selig Harrison has raised quite a bit of media attention around a conspiracy theory that the government is giving Gilgit Baltistan to China, a claim publicly denied by the Foreign Office. As with most conspiracy theories of this magnitude, a little basic research demonstrates that Mr Harrison and his claim of Pakistan ceding territory to China are unreliable.

While it took me all of 15 minutes to discover that Mr Harrison’s reputation precedes his remarks in the US, our own media seems to be more than willing to repeat the wildest conspiracies without the least effort in fact-checking. More troubling is that the Mr Harrison’s conspiracy seems to have been fed to him in part by Pakistani media.

The first suspicion I had about Mr Harrison’s claim was that it was simply too outrageous to be believed without some proof. Of course, Mr Harrison provides none in his column.

Most troubling, as I said, is that Mr Harrison’s claim appears to be based at least in part on rumours by unnamed journalists. He says that his sources for this conspiracy theory are:

…reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers…

First, what foreign intelligence sources? While it would certainly be in keeping with journalistic practice to hold confidential the name of an informant, it is not unusual to at least report what agency the informant is associated with. Without playing into alternate conspiracy theories, it is well documented that intelligence agencies partake in disinformation campaigns designed to sow discord in targeted nations. Considering the location in question, is it not important to know which foreign intelligence agency is making these claims?

Second, it is quite troubling that some representatives of Pakistani media have been feeding such stories to foreign reporters. Considering Mr Harrison’s background (as we will explain below), it is worrisome that these Pakistani journalists went to Mr Harrison to promote their story. Certainly Mr Harrison will refuse to expose who these Pakistani journalists are, which is too bad. While there is reason to protect the identities of “whistle blowers” against official corruption for fear of their safety, there is little public good gained by allowing journalists to spread unsubstantiated rumours.

But let’s look at Mr Harrison’s claims directly. Many of Mr Harrison’s claims are nothing more than hysterical conjecture.

Mystery surrounds the construction of 22 tunnels in secret locations where Pakistanis are barred. Tunnels would be necessary for a projected gas pipeline from Iran to China that would cross the Himalayas through Gilgit. But they could also be used for missile storage sites.

I could not help but think of the famous American claims about Iraq’s “aluminum tubes”. The idea that China, which shares a border with China, would need to store missiles under Gilgit-Balochistan makes no sense. Unfortunately for Mr Harrison’s conspiracy theory, though, building tunnels for a gas pipeline would be a perfectly reasonable explanation for an increased presence of Chinese workers in the region. It’s just not quite as scary.

Of course, this is not the first claim that Mr Harrison has made about the break up of Pakistan. The Pakistan Policy Blog noticed this trend of Mr Harrison’s back in 2008, noting that “Selig Harrison has made a career of predicting the imminent break-up of South Asian states”. In 2006, Mr Harrison reported for the French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique that Baluchistan and Sindh were preparing to quit the nation.

While there is no denying that we have seen groups of separatists and ethnic strife in the country (what country has not experienced such?), Mr Harrison’s reports consistently take on a tone of imminent national dissolution that is simply not supported by the facts. Four years after Mr Harrison’s prediction in the French media and no such calamity has occurred, of course. Yet Mr Harrison continues to predict the breakup of Pakistan. Perhaps he believes that if he simply wishes hard enough, it will come true?

Joshua Foust, a respected American journalist and intelligence consultant on South Asia, wrote a scathing profile of Mr Selig Harrison in 2008 in which he calls Mr Harrison’s writings on Pashtunistan, “silly, over-hyped nonsense” and says,

As it is, Harrison casts a very unconvincing shadow on the discourse over the Pashtunistan issue. It merits serious discussion—separatist movements always do. But placing them in their proper context, both historically and socially, is just as important as making a case you’ve been trying to make for years. As it is, Harrison seems to rely on mischaracterization, hyperbole, and “the soft bigotry of low expectations” (to borrow a phrase and avoid slinging charges of Orientalism)—hardly the stuff of a world-renowned regional expert. I hesitate to accuse Harrison of wearing ideological blinders, as I can’t really figure out what his ideology is, simultaneously blaming the West for subjugating the Pashtuns while granting them unlimited power to unite, declare independence, and bring down that very same West.

But that’s par for the course for most writing these days on Pashtuns, and even on Afghanistan. It just doesn’t add up. My question here, though, is the same as it was for Ann Marlowe: who the hell keeps paying him to write? I have to assume it is simply the ignorant, those more aware of his reputation than his recent scholarship, without the means to fact-check what he writes so long as it confirms their biases. That is a major loss to the field, that rigor. But, as with the curious longevity of Thomas Johnson (whom, ironically enough, Marlowe has called “brilliant”), it doesn’t seem to be that unoriginal, either.

Today, of course, Mr Harrison is not talking only about a separatist rebellion, but he has added a twist by claiming the government is “handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China”. His evidence? Chinese PLA workers building roads and bridges.

Mr Harrison’s column, it is important to note, appears on the Opinion page of the New York Times. It does not even pretend to be an objective or investigative report, nor should it. Mr Harrison makes clear his position when he writes,

What is happening in the region matters to Washington for two reasons. Coupled with its support for the Taliban, Islamabad’s collusion in facilitating China’s access to the Gulf makes clear that Pakistan is not a U.S. “ally.”

This is a position in direct conflict with the official positions of the US and Pakistan. It is simply Mr Harrison’s opinion, and possibly an attempt to change the direction of Pakistan-US relations. Something, it seems, he has been trying to do for years.

An opinion column with no evidence, a discredited author, and sources from unnamed foreign intelligence agencies. One has to ask why the Pakistani media has been so ready to republish such rubbish. In fact, The News republished the piece in full today. The Nation makes note of the author’s “obsessive anti-Pakistan posture”, but then reproduces most of the author’s claims.

Worse still, who are the members of the Pakistani media who are feeding such conspiracy theories to foreign journalists? This blog has been criticized in the past for suggesting that there is a cycle in which Pakistani conspiracy theorists posing as journalists feed outrageous stories to the international press, who then repeat them, giving them the credibility needed to be repeated yet again in mainstream Pakistani media. But we see here an example of exactly this.

Actions of the media have consequences. Those consequences can be good – as when the media uncovers evidence of corruption or brings attention to pressing issues. Or they can be bad – as when the media causes confusion and distraction by placing more importance on sales than on research and facts. While we cannot control what discredited commentators like Selig Harrison write in the international media, we should not be fueling a cycle of misinformation and conspiracy theories. We should be setting an example of journalistic excellence that provides honest and accurate information at home and abroad.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Foreign Media | 2 Comments »

Disaster Relief, Then and Now

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Ahmad Noorani, journalist or political operative?Ahmad Noorani writes for The News today a curious article about flood donations received from the international community. The thesis of Mr Noorani’s column appears to be that the present government is not as effective as the Musharraf regime in 2005. Despite the author’s intentions, though, his presentation of facts to back his claim are questionable at best. Often they are simply incorrect.

According to Noorani, “the total present pledges so far stand at only $777 million and the actual money received so far is only $82 million”. This is false.

According to data compiled by The Guardian, committed funding (funds that have been received) stood at $687,228,789 on 26 August. And additional $324,309,146 in uncommitted pledges (funds that have been promised, but not yet delivered) is outstanding. That means that the total present pledges can be no less than $1 Billion.

The largest donor is the United States, which has given $155,930,000 and pledged an additional $50,000,000. The next two largest donors are Saudi Arabia ($74,448,904) and United Kingdom ($64,765,001). In addition to monetary donations, many countries have provided “in kind” donations of foods and transportation, such as over 30 helicopters that are being provided by the US.

According to Noorani,

“A spokesman for the Economic Affairs Division confirmed to The News that by the weekend the total aid received in cash stood at $82 million while relief goods worth $60 million had also arrived, making the total foreign aid received at $142 million.”

It is not clear from Mr Noorani’s column what account the representative from EAD confirmed, but the claim that “the total foreign aid received” was not more than $142 million is not possibly correct.

It is also of concern that Mr Noorani compares international response to the 2005 earthquake to the response to the 2010 floods without considering the very different contexts of these two disasters. In fact, there are several important differences between the two events that analysts believe to be responsible for the difference in international aid.

The death toll in the 2005 earthquake was over 73,000. The latest reports put the number of deaths from flooding at around 1,600. While the number of deaths attributed to the floods is expected to grow, it is a slower killer than the earthquake, potentially making it seem less urgent to many international donors. According to one NGO, disasters that are more quickly destructive raise more relief money.

World Vision typically raises 10 to 15 times more from donors responding to a hurricane or earthquake as opposed to a flood, said Randy Strash, World Vision’s strategy director for emergency response.

There are other obvious reasons as well: The economy in 2005 was much stronger than the economy in 2007, making many donors feel that they can give more of their personal funds to help others. And, while the worst crisis in recent history, the flooding comes only a few months after the earthquakes in Haiti resulting in what many are calling “donor fatigue”.

None of these points are addressed in Mr Noorani’s column.

It is also curious that, when describing donations, Mr Noorani switches between currencies without providing any constant by which to compare. After some basic conversions using the website XE.com, it appears that some of Mr Noorani’s data points may be misleading.

For example, according to Mr Noorani, the total demands of provincial governments amount to over Rs.1 Trillion, or $11.8 Billions in US dollars. While no one suggests that the amounts currently raised for relief and reconstruction are anywhere near adequate, none of the recent crises saw such a large amount of donations.

The most recent crisis before the floods, the earthquake in Haiti, has received a pledge from the international community for $5.3 Billions over the next two years. This is less than the $7.5 Billion pledged by the USA alone last fall even before the floods devastated the country. Furthermore, the pledge did not come until April, four months after the disaster. While everyone will hopefully do more to help the flood victims, saying that fundraising is a failure if it does not achieve such levels as Mr Noorani suggests does not provide a realistic metric for evaluation.

Given the introduction and conclusion so the column, the author’s intent seems to be to suggest that the present government is not as effective as the Musharraf regime. What the author actually does, however, is make false comparisons and ignore important qualitative and quantitative data that explain differences in the response to the 2005 and 2010 disasters. While we hope that Mr Musharraf is able to raise some funds to help the country, it is important that media reports of donations be accurate and impartial so as to encourage everyone to give generously. Misleading reports such as the one filed by Mr Noorani do not help.

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

Waj S. Khan's Real Estate Rumours

Friday, August 27th, 2010

I love email. It makes communication fast and easy. No more standing around waiting for the post office to open if you only have a computer and an Internet account. Unfortunately, it’s the perfect way to spread all sorts of rumours and smears. “Hey, I was just forwarding an email!” That roughly translates to, “I want to gossip, but I don’t want to be responsible for whether or not its true!” In fact, it is such a problem that there are entire websites dedicated to debunking these “urban legends” that get circulated in emails. A good friend of mine often tells me that, “if it is in an email someone forwarded you, chances are it is not true!”

I also really like Wajahat S Khan. I think that, among the TV personalities out there, he is a pretty reliable guy. Of course, everybody makes mistakes. I think Waj made a pretty big mistake today with a post on his blog today about a “confidential email” claiming that Zardari bought a million pounds flat in London. Why is Waj spreading rumours and political propaganda?

This “confidential email” is simply another smear against Asif Zardari, as is clear from its closing lines:

This is a small reminder to the sick people in Pakistan, who were against the throwing of the shoe to a “Respected President of Pakistan abroad”!!!

They are purblind to the realities of the damage this man called Zardari has done to the nation.

But what damage would Zardari have done by buying a flat in London, if that is even the case? And why is Waj publishing a rumour that even declares that it doesn’t know the facts? The email itself says that “The final bid was made by mobile phone from inside a bullet proof car”. Is Asif Zardari the only man to own a mobile and a bullet proof car? What kind of proof is this?

Frankly, it’s quite disappointing that Waj saw fit to promote this sort of obvious political propaganda on his blog. As a respected journalist, he lends such obvious political smears an air of authority that they do not deserve. Why did he not exercise his investigative skills and do more research rather than simply repeating an obvious political rumour?

But let’s get to the meat of this email rumour, shall we? Actually, let’s see if there’s really any meat there, or if it’s just a mess of mashed pulses mixed with a handful of masala meant to fool the unsuspecting.

First, is it really newsworthy if Asif Zardari buys a flat in London? Look at other leaders. Pervez Musharraf owns a flat worth many millions of pounds. In fact, many Pakistani politicians own London flats.

The meeting took place at his apartment on the ninth floor of the Castleacre, Hyde Park Crescent.

The cost of the accommodation certainly runs into millions of pounds. Musharraf would not talk much about how he mobilised funds to purchase this because the money was ‘pooled’ by his own lecturing resources, his US-based son, Bilal, and the assistance from a friend that was not named.

It is the same locale, a few meters from the picturesque Hyde Park, where fabulously rich Pakistani politicians like Nawaz Sharif, still have or had apartments. As I reached the high security multi-storey plaza twenty minutes before the appointed time, I was greeted by a well-built Pakistani, wearing the traditional Safari suit of the same colour, and was told that Sahib has just finished his physical exercise, spanning one and a half hours.

Actually, the Sharif family are quite the wealthy landowners in London, with several properties worth millions of pounds each.

Of these, the Sharif family residence, three flats at 17 Avenfield House, 118 Park Lane alone are worth around 12 million pounds (Rs1.6 billion). According to documents available, Flagship Investments Limited, one of the companies run by the Sharif family in London, owns property worth around 10 million pounds in Central London. This does not include the value of the company’s offices. Hasan Nawaz Sharif, the son of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, is listed as the director of company on official documents. According to its website www.flagshipinvestments.co.uk, the company refurbishes and redevelops luxury residential properties in top end Central London locations. Sought after properties in Mayfair, Knightsbridge, Kensington and Bayswater are their primary focus. The company’s address listed on the website is Stanhope House, Stanhope Place, Marble Arch – one of the city’s priciest neighbourhoods. However, according to documents, the company moved to Tower Bridge House on St Katherine’s Way in November 2007 – a much more upscale property located near the bank of the River Thames.

The company’s website lists several properties, which include Flat 8, Burwood Place – London W2, worth 700,000 pounds (Rs96.6 million); Flat 9, Burwood Place – London W2, worth 900,000 pounds (Rs124.2 million); 10 Duke Mansions, Duke Street, London W1, worth 1,495,000 pounds (Rs206.31 million); Flat 12a, 118 Park Lane, Mayfair – London SW1, worth 475,000 pounds (Rs65.55 million); Flat 2, 36 Green Street – London W1, worth 800,000 pounds (Rs110.4 million); and, 117 Gloucester Place, London W1 (value not listed). The website also features a piece of real estate near the Buckingham Palace, which is valued at around 4,450,000 pounds. In addition, one of the properties listed on the website – 841 Neil Gwynne House, Slone Avenue – is said to be the residence of one Waqar Ahmed, listed on the documents as the Company Secretary of Flagship Investments Limited.

MQM’s Altaf Hussain owns multiple million pound properties in the UK. Evan PTI’s Imran Khan’s massive property which includes a private cricket ground for his sons was paid for with the proceeds from a London real estate deal.

Like most world leaders, Asif Zardari is wealthy. This should not be any surprise. And while it is a popular for his political opponents to spread rumours about his wealth, it is also a fact that Asif Zardari was a very successful businessman long before he ever met Benazir Bhutto and got involved with politics.

While there is no evidence that Asif Zardari is the buyer of this flat, the buyer, however anonymous right now, will come to be known. All properties in the UK have to be registered, so even if it is bought in the name of a company, the owner will be easily traceable. Why not wait until the registration is complete to say who the buyer is? Is it because this is now political opportunity to undermine the credibility of the President? That’s fine for political operatives, but not for serious journalists. I expect better, Waj.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blogs | 11 Comments »

Tariq Butt and Ansar Abbasi play Prosecutor and Judge Against PML-N

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)In today’s issue of The News the grand inquisitor of media Ansar Abbasi plays judge and jury against PML-N following a FIR accusing certain persons of trying to rig by-polls in NA-100. His verdict is based on a prosecution delivered by his colleague, Tariq Butt.

At issue are allegations of poll-rigging in the NA-110 Gujranwala by elections.

Yesterday, Tariq Butt reported on alleged incidents at the poll based on sources at the scene including police. While his report is largely a simple re-telling of the story as reported by sources, the article carries the sensational headline: “Inside story of how a poll was rigged, and saved”. This headline accepts that there was some misdeed – poll rigging – without allowing the proper course of justice to take place. A more appropriate headline would be “Allegations of poll rigging” or “Accusations of poll rigging mar by elections in NA-110″.

Despite a lack of proof or allowing the proper process of justice to take place, self-appointed judge and jury Ansar Abbasi accepts the prosecutorial headline of Tariq Butt’s column and declares a verdict as the ECP has asked to lodge a FIR.

FIR stands for “First Information Report” and is a report prepared by police when they receive information about an alleged incident. It is, as the title of the report says, first information only. It is not a conviction nor is it any proof of misdeeds.

But the way Ansar Abbasi reports the situation, a reader is likely to come away accepting that the accused are guilty and already convicted.

To the great embarrassment of the PML-N, the Election Commission of Pakistan has asked the Punjab election commissioner to lodge an FIR with the police against the persons who tried to rig the by-polls in NA-100, Gujranwala.

Vindicating the role played by the recently removed Regional Police Officer (RPO) Zulfikar Cheema, who faced the wrath of the N-League for not allowing rigging in the by-polls won by the PPP, the ECP has decided to proceed against those who had kidnapped the presiding officers or tried to tamper with the election results.

While it would be appropriate to report that allegations have been made and that the ECP is pursuing an investigation, the presumption of guilt on the part of PML-N is inappropriate. Both the headline of Tariq Butt’s column yesterday and the content of Ansar Abbasi’s column today cross the line between reporting facts and making presumptions of guilt or innocence. Reporting is the proper role of media, determining guilt is the proper role of courts. Mr Tariq Butt and Mr Ansar Abbasi should restrain themselves for making such presumptions and stick to reporting facts only.

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

Generals Are Government Officials

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Farrukh Saleem’s article in Monday’s The News makes a fundamental error in creating the illusion that the military and the government are two different things. In fact, the military is part of the government, and Mr Saleem’s column features almost no actual reporting but rather makes a particular political argument.

Mr Saleem’s column cites troubling statistics from the flood, “One out of every eight Pakistanis is at risk of severe diarrhoea, asthmatic attacks, dysentery, meningitis, hepatitis, skin diseases or a whole host of food and waterborne diseases”, and then accuses everyone in the country not presently wearing khaki of “playing politics” with the disaster, mostly without citing any actual events.

For example, the author states that “in Punjab, PPP and PML-N are playing their own politics”. But the author fails to tell readers what this has to do with the flood response or anything else. PPP and PML-N being rival political parties, one is reasonable to assume that they will be engaging in politics. Birds sing, political parties play at politics.

More curious, however, are Mr Saleem’s statements with regard to the military. His concluding paragraph reads:

On a much broader canvass, generals of Pak Army are winning ‘hearts and minds’ and thus capturing more and more of the Pakistani political space—all at the cost of the political class. Pak Air Force has diverted 5 C-130Bs and 7 C-130Es, its tactical transport aircraft, for picking and delivering flood relief to wherever it’s needed the most. Pak Navy’s boats are speeding through floodwaters delivering food and saving survivors still floating just above the water level. Right is winning by doing while the left talks. Generals are also winning by doing while politicians talk. Would the khakis take over? Answer: They did that several months ago.

There are two major problems with this conclusion. The first, and most obvious, is that it takes a clear editorial stance, and therefore does not appropriately belong as a news report.

Second, Mr Saleem makes several claims that bear scrutiny.

1. “…generals of Pak Army are winning ‘hearts and minds’ and thus capturing more and more of the Pakistani political space—all at the cost of the political class”.

Politics is not a zero-sum game in which positive feelings about the military necessarily mean negative feelings about politicians and vice-versa. Furthermore, Mr Saleem in no way demonstrates that the military is “capturing more of the political space”. This smacks of wishful journalism more than actual reporting.

2. “Right is winning by doing while the left talks.”

This statement attributes to the military a specific political ideology that is not necessarily true. This may be partly wishful journalism, but it also falsely equates the military’s role in the government with “right-wing” politics. Consider the example of “doing” cited by the author:

Pak Air Force has diverted 5 C-130Bs and 7 C-130Es, its tactical transport aircraft, for picking and delivering flood relief to wherever it’s needed the most. Pak Navy’s boats are speeding through floodwaters delivering food and saving survivors still floating just above the water level.

This is an entirely apolitical exercise in which the military is simply doing its job. During the Soviet era, Russian journalists could very well have written of their own military exercises as “the left is doing”. The truth is, though, it is simply “doing”.

3. “Would the khakis take over? Answer: They did that several months ago.:

This is so blatantly editorializing that it is shocking that the editors allowed it to be published as a ‘top story’ instead of an opinion column where it belongs. Moreover, Mr Saleem at no point explains what he means by “taking over”. Clearly, the nation is still in the control of the elected government – the same elected government that recently extended the appointment of COAS Gen. Kayani and the same elected government that funds the very military exercises that Mr Saleem praises as “doing”. In fact, you cannot have one without the other.

And this is the most important point of all – the khakis are able to do their jobs because of the politicians in the same way that the politicians are able to do their jobs because of the people. There has been no coup – soft or otherwise – and the military and politicians are working together to address the flood crisis. Certainly one can make the argument that the politicians are taking more of the blame than the military, but this is the nature of politics. To reprise the analogy above, birds sing and people blame politicians.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 10 Comments »

Nadeem Paracha and Self-Censorship

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

Nadeem Paracha’s latest column for Dawn, “Free Limits”, takes a controversial position around the issue of freedom of the speech and the media. While I don’t agree with all of his points, the article does make an important observation about the complex relationship between mass media, audience, and politics. But most importantly, it gives the opportunity to discuss the importance of free speech as the best way to ensure responsible speech.

I’m a little bit uncomfortable with Nadeem’s statement that perhaps the media needs to show ‘self-censorship’. Whether censorship is dictated by a government bureaucrat, a military officer, a party official, or an editor, it is still illegitimate. No one person, party, or group should stop someone from publishing or saying something in order to promote or hide a specific agenda. Perhaps Mr Nadeem Paracha had a different meaning for “self-censorship”, but I wanted to make this point for the sake of argument.

Obviously, editors are responsible for reviewing articles to determine that there is a line between opinion/editorial content and factual reports. And editors can make decisions about when a story is ready to report. Too often, in the age of electronic media, there is a failure on both counts – editors allowing all sorts of biased and inflammatory remarks to boost advertising sales and instant reporting of rumours even before the facts are determined in order to have the “breaking” story that improves ratings.

If media reports are hyperventilating partisan talking points or outlandish conspiracy theories, the media outlet that presents them ultimately discredits itself. Yes, it may see advertising revenues or ratings increase in the short term, but in the long term it will see itself wither away. It is like a candle that burns on both ends. It shines brightly for a moment, but then it consumes itself.

Nadeem gets to this point, too, in his conclusion. Those media voices that cry foul while they themselves are guilty are not respected enough to be taken seriously. They may have a legitimate complaint, but nobody wants to listen as it becomes their “just desserts”.

Till then, I am afraid, all those hysterical spiels by populist media outfits about free speech just do not hold much credence in my eyes; though I would not condone the banning of any channel.

And this is also what sets Nadeem Paracha apart from many others: “I would not condone the banning of any channel”. To this, I think that the answer to Nadeem Paracha’s question as to “how suitable or justified are we to wave the free speech flag?” is: Quite justified. Individuals may be upset about a particular story or the way it is reported, but that does not give license to threaten a journalist, destroy newspapers, or shut down TV broadcasts. Two wrongs do not make it right.

The best – in fact the only – antidote to media bias, conspiracy theories, and propaganda is for reasonable, rational people to publicly correct this misinformation. When media make false or biased claims, they are doing so with the expectation that they will not be caught out. Once they are exposed, they will face a choice: correct their practices to conform with responsible standards, or be discredited and fade away.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Censorship | No Comments »

Good Advice

Saturday, August 21st, 2010

Naeem TahirNaeem Tahir offers some excellent advice for TV anchors in his column for Daily Times today.

I think what needs to be done is a careful presentation of the facts in a balanced way. Stop being so aggressive and interrupting everyone on the show. When you shout and speak more than the guest, you are projecting your prejudices and blocking the other point of view. If you believe that someone is hiding or misrepresenting the facts, then your calm and pointed questions will indeed expose him or her and the viewers will understand. Your aggression puts the viewer off. An anchor’s calm creates the benchmark for the tone of discussion. Please realise that viewers have already been educated, thanks to your efforts. Now they expect more. They look for an analysis of the situation. They want a dispassionate, thought provoking appraisal and a way forward. They expect public opinion to be motivated for short-term and long-term solutions. One anchor interviewed a Sindh ‘nationalist’ leader and probed his reservations about the present scheme of water management. Some positive thinking emerged. This was an example. While the nation has experienced this colossal natural tragedy and is prepared to avoid a recurrence, we need to focus on acceptable planning. If the civil government fails to rehabilitate, reconstruct and plan for the future, the media must take it to task.

Anchors have the power of communication beyond the reach of anyone else. It is the nature of your job that it is burdened with social responsibility. If you appreciate the good work of the armed forces, highlighting it is the right thing to do, but also encourage those who are sincerely mobilising. Build role models. Look at the causes and hold responsible those who have neglected the proper need for water management. Focus on developing a consensus on future strategy. Of course, expose corruption, mismanagement, apathy and incompetence. But be a role model yourself — of character, knowledge, investigation and decency.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Ahmed Quraishi and Flood Contributions

Friday, August 20th, 2010

Ahmed QuraishiAhmed Quraishi’s latest blog post for Express Tribune (why are they giving this discredited conspiracy theorist a platform?) is either a c-grade comedy routine or further evidence that Ahmed Quraishi is willing to ignore facts when they are inconvenient to his political agenda.

Ahmed Quraishi, by his own admission, is a political consultant who is “not a journalist anymore” and supports the jihadis. In short, he is a propagandist. So perhaps it should be no surprise that his blog post today accuses Pakistan’s “rich political elite” of “refusing to budge” and donate to flood relief, except that this claim is so easily demonstrated to be false, we wonder why he even bothered to write it.

According to Ahmed Quraishi,

The Pakistan Army donated one day’s salary of its soldiers, who mostly come from poor backfgrounds, for the relief effort. No politician is yet to take a similar step.

Only problem – that is false. Actually, it was widely reported earlier this month that parliamentarians and cabinet members have donated one-month salary to relief efforts, and 17-Grade government officials will donate one-day salary. Is it too much to ask that Ahmed Qurashi at least read the newspaper before he writes for one?

Ahmed admits in his post that President Zardari has personally donated Rs.6 Millions and the Sharif family has donated Rs.10 Millions to relief funds. His complaint there is both the old “do more” line with the added insult of insinuating corruption by saying that “no one knows how this amount will be spent”.

Ahmed then goes on to condemn MNAs and MPAs both because they have not “been seen in the affected areas helping people or distributing aid”, and for being “shameless politicians …quick to jump in front of visiting TV crews”. Typical Ahmed Quraishi – you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t also!

Ahmed Quraishi’s column is embarrassing for the author as well as the Express Tribune that agreed to publish it. It is based on easily disproven misinformation and scandalous insults backed by no evidence whatsoever.

This leaves only one question. How much, pray tell, has Ahmed Quraishi done to help?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Express Tribune | No Comments »

Raza Rumi: Media Exploiting Flood Tragedy

Friday, August 20th, 2010

Raza RumiRaza Rumi, consulting editor at the Friday Times, points out troubling examples of media exploiting the floods to promote a political agenda in a column for today’s Express Tribune.

Flood relief is being used by some as an opportunity to orchestrate political upheaval. Sections of the media are drumming up the partisan politics of a dangerous kind by involving the thorny issue of civil-military relations and the trite-but- failed recipe that the country should revert to authoritarianism whenever a crisis erupts.

Some TV anchors have been overtly suggesting that the military is saving the country at this juncture when the “venal” politicians are staging VVIP visits and not giving any relief. In one TV show, an estranged senator of the ruling party called for martial law. There is now a clear effort to create a duality — that of the military versus the civilian government…

While there is certainly a place for differing opinions, it is disappointing that some elements in the media are using a tragedy as a means to promote a particular political agenda rather than informing the people.

If political rivals can understand the need for cooperation and honest information, certainly the media can do the same.

Please click here to read the entire article.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Express Tribune | 3 Comments »

Dean Nelson Responds

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010
New Delhi based British reporter Dean Nelson

British reporter Dean Nelson

Mr Dean Nelson whose column in the British newspaper Telegraph we recently criticised, has responded to our post. His comment appears on the original post, and is published again in full at the end of this post.

It has also been brought to our attention that Mr Dean Nelson has been falsely accusing this blog of deleting his comment, of censorship, and of hiding his comment. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Regular readers, and most people familiar with how blogs work, know that comments are automatically placed in moderation queue for review. This is a standard practice to prevent obscene, threatening, or spam comments from being published. All honest comments, even those critical of our posts, are published in full, as regular readers can attest. Mr Dean Nelson is welcome to review previous posts and comments to verify this fact.

Regarding Mr Nelson’s complaints, though, we feel we must point out the following:

Dean Nelson’s article carried the sensational headline, “£300m earthquake aid ‘misused by Zardari’”. Nothing in his article, however, supports this accusation. Nowhere does he suggest how Zardari is responsible for misusing funds. Nowhere does he suggest how Zardari is responsible even for diverting funds. Nowhere is there even an allegation from his anonymous source that Zardari is responsible for any budgetary matters related to ERRA or New Balakot.

Actually, with claims of budgetary matters it would be more realistic to hold the Prime Minister responsible who, as Chief Executive, could be held responsible for funding cuts. But even then, where is the evidence that the PM had anything to do with this? Actually, we will demonstrate that the opposite is supported by the facts.

The fact is, Mr Dean Nelson accuses Asif Ali Zardari of personally misusing 300 million in foreign aid for victims of the 2005 earthquake. He provides no evidence to support this claim, making the headline itself defaming and potentially libelous.

As for his claim that “the most important evidence of all” is the absence of New Balakot, I invite the respected journalist to do more than simply visit the site and then make wild assumptions. A quick review of recent news provides the following information that suggests much more plausible alternatives to Mr Dean Nelson’s theory of Zardari misusing the funds:

1. Dawn: New Balakot project: Bakrial residents refuse to surrender land

“It is injustice on the part of the provincial government to displace us by acquiring our residential and agriculture land to settle the earthquake affected people of Balakot,” Zahoor Ahmad, head of the committee constituted by the people of Bakrial to defend their lands, told Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Hazara Division, Mohammad Suleiman on Thursday.

“We will not vacate our land and houses until our agriculture and residential lands were not excluded of the New Balakot project,” he warned.

…

Work on the project was suspended some eight months ago after the death of a man during a violent clash between police and the residents over evacuation of their houses causing huge financial loss to the government.

2. Dawn: Work on New Balakot City resumes after 8-moth break

Relocation of old Balakot was agreed in consultation with the then provincial government and local politicians, who decided to provide land for rebuilding the new town free of cost at Bakrial, while the land in old Balakot remained property of the owners. The idea was to shift the people to new location for their safety.

Things, however, turned complex after the provincial government sought money for land acquisition from the federal government.

Erra fought for the case and in addition to Rs61.25 million paid to people of old Balakot under rural housing subsidy and a prefabricated house worth Rs400,00 to affected families, it got Rs1.5 billion approved to be paid as compensation for 11,463 kanals where a new city was to built, hosting nearly 5,000 families.

The amount of Rs1.5 billion was paid for land acquisition in November 2006 and Erra had been negotiating resumption of work and demanding land free of encumbrances from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government for the past nine months.

Even now Erra has received partially cleared land, where the reconstruction has commenced.

3. Daily Times: ERRA starts rebuilding Balakot City

The relocation of the old Balakot City was decided in consultation with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government while local politicians had agreed to provide land for the new town, free of cost at Bakriyal, while the ownership of land in old Balakot City would remain with the property owners. But the reconstruction came to a halt due to the unwillingness of the provincial government to provide land free of cost. ERRA had planned to shift the residences of the people to a new location. But the reconstruction had to be halted when the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa demanded money for land acquisition. ERRA Deputy Chairman Lieutenant General Haroon Aslam recently held a meeting with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Ameer Haider Khan Hoti and discussed the issue in detail and highlighted the decisions taken in the council meeting chaired by Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani.

As is clear, there have been multiple obstacles to the completion of the project – something not unusual for such expensive and expansive projects in any country, especially when such a project involves the reallocation of land. In this instance, landowners and residents of Bakryal have been protesting since 2007.Does Mr Dean Nelson believe that Asif Ali Zardari has been orchestrating some conspiracy since before he was even elected?

Despite these setbacks, it is clear from these reports that the provincial and national governments were working together to resolve difficult issues to everyone’s satisfaction. Nowhere is there any suggestion that Asif Ali Zardari had anything to do with the delays, much less the misuse of funds.

As for claims that funds were inappropriately diverted to some other project, again there is not evidence to support this accusation.

According to a Daily Times report of 6 April by Ijaz Kakakhel, budget allocations were reduced across all sectors.

Keeping in view an emergent financial situation, the sources said the government has informed all federal ministries / departments and organisation to prepare priority lists for their respective developmental schemes under total PSDP Rs 290 billion for 2010-11.

With total Rs 290 billion federal component of PSDP, Rs 10 billion is likely to be allocated for Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA), which makes total value of PSDP Rs 300 billion. Last year’s (2009-10) allocation for federal component of PSDP was Rs 421 billion and Rs 25 billion for ERRA. The proposed PSDP allocation of Rs 290 billion is 31 percent lower than the last year PSDP 2009-10 allocation Rs 421 billion. The proposed PSDP 2010-11 allocation for ERRA Rs10 billion is 60 percent lower than last year allocation of Rs 25 billion.

The article goes on to report that the government by way of the Prime Minister had requested that the PSDP budget be enhanced, but that such a move would threaten the International Monetary Fund program.

Mr Dean Nelson claims in his response that his evidence consists of,

“…minutes of meetings, correspondence, ERRA schedules, and the most important evidence of all: The absence of New Balakot as a promised new settlement.”

The delays in completion of the project are well explained above. Without having access to the documents provided to Mr Dean Nelson, it is hard to know what exactly is in them. But it sounds like Mr Dean Nelson spoke with someone at ERRA who is disappointed that they did not receive the full amount of funding that was requested. But what agency receives the full amount of funding that is requested every year in any country, especially during a financial crisis?

In Mr Dean Nelson’s own country, Finance Minister George Osborne announced £6.2bn budget cuts this year. Does Mr Dean Nelson believe it proper to infer from this policy announcement that the Queen Elizabeth has misused these funds? Such a claim would be absurd. So it is with Mr Dean Nelson’s claim that Asif Ali Zardari has misused £300 millions.

In the face of overwhelming and documented evidence to the contrary, one cannot help but wonder why Mr Dean Nelson chose to publicly accuse Asif Ali Zardari of personally misusing £300m in earthquake aid. Is it a manifestation of personal or political ill-feelings towards the president? Or is it a result of sloppy and improper reporting?

Furthermore, as Mr Dean Nelson himself admits in his response, Pakistan is currently suffering from a ‘trust deficit’ that threatens our ability to raise the funds necessary to address the current flood crisis which has been called the worst disaster in recent history. Does Mr Dean Nelson deny that publishing sensational and misleading accusations of government misuse of relief funds contributes to this image problem? Publicly accusing President Zardari of misusing £300m in disaster relief funds exacerbates a problem that is believed to be preventing Pakistan from receiving vital international aid. If it was true, it would be the fault of Asif Ali Zardari. If it is easily demonstrated to be not true, who is responsible then? That Mr Dean Nelson did not intend such is beside the point. Actions have consequences, and it is not unrealistic to contend that Mr Dean Nelson’s column may be a contributing factor to Pakistan’s difficulties in raising relief funds.

Mr Dean Nelson is correct in one respect, and we will admit as much. Our original post made too much of the fact of his station in Delhi. This is an irrelevant distraction and we regret our error in suggesting that his station in Delhi has any bearing whatsoever on the accuracy of the reporting in his article. We politely ask our readers to judge Mr Dean Nelson’s article and our subsequent review only on the merits of the facts presented.

We stand by our complaint that Mr Dean Nelson fails to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting his scandalous claim that Asif Ali Zardari misused £300m in earthquake relief funds. Mr Dean Nelson also fails to provide any substantive evidence to support a claim of malfeasance related to ERRA or New Balakot project. We believe that the evidence presented above more than handily refutes Mr Dean Nelson’s article, and we look forward to his correcting the record.

Mr. Dean Nelson had the following response to our original post:

Dean Nelson says: August 16, 2010 at 11:00 pm

I object to this ‘analysis’ of my piece on earthquake aid being redirected by the Pakistan govt to other projects.

I don’t know who supports your group, but if it has any understanding of journalism, especially in a country like Pakistan, then it will understand that sometimes sources need to be protected.

In these circumstances the journalist must make a judgement: Is the source reliable and authoritative? Do I believe the source? What supporting evidence is there for the claim?

My original source in this case had minutes of meetings, correspondence, ERRA schedules, and the most important evidence of all: The absence of New Balakot as a promised new settlement. I visited it and it wasn’t there despite it being scheduled for completion last month.

I’m satisfied my story is true, which is why it was published.

Beyond this story you make claims that I have some kind of bias against Pakistan or an agenda to dissuade donors to its flood funds. Why would anyone want people to withhold donations for people so clearly suffering? You don’t provide any evidence but a commentary piece on why Britain is courting India for trading gains.

In India I am as severely criticised as I am by you and other government supporters for my commentaries on Kashmir or for suggesting that Pakistan deserves better friends for allies.

Here are the links to them:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/deannelson/100032154/indias-achievements-put-pakistan-in-the-shade-now-it-is-time-for-western-manipulation-to-cease/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7923727/Pakistans-burning-sense-of-injustice.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/deannelson/100050312/the-world-wants-to-think-the-best-about-india-so-we-turn-our-back-on-kashmir/

It is a sad reflection on the psychological relationship between Indians and Pakistanis that objective reporting on one is seen as siding with the other.

I love India and Pakistan equally, and I’ve been traveling in both for twenty years and reporting both for five.

They each have great strengths and serious problems, and I report on and comment on both.

There are many in Pakistan who have criticised the government’s handling of the flood crisis, and many governments around the world who have held back or given to the UN fund rather than the PM’s flood relief fund because of concerns about trust and transparency. Nawaz Sharif raised this point with the PM on Saturday when they agreed to create an independent fund to address these concerns and allow people to give with confidence.

I can’t see how reporting on these concerns or exposing redirection of aid funds is an attempt to dissuade people from giving.

For the record, I wish Pakistan nothing but peace and prosperity, and I hope the millions affected by the floods right now get ALL the aid sent to them as soon as possible.

I hope this addresses the points you’ve raised. What I don’t understand is why you didn’t contact me first before writing this ‘analysis’ to ask me why the source wasn’t named.

All I can tell you is that the source could not have been better placed or informed. Right now the source is very afraid. Pakistan doesn’t really have a whistleblower culture.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Foreign Media | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries