Archive for October, 2010

'Auntie Talk' With Hamid Mir

Saturday, October 30th, 2010

Gossip AlertMr Hamid Mr writes in The News (Jang Group) today that President Zardari’s recent attendance at a diplomatic function honoring Turkey raised “disturbing questions”. Upon reading the column, however, it was only learned that Hamid Mir engages in more parlour gossips than a dozen busy-bodies.

Here are the so-called “disturbing” question according to Hamid Mir:

Despite all this political gossip, many Western diplomats were seriously trying to understand the unusual presence of President Zardari on the national day of Turkey. Some Foreign Office officials were telling them that it was not unusual because presidents had attended diplomatic functions in the Chinese and US embassies in the past.

A top government official informed The News that President Zardari had given a goodwill gesture to Turkey for its unprecedented help given to the victims of the recent floods. He also said Pakistan, Turkey and Iran had become partners in 6,566 km long railway line project worth $20 billion.

Many people were discussing whether Turkey was going to invest a lot in the power sector and was this the reason President Zardari graced the national day of Turkey but they were also asking what was the role of a president in a parliamentary democracy.

The presence of President Zardari in a very important diplomatic gathering raised many valid questions in the minds of foreign guests. They were asking their Pakistani friends that if prime minister had become powerful after the 18th Amendment, then why US President Obama is still calling and inviting President Zardari to visit Washington?

They were also asking whether President Zardari was giving signals to the diplomatic community of Islamabad that he was still the most powerful man in the government. They were asking where was PM Gilani? Poor Pakistanis had no answer to all these disturbing questions raised by their foreign friends.

These questions are not disturbing, and probably they were never even asked by anyone. Let’s think about this for one moment, shall we? Why was the President attending a diplomatic function for a close ally that is making some investments in our country? Do we really even have to ask such a question?

Why is US President Obama calling for Zardari to come visit if 18th Amendment made the PM more powerful? President Zardari may have returned some powers to their proper office as part of democratic reforms, but he is still ‘head of state’ and the head of the PPP. The office of President was not abolished. Why shouldn’t Obama invite Zardari for a chat?

These questions are not disturbing, they are banal.

But there is one disturbing thing reveal by Hamir Mir. The so-called ‘disturbing questions’ account for only the final paragraphs in a long column of many paragraphs. What is reported in the rest of the article? It is only the most stereotypical gossips you can imagine. Did someone move to the other side of the room and not shake Zardari’s hand? Was someone whispering in the corner? What did some PML-N say about some Minister?

Is Hamid Mir is auditioning for a new celebrity gossip show? Perhaps he can call his new show “Auntie Talk” because he reminds me of listening to my auntie sit around and gossip about the people in our neighborhood over tea with her friends.

Whatever his intentions, Hamid Mir has only embarrassed himself by writing such a gossip column. Whatever one’s political preference, it must be admitted that a real journalist could easily write a column about any world leader titled ‘Disturbing Questions’ that includes real questions of governing, diplomacy, and politics. For Hamid Mir, though, there is apparently only some parlour gossip. Disappointing, indeed.

Shabbir Mir's Shabby Reporting on BISP

Thursday, October 28th, 2010

Benazir CardA report in Express Tribune of 24 October lacks the necessary evidence to support the claim of the article. Shabbir Mir’s article, “Jiyalas abound in poverty reduction scheme” alleges that “you have to be a PPP jiyala to get government money…in Gilgit-Baltistan”. This is a serious charge of corruption that should require a minimal level of corroborating evidence. Shabbir Mir provides none.

Rather conducting the research necessary to provide actual statistics on the recipients of government aid, the reporter Shabbir Mir appears to have asked opposition politicians for statements, and then reported them as actual facts.

“I personally distributed about 500 BISP forms among needy people in my constituency, but over 90 per cent of the deserving people have not received any response,” said an embarrassed Hafizur Rehman, regional president of PML-N.

PML-Q lawmaker Mirza Hussain from Hunza-Nagar district said none of his constituents were included among the beneficiaries, saying that to be a recipient, “you have to be involved in jiyalaism”. Muzaffar Rallay, another PML-Q politician from Astore said that the situation in his district was not any different.

Other quotes come from unnamed sources, making it impossible for readers to properly evaluate the person’s position.

“The process is not that transparent,” said a source who has closely monitored the BISP. “You will find more beneficiaries in areas with a strong PPP affiliation, but too few in areas lacking a PPP vote bank,” he said, adding that areas like Amphary, Majini Muhalla, Khomer, Nagar, and Nagral are some of the examples where beneficiaries are in abundance.

Without knowing who this source is that claims to have “closely monitored the BISP”, readers do not know if the person is actually speaking with authority or if he is a political operative who stands to gain from spreading rumours.

And this is really all that exists in Shabbir Mir’s article – rumours.

What is particularly disappointing is that, in the closing paragraphs of his article, Shabbir Mir even says that BISP headquarters is willing to release data including who is actually receiving money under the program. So why did the reporter not wait until this data was received, analyse it, and provide an evidence based report? Instead, Mr Shabbir Mir decided to simply report rumours based on the statements of politicians who have an interest in spreading a particular message.

The efficiency and effectiveness of government programs must be evaluated only on actual facts – not statements from politicians of any party. Especially accusations of corruption and cronyism must be determined by evidence, not rumours. This reporting on poverty reduction schemes by Shabbir Mir is shabby. We expect better.

More Examples of Two-Faced Media

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

JanusIf you discovered that your neighbor was teling one thing to you and the opposite thing to your other neighbor, would you trust this man? What if it was not your neighbor, what if it was the TV anchor on your daily news show? This is the problem facing our nation today – journalists who are trusted to inform the public are speaking with a forked tongue, telling one neighbor one thing and the other something different.

(more…)

Ahmed Quraishi v. Ahmed Quraishi on Geo

Monday, October 25th, 2010

Ahmed QuraishiAhmed Quraishi has weighed in on the media debate. In his typical style, Quraishi ignores the more thoughtful discussion of his more intellectual colleagues in journalism and jumps straight to accusations of some American conspiracy against Geo for being “critical of Mr. Zardari”. But upon careful reading, Quraishi’s critique quickly falls apart.

Quraishi’s entire claim of conspiracy is based on two newspaper articles published by The Washington Post: One titled, “Pakistan’s press piles on president” and the other titled, “Pakistan’s Emboldened Judiciary Threatens Government Stability“. Quraishi does not deny that the press is “piling on” the president as, presumably, he knows that such a claim is too much even for his own readers.

Rather, Quraishi says that “such one-sided and biased reporting can appear in Washington Post shows there are power centers in Washington that take any attack against the incumbent Pakistani government very personally”. Of course, using Ahmed Quraishi’s same logic, one-sided and biased reporting in The News shows that are power centers in Islamabad that take any attack against the incumbent Pakistani government very personally. And that, let me tell you, is simply silliness.

Quraishi’s logical problems don’t stop there. He claims that this is not simply one article, but “underscores a trend in the US media over the past one year”. His evidence? One other article published by the same newspaper one week earlier. Again, using Ahmed Quraishi’s same logic, if it rains in Sialkot for two days in one week, therefore there is a one year trend of constant rain for the whole country. It simply makes no sense.

Most interesting, though, is what this new column reveals about how Ahmed Quraishi changes his conspiracy theories to fit his political objectives. In his latest article, Quraishi defends Geo as a voice of Pakistan. But in 2007, Quraishi himself accused Geo of being a tool of American interests!

This is why most Pakistanis have never seen American diplomats in Pakistan active like this before. And it’s not just the current U.S. ambassador, who has added one more address to her other most-frequently-visited address in Karachi, Mrs. Bhutto’s house. The new address is the office of GEO, one of two news channels shut down by Islamabad for not signing the mandatory code-of-conduct. Thirty-eight other channels are operating and no one has censored the newspapers. But never mind this. The Americans have developed a ‘thing’ for GEO.

Of course, in 2007 Ahmed Quraishi’s worries were somewhat similar. At that time he was worried that the Americans were supporting democratic reforms in Pakistan by not propping up Musharraf. In 2010, he is worried that the Americans are supporting democracy by not standing aside for another coup. Ahmed Quraishi perhaps gives away his ideology a bit later in his 2007 article, though, when he writes:

Musharraf has also told Washington publicly that “Pakistan is more important than democracy or the constitution.” This is a bold position. This kind of boldness would have served Musharraf a lot had it come a little earlier. But even now, his media management team is unable to make the most out of it.

For Quraishi, the nation is not democracy – which is the will of the people – it is only the will of Ahmed Quraishi, a “media manager” or propagandist, and his patrons.

It’s a bit cheeky of Ahmed Quraishi to criticise an American newspaper for commenting on Pakistani politics and media when Ahmed Quraishi himself has made a career out of creating conspiracy theories about American politics and media.

At least the American newspaper had the professionalism and decency to seek out comments from Rana Jawad, Fekhar Rehman, and Cyril Almeida. Of course, the article that so offended Ahmed Quraishi was written by real journalists, not “media managers”. Perhaps instead of criticising the Washington Post, Quraishi could take a moment to learn a thing or two about real reporting.

Ansar Abbasi vs. Ansar Abbasi on 18th Amendment

Saturday, October 23rd, 2010

Ansar AbbasiThere is a famous saying that no man has a good enough memory to be a perfect liar. Ansar Abbasi could never be a good liar because his memory is so short that he cannot remember even what he has claimed the day before. Within the past two days, Abbasi’s statements in his columns about the SC verdict on 18th Amendment come into direct contradiction.

Yesterday, in a bit of irony that did not go unnoticed by many, Ansar Abbasi claimed that the government was unhappy with the SC verdict because they were hoping to cause a conflict between the government and judiciary.

The otherwise aggressive Presidency, whose men unleashed unending scathing attacks on the judiciary following the apex court’s NRO decision, has gone on the backfoot as the Supreme Court’s latest decision has won more sympathisers for the judiciary, even within the government and in the Presidency.

According to a credible source, a president’s top aide and federal minister, whose advice really matters a lot in the Presidency’s decisions, did not show any appreciation after getting the details of the interim order. The source said that the minister wore a sullen face as soon as he got to know as to what the apex court had ruled.

The source said that the negative reaction of such grim faces was expected to be reflected discreetly through the media. “Some panic phone calls have already been made to certain friends in the media to encourage media persons to pick up holes in the judgment,” the source said.

In only 24 hours, Ansar Abbasi must have forgotten his talking points, though, because his column for today makes the opposite claim.

Sardar Latif Khosa, a former cabinet member and one of the legal aides of the president, has already welcomed the SC decision, terming it as well considered and well thought-out. He added that the SC order suggested the best way to deal with the issues that were brought before the judiciary. Yet another presidential aide and President Zardari’s political aide Faisal Raza Abidi had also termed the SC order as “excellent” and “judicious”.

Generally, the PPP legislators and even the government representatives are excited about the decision as it has successfully averted the much-feared confrontation between the judiciary and parliament.

So how does such an experienced journalist as Ansar Abbasi make such an error? Actually, he gives himself away today. Here is what Ansar Abbasi explains:

There are fears amidst political and journalistic circles that the Presidency and its top legal mind and Law Minister Babar Awan have some reservations about the Supreme Court’s interim order because of which they are not coming up with their response.

It is alleged that some of the presidential aides are instead encouraging their friends in the media to pick up holes in the SC’s interim order and raise the question if it interferes in the legislature’s domain.

Whether he intended to or not, Ansar Abbasi has exposed himself and too many of his media colleagues, though they may be unnamed here. There is no evidence that the government is trying to cause a conflict with the judiciary, and there is no evidence that the government or the President himself is unhappy with the verdict. Actually, this is all only the gossip among political and media elites.

Recent events have already suggested that there are some media elements fueling the executive-judiciary tensions. Ansar Abbasi has just given more evidence. It is time for the media to stop playing games and reporting their office gossips. Please, stick to the facts.

Are There No Consequences In Pakistan Media?

Friday, October 22nd, 2010

Pakistan Media Noise Machine

American media is certainly not without problems, and no honest person will say that there is no bias or incorrect information published in American media. But media companies in that country do try to hold their employees to a certain high standard, and there are consequences when those reporters or TV anchors are caught violating those standards. Sadly, the standards in our own media seem to be completely missing.

We have written before about the cases of Janet Cooke and Stephen Glass – American reporters who were caught writing fake stories in order to boost ratings. These two and many others have been fired for what is considered an unforgivable act in American journalism. But it is not just faking stories that will ruin a career in journalism in other countries.

In the US, media companies have little patience for news journalists and anchors making outrageous statments. This week, American reporter Juan Williams fired by National Public Radio yesterday for making Islamophobic comments on the Fox News TV channel. Earlier this month, a TV anchor for CNN was fired after calling another TV anchor a “bigot” and making anti-Jewish statements during a radio interview. CBS News fired a popular radio talk show host after he made prejudiced comments about black women.

Now, let us review some recent incidents in our own media that have gone without even the slightest reprimand.

On 7 October, a reporter for The Nation, Syed Fawad Ali Shah, sent a message to popular press email list “Media Tribe” that says,

They know that the PPP aka wolkpack of looters headed by pirate prince Zardari came into power after licking the boots and …. of US officials and assured that they will have no objection over any US activity including attacks.

Journalist for Express Tribune and Aaj TV, Syed Ali Raza Abidi, is a popular Twitter user who regularly posts items that are political controversial including unsupported allegations against different political parties. For example, on 20 September he wrote:

MQM criticizes PPP openly – What is PPP afraid of? If MQM is carrying on Target Killings in Karachi – Prove it, and book em! #Pakistan

Then wrote one minute later:

But if PPP cannot prove it, then its THEM! for sure.

On 1 October, Syed wrote the following attack on Zardari:

Today President #Zardari spoke in #Sindhi, continuing his support for #Feudalism in #Pakistan – #Message #PPP #MQM #APML

How is this considered anything but political attacks? Are these Syeds supposed to be journalists or political operatives?

And they are not the only ones guilty of such acts. Jang Group sometimes seems to specialize in political attacks.

Ansar Abbasi’s attack on Pervez Musharraf was shockingly unprofessional, as we reported at the time. Also, Amir Mateen’s expose about Mian Nawaz Sharif was little more than a gossip column and attempt to insult the politician’s character, and yet The News published it anyway. Jang’s employee Shaheen Sehbai himself has a notorious record of publishing baseless and defamatory accusations.

Any of the above reporters would be severely reprimanded if not sacked outright in most countries, not for criticising a politician, but for being beyond the pale and engaging in character assassination instead of factual reporting. But here, for some unknown reason, there seem to be no consequences for such outrageousness. Actually, it seems to be rewarded.

Pakistan is a democracy and each person is entitled to his own opinions. Syed Fawad Ali Shah, Syed Ali Raza Abidi, Ansar Abbasi, Amir Mateen, Shaheen Sehbai and all the others can believe what they want to believe and say what they want to say. But free speech does not mean a free pass to do anything you want without consequences.

Ansar Abbasi is free to say whatever he wants, but he does not have the right to be paid by Jang Group for doing so. Therefore, if Jang Group, Express Tribune, Aaj, The Nation, and other media companies continue to employ people who make outrageous and politically biased statements without any discipline or consequences, it is reasonable to infer that these media companies are supporting those specific opinions. And if that is the case – if media companies are supporting a particular political opinion – they stop being news organizations and have actually become political propaganda machines.

Any profession has rules that must be followed. Police cannot arrest a man simply because they do not like his face. Judges cannot sentence a man simply because they do not like his family. Politicians cannot take money for themselves simply because they are in power. And journalists cannot be political operatives if they are also to be trusted to report the news.

Pakistan has a free media which should be a national asset. Instead, it is quickly becoming a noise machine.

Media's Moment of Shame – Farrukh Khan Pitafi

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

Farrukh Khan PitafiFarrukh Khan Pitafi takes the media to task in his column for Daily Times today over the recent rumour mongering by certain newspapers and TV stations which fueled an unnecessary tension between the executive and judiciary. He also makes the point that has been noted here previously that there is a severe crisis in the media due to a lack of professionalism among editors who should be held responsible for ensuring that articles are reliably sourced and factually accurate before allowing them to be published.

Never throughout my career have I felt as ashamed as I feel now about the media’s misconduct. Last week a few news channels flashed an item that was later proved to be nothing more than a rumour. The item claimed that the government was about to withdraw the notification that had reinstated the judges sacked by Musharraf. The apex court’s judges met in emergency and issued a press release. I am not to discuss the court’s reaction or the government’s attitude when it was asked to clarify. However, I feel heartbroken by the callous attitude of our mainstream media, which brought the country to a standstill with reports that it has failed to substantiate. Could it be an elaborate deception by a section of the press or a government ploy to expose the media’s lack of responsibility? We may never know. However, there is no doubt that the reports were aired without regard to the best practices known to journalists. And had there been any evidence present to back the claims up, it would have already surfaced by now.

(more…)

The News Report on Constitution Contains Factual Error

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

Ahmad Noorani, journalist or political operative?A front page report in The News today by Ahmad Noorani contains a factual error about how constitutional amendments are treated in other countries.

The article claims that:

In different countries with developed political systems, including US and India, apex courts have struck down constitutional amendments.

This is not true. No constitutional amendment has ever been struck down by a US court. Actually, that would not be possible as in US law the written constitution is considered the supreme law of the land.

Satire: Nadeem Paracha's Latest Media Dictionary

Monday, October 18th, 2010

Nadeem ParachaNadeem Paracha has been compiling a new “devil’s dictionary” to help people understand the often bizarre ramblings of the media. His latest installment, Talking Knees, offers a much needed bit of levity into what can otherwise get to be a disheartening discussion of the media’s farcical failings.

Want to be a successful TV anchor and talk show host in Bakistan? The following is what you need to know …

(more…)

Ahmed Quraishi, Most 'Weird' Pakistani Journalist, Takes Propaganda to New Lows – Turns Computer Glitch at WH into Conspiracy Theory

Sunday, October 17th, 2010

Ahmed QuraishiAhmed Quraishi seems to have an unnatural obsession with Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani. It seems that Quraishi pays attention to little except following the Ambassador’s every move and trying to invent some conspiracy of one form or another. In his latest attempt, Quraishi distorts a computer error at the White House by suggesting that Haqqani was “denied entry” and “abandoned at the gate”. Legitimate news reports about the incident, however, tell a different story.

According to reports on CNN, the incident was caused by a data processing error that was sorted that evening.

The White House has another party protocol problem on its hands after as many as 30 diplomats were stopped at the White House gate and not allowed into a Tuesday evening party being held in the diplomats’ honor.

As many as 30 senior diplomats were denied entry initially, CNN was told.

Several ambassadors who spoke to CNN after the reception said they were barred from entering the reception for Chiefs of Mission and Charges d’Affaires because the information on their identification didn’t match the names and dates of birth on the check-in list. The ambassadors asked not to be named to preserve relations between their countries and the White House.

The party, an annual White House diplomatic reception, is a “must-attend” on the Washington diplomatic social calendar.

White House spokesman Ben Chang acknowledged that “a few” guests were delayed at the entrance to the White House due to “an error in processing their personal data.”

Ahmed Quraishi claims in his article that Haqqani was “denied entry to the White House” because he is not well connected in Washington. This is simply not supported by the facts of this story.

First, one must recognize that Haqqani was not denied entry. Actually, there were 30 Ambassadors who were asked to wait while the data error was sorted. Are we to believe that all of these diplomats are not well connected – including the Ambassadors from Russia and Saudi Arabia? It defies common sense to believe such a thing.

Also, according to the influential newspaper Foreign Policy, while the complete list of nations is not known, the error appears to have been related to the alphabetical order of the countries affected.

Ambassadors from Oman, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, and several other countries were held at the door, while European diplomats from France and Finland were allowed in. This led several ambassadors to speculate that it was an alphabetical problem — countries with names in the latter half of the alphabet were somehow affected by a registration error. Neither the administration nor the State Department would provide a full list of the countries affected by the SNAFU.

One should also consider that having his entry to the event delayed, Husain Haqqani left. I fully expected someone like Ahmed Quraishi to praise the Ambassador for standing up for the nation’s honor? Surely if the Ambassador had stayed put like many of the other diplomats, Quraishi would have condemned him for allowing Pakistan to be insulted?

Furthermore, this latest conspiracy theory is actually a direct contradiction of one of Ahmed Quraishi’s usual themes which is that Haqqani is a US agent. Surely if Husain Haqqani was US agent, he would have been able to skip the usual protocols and avoid the problem altogether.

It seems that this is another situation in which an official is ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t', and political opportunists posing as journalists are standing in the wings ready to make whatever argument serves their agenda, facts be damned.

What makes the story even more weird is Quraishi’s apparent obsession with the Ambassador. In the past, Ahmed Quraishi tried to peddle the ridiculous idea that Haqqani gave a visa to American bin Laden hunter Gary Faulkner because he believed the man was an agent of CIA. He also accused Haqqani of providing lavish accomodations for the Foreign Minister on a trip to New York City, only to be shamed when it was discovered that the poor man was in Pakistan attending to his own mother’s funeral.

In fact, Ahmed Quraishi has been publicly embarrassed before when the influential newspaper Foreign Policy reported that Quraishi’s article of 2009 that claimed Haqqani was to be fired was a misrepresentation of the facts.

In the Nation article, however, writer Ahmed Quraishi, shown at right, states without evidence that the Pakistani source was “close to Ambassador Haqqani,” and states without evidence that Haqqani is “contemplating going public with embarrassing Pakistani official documents.” Neither allegation was part of the article in The Cable.

The title of Quraishi’s article goes even further in misrepresenting the reporting in The Cable, and reads, “If fired, Haqqani threatens to unveil ‘reams’ of Pakistan’s secrets.”

(Quraishi also mislabeled the author of The Cable as “Bill” Rogin; not sure where he got that one.)

Ahmed Quraishi’s obsession with creating conspiracy theories around Husain Haqqani is even more bizarre when one realizes that in the past Quraishi has called Haqqani “one of the best” Ambassadors in the world.

It’s time for political operatives to stop pretending to be journalists in order to hawk their insults, rumours, and conspiracy theories. It is especially ironic that these people who are always itching to humiliate Pakistan’s leaders are the same who claim to be self-appointed nationalists. One might ask that if they really love their country so much, would they please stick to the facts and stop peddling conspiracies invented only to insult the nation’s officials. That is not journalism, it is only political propaganda.