Archive for November, 2010

Web of Deceit: Cafe Pyala's Expose of Internet Propaganda

Monday, November 29th, 2010

The blog Cafe Pyala recently published an incredible expose of the tangled web of deceit an Internet propaganda ring being run by a group of supposed journalists (original in full below the jump). Far from the conspiracy theories that are relentlessly promoted on several of the blogs that have been exposed, the work of the bloggers at Cafe Pyala shows what investigative journalism is all about – looking at the facts and connecting the dots. It also serves as an important reminder that readers must always consider the source of news, and whether the journalists or publication are reporting facts or simply political talking points.

According to the independent research of the bloggers at Cafe Pyala and their readers, there is a long list of blogs and Internet news sites that appear to have been set up by at least two individuals – Moin Ansari and Ahmed Quraishi – under false addresses and company names for the purpose of spreading a particular political message and attacking those with whom they disagree. Many of these websites appear to have been taken down following their exposure, more evidence that Cafe Pyala’s findings were correct. The list includes:

Ahmed Quraishi is relatively well known to Pakistan Media Watch readers, as he has been exposed several times by this blog for his pseudo-journalistic work as a political consultant – a fact that Quraishi himself does not dispute. And while some of the other pseudo-journalists exposed by Cafe Pyala like Moin Ansari are less well-known outside of conspiracy blog circles, the practice of using journalism as a cover for political operations extends well beyond these exposed websites. Connections with intelligence agencies run deep in parts of the media, and it is often difficult to decipher what is true and what is merely propaganda.

The lesson here is one that applies not only to Internet journalism, but to all forms of media. As readers of Pakistan Media Watch have commented previously, there are times when sources should be anonymous or can justifiably use a pseudonym to protect their security – especially when criticising authority. This works because the facts should be able to speak for themselves. Individuals are entitled to their own opinions, but no one is invited to his own facts.

(more…)

Blasphemy and Opportunism

Saturday, November 27th, 2010

Ansar AbbasiAnsar Abbasi’s column of 26 November is a curious piece of work. He begins by reporting some statements of Law Minister Babar Awan about repeal of the blasphemy law. According to Ansar Abbasi, the esteemed minister has said that he opposed repeal of the law and that no one should think of repealing it while he is in office.

Abbasi then observes that this is a difference in opinion between Babar Awan and Salmaan Taseer, the latter favouring release of Asia Masih – the Christian woman who was recently sentenced under the controversial law. Because these two politicians of the same political party disagree on the issue, Ansar Abbasi claims that “it shows serious cracks within the ruling elite about its policy on the blasphemy law.”

This was the first item that raised my eyebrows. Actually, two officials having a disagreement on an issue is quite common, is it not? Especially when these two men are not even part of the same government – Babar Awan is a federal minister and Salmaan Taseer is a provincial governor – how is it some evidence of cracks within ‘the ruling elite’? And who exactly does Abbasi mean when he says ‘ruling elite’? Surely Mian Nawaz Sharif and Altaf Hussain must be considered members of the ‘ruling elite’ and they disagree with President Zardari and each other seemingly every day! It seems that Ansar Abbasi has thrown in this bit of his opinion in order to take a swipe at the governing political party and not due to any substance.

This possibility is made even more probable once the reader continues through the final paragraphs of Ansar Abbasi’s column. Here, he deviates from the topic of Babar Awan’s statements and begins listing a series of accusations against the minister as if to soil his name only. Ansar Abbasi mentions Harris Steel Mill case and Monticello University, neither of which have anything to do with the blasphemy law. He then goes on to say, “Babar Awan is also generally believed as the man responsible for the government’s confrontational mode with the judiciary.” Really? This is ‘generally believed’? And what evidence does Ansar Abbasi base this claim on? Has he done some polling of the nation? And even if it were true, what would it have to do with the blasphemy law? Perhaps this is only another instance of Ansar Abbasi being both source and reporter.

The statements of a minister on a controversial law such as the blasphemy laws adopted under General Zia are important news items to be reported. The people should be aware of what their government officials are saying on important topics. But Ansar Abbasi’s practise of infusing his own opinions and adding paragraphs about unrelated scandals reeks of political opportunism, not journalism. Please, Mr Ansar Abbasi, stick to the facts.

Nadir Hassan: 10 things I hate about TV news

Thursday, November 25th, 2010

Mr Nadir Hassan brings a bit of levity to the discussion of media with his article for today’s Express Tribune, “10 things I hate about TV news“. Some of his observations made me laugh out loud, but at the end of reading I also thought, ‘it’s funny because it’s true!’

1.     The dunce on the street. You know the guy; he’s being interviewed only because he was in the vicinity of something producers consider news. His insight, such as it is, consists of saying “you know” a lot and plastering a massive I’m-so-excited-to-be-on-TV grin on his face.

2.    The Mini Me analyst. News anchors are supposed to be objective so any time they want to slip a bit of political commentary in, they’ll invite an analyst-for-hire, someone who will say exactly what the anchor wants him to say. But we can trust him; he wears an expensive suit.

3.    The apocalyptic teaser. “Are you aware that you might die tomorrow? Join us after the break and we’ll tell you how.”

4.    The dancer in the background. There’s always this one jerk, usually lurking in the shadows, who likes nothing better than to add a bit of flavour to a beeper by gyrating madly. He is to the dunce on the street what Bonnie was to Clyde.

5.   Important hair. You know why there’s a dengue epidemic in the country? All the spray that should have been used to fumigate our cities is keeping up the hair of vain anchors.

6.   Casual racism. You will never see a dark face on news channels. After all, the survival of Fair and Lovely depends on it.

7.   The vague Pakistan connection. Never fear, news channels will find the cousin of a Pakistani citizen who was shopping at a mall three blocks away from a fire in Michigan.

8.    The child-like fascination with technology. This particularly materialises during elections. Anchors get so aroused by their BlackBerrys, touch screens and other assorted thingamajigs they can barely contain themselves.

9.    The illegible ticker. News channels have discovered a new font. It allows you to only read one out of every three words before disappearing from view.

10.   The expert for all seasons. No matter what the topic, this chameleon will become an instant expert. He throws in a bit of jargon, comes to some sweeping conclusions and calls on the government to do more.

Published in The Express Tribune, November 21st, 2010.

Ansar Abbasi's Alter Ego

Wednesday, November 24th, 2010

Ansar AbbasiTalat Hussain found himself the subject of outrage recently after he wrote a scathing article attacking Angelina Jolie for failing to live up to Talat the conservative Islamist’s ideal of the proper role of women. While some were upset with his point of view, most were upset with his blatant hypocrisy, seeing this as another example of two-faced journalists who are not honest with readers but only playing to the crowd. Another journalist has revealed his forked tongue by writing an article that attacks not a foreign woman but our own daughters for failing to observe modesty enough to satisfy his taste. Again, this journalist claims to be a liberal and of course he is only writing this column in Urdu.

The article under discussion is Ansar Abbasi’s column for Jang which takes aim at Fashion Week. Cafe Pyala provides a translation of the article for those who do not read Urdu. The blogger also makes the excellent point that regardless of one’s personal attitude towards fashion week, this is another glaring example of media hypocrisy – journalists and media companies who write in one way for English readers and another way for Urdu readers.

Below is a translation of his Urdu op-ed piece published in today’s Jang (thanks to @tazeen for drawing my attention to it). It is worth a read, not only because it provides a window to the mindset of Abbasi and possibly many, many others. But also because it draws attention, once again, to the linguistic divide that separates the English reading public and non-English reading public, a divide that is not only tolerated but pandered to. (It is extremely unlikely you would ever read anything like this article in the Jang group’s English paper The News or any other English-language paper for that matter.) This article serves to remind you, if anything, that all those post-modernist assumptions about progress in how the role of women in society is discussed, are merely hollow assumptions. Or at least that all those debates have passed Abbasi by without disturbing even a hair in his beard.

I have also yet to understand the mindset of the Jang Group, which launches Amn Ki Asha with great fanfare on the one hand, and has no qualms on the other in making petty-minded jabs about Gandhi and India on Geo on the other (see their coverage of US President Obama’s visit to Gandhi’s samadi). It will willingly tone down the anti-West moral brigade in The News or on Geo, but allow them free rein in Jang. It will make Geo a media partner of the Fashion Week and provide it wide publicity and, at the same time, run such incendiary pieces about it in its publications (and make no mistake, this article is a call to disruptive action)… Do they really think this is what is meant by ‘letting a thousand flowers bloom’?

Perhaps it’s time for Jang Group to change its name to Janus Group. It is clear that the organization is showing two faces – one to English readers and one to those who prefer Urdu. Of course anyone may have their own opinion on social issues, but it should certainly raise eyebrows to know that some of our esteemed journalists and commentators have every opinion on an issue, only reciting what they think their dear readers want to hear. If that is the case, what is the point?

Express Tribune Photo Caption Error

Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

Express Tribune photo of Rehman Malik with incorrect captionExpress Tribune on 23 November featured a story, ‘US-based group working to establish caliphate‘ that included a photo of Interior Minister Rehman Malik with the caption, “Pakistani activist of ‘Jamaat-e-Islami Sa’ee’ in FIA custody”.

There is no evidence that Minister Rehman Malik is an activist of Jamaat-e-Islami Sa’ee. Actually, this seems to be an obvious mistake as the article contains a statement from Senator Malik. However, no body has corrected or clarified to ensure that readers do not mistake Rehman Malik for a Jamaat-e-Islami Sa’ee activist.

While this might seem like a slight and even humorous error, it is important that such items are quickly corrected so as to ensure that readers are not accidentally misled.

The Nation Repeats Incorrect Data on Drone Attacks

Monday, November 22nd, 2010

The Nation (logo)The Nation today includes an editorial, “Say firm NO to drones” that repeats incorrect data on the number of deaths of innocents due to drones attacks. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that such incorrect data has been published by The Nation which raises the question of whether the newspaper is intentionally misleading the people.

According to the editorial,

The drones have already wrought havoc in the country, killing nearly 2000 innocent men, women and children, and spreading insecurity nationwide, while managing to take out only 30-odd suspected Al-Qaeda operatives.

The authors of this editorial do not reveal what source of information they have taken these numbers, and based on the publicly available data it appears that they have simply made it up from thin air. Possibly, though, they have taken their data from the website Pakistan Body Count by Dr. Zeeshan Usmani. However, this Pakistan Body Count data was recently debunked by independent researchers.

Research by Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood was published by Daily Times in October and is also available at the website http://dronedata.wordpress.com.

The first problem is that Dr Usmani has only two entities in his data, i.e. al Qaeda and civilians. Where do the Taliban fit in, precisely the Afghan Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Islam (LI)? Where does targeting monsters like Baitullah Mehsud and Qari Hussain Mehsud fit in this scenario? There is no justification for including the TTP, LI or any other militant groups in the same category as civilians. Such gimmicks are only being used to mislead the whole world and any such defence of the flawed data is misleading and unacceptable. We cannot claim whether the data is manipulated and purposely flawed for ideological reasons. What we can assert is that this alone leaves a serious flaw in his data collection and since the government of Pakistan officially declares the TTP, LI and associated groups as terrorists and has been pursuing an active military campaign against them, including their deaths amongst civilians is a serious distortion of the truth, erroneous and contrary to acceptable logic. Their deaths are and should be included as a part of the accuracy of drone strikes.

Mr Saeed and Mr Masood go on to reveal several inaccuracies in Dr Usmani’s data which makes his entire project unreliable. And these are not the only independent researchers that have debunked these statistics. Researchers at the New America Foundation have compiled data based on news reports and other verifiable research. The following is data from Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2010

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2010* 514 841
2009 413 709
2008 263 296
2004-2007 86 109
Total 1,276 1,955

*Through November 21, 2010

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2010

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2010* 488 781
2009 293 405
2008 106 134
2004-2007 78 100
Total 965 1,420

*Through November 21, 2010

The Nation also recited in their editorial the idea that drone attacks are responsible for suicide bombings. This defies common sense. Actually, Saeed and Masood eloquently explain why such ideas are nonsense on their website:

There lies no factuality in the rhetoric that strives to create a cause and effect relationship between drone attacks and suicide bombing. These are shallow assertions with hollow foundations and no proof to back them up. They can, they are and will be used as a motivating factor, but they are just one amongst the hundreds of motivating factors used by militants. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any suicide bomber has been linked to or a potential bomber that has been apprehended had any acquaintance that died in a drone attack. We challenge the other side to bring forward any news report, intelligence report or a case report that states that the person caught or who carried out the bombing had any relative that died in a drone attack and he was avenging his family members. Most of the times, this assertion is made without any evidence. One of the cited examples is of Faisal Shahzad but that it is unbelievable since his life story as is tells how he was led to the TTP. Baituallah Mehsud once claimed that a suicide attack was in revenge for a particular drone strike but it is unbelievable that he and the group of his monsters wouldn’t have carried it anyway.

The prime reason militants fight and suicide bombers exist is the world view of clash of civilizations, an ideological assertion of one’s one faith over the other’s and the view all military operations conducted by our forces are being conducted on the “behest of the US”, where they view death for their “greater cause” as the ultimate achievement and where life itself remains just a step towards a better eternal life they imagine. They view the state’s involvement in the war on terror, including the Operations in Wana, Tirah, Orakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, South Warizistan, Operation Silence and Swat as only for “pleasing the US”, as guided by infidels. The drone attacks are an additional factor but in no way the prime motivating factor. The toxic religious dogmas of declaring everybody not cooperating with you as Kafir and liable to death is a major factor, not drones.

Obviously, none of this justifies the use of drone attacks in Pakistan or anywhere else. The debate about whether or not drone attacks are a good policy for Pakistan should be discussed openly and transparently, and each individual is entitled to his own opinion. But nobody, including The Nation, is entitled to his own facts. Using misleading and inaccurate data only undermines an argument. In a debate as serious as the issue of drone attacks, only honest facts should be considered. For a newspaper to knowingly continue using inaccurate data is dishonest and unprofessional.

Anchors, Ratings…and Consequences

Saturday, November 20th, 2010

The words of prominent TV anchors may be considered all in good fun or perhaps merely words and therefore not of any consequence. “If you do not like a programme, do not watch it” say the defenders of this ‘anything goes’ media ideology. But words have consequences, and the statements of prominent TV anchors can have powerful repercussions that are far beyond what was intended. Maheen Usmani relates a few stories of anchors causing rather extreme consequences in her post for Express Tribune today, and raises some valuable questions: How do we hold TV anchors accountable when their words result in disastrous consequences? And what do media problems say about our own responsibility as viewers?

(more…)

Missing the Point

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

By now you have probably heard the story of Asia Bibi who was handed down the death sentence in Nankana district for violation of blasphemy laws. This has created quite a debate in parts of the media – but not the debate you might expect. Actually, most of the discussion has been about whether or not the government should overturn the sentence for Asia, with little discussion of the underlying issues. Saroop Ijaz makes an important observation in today’s Daily Times about the way that media reports often miss the bigger picture of a story.

(more…)

HAARP Conspiracy Debunked By Preeminent Pakistani Nuclear Scientist

Tuesday, November 16th, 2010

"Claims about HAARP  are based on pseudo-science  promoted by conspiracy  theorists who blame America  for all grief in the world."  -Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy Quaid-i-Azam University

Pervez Hoodbhoy is not a very good conspiracy theorist. He is, however, a very good scientist. He is professor of physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, and as a scientist, he is getting quite frustrated with people trying to use pseudo-science to make up crazy conspiracy theories that confuse and scare people for no good reason. Writing for Dawn, he takes direct aim at the conspiracy theory that has been sent around in emails and even published by The Nation and Dawn which claims the CIA is controlling the weather with a top-secret machine called HAARP.

(more…)

Are Intelligence Agencies Using Media As Puppets?

Saturday, November 13th, 2010

Ansar AbbasiAre some elements in the intelligence agencies using media as puppets? This is a conclusion that is being reached by some analysts based on recent news articles published by The News (Jang Group).

Earlier this week, investigative editor for The News Ansar Abbasi wrote the article titled ‘Ex-MI chief, commanders Quetta, Pindi involved’ which claims that Lal Masjid operation and Bugti killing both were the responsibility of Pervez Musharraf alone as he had bypassed GHQ.

Analysis of this article by blogger named Peja Mistri concludes that the article is actually part of an internal struggle within the military establishment and attempt to clear the army name regarding Lal Masjid and Bugti, possibly to ease the concern of ideological factions within the military. Whatever the intent of the article, the question has been raised whether Ansar Abbasi is writing news articles to inform the public or is a puppet for intelligence PR.

This question was raised again today when the same reporter Ansar Abbasi published the article ‘5,000 Jiyalas likely to join Sindhi police‘. When Abbasi interviewed Sindh Inspector General Police, Sultan Salahuddin Babar Khattak, he was told in detail the process for publicly advertising for applicants and determining final results based on merit. So what is Ansar Abbasi’s source for this conspiracy?

According to the article Ansar Abbasi was told this conspiracy by ‘an official source in the Sindh government’ who told him that “the Sindh chapter of an elite intelligence agency had also raised similar apprehensions and reported to its headquarter”. With only this evidence, Ansar Abbasi accepts the conclusion that only the intelligence agency is giving him correct information.

Like other parts of the country, the province of Sindh, whose capital city Karachi saw one of the worst terrorist attacks on Thursday, is in dire need of professional police, a well-trained investigation department and skilled prosecution; however, political considerations of rulers are pushing things from bad to worse.

These recent events begin to remind us of the debate that raged earlier this year about another journalist, Hamid Mir, and the secret connections between journalists an intelligence agencies.

The agencies have always had personnel on their payrolls operating as reporters, anchors, and ‘analysts’ ever since the Ayub Khan dictatorship in the 1960s. Respected journalist and author, late Zamir Niazi, in his book, The Web of Censorship, suggests that the agencies recruited a number of ‘journalists’ during the Ayub dictatorship, specifically to check leftist sentiments that were all the rage among journalists at the time.

Then during the Z.A. Bhutto regime, Niazi hints that the populist government and the conservative ‘establishment’ fought a battle of ideas through paid journalists. But the phenomenon of agency-backed journalists upholding the military establishment’s agenda and ideology in the press  really came to the fore during the Ziaul Haq dictatorship in the 1980s.

As left-leaning journalists were forced to exit newspapers during the Zia dictatorship, the corridors of these newspaper offices were suddenly stormed by large groups of pro-establishment personnel, mainly consisting of anti-Bhutto journalists and pro-Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) men.

With the role of the ISI and other intelligence agencies expanding due to Pakistan’s direct involvement in the so-called ‘anti-Soviet Afghan jihad,’ many of these journalists were brought under the wings of various agencies, triggering a trend that still disfigures prominent sections of mainstream Pakistani media. What’s more, between early and late 1980s, the agencies were also able to plant men in the administration and finance departments of various mainstream media groups.

Journalists must remain steadfast about their independence and transparent about their facts. They should ask if a story is about police recruiting process, why is an intelligence agent giving some information? What is he trying to achieve? Reading Ansar Abbasi’s articles one is likely to conclude that Ansar Abbasi believes intelligence agents are simply honest angels who have come to give him some secrets out of their own kindness.

Certainly Ansar Abbasi would be furious if news was being written not based on facts but under direction of PPP leadership. So why is it different if the direction is coming from intelligence agencies? Journalism cannot be free if it is not independent. If reporters are writing front page stories at the direction of intelligence agencies, they have stopped being journalists and become propagandists. Actually, even the perception of such shenanigans is enough to destroy the credibility of the media.