Archive for December, 2010

24/7 News Cycle Bad For Journalism, Deadly For Journalists

Friday, December 31st, 2010

Pakistan journalists danger

By now it’s fairly well accepted that the 24/7 news cycle and the competition that comes with it is problematic for the state of journalism. The most embarrassing result, of course, being the fake WikiLeaks story that wound up on the front page of several reputable newspapers (and continued to be published in some less reputable ones). But the race for to be the first group with the most sensational headlines is not only bad for journalism, it turns out that it’s bad for journalists, too – and by ‘bad’ I mean deadly.

A new report from Committee to Protect Journalists found that Pakistan earned the dubious distinction of being the deadliest nation for journalists in 2010, beating out Iraq and Mexico. In all, eight journalists were killed while doing their job this past year. And the CPJ report does not include incidents in which journalists were shot at or issued death threats such as Kamran Shafi received in 2009.

Nafees Takar, the chief of Voice Of America’s Pashto-language Deewa service, says that part of the problem is the pressure to be the first to deliver on-the-scene reports from dangerous areas.

“Most of the time, when one media outlet in Pakistan uses a report, for example, on [U.S. missile] drone attacks, another media outlet will also be forcing the reporting in the region and will be expecting from their reporter a story which might be better than other one, with the soundbites of the people, and maybe the outlet will also be expecting that he or she should get some pictures of the area which has been hit by the missle attack. And that makes trouble for them in the sense that nobody can go to those areas. And if a journalist tries to go there, they are sure for inviting trouble for themselves.”

As we enter the new year, let’s pray that our journalists are safe from harm. Let us also ask the media groups, the publishers, the editors, and ourselves the consumers to have some patience and not put unreasonable demands on the men and women reporting the news. Already journalism can be a thankless and difficult job. But please, no one should have to put their life in danger just to get a headline ten minutes before the next guy.

The Nation’s Confused IMF Conspiracy

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

The Nation logoIt was only two days ago that the IMF approved a nine-month extension of Pakistan’s Stand-By Arrangement. Which means that it took The Nation less than 36 hours to invent a new conspiracy to explain how the decision is a tool of American hegemony and government corruption.

The Nation makes several accusations against both the IMF and the government. Most notably by impugning the IMF’s rationale for supporting Pakistan’s economy.

…the IMF’s wider agenda, that of ensuring that the USA’s will is done, should not be lost sight of.

But China is an IMF member country. So is Saudi Arabia. And while the US has the largest quota of a single country, the EU has a combined vote of 32% – almost twice that of the US. In fact, historically the IMF’s managing director has been European, not American, the present Managing Director being Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a Frenchman. For the IMF to be a blatant tool of American interests, one would have to accept that the US was controlling China, Russia, Venezuela and other nations that traditionally oppose or resist American interests. It’s simply beyond reason.

The newspaper goes on to suggest that the US via the IMF is using “the charge of corruption…as a stick to beat the government into obedience”. Ironic considering one of the key themes of The Nation has been cries of rampant corruption in the government. Should we surmise from this, then, that The Nation too is a puppet of American interests?

What makes the claim particularly ironic, however, is that The Nation actually accuses the government of devising the RGST scheme to protect its own corruption!

The plea that is used by the IMF for the RGST is the improvement of the tax:GDP ratio. If that is the case, why would the IMF want the imposition of a tax that would only cause inflation, while the Pakistani state left a major sector, that of agriculture, untaxed. The problem is that agricultural incomes appertain to those in the legislatures, on both sides of the political divide, and they use these positions to prevent any tax being levied on the incomes which enable them to live a life of leisure enlivened only by politics.

If The Nation is correct (which is certainly disputed by many economists) that the RGST will cause inflation in affected sectors, isn’t it also possible that the government did not apply the tax on agriculture in order to protect the common people from price hikes on food essentials?

Regardless of one’s position on the proposed RGST, claiming that it is a conspiracy by the US to keep Pakistan’s cooperation in the war against terrorist militant groups is just silly. Development economists from various nations have made critical analysis of the IMF and its policies in the past. Some of those critiques have resulted in changes to IMF structure and policies as the economic firm adapts to more effectively aid nations hit by economic downturns and natural disasters.

Reading The Nation, however, one could easily believe that the newspaper would rather the economy sink just to spite the present government. Whatever its intentions, though, the logic and analysis of its editorial page is deplorable.

Why The Urdu Press Loves Veena Malik

Tuesday, December 28th, 2010

For a group of people so offended by Veena Malik, the holy talking heads certainly can’t stop thinking about her. A couple of weeks ago, we wrote a piece critical of Kamran Shahid’s Front Line circus on the subject. But the ever enlightening Raza Rumi has taken to task ‘the grand opinion setters of the Urdu press’ as a whole for their treatment of the issue and the banality of the entire subject.

(more…)

Ansar Abbasi’s Gol Gappay

Monday, December 27th, 2010

Ansar Abbasi's Gol GappayAnsar Abbasi’s column for The News today made my mouth water this morning, but I could not figure out why. Abbasi’s column, featured on the front page of the newspaper, claims that “Big names” including at least one minister are figured in a scandal of allotting 1,000 plots in Islamabad. Walking down the street after reading the article, I found myself inexplicably drawn to a vendor selling pani pooris. That was when I realized why Abbasi’s article made my mouth water – it was like a giant bowl of media gol gappay!

Now this may sound strange, but please consider the similarities – both Abbasi’s headline, ‘Big names, minister figure in plots scam’ and gol gappays are quite enticing to the eye, but when you finally get it close you realize that it is simply puffed up and hollow inside!

Here’s what Abbasi offers to his readers today:

A source claimed that amongst the influential, the federal minister and informal monitor have huge vested interests involved in these allotments. The source even said that each of these influential figures were aspiring for hundreds of plots apparently to be allotted to victims.

The source, however, could not produce any documentary evidence to this respect but said that an independent inquiry into the matter, review of the whole process adopted for the award of the package, questioning of all the concerned officials and interview of those listed as victims would unveil the real faces behind the scam.

An unnamed source claims that some unnamed influential people including an unnamed federal minister are involved with a bogus plot allotment scheme in Islamabad. According to Abbasi’s own words, “the source, however, could not produce any documentary evidence to this respect”.

Despite having no names of those involved, no names of sources, and no documentary evidence, Ansar Abbasi still manages to write almost 700 words about the alleged scandal. For that, he should receive the new Media Gol Gappay Award.

Thankfully, the pani poori wallah had some spicy pani and chunteys as filling. Perhaps next time Ansar Abbasi can think to provide some facts to his readers as well, and not leave them with a hollow shell of an article only.

Reporting or Campaigning?

Sunday, December 26th, 2010

Shaheen SehbaiIt is being reported that consensus mode is working well in the National Assembly, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain has agreed that PML-Q will support the government, and even Mian Nawaz Sharif has pledged PML-N support for the government. If politicians can mature beyond petty bickering and backstabbing, why can’t our media?

Consider the column by Shaheen Sehbai featured on the front page of The News today which basically amounts to an anti-Zardari campaign sheet rather than an actual news report. While the editors clearly labeled the piece “Commentary”, one is left to wonder why this could not be placed on the Opinion page and whether the commentary is honest analysis or simply Sehabi continuing his predictions of a failed government now going into three years after elections.

For example, this is Shaheen Sehbai’s ‘Commentary’ on the Altaf Hussain-Zardari relationship:

The levels of playing fields for both these leaders, sitting as part of a coalition which is sinking, or doomed to sink no matter how long it is artificially stretched, are noteworthy. Altaf Bhai appears to have acquired a much higher moral ground because Zulfiqar Mirza and company have pulled Zardari and the PPP down to below ground level.

But the level Zardari has set for sticking to some morals in politics is pathetically sub-surface and almost non-existent. An important columnist and writer recently remarked that he had never heard the word “corruption” in any of Zardari’s speeches and addresses. Anti-corruption and accountability for the present rulers means how to escape and kill both these dragons.

Despite the defection of Maulana Fazl-ur-Rahman, there is little evidence to support the claim that the coalition government is ‘doomed’. To the contrary, recent reports linked to in the first paragraph of this post demonstrate quite the opposite – coalition and opposition parties dedicated to seeing the democratically elected government complete its full term.

But Shaheen Sehbai takes the political rhetoric of some opposition leaders and makes a warning against Nawaz that he should “stop the Zardari train”.

The opposition, led by Nawaz Sharif, is the most confused lot as they share power and fear the Army but by ignoring the rapid collapse of every institution, they are proving that the political system is unable to correct itself. If the politicians cannot stop the rot, someone will have to do so. By not doing anything, Nawaz Sharif is inviting others to intervene. This is what he fears but this he probably does not understand.

Again, this is not commentary or analysis of the day’s news, it is the campaigning rhetoric one expects to hear from a rally loudspeaker. Shaheen Sehbai has started with his conclusion – that Zardari is doomed – and has built his commentary around this rather than looking at the facts and determining a conclusion based on those.

Obviously, Sehbai is entitled to his own opinion. But as consumers of news, we are also entitled to ask whether it is useful for our understanding of events. Cafe Pyala reports today that Jang Group is making some interestng personnell changes that appear to be a sincere effort to temper the over-the-top anti-Western rhetoric that has crept into its organization’s reporting on foreign policy and provide a more balanced, reasoned reporting and analysis. Perhaps it would be worth considering to do something similar related to domestic politics as well.

A Tale of Two Editorials

Friday, December 24th, 2010

Two very different editorials about The New York Times story suggesting American officials are planning to put being raids into Pakistan’s territory serve as an excellent demonstration of unbiased media versus ‘playing to the gallery’.

First, The News (Jang Group) wrote on Wednesday that the article was proof of American duplicity.

The News (Jang Group)When The New York Times speaks you are hearing the voice of the American government. Thus when the NYT says as it did on Monday that US commanders in Afghanistan want to expand Special Forces operations into Pakistan; we can be sure the report is accurate. We can also be sure that the report is as much designed to twist diplomatic arms as it is to inspire fear in the enemy; and it is a reflection of the frustration felt by the Americans for our perceived failure to ‘do more’ by way of counter-terror operations in the borderlands. With America working towards a reduction in troop levels and an eventual pullout it will also be looking downstream for somebody to blame if, as expected, the war in Afghanistan is not won by the US and its allies. It is not difficult to see who might be in the frame once blame starts getting apportioned, and no matter how engaged we may be, how great our casualties – and they are greater by far than any other nation fighting this war – the ‘do more’ mantra is moving towards being ‘never did enough’.

This raises a few questions. Is The New York Times, as alleged by The News, actually the voice of the American government? If that is the case, one must believe that the American government supports the opposition. One must also believe that the American government criticises itself for not doing a good enough job of communicating with the Pakistani people.

Also, it could be asked if newspapers merely serve as mouthpieces, who is The News a mouthpiece for?

Now compare The News‘s editorial with one that appeared in Thursday’s Daily Times.

Daily TimesPakistan is already in enough trouble politically and economically. Terrorism has added to our woes and it seems like that in the coming days, more trouble may follow. According to a report published in The New York Times (NYT), “senior American military commanders in Afghanistan are pushing for an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground raids across the border into Pakistan’s tribal areas”. It is plain that this proposal has more to do with military strategy than with politics. Pakistan has been stalling a military operation in North Waziristan for some time now. Our argument is that the military is already stretched in Swat and South Waziristan, that we fear more IDPs, and we do not have enough money to conduct a large-scale operation. This delay has not gone down well with the US military commanders based in Afghanistan. The US-led NATO forces are running out of patience with us because of the safe havens that have been provided to the Afghan Taliban on our soil, particularly in North Waziristan. The military commanders now want to hit the Taliban in their rear base areas to make life difficult for them.

The NYT reports that the “Afghan militias backed by the CIA have carried out a number of secret missions” in our tribal areas. Although NATO forces have denied these reports, Pakistan’s military establishment should understand the gravity of the situation. NATO’s denial is due to the political sensitivity involved. Pakistan is the frontline ally of the US/NATO in the war on terror and the Americans want to keep us on their side rather than push us away. On the one hand the withdrawal date of foreign troops from Afghanistan is looming large and on the other hand, the frustration of military commanders is growing. Will they be held back by political considerations is a question worth pondering. Already there is outrage in Pakistan against the increase in drone attacks, which WikiLeaks has confirmed are with the tacit approval of Pakistan’s government. The political fallout of more clandestine operations can be seriously damaging, but under the circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the Americans might opt for it if our military establishment keeps up its dual policy.

Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, has ruled out ground operations and asserted that our military is quite capable of handling the terrorists within our borders. With all due respect to Ambassador Haqqani, our military is definitely capable of doing this, but does it really want to? Our military establishment must understand the limits to which we can push this dual policy because great danger lies ahead now if we keep on with our misadventures.

Here we see a much more reasoned analysis of the story. Where The News appears quick to play to the gallery by repeating hyper-nationalist slogans, Daily Times is considering the facts and trying to put them in perspective.

Even the handling of Ambassador Haqqani’s statement shows some colouring of the facts. Daily Times reports his statement about not allowing foreign troops on our soil, but asks how long we will be able to keep up this posture. On the other hand, The News all but accuses the Ambassador and all other government officials of being dishonest without providing any reason to think that Haqqani’s statment was not hearfelt and true.

People read the news for facts. They read editorials for context and perspective, the idea being that the professionals who write the editorials are being objective in their analysis. Obviously, there can be an opinion to the piece, but it should not be merely parroting slogans and playing to the gallery. You can see the clear difference in the two editorials between The News and Daily Times – one trying to make sense of the news of the day, the other using the news of the day to push a particular political agenda. Which do you think better serves the public interest?

The Importance of Ethics and Training

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

Perhaps it was too ironic that Sabin Agha’s blog was published by Dawn yesterday. While many of us were distracted by the awful media circus that was going on in Karachi, Sabin Agha was unknowingly proposing the very solution to the problem.

Agha’s blog is about training media professionals on how to cover conflicts – the importance of following safety measures, acting as an truly impartial observer and not developing too-friendly relationships with security agencies, militant groups, and other involved parties, and understanding basic journalistic ethics that will enhance the reliability and credibility of their reporting.

This proposal is certainly needed for those who are covering conflicts, but it should not end there. As yesterday’s incident makes clear, journalists need training in covering traumatic circumstances of all sorts. Because when we pause to reflect, the truth is that Sharmila Farooqui and the reporters at various media houses were probably not intending to do anything wrong. It’s just as likely that – coupled with the pressures of a competitive news industry – they simply didn’t know any better.

Of course, that excuse is only good once.

Journalists as impartial observers?

by Sabin Agha

Despite being based in an urban centre like Karachi, I have covered numerous dangerous events which includes blasts, police encounters, and violent street protests to name a few. But then, journalism is a profession where journalists often confront situations of extreme danger.

Here I quote one of my many personal experiences: the coverage of twin blasts at Karsaz that struck Benazir Bhutto’s home-coming procession in 2007 is one such stark reminder of a heavy price prevailing democracy paid. While it was next to impossible to prevent the Karsaz tragedy due to the mob, most journalists covering the event became a casualty themselves. A cameraman from a local news channel died in the line of duty while many others were wounded. Though the blasts took place in front of our eyes, we were spared by being in a safe position. Foreign media kept its distance and only reached the spot once they deemed it safe. I emerged unscathed, partly because of the one important lesson I learnt throughout my experience as a broadcast journalist: while covering such events, it is always essential to weigh the benefits against the risks. Cover the story, don’t become the story yourself. I do take risks, like most other journalists; however, I avoid taking unnecessary ones.

When covering sensitive or dangerous issues, we definitely run the risk of becoming a casualty. But what is new to this subject is the changing perception of what the role of a journalist is i.e, a gatherer of evidence or an impartial observer? Pakistan is currently fighting several battles, domestic as well as global, and escalation of each battle means a surge in danger for journalists. In a bid to control the media, journalists are now encountering growing pressure from all the “stakeholders”, be it the government, army or militants.

In my opinion, constantly facing serious and often life-threatening challenges have made Pakistani journalists even more committed. Unlike journalists from developed countries, where personal safety training is mandatory, Pakistani journalists with minimum or no opportunities of such training continue performing their duties, especially in the conflict-prone tribal belt. They have to rely solely on field experience to avoid mishaps.

According to the International Press Institute, 12 Pakistani journalists have been killed in 2010. Still, local news organisations and media outlets in Pakistan have not felt the need to train journalists for hostile environment reporting. This means being unaware of basic journalism ethics, which also undermines the quality of reportage. This also means that they are devoid of tactics for “developing sources” as a news gatherer. These journalists wish to be “impartial” but the hostile environment leads to fear and ambiguity, which results in their compulsion to develop a “not-so-professional contact” within security agencies or militant outfits.

The military as well as the militants are “trained, experienced and organised” and know the rules of their game, but the untrained and helpless journalists don’t! Of late, the deadly approach of electronic media of more information, instead of following measures to ensure the safety of reporters, has taken a front seat. Fear for their lives and pressure for more information from their organisation compel reporters to compromise on reportage. And thus, impartial observance is taken over by merely gathering evidence for either side.

In my opinion, training media professionals on how to cover conflicts will enhance their understanding of their role as journalists and will also encourage their independent decision-making abilities. Truth needs to be preserved; otherwise constructive development of press and media in recent times has no meaning at all.

The Lowest Depths of Media Irresponsibility

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

I planned to write about a couple of items that have been in the news lately that I thought warranted addressing. For example, the article of 20 December, ‘Nawaz to support PPP in Centre, claims Shujaat’ which included the description of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif as “the so-called opposition leader”. It is unclear if this was a quote of PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, but the way it is presented in the article makes it seem as though it was the opinion of the reporter criticising Nawaz Sharif for cooperating with the government.

However, such items – while important – pale in comparison to the disastrous media circus that has been unleashed today surrounding an alleged gang rape of a young woman and the beating of her friend. The treatment of this case in the media has been deplorable, and while it is certainly indefensible to politicise reporting, the defamation and endangering of a young woman is the height of journalistic irresponsibility.
(more…)

Dear Propagandists, Keep Digging

Monday, December 20th, 2010

The Daily MailThe propagandists behind the fake Wikileaks story that was exposed by The Guardian continue trying to dig their way out of the hole they have found themselves in. What is curious is that faced with inarguable proof that they have finally been caught manufacturing stories, they only continue to protest their innocence and refuse to admit their mistakes. The more they try to justify their actions, though, the deeper the hole they are digging for themselves.

As we wrote a couple of days ago, Ahmed Quraishi’s web of propaganda has begun to unravel as more and more journalists are calling him what he really is. That has not stopped Mr Quraishi, however, and today we find him in The News actually asking with a straight face for the state “to intervene as the interim and enforce discipline” in the media. Like any would-be dictator, Ahmed Quraishi believes the media should be free to spread propaganda, but not to expose the puppeteer.

But this network of propagandists is larger than Ahmed Quraishi, and he is not the only one of the lot writing frenzied defenses of their shady practices. Today, the website of the fake newspaper “Daily Mail” features a column by one “Mohammad Jamil” that continues to offer sad excuses for their phoney reporting.

This group had carried the same news in its daily English and Urdu newspapers; later described them fake and apologized for not checking its veracity and the source before publishing. They are now trying to create ‘awareness’ among media men that they should not release news without checking its authenticity. But the problem is that there is competition in print and electronic media, especially the latter for their passion for breaking news; and they do not have the time to check the veracity of the news. However, one of its anchors in his remarks on Indian TV assured that he would investigate those behind fake WikiLeaks, which is despicable.

It should be noted here that this “Daily Mail” is the same newspaper that had planted the story that RAW was behind the spot-fixing scandal and other conspiracies that turned out to be false. Of course, as always these conspiracies are justified as defending the national honour, even though it is the culture of conspiracies that is doing more harm to the national honour than any cheating cricketer.

In fact, the last sentence of Md. Jamil’s argument appears to make up the foundation of his argument – that media should not report the facts, but should simply be a mouthpiece for the right-wing.

Secondly, one would not come across any Indian condemning Indian intelligence agency RAW. On the other hand, Pakistani media men just flaunt to prove how independent they are, they criticize military and ISI, day in and day out. There are indeed patriotic elements in Pakistani print and electronic media who are aware of their national responsibility. But others also abound who have become chivalrous and obstreperous as a result of the newfound media freedom.

The only thing that Md. Jamil writes correctly is that, “it is moral obligation of the right thinking and responsible media men to react strongly to irresponsible behavior, no matter who commits the act”. This is reason to praise journalists like Fasi Zaka, Nadeem F Paracha, George Fulton, Farrukh Khan Pitafi, and the countless others who expose the propagandists who treat media as a chess game and the common people as their pawns.

Md. Jamil closes his column by saying,

At this point in time when Pakistan is confronting challenges to its internal and external security, Pakistani media men should rise to the occasion and play its role to counter hostile Indian propaganda and protect national interests.

The best way to counter propaganda and protect national interests, of course, being to report the facts without bias or opinion so that the people can be trusted to decide for themselves.

It is a telling point indeed that these phoney reporters who have created a business misleading Pakistanis would term any honest journalist as Mir Jafar. That this occurs while Ahmed Quraishi is writing in The News that freedom and honesty should be sacrificed for ‘discipline’ shows just what contempt With each of these arguments, these petty propagandists may believe that they are digging their way out of the hole that they fell into thanks to their fake Wikileaks documents. But what they’re really doing is digging the grave of their own propaganda.

Ahmed Quraishi’s Web Continues to Unravel

Saturday, December 18th, 2010

Ahmed Quraishi is back in the news again, but not for the reason he might like. Rather the prolific consipiracy theorist has caught the attention of actual journalists and commentators who are exposing his antics.

This is not the first time that Quraishi has been criticised by real journalists. One year ago he received a black eye when a prominent American foreign policy journal wrote that he misrepresented their reporting in order to make a political attack against a government official.

Shortly after he was embarrassed by magazine Foreign Policy, we showed that Ahmed Quraishi is registered as an American political consultant. Earlier this year we reported that Ahmed Quraishi admitted on his Facebook that he was not a real journalist but actually a propagandist – he even called himself “clean shaven Taliban”. We have even shown that Ahmed Quraishi is willing to contradict himself when it is necessary to promote his political message.

With the exposure of the fake Wikileaks story, however, Ahmed Quraishi’s web of propaganda has continued to unravel. It was only a few short weeks ago that Cafe Pyala exposed the Internet propaganda ring that was responsible for the fake story. And to no one’s surprise, Ahmed Quraishi’s name was all over these propaganda websites.

Following the exposure of the fake Wikileaks story, Ahmed Quraishi responded in a most extraordinary way. Rather than admit a mistake, Ahmed Quraishi wrote a bizarre defense of the practise of using the media to mislead the people in efforts to promote a political agenda. This has been the final nail in the coffin of his credibility.

Ahmed Quraishi’s crude justification for misleading his own countrymen raised the blood pressure of freelance journalist George Fulton, who wrote for The Express Tribune earlier this week terming Quraishi a ‘purveyor of fiction’.

For those who don’t know Ahmad Quraishi, according to his website — ahmedquraishi.com — he is “a public policy writer, commentator and broadcaster”. In reality, he is widely known to be a crude propagandist for the army/intelligence nexus. At least Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi propaganda films had artistic value. Noxious, yes, but art nonetheless. Sadly, no such claim can be made of Quraishi’s leaden prosaic prose.

He is also “one of the founders of PakNationalists, a supposed forum focusing on shaping Pakistan’s foreign and domestic policy options”. Actually it’s an anti-India bile-spewing machine that spreads untruths, smears and uncorroborated stories. His most recent article on his website, entitled “Guardian uses WikliLeaks for Propaganda, Pakistani Media Can’t?” is an astonishing convoluted defence of the fake cable that was exposed by Cafe Pyala and subsequently picked up by the Guardian correspondent, Declan Walsh and this newspaper’s blog section. The phrase ‘twisting in the wind’ comes to mind.

Quraishi begins by attempting to undermine the original story of the fake cable: “(The) Guardian’s Islamabad correspondent Declan Walsh claimed the stories were ‘credited to the Online Agency, an Islamabad-based news service that has frequently run pro-army stories in the past. No journalist is bylined’. Fabulous, only that it is not accurate. The story was published by the ‘Daily Mail of Pakistan’, a newspaper launched recently and staffed by journalists coming from the newsrooms of Pakistan’s frontrow newspapers.”

He goes on to say: “A large part of the original Pakistani report is credible. It was published by a prominent news organisation and the story has four names in the byline. The Guardian unethically tried to link the story to Pakistani intelligence agencies by suggesting the story comes with ‘no byline’ and can’t be sourced. The Guardian’s Mr Walsh compensated his lack of investigation by offering his own conspiracy theory that the report was planted by Pakistani intelligence agencies.”

Let’s state some facts. All the newspapers that ran the story did credit it to the Online news agency. No byline was given by any newspaper. It cannot be sourced. Ah, but what about this ‘Daily Mail of Pakistan’ that he quotes. Unfortunately, this is not an authentic newspaper but one that peddles propaganda. (It was ‘The Daily Mail of Pakistan’ that planted the bogus story that the Pakistan spot-fixing scandal was orchestrated by the Indian intelligence agency RAW.)

What about the bylines Mr Quraishi mentions on the ‘Daily Mail of Pakistan’ website? It’s true that the fake cable story is bylined “From Suzie Wang in Washington, Christina Palmer in New Delhi, John Nelson in Kabul and Ahmad-Almurad in Cairo”. The only problem is that these people don’t exist. They are figments of his imagination. I would love to meet Suzie Wang from Washington and Christina Palmer who apparently works in New Delhi.

Yes, it’s highly likely that the ‘Daily Mail of Pakistan’ — and all these other bogus websites (again Cafe Pyala has done a brilliant expose of these bogus sites) — are probably paid for by a budget that we, as taxpayers, and our elected officials do not have permission to scrutinise. Good to know, isn’t it.

So the question that comes to mind is: what is the point of Ahmed Quraishi’s article? He has been proven to peddle half-truths and misinformation on some rather shady websites. As a self-described nationalist, I am sure he would defend what he was doing as being for the greater good of Pakistan and its people. But I subscribe to Charles De Gaulle’s view of nationalists and nationalism: “Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” Mr Quraishi is a hate-monger. One must also wonder how much Mr Quraishi really loves the people of this country since he seems to make a living peddling half-truths to them.

As revealed by Cafe Pyala’s expose of the Internet propaganda ring responsible for the fake Wikileaks story, Pakistan’s media is infested with political operatives who are engaged in influencing, not informing the public. A free media in a democratic society airs the views of differing sides in order to fully inform the public and let the people come to their own conclusions. But media is not free if it is manipulated by political operatives who treat the newspaper editors and talk show hosts as puppets on a string. These would-be puppet masters must hide behind the scene in order to fool the public, therefore the best way to resolve this problem is to shine the spot light on those who would be puppet masters so the public can see them for who they really are.