Archive for August, 2011

« Older Entries

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir Responds

Monday, August 29th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)Last week we revealed that almost the entire article attributed to ”highly placed defence sources” of senior Jang Group employee Mr Muhammad Saleh Zaafir was actually a cut-and-paste job from the website Wikipedia. Today we have received a statement from Mr Zaafir that gives his side of the story. According to Jang Group‘s “Editor Special Reporting”, the fact that almost the entire article is plagiarised from Wikipedia is not his responsibility since it was provided to him by his defence sources and he does not question or verify information received from his defence sources, he only publishes it word for word.

After some discussion, we have agreed that as a professional journalist and especially as one who has risen to the rank of “Editor Special Reporting”, it is in fact the reporter’s responsibility to verify the authenticity of all information received from sources. This is called fact-checking. We were able to determine the true source of Mr Zaafir’s information using a very high-tech system called GOOGLE. We recommend that Mr Zaafir and Jang Group please look into acquiring this technology as soon as possible as it can easily help improve the quality of reporting.

We also agreed that professional journalists have a responsibility to verify and authenticate any claims made by all sources, especially if they are official sources. Simply re-printing information received from anonymous government or defence sources without taking the basic step of fact-checking is not journalism, it is propaganda.

Actually, we would think that Mr Muhammad Saleh Zaafir would be well acquainted with this practice since he has already been warned by the Supreme Court for this failure in journalistic responsibility, after which he tendered his unconditional apology to the Court.

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, who is the reporter of the said news items, when confronted with the same, frankly and honestly conceded that he had made no effort to verify the veracity of the allegations levelled in the said news items before publishing the same nor did he have any proof in support of the contents thereof. He, however, added at the very outset that he had utmost regards and respect for not only the said hon’ble judges of this Court but for the entire judiciary; that he did not have even an iota of doubt about their integrity and character and that reporting the said news items was a grave mistake on his part.

That the contents of the article in this instance are not specifically called into question is beside the point. Mr Zaafir found himself called before the court and made to humbly apologise for being an unquestioning mouthpiece four years ago. Today, he uses this same lapse in professional judgment as his defence. We hope that, in the future, such a senior journalist will set a better example for junior staff by carrying out his professional responsibilities before publishing articles.

We thank Mr Zaafir for explaining his position in his response, which we have re-printed in full below so that readers can decide for themselves.

SUBJECT: SUBMISSION

My attention has been drawn towards a blog pertaining to a story that appeared in The News with regard a controversy about the debris of a US stealth chopper that was crashed in the so-called compound of Osama bin Laden on May 2 this year.

The western media claimed that Pakistan has provided access to the Chinese to the debris of the chopper since it contained the most sophisticated US technology used in the manufacturing of the machine.

It prompted me to contact the defence sources dealing with the subject. They came out with the denial of the story by saying as: 1-China never asked for access to the debris of the chopper. 2-No Chinese expert visited the site of the crash and examined the chopper debris. 3-China doesn’t need to have access to the US stealth technology and hence not interested in ‘stealing’ of the same through the debris of the tail of a crashed chopper. 4-China has already developed stealth fixed wing plan (Stealth Plan) that undertook successful test flight earlier this year. It shows that China has already complete access to the technology in question. 5-Pakistan did not receive any request by the Chinese for having access to the debris.

The sources provided additional information about the stealth technology and since it was highly technological and at the same time it did not involve any controversy regarding the subject matter. It was used in the story as added information which had only educational characteristics. Had this information not part of the news item, it would have no impact on the standard of the story. The information was not classified in any manner. Why it has been made subject of dispute that I am not interested to know because everybody has his/her on motives. The piece of simple information provided me by the sources is picked by some web or from any other mode that is not my responsibility. I should not question about it. Had I gathered some information from some web I would definitely quote that as it is normal in the news production these days reporting.

The blogger should show courage by giving credit to The News for the story that was CONFIRMED by the highest official spokesperson of the Chinese government on the following day in Beijing. All the facts and essential ingredients of the story were verified word by word. The government of Pakistan through its spokesperson also verified the facts narrated in my story. The confirmation of the information is the real credit of The News and the blogger must appreciate it with ‘heavy heart.’

The exclusive story of the Group must have hurt someone who has some professional jealousy with me or our group. I do take benefit from various sources of networks but I always avoid cutting and pasting because it could prove at times wrong. The question is the basic information that was disputed by any official from China or Pakistan and answer is big NO sir. The blogger has consulted the web and according to him he came to know through this that the additional piece of information was taken from there. Consulting and studying various webs is not a sin and if useful information provided by my sources from there, they have not committed any crime. I hope it should satisfy the dispute mongers and expect that they would come out with their trauma next.

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir,
Editor Special Reporting,
JANG Group- Islamabad

 

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

Allama Iqbal, Zaid Hamid, and Khalifat ideology

Friday, August 26th, 2011

Following Zaid Hamid’s recent appearance on Meher Bokhari’s show Crossfire, South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) announced that it was planning to file a libel notice against Zaid Hamid for accusations he made during the programme. Last night, to discuss the issue on his show Shahid Nama, Shahid Masood invited as his guests two individuals whose views could not be further apart.

On the one hand was SAFMA co-founder Marvi Sirmed, a political commentator and journalist who holds Masters’ degrees in Political Science, Science Education and English Linguistics and has worked with Members of Parliament. She has also been the Institutional Development Specialist with the Ministry of Women Development, Government of Pakistan and as Policy Advocacy Specialist with National Commission on the Status of Women.

On the other hand was Zaid Hamid, a political commentator who has a Bachelor of Engineering (BE) degree in Computer Systems Engineering and the individual at the center of SAFMA’s complaint. Mr Zaid Hamid is the former host of the programme Brasstacks.

During the debate between Marvi Sirmed and Zaid Hamid one point of disagreement related to a claim by Marvi Sirmed that Allama Muhammad Iqbal was against the creation of an Islamic state. Miss Sirmed claimed that she had proof in a letter written by Iqbal to The Times newspaper of London in 1931. Due to the research of a reader of this blog, we are able to confirm that this letter was written. A photocopy of the letter is below:

Letter to The Times by Allama Muhammed Iqbal

The question is part of an ongoing debate about  the way that Zaid Hamid presents Allama Iqbal in his media programmes as an advocate of the creation of a new Khalifat. An example can be seen in this video clip:

But was this the view of Allama Iqbal? According to Dr Javid Iqbal writing in October 1987 issue of Iqbal Review, the answer is no. Justice Iqbal wrote that Allama Iqbal “has no hesitation in approving the establishment of a multi-party system or political groupings in modern Islamic Democracies, for, in his opinion, this was in accordance with the practice of early republican phase in Islam”. He goes on to quote Allama Iqbal as supporting an expressly democratic system of governance and rejecting an imperialist Khalifat as “failed in practice”.

Let us now see how the Grand National Assembly has exercised this power of Ijtihad in regard to the institution of Khilafat. According to Sunni law, the appointment of an Imam or Khalifah is absolutely indespensable. The first question that arises in this connexion is this – Should the Caliphate be vested in a single person? Turkey’s Ijtihad is that according to the spirit of Islam the Caliphate or Imamate can be vested in a body of persons, or an elected Assembly…Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly necessary to argue this point. The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of Islam*…In order to understand the Turkish view let us seek the guidance of Ibn Khildun – the first philosophical historian of Islam.

Ibn Khildun, in his famous ‘Prolegomena’, mentions three distinct views of the idea of Universal Caliphate in Islam.

(1) That Universal Imamate is a Divine institution, and is consequently indispensable.

(2) That it is merely a matter of expediency.

(3) That there is no need of such an institution. The last view was taken by the Khawarij.

It seems that modern Turkey has shifted from the first to the second view, i.e. to the view of the Mu‘tazillah who regarded Universal Imamate as a matter of expediency only. The Turks argue that in our political thinking we must be guided by our past political experience which points unmistakably to the fact that the idea of Universal Imamate has failed in practice. It was a workable idea when the Empire of Islam was intact. Since the break-up of this Empire independent political units have arisen. The idea has ceased to be operative and cannot work as a living factor in the organisation of modern Islam*…Such is the attitude of the modern Turk, inspired as he is by the reality of experience, and not by the scholastic reasoning of jurists who lived and thought under different conditions of life.

Would Allama Iqbal have supported Zaid Hamid’s desire to see “the flag of Pakistan fly atop Delhi fort”? Did he believe in “Two Nation Theory”? Unfortunately, Iqbal is not here to answer the question himself, and so we are left to debate our own interpretations and hypotheses about his beliefs. Debates about interpretations of the words and intentions of Jinnah and Iqbal will continue, and it is perfectly reasonable to debate these issues as a part of discussions about politics and history. But these debates should be based in the actual words of the fathers of the nation, and not fantasy re-imaginings of what someone might wish Iqbal or Jinnah had said.

Marvi Sirmed and Zaid Hamid are both entitled to their own visions for the future of Pakistan. But nobody is entitled to re-writing the past.

*Emphasis added

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

Mubashir Lucman Enters Competition For PTI Media Advisor

Thursday, August 25th, 2011

Watch out Shahid Masood and Azeem Mian, Mubashir Luqman is up in the running for PTI Media Advisor. Last night, Dunya TV anchor Mubashir Luqman took the contest to a whole new level. Here is a part of the clip that was aired:

Pairing up with Hassan Nisar, Mr. Luqman starts off his program by giving wrong statistics once again saying that more people in Karachi have died in the last three years than civil war in Bosnia or in the 1971 and 1965 India-Pakistan wars. Although the conditions in Karachi are extremely tragic and the violence is at its peak, the number of deaths in Karachi in the last three years is not more than the casualties of Bosnian civil war.

According to the ICRC data, 200,000 people were killed, 12,000 of them children, up to 50,000 women were raped, and 2.2 million were forced to flee their homes.

The situation in Karachi is terrible, but comparing to Bosnia is simply playing with the audiences’ emotions.

Same goes for comparing the violence in Karachi to the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistani wars.

In 1965 war Pakistan faced almost 3,900 casualties. According to different estimates in 1971 war Pakistan faced around 9,000 casualties.

By contrast, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan claims that 267 people were killed in 2008, 291 in 2009, and the number rose to 748 in 2010. Pakistan Media Watch unquestioningly condemns the violence in Karachi, and we also condemn giving false numbers and statistics. The numbers of deaths from target killings in Karachi are terrible enough. They should not be exploited for political purposes.

To discuss the situation of Karachi, Luqman invited Hassan Nisar and Imran Khan. Imran Khan was adamant he could solve the problems of Karachi by him bringing his own police officers starting from S.P/D.S.Ps to constables. Despite this being a most extraordinary suggestion, Mubashir Luqman did not question how Imran Khan planned on doing so. Rather he acted as if this was a perfectly normal suggestion.

Imran Khan took the opportunity of Luqman’s programme to make political speeches against the government during which Mubashir Luqman and Hassan Nisar continuously nodded their heads in agreement. Hassan Nisar mentioned how he had a discussion with Imran Khan at his house and says the entire awam is behind him. Mubashir Luqman then congratulated Imran Khan for a successful dharna and wishes that media should have covered it more.

Mubashir Luqman then made his move, telling Imran Khan that if he takes a stand against the current politicians and gives a deadline or a notice to them, Mubashir Luqman himself and Hassan Nisar will be in the front line helping him out. Imran Khan smiles and says ‘I thought I was inquilabi but you two have even surpassed me’. Mubashir Luqman then offers to take justice in his own hands and says “baba hum khood police ban sakty hain” and that everyone including the PTI should take it to the streets in Karachi and carry out justice on the street if the government cant provide peace and security to the people – a shockingly unprofessional and inappropriate statement that borders incitement of greater violence.

Ironically, this is the same Mubashir Luqman who during the floods last year reported that PTI was all a drama and show, and that their supposed relief camps were nothing but empty tents with PTI flags on them to fool people about their aid work.

Of course, this was before recent polls were published suggesting that Imran Khan’s popularity is rising and the competition for PTI Media Advisor had begun.

TV viewers look to news programmes for unbiased and transparent reporting on the issues. When the issues are as serious and complex as the security situation of Karachi, this becomes even more important. Unfortunately, viewers who tuned into Khari Baat Luqman Kay Saath were provided not only misinformed statistics, but the embarrassing display of another TV anchor so openly behaving as a politician’s chamcha.

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

ایکسپریس اخبار کی دوغلی رپورٹنگ

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011

پاکستان میڈیا واچ جنگ گروپ کی دوغلی اور مکار اردو اور انگریزی اخبارات کی مختلف رپورٹنگ تو سامنے لا ھی چکا ھے۔ اب ملاحظہ فرمائیں روزنامہ ایکسپریس اردو اور ایکسپریس ٹریبیون انگلش کی رپورٹنگ میں فرق۔

سب سے پھلے ایکسپریس ٹریبیون انگلش کی یہ مکمل رپورٹ دیکھیے۔ اس بات کا دھیان رھے کہ اس انگریزی کالم میں کھیں بھی نام نھیں بتائے گئے اور یہ صاف صاف لکھ دیا گیا کہ چمکانی پولیس اسٹیشن نے اس واقع کی تصدیق نھیں کی ھے اور انھیں اس واقع کے بارے میں علم نھیں۔ اسی خبر کا ایک حصہ نیچے ملاحظہ کیجئے۔

Express Tribune

اب اسی موضوع پر ایکسپریس اردو اخبار کی کلپ ماحظہ فرمائیں۔

Roznama Express

جیسے کہ قارین ملاحظہ فرما سکتے ھیں ایکسپریس اخبار اپنی اردو پڑھنے والے قارین کو کچھ اور اور انگلش پڑھنے والے قارین کو کچھ اور خبریں پیش کرتے ھیں۔

اردو اخبار میں ان چار امریکی باشندوں کو فوجی قرار دے دیا گیا ھے اور ان کے من گھڑت نام تک بنا کر پیش کئیے گئے ھیں۔ اردو اخبار تو یہ خبر دیتا ھے کہ ان امریکی فوجیوں مایک کا نام کرنل پاول ھے اور ایک کا نام لیفٹیننٹ جان لیوی ھے۔ واضح رھے کہ یہ نام من گھڑت ھیں اور اردو ایکسپریس اپنے قارین کو بلا تصدیق غلط انفارم کر رھا ھے۔

یہ بات بھی واضح رھے کہ اردو اخبار میں یہ بھی نہیں بتایا گیا کہ چمکانی پولیس تھانے نے اس واقع کی تصدیق نھیں کی اور نا ھی اس موضوع پر کوئی پریس سٹیٹمینٹ دی ھے۔ روزنامہ ایکسپریس اخبار نے یھان تک خبر دی کہ صوبائی حکومت نے دفتر خارجہ کو آگاہ کر دیا ھے جب کے ایسی کوئی بات نھیں ھوئی۔ جب چمکانی پولیس تھانہ ھی تصدیق نھیں کر رھا تو صوبائی حکومت کو کیسے کوئی خبر مل سکتی ھے۔

صاف اور شفاف رپورٹنگ پاکستانی عوام کا حق ھے اور ایکسپریس کی دوغلی رپورٹنگ پاکستانی عوام سے انکا یہ حق چھینتی نظر آتی ھے۔

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Express, Express News, Express Tribune, Uncategorized, اردو | No Comments »

Freedom – and Responsibility – of Media

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

Express Tribune includes excellent analysis by Saroop Ijaz, a lawyer and partner at Ijaz Co in Lahore, in a piece titled, ‘Shouting fire in a crowded theatre‘. Coming so soon after our posts on Meher Bokhari and Zaid Hamid as well as Geo‘s controversial interview with Hafiz Saeed, we thought Mr Saroop Ijaz’s observations brought an important perspective to the discussion of where to draw the line between freedom and responsibility of media.

The confusion regarding the freedom of speech remains at the centre of the non-regulation of the media. It is a case of horribly skewed priorities. Those making wild and licentious accusations can be held accountable not by the fragile coalition government but only by the media themselves. Aamir Liaquat Hussain and the sort should be asked to explain themselves not for petty indecencies but for sickening invocation to violence. The imam leading Taseer’s funeral has as much right to freedom of choice and expression as anyone else. Every time we decide to exercise prudence and hold our peace, we are cowardly relinquishing the only semblance of freedom that we have left. Mehr Bukhari, Zaid Hamid and many others are falsely and piercingly shouting fire in a very crowded theatre.

Every analyst and viewer is entitled to his own opinion, but nobody is entitled to his own facts. News programmes do not have to be dry and boring, but there is a line between entertainment and incitement that should not be crossed. As journalists, we should have an honest debate about this and determine where that line is drawn. If we do not, it may be someone else that decides for us.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Ethics, Express Tribune | 1 Comment »

Geo Projecting Terrorism?

Saturday, August 20th, 2011

Earlier this year, PEMRA fined two TV channels for projecting terrorists/outlaws when they aired an interview with the assassin Mumtaz Qadri. Now, the following advertisement is being made by Geo TV.

Hafiz Saeed interview on GEO

Notice that the Lashkar-e-Taiba founder is quick to say, “we are against all sorts of terrorism.” Of course sympathisers will claim that Jamaat-ud-Dawa is but a humble charity organisation. But if this is true, why in his next breath does he claim “we are the A-team of the Army” that is “against US invasions”? And here we thought that SSG was A-team of the Army. What type of charity organisation claims to be militant commandoes?

The important question here, though, is why Geo TV is inviting as its guest Hafiz Saeed who is classified as an international terrorist by the UN and Interpol? Freedom of speech does not mean free microphones, and freedom of media does not mean that Geo is obligated to provide a platform for Hafiz Saeed to spread his views. So why is Geo choosing to do this? Is it declaring an ideological sympathy with militants?

As for PEMRA, a gentle reminder:

PEMRA Code of Conduct for Media Broadcasters/Cable TV Operators states that:

(1) No programme shall be aired which:

(e) is likely to encourage and incite violence or contains anything
against maintenance of law and order or which promotes antinational or anti-state attitudes…

(o) contains material which may be detrimental to Pakistan’s relations
with friendly countries…

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Geo TV, Jang, PEMRA | No Comments »

Jang Group’s Highly Placed Sources Exposed

Friday, August 19th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)Today’s post comes thanks to a tip from a dear reader who noticed something odd about a recent article in The News (Jang Group). The piece by Muhammad Saleh Zaafir examines allegations that Pakistan gave Chinese officials access to the remains of a top secret American stealth helicopter abandoned after the Abbottabad operation in May.

Saleh Zaafir’s piece quotes “highly placed defence sources”, but as per usual does not reveal who these sources are. However, today we are prepared to expose these sources and shed some light on the secret contacts between senior Jang Group reporters and their top defence sources.

The following paragraph comes from Saleh Zaafir’s article:

Providing background of the technology the sources said that it is used to avoid detection by employing a combination of features to interfere with radar as well as reduce visibility in the infrared, visual, audio, and radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Development of stealth technology began in Germany during World War II.

Well-known modern examples of stealth aircraft include the United States’ F-117 Nighthawk (1981-2008), the B-2 Spirit, the F-22 Raptor, and the F-35 Lightning II. While no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft prevents conventional radar from detecting or tracking the aircraft effectively, reducing the odds of a successful attack.

As you can clearly see, Saleh Zaafir was given this information by his “highly placed defence sources”.

The following paragraph comes from a Wikipedia article on Stealth aircraft:

Stealth aircraft are aircraft that use stealth technology to avoid detection by employing a combination of features to interfere with radar as well as reduce visibility in the infrared, visual, audio, and radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Development of stealth technology likely began in Germany during World War II.

Well-known modern examples of stealth aircraft include the United States’ F-117 Nighthawk (1981–2008), the B-2 Spirit, the F-22 Raptor, and the F-35 Lightning II. While no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft prevent conventional radar from detecting or tracking the aircraft effectively, reducing the odds of a successful attack.

Here is some additional information provided by Saleh Zaafir’s “highly placed defence sources”:

The sources pointed out that in the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia two stealth aircraft were used by the United States, the veteran F-117 Nighthawk, and the newly introduced B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bomber. The F-117 performed its usual role of striking precision high-value targets and performed well, although one F-117 was shot down by a Serbian Isayev S-125 ‘Neva-M’ missile. The new B-2 Spirit was highly successful, destroying 33% of selected Serbian bombing targets in the first eight weeks of U.S. involvement in the War.

And, again, here is a quote from Wikipedia:

In the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia two stealth aircraft were used by the United States, the veteran F-117 Nighthawk, and the newly introduced B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bomber. The F-117 performed its usual role of striking precision high-value targets and performed well, although one F-117 was shot down by a Serbian Isayev S-125 ‘Neva-M’ missile. The new B-2 Spirit was highly successful, destroying 33% of selected Serbian bombing targets in the first eight weeks of U.S. involvement in the War.

During his lengthy interview with his “highly placed defence sources”, Saleh Zaafir was reminded of some additional history.

The sources reminded that the only time a stealth aircraft has been shot down was on 27 March 1999, during Operation Allied Force. An American F-117 Nighthawk’s bomb bay had malfunctioned causing it to remain open for an unusually long time, allowing a Serbian Air Defence crew who were operating their radars on unusually long wavelengths to launch an Isayev S-125 ‘Neva-M’ missile at it, which brought it down.

Once more, a quote from the same Wikipedia article:

The only time that a stealth aircraft has been shot down was on 27 March 1999, during Operation Allied Force. An American F-117 Nighthawk fell to a Serbian Air Defense crew who were operating their radars on unusually long wavelengths to launch a Isayev S-125 ‘Neva-M’ missile at it which brought it down.

So there it is. Jang Group‘s “highly placed defence sources” are…Wikipedia. Now, usually this would be something to laugh at, but this is not a schoolboy who didn’t do his work and tried to pass off a cut-and-paste job from Wikipedia, it is a senior reporter for one of the largest media groups of the nation. Worse, this reporter does not only try to pass off the article as his own work when it is cut and pasted from Wikipedia, he even has the audacity to claim that he received the information from “highly placed defence sources”.

Sadly, this incident does not stand alone but appears to be part of a larger pattern of behaviour affecting the quality of reporting at Jang Group. The question is whether the leadership at Jang will get its house in order before it crumbles from neglect.

See also:

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

Zeher Bokhari

Thursday, August 18th, 2011

Meher Bokhari appears to have a formula for getting attention – say something so outrageous and sensational that people will have to pay attention. I regret that we will draw attention to her program again, but the episode of Crossfire of Wednesday night cannot go without response. The topic of the programme was allegedly Pak-India relations after 65 years. What viewers were subjected to, however, was an hour of hate and misinformation.

Claiming to speak for 187 million Pakistanis, Bokhari says that every individual wants to be at peace with India – but not at the expense of forgetting the atrocities of the past. First of all, unelected TV performers do not speak for the people. Second, if Bokhari stepped outside her elite media bubble for five minutes, she would know that while no one wants to forget about the past, neither are the people interested in wallowing in it. The reality is that all of the clips she played simply talk about keeping and maintaining good relations with the neighbors – something that 70 per cent of Pakistanis say they want. The 30 per cent who don’t, perhaps, are laal topi walas who make their money by projecting anti-India hysteria.

Speaking of which, Bokhari invites as her guest none other than Zaid Hamid whose failed TV show ‘Brasstacks‘ was built on the same anti-India hysteria. Zaid Hamid plays his role perfectly saying he was in a state of “shock” when he heard Nawaz Sharif’s speech calling for closer relations between Pakistan and India. When Senator Mushahid Ullah Khan (PML-N) tried to explain that the self-appointed defenders of the realm were making a mountain out of a molehill, he too found himself victim of Bokhari’s wrath.

Suggesting that Nawaz Sharif is soft on India is outside the boundaries of sanity. It was Sharif was ordered the first nuclear tests in 1998 in response to India’s testing their bomb, and it was Sharif who was PM during the Kargil War the following year. Whether you support Nawaz Sharif or you do not support Nawaz Sharif, saying he is soft on India is ridiculous.

Meher Bokhari says Pakistan wants parity with India, but forgets that parity is not enmity. Pakistan is and should be India’s equal, but that does not require it to be hostile or hateful. Just as Nawaz Sharif ordered the first nuclear tests to remove any doubts about Pakistan’s nuclear capability, he also signed the Lahore Declaration committing both nations to resolve differences with peaceful dialogue and cooperation.

Bokhari also repeatedly refers to India as a Hindu nation as opposed to Pakistani Muslims, creating a sense of religious conflict where none need exist. Once again, Meher Bokhari is wrong on the facts, and wrong on history. Actually, India is home to some 160 million Muslims. At the time of independence, there were more Muslims in India than Pakistan. And just as there are millions of Muslims living in India, there are 7 million Hindu Pakistanis also.

Meher Bokhari asks whether Nawaz Sharif has forgotten the blood spilt of millions of Muslims, seemingly forgetting that this is not a natural state of affairs. Hindus and Muslims have lived in peace and harmony in the subcontinent for hundreds of years, and in spite of attempts by some to continue animosity between Pakistan and India, most people are not interested in continuing tensions.

Through out the program Meher Bukhari continues to bash Nawaz Sharif saying that he forgot the contributions of our founding fathers when all Nawaz Sharif said was that Pakistan and India have several similarities, including cuisines. She consistently plays on the religious sentiments of people by inviting guests like Zaid Hamid and Jamat-e-Islami representatives.

Not content with merely bashing the PML-N chief, Bokhari then drags out an anti-American conspiracy theory, telling viewers that the Americans want us to think that the terrorists’ inside of Pakistan who are “a part” of Pakistan are the real enemy. Once again, Meher Bokhari gets her facts very, very wrong.

Many of the militants responsible for killing innocent Pakistanis are indeed foreign, but they are not American or Indian. Many are Uzbek, and just this week it was militants crossing the border from Afghanistan who killed an anti-Taliban tribal elder and his son in the Bajaur tribal region. Or perhaps it was the TTP and LeJ militants who were recently arrested armed to the teeth that Meher Bokhari terms “a part of Pakistan”?

Towards the end of the program she again shows an excerpt from Jinnah’s speech in which he mentioned talks about the two-nation theory. She forgets to mention that Quaid-e-Azam never said do not keep good relations with your neighbors. Jinnah also famously said that “in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” It was always the goal of Pakistan’s founders that Pakistan and India would co-exist as good neighbors, not eternal enemies.

Jinnah with Ghandi

There is a difference between losing sovereignty and keeping good relationships with neighbors. Meher Bukhari wrongly projects that the current leadership along with PML (N), MQM and ANP are wanting to get back together with India when reality is, all of these parties want good bilateral relationship with India. Meanwhile, she conveniently ignores the ongoing violations of Pakistan’s sovereignity by foreign terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

This is not the first time that Meher Bokhari has stooped to jingoism. The timing of Tuesday’s programme must be noted as well as it aired just one day before a 20-member parliamentary delegation left for India. Certainly Bokhari’s programme will be dismissed in some corners as mere entertainment. But as we have shown before, there is a line between entertainment and incitement, and how can our parliamentarians expect to be received by their Indian hosts after such an introduction?

The 18th Century English poet Samuel Johnson famously said that ‘patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels’. Certainly there is nothing wrong with loving one’s country, and relations between Pakistan and India are a valid topic for analysts and commentators to reflect on. But what Dunya TV aired on Tuesday night was neither news nor analysis, it was an ugly reflection of a poisonous mindset desperate for attention. It’s time to change the channel.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Dunya | 9 Comments »

Competition for PTI media advisor

Tuesday, August 16th, 2011

It seems Azim Mian may have some competition in his quest to be PTI media advisor. A dear reader pointed us to the following video clip that shows Shahid Masood interviewing Imran Khan on his programme Shahid Nama, and it leaves us shaking our heads.

Anyone watching the program can see that Shahid Masood’s famous ability to grill his guests has gone missing when Imran Khan appears on the set. Rather, Masood falls over himself to praise the PTI leader as gaining popularity. It is hard to watch the clip without feeling that Shahid Masood is trying to create a soft corner for the potential 2013 contender in public’s eyes.

Obviously Shahid Masood can support any politician he chooses, but the question is whether or not in his capacity as a journalist would Shahid Masood extend the same gentle treatment to Asif Zardari whose failure the TV anchor began predicting from day one.

Journalists and anchors have a responsibility to the audience to act as a neutral moderator. Rather than trying to become best friends with Imran Khan, Shahid Masood could have asked his guest whether the Pew poll he mentions can be reflective of national support since it was conducted in majorly urban populated areas and reflected mostly the opinions of youth and urbanites, a vote bank not completely representative of Pakistan’s 180+ million population. He could have asked for details of how Imran Khan would address the issues facing the nation.

Showing favour to one politician over another one is not journalism, it’s campaigning. Shahid Masood should not pronounce Imran Khan as not competitive, but neither should he crown him as king. The people of Pakistan will choose their leaders, not the media elites. In order to make that decision wisely, the people rely on journalists to ask tough but fair questions of all politicians.

 

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

Humain pehlay he patta tha…

Monday, August 15th, 2011

By now you will certainly have seen the leaked clips of Amir Liaquat’s profanity laced ranting. If you are like us and you decided to turn off the computer and spend independence day with your family (good for you), Cafe Pyala still has the clip available, and we have embedded it below. But this post is not just about Aamir Liaquat, it’s about the state of journalism more generally.

In his defence, Aamir Liaquat responded on Twitter claiming that “It was a fake video, created and dubbed professionally”.

We decided to comment only because Aamir Liaquat’s reaction to the video leak gave us a dizzying sense of deja vu. We could have sworn that we had already written about this same event. Then we realised that we had. It was the same excuse given when tapes of Hamid Mir terming Khalid Khawaja as CIA collaborator in a phone call with Taliban. Then the memories of two-faced media came flooding back. A few months after Hamid Mir’s scandal, it was revealed that TV anchors agreed to declare Dr Aafia as innocent, even though when the cameras were turned off, they pronounced her guilty.

This was around the same time that Talat Hussain scribbled his vicious attack against Angelina Jolie – in Urdu, of course, away from liberal English-medium eyes. And, of course, it was the same year that we saw Meher Bokhari drinking at private parties only to piously read fatwas against others when the cameras were turned on.

This year, the schizophrenic, hypocritical nature of media has become more exposed than ever when national media groups used the language divide to sell different interpretations of the death of Osama, the most bald faced and shameless coming from Express News.

According to Aamir Liaquat, the video of his obscene ranting is “disgusting conspiracy spread by those who do not want to promote Ishq-e-Rasool (saww)”. This is a perfect example of the incredible egos of our media elite. At least Hamid Mir had the basic decency to claim it was a conspiracy against media, not the Prophet. This scandal is about Aamir Liaquat’s own hypocrisy, trying to make it about religion in order to save his skin is just digging the hole even deeper.

When the video leaked, we heard no expressions of shock or surprise because there was no shock or surprise. Each person who saw it laughed a bit, then shrugged and said, “Mujhay pehlay he patta tha”. We need professional journalists and honest analysts who can explain to the people the days events so that we can make our own decisions about the issues that affect our nation. Ever so humble, Aamir Liaquat describes himself as “truly a legend of this modern age…whose name becomes synonymous with truthfulness and bravery in the field of journalism”. We don’t know who the media elite thinks they’re fooling, but if they think we’re buying their act, then truly they are only fooling themselves.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in ARY TV | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries