Archive for September, 2011

United Nations, Escaped Goats and War Hysteria

Friday, September 30th, 2011

On 22 September, American Admiral Mike Mullen famously appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee of the US Congress and delivered remarks that shocked Pak-US relations. A few days later, The Washington Post reported that senior Pentagon officials criticised his remarks saying he overstated the case. Asked about the controversial statements, the White House refused to endorse Adm. Mullen’s views. Though the American establishment is divided on its message about Pakistan, our own media is standing united in their messages about America. In fact, this past week’s media has been so united, more cynical bloggers might even think it was scripted.

We knew it was going to be a special week in Pakistan media when we were treated to a special edition of Hamid Mir talking about whether the Americans were preparing to launch surgical strikes against Pakistan.

Alarmed by the possibility of being caught in an American strike, we began searching for the source of this threat. We were unable to find any American officials making any such threats. If there could be any good reason to invent the threat of surgical strikes, though, Hamid Mir knew just what it was. US pressurisation had finally united the nation. No longer were there any divisions in Pakistan as everyone had joined hands in a shared commitment to ‘Crush America’.

Hamid Mir’s jubilation was shared by his Jang Group colleague Ansar Abbasi who termed US criticism ‘a blessing in disguise for Pakistan‘ and maked a claim identical to Hamid Mir, that anti-Americanism is uniting the nation.

One is indebted to the Yankees for hurling the latest charge sheet against Pakistan at a time when we direly needed unity. It is now for the Pakistani leadership to exploit the American aggression in the best possible manner to eliminate terrorism, suicide bombings and extremism within Pakistan.

Actually, it was not just Jang Group that was convinced that US pressure had united the nation behind Army and ISI, also on Dunya on the same day’s Khari Baat, Mubahshir Luqman, Maleeha Lodhi and Hamid Gul made exactly the same statements.

As the week progressed, media headlines were filled with defiant statements about ‘fierce resistance‘, ‘severe responses‘ and ‘lead walls‘ to protect from the invading Americans. Editorial pages screamed about ‘unity for national defence’ and some media groups even reported ‘Fatwa for Jihad against America’.

Not only was the nation united against American threats, but all media voices reported in unison that the American threats were just a devious scheme to make Pakistan the scapegoat for America’s failure in Afghanistan.

This was reported not only by the guests of Hamid Mir and Mubashir Luqman’s shows above, but by retired brigadiers. And the same line even appeared in such respected publications as Pakistan Observer, where experts like “Dr Raja Muhammad Khan” warned the Americans to ‘accept harsh reality’. Media ‘think tanks’ published warnings to Americans complete with photos of missile tests and the reminder that Pakistan is a nuclear nation that should not be tested.

Opinion-Maker's warning to USA

Recent tensions in US-Pakistan relations have even resurrected Zaid Hamid’s media career as ARY invited him to explain his disappointment in the All Parties Conference failure to declare martial law.

Though media did a commendable job of saying on a united message, in the future their handlers should do a better job of explaining the meaning of the talking points before allowing our respected TV anchor sahibs to make fools of themselves by mistakenly translating ‘scapegoat’ as ‘bhagi hui bakri’. Obviously some of the more famous talking heads may not understand the talking points they’re parroting, but they should at least know the right words to use.

As the week draws to an end, we look back at the headlines and talk shows and the headline in Jang reports that we will now ‘give peace a chance’. And so in the course of seven days, our media invented a war, fought bravely on the front (head)lines, and then quietly resolved the conflict without losing one single soldier. In fact, our media managed this war so effectively that the American media is not even mentioning their defeat.

It’s like the Americans are trying to pretend that there was never a war at all.

Dawn’s $118 mistake

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

Dawn suffered a public embarrassment yesterday when it made the mistake of publishing a photo without doing basic background research to verify the authenticity of the picture. The photo, used to accompany an article by Michael Georgy titled, ‘US will suffer if it tries to attack Waziristan, says Haqqani’  included the caption: “THIS picture taken from web shows Jalaluddin Haqqani, father of Sirajuddin Haqqani, with former US President Ronald Reagan. Courtesy Time & Life Pictures Getty Image. – Online”.

DAWN photo error Jalaluddin Haqqani and Ronald Reagan 28 September 2011

The photo, which had been circulating online for a few days provided damning evidence of American duplicity and backed up claims that Haqqani was CIA’s ‘blue eyed boy’. Only problem, no Haqqani appeared in the photo. Actually, it showed Mohammad Younis Khalis with former US President Ronald Reagan.

This is an easy mistake to make. Long beard, turban…they all pretty much look the same, right? And if the point of printing the photo was to embarrass the Americans, are the facts really more important than the message?

The funny thing is, as easy a mistake as this was for Dawn to make, it was just as easy to avoid. If you notice, the photo published by Dawn includes a watermark that says ‘TIME&LIFE PICTURES gettyimages’. These watermarks are tools used by media companies to protect their copyrighted material. The idea is that a publisher will not want to publish a photo that has writing all over it, and if they do, the copyright holder will know that they did not pay the proper licensing fee to use the photo.

One of the major companies to license images to publishers is GettyImages, and it is their watermark that appears on Dawn‘s photo. We decided to do a little photo research and discovered that, yes, this photo of Ronald Reagan and Mohammad Younis Khalis is a copyrighted image that can be licensed from GettyImages. The cost to license the photo? $118.

GettyImages License Fee

If Dawn would have researched the photo – and the source was printed across the front of it, so it wasn’t hard to track down – they would have seen that it was not Jalaluddin Haqqani, but Mohammad Younis Khalis. Instead, they printed the photo without doing any fact checking.

Oh, and as for photos of Jalaluddin Haqqani enjoying chai samosa with an American president, they don’t exist. But only because, despite the eager claims of media commentators, he never went to US. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story!

Ansar Abbasi’s ‘Islamic Warriors’

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)According to Ansar Abbasi’s column in The News, recent accusations of American officials claiming that ISI has supported the Haqqani netork of militants is ‘a blessing in disguise’ because this has united the nation and given the opportunity to end all extremism and terrorism. Let’s set aside for a moment the ridiculous claim that somehow the statements of Admiral Mullen are going to end militancy and extremism in Pakistan. What we are more concerned about is something else that Abbasi says.

Ansar Abbasi rejoices that the US “is receiving dead bodies of its troops in Afghanistan more than before” and praises Taliban militants by saying “over a hundred thousands of US-led Nato troops, equipped with the modern weapons, have been reduced like rats by merely thousands of Islamic warriors within Afghanistan”. Again, passing over for a moment the shamefulness of rejoicing in death of anyone, we should consider just who are these “Islamic warriors” that receive Abbasi’s praise.

The Afghan Taliban has shocked independent human rights groups by using children as suicide bombers to attack NATO forces.

A tactic pioneered by al-Qaida but almost unheard of in Afghanistan until 2005, suicide bombing is becoming more popular with insurgents attempting to meet the massively intensified Nato campaign with their own surge of violence.

In one recent case a 12-year-old boy in Barmal district in Pakitika province, which borders Pakistan, killed four civilians and wounded many more when he detonated a vest full of explosives in a bazaar.

“They are relying more and more on children,” said Nader Nadery, from the country’s Independent Human Rights Commission, who thought the Taliban were struggling to recruit enough adults. “When somebody runs out of one tool they go to use the second one.”

Children are not the only ones killed and mutilated by Taliban. Women, too, are treated worse than farm animals. When 18-year-old Aisha tried to escape the abuse of her husband and his family, she was captured by Taliban and her face butchered to set an example to other women not to dare try to live with an ounce of dignity.

Aisha Afghanistan

When Malim Abdul Habib became headmaster of Shaikh Mata Baba High School that educated girls, the Taliban took more than just his nose and ears.

“Four armed Taliban came to my uncle’s house at 1am,” said his nephew Abdullah Hakim, 25. “They told him he had to go with them. When he refused they stabbed him in the stomach in the yard and then cut off his head.”

Taliban militants forced Habib’s wife and children to stand and watch as they butchered him in front of their eyes.

These are the “Islamic Warriors” that Ansar Abbasi prays will defeat the US-led NATO forces. But what Islam is this that butchers women and children in cold blood? What Islam is this that forces a man’s wife and children to watch in horror as he is beheaded before their very eyes?

This question must not only be asked of Ansar Abbasi who is entitled to be a Taliban sympathiser if this is his belief, but it must also be asked of Jang Group which chooses to pay Ansar Abbasi to write columns that term the killers of women and children as “Islamic warriors” and then publishes them for the masses to read. Editors and publishers of The News may think that adding the disclaimer of “Viewpoint” is enough to absolve them of any responsibility, but their Ansar Abbasi is not merely an individual offering his ‘viewpoint’ rather he is paid by Jang Group to write these pieces. With freedom comes media responsibility and accountability. If Jang Group does not support this position, why are they paying for it?

 

Conspiracy Theories Luqman Kay Saath

Friday, September 23rd, 2011

Mubashir Luqman continues his incessant projecting of conspiracy theories, most recently following the death of Burhanuddin Rabbani in a suicide bomb attack earlier this week.

As the programme opens, Luqman begins with the story of Rabbani’s assassination. And continuing his quest to be PTI media advisor, who else does Luqman turn to for analysis but PTI Foreign Affairs Advisor Shireen Mazari. Unfortunately, Shireen Mazari once again proves that she has nothing to offer but vague accusations against the involvement of unnamed ‘foreigners’, but she can’t really say who it was or what should be done. The implication was obvious, however, that this was another conspiracy by the Americans, even though American Secretary Hillary Clinton stated that US will continue peace outreach to the Taliban even after Rabbani’s assassination.

But that wasn’t the only allegation of ‘foreign hands’ to appear on Conspiracy Theories Luqman Kay Saath. Next up was the violence in Balochistan, which Luqman again claims is the due to the involvement of foreign elements. This time, though, Luqman leaves little question of who these ‘foreign elements’ are when he drags out the rotting carcass of the Visa Conspiracy to flog it’s crumbling limbs yet again.

When his guest notes that there is already an inquiry into this, Luqman responds in true form, “Who needs inquiry? I telling you he issued visas!” and asks the guests to agree that the Ambassador to America is an agent. When another guest reminds that the Embassy in Washington has opened all the books for review and showed that there were no discrepancies or inconsistencies, Luqman changes the topic.

Once again, Mubashir Luqman does not act in the role of a neutral moderator facilitating a discussion between varying points of view. Rather, he comes to the programme with a specific agenda to promote, and bullies his own guests by telling them inquiries and facts are not important because Mubashir Luqman has already decided!

This attitude would be bad enough if Mubashir Luqman was insisting that his guests and viewers accept his opinion based on facts and evidence. But instead Luqman fails to deliver even the slightest bit of proofs for his claims. Rather he resorts to blaming invisible foreign bogeys and discredited conspiracy theories. The result is viewers of Conspiracy Theories Luqman Kay Saath listen to talk about serious issues like peace process in Afghanistan and sectarian killing in Balochistan, but after one hour they are more confused and misinformed than before. That’s not journalism.

The Nation’s Pro-Censorship Position

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

The Nation logoThe Nation published an editorial praising the Lahore High Court for its order to ban websites “involved in displaying blasphemous content”. This pro-censorship position is not only self-defeating for a free media, it is thoroughly unworkable.

The first question that must be asked when approaching the topic of censorship is who is to decide what is censored. According to the LHC, the websites that should be banned contain blasphemous content. But who decides what is blasphemous?

It is easy to point fingers at websites like Facebook that include pages like the immature “Draw Muhammad Day”. But what about Ahmedi websites? Are these ‘blasphemous’ also? Is Malik Ishaq to be the judge of content? Will we see all Shia websites blocked also? Will the censors be Barelvi or Deobandi? What about Sufis?

Press and CensorshipOne year ago, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, Emir of Tehreek-e-Azmat-e-Islam told Daily Nawa-i-Waqt that 80 per cent of the Constitution is un-Islamic. Should government websites be banned also? Extremist groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir that democracy itself is un-Islamic while some religious scholars say that Islam is firmly rooted in democracy. Who will decide what should be banned? Or should we just ban everything?

These problems also directly affect freedom of the press. When this same issue of internet censorship was raised last year, we wrote that internet censorship should worry the media.

The truth is, such an unchecked power of censorship is too easily open to abuse. Today we may be blocking access to some cartoons under the justification of anti-blasphemy laws. But tomorrow it might be a newspaper or TV station that is banned for the same justification.

Freedom of the media is a vital part of our democracy. That means even allowing the media the freedom to be wrong. The alternative may sound good at first, but it always ends up the same – and that is no freedom at all.

If the Media Mullahs decide that Facebook or Google is un-Islamic and should be banned, what is to stop them from deciding the same about Geo or Express 24/7 or even The Nation?

The Nation says that ‘the Western world needs to analyse its notions of freedom of speech and individual liberty’, but it is precisely this freedom of speech that has made Islam the fastest growing religion in the West. Censorship can never stop false or illegitimate or blasphemous ideas. Only by allowing freedom of speech can falsehoods be properly argued and corrected. This is the proper role of media – to present the facts and correct false information. By defending censorship, The Nation seems to be saying that it is unable to do its job. That says more about The Nation than the West.

و’کھری بات مبشر لقمان کے ساتھ’

Monday, September 19th, 2011

مبشر لقمان اپنے پروگرام کھری بات لقمان کے ساتھ میں امریکہ میں ھونے والے ستمبر 11 ,2001 کے سانحے کو ایک محض فریب اور دھوکہ کہتے ھیں۔ ان کے پروگرام کی ایک کلپ نیچے ملاحضہ فرمائیے۔

یہ پھلی بار نہیں ھے کہ مبشر لقمان اپنے پروگرام کی ریٹنگ بڑھانے کے لئیے من گھڑت کہانیاں بنانے لگتے ھیں۔ پاکستان میڈیا واچ پہلے بھی کئی بار انکے پول کھول چکا ھے۔

مبشر لقمان نے اپنے پروگرام میں کانسپیرسی تھیوری پیش کی جو کہ کئ با ڈی بنک یعنی غلط ثابت ھو چکی ھے۔ انھوں نے اپنے شو میں یہ بات دائر کرانے کی کوشش کی کہ ستمبر کا یہ واقع امریک کی جانب سے ایک ڈھونگ اور تماشہ تھا اور دراصل امریکہ نے ورلڈ ٹریڈ سینٹر کی بلڈنگ کو سیلف ڈیٹونیٹ یعنی خود کردہ دھماکہ کر کے تباہ کیا ھے۔

مبشر لقمان نے اپنے پروگرام میں یہ بھی فرمایا کہ امریکہ کی سٹیٹ پینسلوینیا میں اسی تاریخ کو گرنے والے جہاز کو امریکی حکام نے خود مار گرایا۔ انھوں نے پھر بلڈنگ سیون کے بارے میں چند باتیں کریں۔

پاکستان میڈیا واچ ٹیم نے مبشر لقمان کے سب سوالات سننے کے بعد تمام باتیں اپنے قارین کو بتانا ضروری سمجھی ھیں۔

مبشر لقمان کہتے ھیں کی اتنی بڑی بلڈنگ اس طرز سے نھیں گر سکتی۔

بالکل غلط۔ ماضی میں کبھی اس طرح ایک جہاز بلڈنگ سے نھیں ٹکرایا اس لئے یہ کہنا بالکل غلط ھے۔اس طرز کا ٹیوب ان ٹیوب ڈیزاین منفرد ھے اور باقی طرح کی بلڈنگ سے الگ ھے۔

سپین کی بلڈنگ میں آگ مسلسل لگی زھی لیکن وہ نھیں گری۔ورلڈ ٹریڈ سینٹر کیسے گر گیا۔

سپین کی دو بلڈنگز میں آگ لگی رھی تھی اور وہ دونوں نھیں گریں کیونکہ ان کا ٹیوب ان ٹیوب ڈیزائن نھیں تھا۔ ان کے ستون یعنی پلر  لوھے اور کانکریٹ کے تھے جبکہ ورلڈ ٹریڈ سینٹر کے ستون کانکریٹ میں لپٹے ھوئے نہیں تھے۔میڈرڈ سپین بلڈنگ کے وہ تمام ستون جن کے گرد کانکریٹ نھیں تھی اسی طرح ٹوٹے جیسے کے ورلڈ ٹاورز۔

ہوائی جہاز کے ٹکرانے سے اتنی بڑی عمارت کیسے گر سکتی ھے

نیشنل انسٹئٹیوٹ آف سٹینڈرڈ اینڈ ٹیکنالوجینے اپنی رپورٹ میں یہ نھیں کہا کہ عمارتیں جہاز کی ٹکر سے گری ھیں بلکہ یہ بتایا کہ مسلسل آگ نے بلڈنگز کی بنیادیں کمزور کر دی تھیں۔(NIST)

بلڈنگ سیون کو کوئی نقصان نھیں پہنچا تھا اور اسے خود تباہ کیا گیا۔

نیچے دی گئی تصویر ملاحضہ کیجیئے۔اور پھر غور کیجیے۔

ایک وڈیو کلپ بھی ملاحضہ کیجئے جو کہ بلڈنگ سیون کا جائزہ لے رھی ھے۔

عمارت سے دھماکوں کی آوازیں آئیں جسے ثابت ھوتا ھے کہ عمارتیں خود کردہ دھماکے سے گریں۔

کانکریٹ فلورنگ لوھے اور فرنیچر کے ٹوٹنے اور بڑے بڑے لوھے کے ستون پریشر پڑنے کے باعث چٹخنے سے اونچی آواز دھماکے کے مترادف ھو سکتی ھے۔

اس کے علاوہ بھی مبشر لقمان نے کئ ایسی باتیں کی جس نے ھمیں ان کی قابلیت پر شق کرنے کا موقع دیا۔

میڈیا اینکرز کا اصل مقصد اپنے پروگرام میں قابل اور مہارت رکھنے والے اینیلسٹ کو بلا کے ان کی رائے لینا ھوتا ھے کامیڈی فراھم کرنا نہیں۔ مبشر لقمان کا پروگرام دن بدن غیک معیاری اور ان پروفیشنل ھوتا جا رھا ھے۔ اگر انھوں نے اس طرح کے پروگرام کا سلسلہ جاری رکھا تو لوگ انکا یہ شو سیاسی اور معاشی تبصرے کو جاننے کے لئے کم اور لطف اندوز ھونے کے لیئے زیادہ دیکھیں گے۔

Confirmation Bias and the Gora Effect

Saturday, September 17th, 2011

Confirmation Bias

Reading The News today, we noticed an article that did not stand out much except for the by line. This particular column was penned not by a recognised name, but by one Mr Alan Farago. Though it is not unusual to see a Western name attached to a by line in the print media, unfamiliar names raise our suspicions. Who are these people, and why are they writing for the Pakistani press? While some articles may actually be legitimate reporting, there also exists a tendency for media groups to publish pieces that involve what we call ‘Confirmation bias and the gora effect‘.

These pieces tend to follow one of two themes: America is on the decline, or America is the world’s terrorist. Mr Farago’s piece is one of the first type, describing an America that suffers from election fraud. One hopes the publishing of this article is not a clever way for certain elements to set up an election hijacking here, prepared with the typical excuse, “America does it, so why can’t we?” But our greater interest was just who is this Alan Farago writing about election fraud in America? Is he a political scientist? Is he a lawyer who specialises in election laws? After conducting some research, we found that Mr Alan Farago works for an environment NGO in Florida, USA.

Mr Farago has the right to write about whatever he chooses, of course. But the question must be asked why The News – a Pakistani newspaper – chose to publish a piece about alleged electoral fraud in America by the employee of an environmental NGO? Could it be because Jang Group knows that its readers enjoy reading pieces that make America look bad?

Another example found in The News earlier this week is in a column by Aijaz Zaka Syed. In his column criticising America for its response to 9/11 attacks, Aijaz Syed suggests that perhaps al Qaeda was not even responsible for the attack, and references “independent researchers and experts like Dr Alan Sabrosky”. Again we asked ourselves, who is this Alan Sabrosky? Actually, we were not the only ones who wondered this. Another independent researcher, Mr Adam Holland, investigated Alan Sabroksy’s background and found that he is not quite what he seems.

Alan Sabrosky bills himself as the former Director of Studies at the U.S. Army War College. He has made quite a name for himself in recent months by first declaring himself a military expert with high-level connections in the U.S. military hierarchy, then by outrageously claiming that Israel was responsible for 9/11 and that the U.S. military knows this and is concealing it. While he offers no evidence for this, he claims that he should be trusted because of his expertise. The truth of the matter — with respect to both his background and his claims — is quite different, of course. Sabrosky has deliberately inflated his role in the military and has used that ruse to promote a hateful, fact-free conspiracy theory. In fact, while he did work as an administrator at the U.S. Army War College, he was not, as his job title seems to indicate, the director or dean of the college. Far from it. According to the Press Office of the Army War College, in the mid-1980s, Sabrosky served as a civilian administrator at a research department of the college, supervising the publication of papers written within that department. His job title was “Director of Studies” because he supervised publishing studies done within a department of the college. He was a mid-level civilian manager at a military college, without access to the sort of highly classified material of the sort he now fraudulently claims to have. Moreover, since his employment at that school was about 25 years ago, his employment there would provide him with no special insights with respect to 9/11. How on earth could someone who worked on the level of a college librarian in the 1980s be privy to top secret information revealing a vast hidden conspiracy? And how on earth could he be the only person to know about it or think it worth revealing?

So why would Aijaz Syed cite this man as “independent researcher and expert”? Could it be because Alan Sabrosky writes that 9/11 was a conspiracy of Mossad?

These are but two examples, but news watchers will find many more. How many times have we been sent videos of a Mr Alex Jones or Webster Tarpley reciting all types of conspiracies? A minimum amount of background checking finds that these individuals are known conspiriacy theorists with few (if any) qualifications and no credibility in the international media. At home they are considered ‘crack pot’, but here their paranoid delusions are published as if they were renowned researchers. The only qualification required for the Pakistani media, it seems, is that they blame someone else for our problems and have white skin.

Why is this enough to get treated as a credible source by some of the nation’s leading media groups? Confirmation bias is when people accept information that confirms what they want to believe, even if the information is not true. In the case of Western conspiracy theorists, the confirmation bias is strengthened by what we call “the gora effect” – the fact that the subjects are white somehow gives them credibility, even if what they are saying is ridiculous. “Look, even the goras admit this!”

Confirmation bias can be dangerous not only because it allows people to believe in a false reality, but because believing in fictions will result in making decisions that are self defeating in the real world. It is as if a captain was told his opening batsman was also an excellent bowler. His match strategy, because it is based on false information, is actually a strategy for failure!

The News may prioritise raising revenues over raising the public awareness, and Aijaz Syed, who a couple of months ago warned of an imminent American invasion of Pakistan (which, of course, was not true either), may be a paranoid conspiracy theorist himself. If the people are going to devise a strategy to solve Pakistan’s problems, media must serve as a bearer of truth – not delusional conspiracy theories and selective information that confirm wishful thinking. Otherwise, basing our decisions on false information, we too will devise a strategy for failure.

Would Ansar Abbasi drown the nation to spite Zardari?

Friday, September 16th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)As floods continue to devastate the lives of countless people, we knew it was only a matter of time before someone decided to use the disaster to score political points. During last year’s floods, it was a popular media line to claim that flood relief would have been greater if only the world did not believe the government was so corrupt. Even then, no evidence was presented to support this claim, rather it was only stated so often that it was assumed to be true. This year, Ansar Abbasi is too impatient to wait for any final numbers, instead declaring that the president has damaged fundraising efforts as they are only beginning.

Writing for The News (Jang Group), Abbasi claims that “the regime’s image and perception of being one of the most corrupt governments in the world, is likely to scare away international donors and world capitals from paying cash and offering the assistance that Pakistan requires for the devastating floods that have hit Sindh”. His evidence? He doesn’t have any. It is yet another prediction only.

In echoes of the way he exploited flood victims last year to score political points against the president, Ansar Abbasi predicts that government funds will not raise substantial funds to help flood affectees. Since none of the banks would respond to Abbasi’s questions of how much has been raised since only two days, the Jang Group political operative reporter turns to his famous anonymous sources who assure him that the government’s reputation will damage relief efforts.

Meanwhile, in the real world, China has answered President Zardari’s call for assistance by announcing $4.7 million in relief to flood victims. Iran is donating $100 million to help flood affectees, and the United States has already sent on Monday food and medical aid targeted at 350,000 people.

At the very least, Abbasi’s article is a heartless exploitation of a national tragedy to promote a political agenda. At worst, articles such as this can become self-fulfilling prophecies, turning away donors because they are told by reporters like Abbasi that they should not bother donating to relief efforts. Instead of exploiting a national tragedy to score cheap political points, would it not be better for Ansar Abbasi and Jang Group to use their media resources to help raise awareness and relief funds to help restore the lives and livelihoods of flood victims? Or does their hatred for Asif Zardari run so deep that they would drown the nation to spite him?

کامران خان: متحدہ قومی موومنٹ میڈیا منسٹر

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

آج کامران خان کے ساتھ جیو ٹی وی کا ایک بہت مشہور تجزیاتی پروگرام ھے لیکن حال ھی میں بروڈکاسٹ کیئے گئے پروگرامز ک دیکھ کر کچھ ایسے لگتا ھے جیسے کامران خان تجزیہ نگار کم اور ایم کیو ایم کے میڈیا منسٹر زیادہ ھیں۔

نیچے دی گئی ایک کلپ ملاحضہ فرمائیے۔

 

 

اس ویڈیو کو دیکھنے کے بعد یہ صاف واضع ھو جاتا ھے کہ کامران خان مصطفہ کمال کی تعریف کرتے نہیں تھکتے اور درمیانہ روی اختیار کرنے کے بجائے ام کیو ایم کی طرف داری کرنا شروع ھو گے۔

جو بات کامران خان صاحب کے روئیے سے پتا چلتی ھے وہ ھے کہ عوام کے جزبات پر کھیلتے ھوئے صرف اپنی ریٹنگ بڑھانہ ایک نہایت گری ھوئی بات ھے اور اینکر حضرات کو وہ سوالات کرنے چاھیں جو کہ اب تک نھیں اٹھائے گئے ھیں۔ جو بات کامران خان صاحب کے روئیے سے پتا چلتی ھے وہ ھے کہ عوام کے جزبات پر کھیلتے ھوئے صرف اپنی ریٹنگ بڑھانہ ایک نہایت گری ھوئی بات ھے اور اینکر حضرات کو وہ سوالات کرنے چاھیں جو کہ اب تک نھیں اٹھائے گئے ھیں۔

کامران خان صاحب سے چند سوالات پاکستان میڈیا واچ بھی کرن چاھے گی۔ کیا انہوں نے اپنے پروگام میں چٹ پٹی مصالحہ دار گپ شپ کے بجائے کبھی مندرجہ ذیل سوالات اٹھائے ھیں۔

          1. کیا اس بات کا پتا چلانا ضروری نہیں تھا کہ اسامہ بن لادن پچھلے پانچ سال میں پاکستان میں کیسے موجود تھا بجائے اس کے کہ ملکی خودمختاری کا رونا رویا جائے۔
          2. بڑے ناموں والے سیاست دانوں نے اپنے سرکاری یا سیاسی عہدے کیوں چھوڑے۔
          3. گورنر پنجاب کا قتل صرف ایک آدمی کے سر پر ھے یا اس کا قصوروار ھمارہ معاشرہ ھے جس نے ان حالات کو پنپنے کی اجازت دی۔
          4. پی۔این۔ایس مہران کے حملہ وار آخر کون تھے۔
          5. وفاقی وزیر شہباز بھٹی کا قاتل کون ھے اور کیا مسلمان نہ ھونا ھی صرف انہیں قتل کرنے کے لیے جواز کافی ھے۔
          6. کیا دھشت گردی کراچی کے بڑھتے ھوئے خراب حالات کی ذمہ دار نھیں ھے۔
          7. کیا الطاف حسین اور ذولفقار مرزا صاحبان کی الزام تراشیاں ملک کے حق میں اچھی ھیں۔

کسی بھی اینکر کا  اصل مقصد اپنی رائے نہیں بالکہ اپنے مہمان کی رائے اور پرسپیکٹؤ لینا ھوتا ھے۔ اپنی ذاتی رائے گھول کر عوام کو خبروں کے روپ میں پیش کرنا نا صرف غلط ھے بالکہ ان پروفیشنل بھی۔

اول بات تو یہ دوم یہ کہ کامران خان ایک مشہور اور پرانے اینکر پرسن ھیں۔ انہیں اس بات کا احساس ھونا چاہیے کہ عوام تک ضروری اور سچی خبر پہنچانے کی ذمہ داری ان کے کندھوں پر ھےعوام ٹاک شوز اس لئے دیکھتی ھے تاکہ  اسےاس بات کا علم ھو سکے کہ مسائل کی وجوہات اور ان کے حل کیا ھیں۔۔


How Conspiracy Theorists Distort Reality

Monday, September 12th, 2011

Though media in Pakistan is filled with half-baked conspiracy theories, such non sense is by no means a Pakistani invention. Actually, many of the most popular anti-American conspiracy theories are connected with tales concocted by America’s own conspiracy theorists. In an ironic twist of rhetorical convenience, conspiracy walas who term every American journalist a CIA agent will just as quickly grasp onto their American counterparts and treat them as more honest than Pakistani journalists who do not help perpetuate their illogical stories.

On the anniversary of 9/11 this year, American news website Slate published a guide to understanding how American conspiracy theorists constructed their own tales about the 9/11 attacks. While this piece is about American conspiracy theories, though, the ingredients are easily identified as the same for our own homemade conspiracy theories. See if you can recognise them.

Step One: Don’t Spare the Melodrama

In the past 10 years, a new genre of film has proliferated on the Web: the 9/11 conspiracy documentary. Aided by the rise of YouTube and some not-so-subtle propaganda techniques, these feature-length films have become the movement’s No. 1 recruitment tool, often attracting the devotion of college and high-school students. Their makers use several methods to elicit maximum emotional impact, whether the film is presenting the zaniest possible theories, like the online hit Loose Change, or merely implying that the Bush administration took part in a cover-up of some generic sort, like Michael Moore’s record-breaking documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

First, as dramatic and horrifying as the events of that day were, 9/11 conspiracy documentaries will always attempt to dramatize them further. The 2004 film 911: In Plane Site opens with slow-motion footage of the Twin Towers being hit and coming down over intense orchestral music. Slow-motion disaster shots and melodramatic music are two key components in the agitprop toolbox.

Step Two: Offer a Historical Recap

Because most Americans are disinclined to imagine that the government is capable of perpetrating something like 9/11 on its own people, 9/11 conspiracy documentaries have to convince them that this is indeed a realistic possibility. The history lesson is a standard plot device of such films as the anti-Semitic Missing Links and Alex Jones’ 2006 film TerrorStorm. These films usually cite historically revised accounts of what they see as government conspiracies and false-flag attacks. JFK’s assassination, the USS Liberty incident, and the claim that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance are three of the most popular narratives, as is the infamous-in-conspiracy-circles Northwoods Memo. For good measure, the films usually throw in widely accepted cases of government deception, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Reichstag fire. Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup, the fourth edition of Dylan Avery’s blockbuster, covers most of these and throws in the alleged fascist plot to overthrow FDR in the 1930s. As an added bonus, Avery is able to tie everything back to the Bush family.

Step Three: Frame Reality

A key claim of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that the media are taking part in the cover-up, either maliciously or inadvertently. At the same time, conspiracists rely on mainstream media reporting for most of their clues as to how an inside job possibly occurred. Their films have found a clever way to bridge these contradictions. Both Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup and the lighter conspiracy film 9/11: Press for Truth take mainstream media reports and frame them within television sets. This gives the segments an otherworldly, Big Brother quality when trying to convince the viewer that the mainstream media present nothing but corporate propaganda. At the same time, for news reports that add credibility to the conspiracy theory, the framing device plays to the idea that if it’s on TV, then it must be true.

Step Four: Make Bush Look Really Evil

Another key to any good 9/11 conspiracy film is to make George W. Bush and his Cabinet members look as sinister as possible. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a conspiracy film, but it does spend the first 45 minutes throwing out a wide net of potential conspiracy theories involving Afghan oil pipelines, a cover-up of Saudi complicity in 9/11, and something about the Carlyle Group. Most conspiracy films ham fistedly make Bush appear evil by juxtaposing shots of the former president with shots of the attacks themselves, but Moore is far subtler. The Fahrenheit 9/11 opening credits depict the Skeletor-like Bushies getting their makeup done over creepy acoustic guitar strings, or “third-world atrocity music,” as the Weekly Standard put it. Spooky!

Step Five: Connect the Dots

In his excellent look inside the world of conspiracists, Among the Truthers, Jonathan Kay coined the term “flowchart conspiracism” to describe the phenomenon of conspiracy theorists connecting the dots between disparate ideological elements in a vast web beneath some overarching evil force, like the Illuminati or the reverse vampires. The anti-Semitic film War by Deception spends most of its time connecting the 9/11 attacks back to Israel and Jews in the Bush administration, but this flowchart ties a 9/11 Commission cover-up back to Bush himself. The shaky shots of a flowchart on a chalkboard add to the sense of danger: This information is so explosive that we’re nervous even showing it to you.

We highly recommend watching the full slideshow at the Slate website which includes additional links and video clips that demonstrate each step. Even though the examples are only 9/11 conspiracies, the different elements are easily recognised from all variety of conspiracy media.

As you can see, just as poets, dramatists, and songwriters have developed forumulas for creating entertaining pieces, conspiracy theorists have developed formulas for manipulating the emotions and the senses of the masses to convince them of their tales. These formulas can be used by political forces to promote a particular agenda or ideology, or they can be used to create sensational dramas that boost ratings. Whatever the reason, though, conspiracy theories use these ingredients to create one specific product – a false perception of reality in the minds of the public.