Once again the national interest has been used to justify a media blackout. This time, foreign media channels deemed as anti-Pakistan are being turned off, but not by the government – by the media itself.
In response to what some claim is anti-Pakistan programming, cable operators began pulling the plug on foreign TV channels on Tuesday night. BBC in particular has been targeted after airing a documentary series that includes claims that Pakistan security services are supporting Taliban – claims that DG ISPR Gen Abbas has termed “baseless and malicious”, though other channels including FOX News have also been unplugged in some areas.
According to Khalid Arain, president of the All Pakistan Cable Operators Association, “We want to send them a strong message to stop this. If they don’t stop this, then it is our right to stop them”.
Of course, once again, they’re not stopping anyone. By blacking out major international news channels, we only deprive ourselves of knowing what the rest of the world is saying – including what they’re saying about us. Rather than contacting those channels to offer our perspective or producing factually-incorrect information, we will simply pretend they don’t exist. Here. Where the allegedly anti-Pakistan information is the least likely to have any impact. Regardless of Khalid Arain’s desire to protect the national sentiments, he can’t turn off BBC’s satellite. The rest of the world is still tuned in.
Blacking out BBC will not make the offending documentary disappear. Neither will it convince anyone that the information contained in it is incorrect. Actually, it may make people more curious by suggesting that there is something to hide. This is why censorship never works – even when it’s self-censorship. If we don’t like a programme, we can turn off our sets ourselves. We don’t need the government deciding what we can and cannot watch, and we don’t need the military deciding what we can and cannot watch, and we don’t need All Pakistan Cable Operators Association deciding either.
It is unfortunately more common that our reports examine inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour by our respected journalists. Occasionally, however, there are moments that make us proud to be associated with the profession and we do like to recognise these as well. After a week of media circuses, we are pleased to be able to once again post some praise, this time for the responsible manner in which Mujib Shami handled the memogate story on Nuqta-e-Nazar.
What is important to note is that in his handling of the issue, Mujib Shami’s main point is not that one side or the other is correct or incorrect, but that too much of the media reports have been based on conjecture and assumption. For example, consider the way the conversation starts:
This entire case has rested on conjectures or assumptions. The conjecture is that Mansur Ijaz wrote a memo and that the letter was delivered and once delivered action was taken. But the alleged memo, what does it have? It asks Mike Mullen to immediately contact Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and warn him that he should not dare to overthrow the democratic government in the country. And that if Mullen gives this warning to Kayani and to Mr Shuja Pasha and they stop and the democratic government survives then the government will do the following for you. But since memo is unsigned we dont know who wrote the memo.
Now tell me, did Mike Mullen call Kayani?
No.
Did Mullen warm him?
No, he didn’t.
Did they stop because of the warning? Were they going to do a coup?
That is a conjecture. They were not going to do a coup.
When all these are conjectures/assumptions then I am worried that where are we going, what are we doing and what kind of a country have we become?
This last line may be the most important line spoken on television in decades. When we start to treat conjecture and assumption with facts, where can we possibly go as a nation?
Actually, such behaviour has direct consequences on the ability of the nation to function. As Shami points out quite clearly.
That people got after Husain Haqqani so in a way it was important for the government to remove him because they felt that he would not be able to work in such a controversial environment. But please remember that an inquiry has to still take place. Now this is very interesting that the resignation has been taken even before the inquiry.
What if an independent inquiry clears Husain Haqqani’s name? Then an innocent man will have been forced to resign because of a media circus.
This is a serious consideration as we have written before that media coverage of the issue so far has been dominated not only by speculation, but that much of that speculation has turned out to be incorrect.
Once again, Shami lays this all out perfectly.
If Husain Haqqani had to run away from the country why would he return? Even before he returned our media started saying that he wont return. And the Indian papers said that he has sought asylum in US. Then we asked him to resign, he resigned. And when he Tweeted that he has resigned there were counter assertions by the PM house that he had not offered but was asked to resign. So petty are people…
So petty, indeed. Rather than help the people cut through the confusing mess of conjecture, assumption, rumour and innuendo, too many of our most popular media personalities are jumping at the opportunity to give their own opinions and add to the controversy. As Mujib Shami correctly notes, too much of what we believe is because we are not being told facts, but conjecture and assumptions. He is not saying that one side or the other is correct, he says quite clearly “please remember that an inquiry has to still take place.” Husain Haqqani has resigned, and there is a new Ambassador Sherry Rehman. Contrary to media assumptions and speculation, Husain Haqqani has returned to Pakistan and has turned over his Blackberry for investigation. An inquiry is being prepared and the facts will come out. This is what the media should be reporting – facts, not conjecture.
When the cameras are turned off, many people find Mansoor Ijaz’s story thoroughly questionable, but there are still some questions remaining and no one wants to pass up the opportunity presented by such a sensational story. The problem is, writing exciting and controversial stories isn’t be the basis legitimate news programmes. Such stories are for drama serials.
We’re all well aware of just how vicious the media can be, especially when it comes to politics. Whoever is in power at the time will always suffer the greatest number of attacks, but even opposition politicians are not usually spared the venom of our talk show hosts and their guests. So when a politician is given soft treatment, it’s hard not to notice.
The electronic media has undoubtedly played a large part in introducing Imran Khan as a political option. On some talk shows, Imran is a regular, appearing at least a couple of times every month. However, the frequent appearances notwithstanding, the PTI still remains an enigma in the minds of many viewers. With a few exceptions, notably an excellent “Hard Talk”- style interview conducted by Iftikhar Ahmad on “Jawab Deyh” (October 2, 2011), most talk show hosts end up chit-chatting drawing room style with Imran, allowing him to talk big on generalisations but omitting to grill him on any specific plans.
And unlike the generalisations that are being allowed to pass in some channels, Ayesha provides specifics.
Shortly after his successful Lahore rally, Imran appeared on Nasim Zehra’s “Policy Matters” (November 5, 2011). To the anchor’s credit, she had researched Imran’s declaration of assets, but when she questioned him on the discrepancy between the present market value of Imran’s assets and the far lower purchase value disclosed on the return, he dismissed her question altogether, choosing to lecture us instead on accounting principles, Imran-style. As the conversation progressed to his China trip, the fluffiness of Imran’s responses became even more apparent. When he spoke of China pulling millions out of poverty, Ms Zehra agreed, as would most of us, that this is an enormous accomplishment. But there were no follow-up questions when Imran claimed that Pakistan could use the Chinese model. How, I wondered, would Pakistan apply the Chinese model? China has certainly made giant economic strides but would these have been possible without its strict one-child policy? Hasn’t China also severely curbed religious practice and democracy? Are these measures possible, or even advisable, in Pakistan?
When some people agree to appear on talk shows, they know they will be taking a beating. Others are treated with respect to their face, only to be skewered the following night when they are not there to defend themselves. It is the rare politician who is given the soft treatment both on the air and off. We do not take a position on whether or not Imran Khan or his PTI deserve support, but we do take a position on whether the media should treat some politicians differently than others based on their own political preferences and personal biases.
Newsweek Pakistan shows us how easily media can start rumours. Following the resignation of Ambassador Husain Haqqani on Tuesday, Newsweek Pakistan posted the following on Twitter.
A few minutes later, Newsweek Pakistan posted again, clarifying that they were unable to verify the claims of their anonymous source.
While it is good that Newsweek Pakistan clarified their report, it will make little difference as can easily be seen from the number of re-Tweets. At least 20 people spread the unverified rumour, while as few as 5 passed on the clarification. In what looks like a rush to get a ‘scoop’, Newsweek Pakistan may have started a wildfire of inaccurate information. At the very least, they have added to an environment of confusion.
Being the first to report a lie is far worse than being second to report a fact. It is much more important that news reports be correct than they be fast. Newsweek Pakistan needs to exercise restraint and only report items once they have been verified.
Appearing on NDTV yesterday to explain his view to Barhka Dutt, Mansoor Ijaz’s answers actually raised more questions about his allegations in the ‘memogate’ controversy.
Mr Ijaz begins by saying that the international media should be asking “what the government is trying to cover up”, which is a strange way to begin the interview – we know what Mr Ijaz claims that government is trying to “cover up” because Mansoor Ijaz is the one who made the allegations to begin with. From there, the interview only got more bizarre.
Talking to Barkha Dutt, Mansoor Ijaz claims that he was approached about the memo because his anti-ISI beliefs made him “a plausibly deniable channel…and I agreed,” said Ijaz. “I knew that if something went wrong, there would be a need for plausible deniability.” Barkha picks up on this logical disconnect, and presses him on it. If he understood and agreed that this was a confidential process and that he would be denied if word got out, why did he reveal the story in a newspaper op-ed, and why does he act surprised when it is denied?
According to Mansoor Ijaz, he publicly revealed his alleged role in the ‘memogate’ affair because it added authenticity to his op-ed for The Financial Times. This raises another obvious question: If Mansoor Ijaz is as credible and trusted among American officials as he claims, why would he need to include some anecdote about his involvement with Pakistani officials in order to grant authenticity?
But that’s not the only strange thing about his new explanation. Mansoor Ijaz wrote an almost identical op-ed on 2nd June that also terms the ISI as “the enemy” and alleges a secret ‘S-Wing’ that is responsible for breeding terrorism – but he did not then feel the need to include any stories about secret memos.
Here is what Mansoor Ijaz wrote about the ISI on 2nd June:
The enemy is the ISI—it runs Pakistan from the shadows like a puppet master. The ISI is a danger to civilized societies everywhere, because it nurtures and breeds hatred among Pakistan’s Islamist masses, and then uses their thirst for jihad as a foreign policy sledge hammer against Pakistan’s neighbors and allies, often for no purpose besides just creating chaos.
And here is what he wrote about the ISI on 10th October:
The enemy is a state organ that breeds hatred among Pakistan’s Islamist masses and then uses their thirst for jihad against Pakistan’s neighbours and allies to sate its hunger for power. Taking steps to reduce its influence over Pakistan’s state affairs is a critical measure of the world’s willingness to stop the terror masters at their very roots.
Here is what Mansoor Ijaz wrote about the alleged ‘S-Wing’ on 2nd June:
The finger of responsibility in these recent events often points to a shadowy outfit of the ISI dubbed the S-Wing. A notorious group of operatives, the S-Wing is made up of active ISI officers, recent retirees, and plain-clothes civilians with highly specialized training—all dedicated to protecting and preserving Pakistan’s territorial integrity using any method, at any cost, with no regard for collateral damage. As black-ops units go, it is about as thuggish and ruthless as is possible, without being a criminal organization.
That is why the S-Wing should be declared a sponsor of terrorism under the “Foreign Governmental Organizations” designation by the U.S. State Department. It no longer matters whether the ISI is willfully blind, or explicitly complicit, in the murderous plots attributed to the S-Wing, which the ISI routinely denies any knowledge of or responsibility for. S-Wing must be stopped dead in its tracks before immeasurable harm comes from the missionary zeal of its agents, no matter how misguided their mission may be.
And here is what he wrote about the alleged ‘S-Wing’ on 10th October:
Questions about the ISI’s role in Pakistan have intensified in recent months. The finger of responsibility in many otherwise inexplicable attacks has often pointed to a shadowy outfit of ISI dubbed “S-Wing”, which is said to be dedicated to promoting the dubious agenda of a narrow group of nationalists who believe only they can protect Pakistan’s territorial integrity.
The time has come for the state department to declare the S-Wing a sponsor of terrorism under the designation of “foreign governmental organisations”. Plans by the Obama administration to blacklist the Haqqani network are toothless and will have no material impact on the group’s military support and intelligence logistics; it is S-Wing that allegedly provides all of this in the first place. It no longer matters whether ISI is wilfully blind, complicit or incompetent in the attacks its S-Wing is carrying out. S-Wing must be stopped.
Actually, the point of both pieces is the same – to declare the ISI and its alleged ‘S-Wing’ unit as the world’s terrorists. The only real difference is that in October, Ijaz added the dramatic story of the secret memo. This raises the question of what changed between 2nd June and 10th October that Mansoor Ijaz felt he needed to add an anecdotal story to back up his claims?
Meanwhile, it should also be noted that during the same timeline that Mansoor Ijaz claims he was working with Husain Haqqani to deliver the memo to American officials, Husain Haqqani was very publicly defending Pakistan and the ISI.
“President Obama has answered the question about Pakistan’s role. It wouldn’t have been possible to get Bin Laden without Pakistan’s help. People are piling on this one, but the fact is, it is very plausible for someone to live undetected for long periods of time.”
“What I find incredulous is the notion that somehow, just because there is a private support network in Pakistan, the state, the government and the military of Pakistan shouldn’t be believed.”
On 4th May, Husain Haqqani spoke offered a strong defence of Pakistan’s security services when speaking to Barkha Dutt on NDTV.
And on 8 May, Husain Haqqani appeared on ABC News where he stated that:
If any member of the Pakistani government, the Pakistani military, or the Pakistani intelligence service knew where Osama bin Laden was, we would have taken action. Osama bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan was not to Pakistan’s advantage… As the national security adviser said, a lot more people have been arrested in Pakistan, including Al Qaida people, than in any other country. So Pakistan did not have a policy of protecting these people.
This raises yet another question: If Mansoor Ijaz really was working with Husain Haqqani, his partner in the conspiracy was undermining the credibility of the scheme day by day. How could American officials take seriously the offers made in Mansoor Ijaz’s memo while the Pakistani envoy was in the media defending the very group that Mansoor Ijaz was terming as terrorists?
Here is what we can confirm so far. Mansoor Ijaz is an “ultra-wealthy” and politically connected American businessman who believes that Pakistan’s intelligence agency is made up of terrorists and enemies, and he wants the American military to strike against them. We know that in May he delivered a memo to some American officials, and that the Americans “did not find it at all credible and took no note of it.” In June he wrote an op-ed making his allegations against the ISI public, but it seemed to get little attention. In October, he wrote another op-ed making the same allegations, only this time he added a sensational story about a conspiracy within the Pakistani government, and suddenly his name became front-page news. We also know that several weeks ago he held a secret meeting with DG ISI to discuss his evidence against the civilian officials.
The rest of the story remains pure speculation. Did Mansoor Ijaz and Husain Haqqani talk via email and BBM? Perhaps, but it is also likely that Mansoor Ijaz is not the only wealthy Pakistani-American in the Ambassador’s contacts. It is the job of a diplomat to cultivate relationships with influential and well-connected people. Did President Zardari authorize the memo or its contents? Actually, there has been nothing to suggest that he knew anything about it. And why, if Mansoor Ijaz believes the ISI are terrorists, is he working closely with the ISI to make his case?
Husain Haqqani has requested a full inquiry to clear his name, and has offered to turn over his Blackberry and his computer for a forensic investigation. Hopefully we will have more facts soon. In the meantime, media interviews and talk shows are only fueling speculation and creating more questions than answers.
آج کل کے تمام تر ٹی وی کےپروگرامز کو دیکھنے کے بعد یہ اندازہ ھوا کہ ھمارا میڈیا انصاف کے اصولوں سے ناواقف ھے۔ کسی بھی ایک موضوع یا شخص کو ھدف بنا کر اپنی تمام توانائیاں صرف کر دیتے ھیں۔ کچھ اپنے اداروں کے مقاصد حاصل کرنے کی کوشش کرتے ھیں اور کچھ اپنے آقاؤں کو خوش کرنے کی۔ نتیجہ یہ کہ قارئین تزبزب کا شکار رھتے ھیں۔
اب حال ھی میں میموگیٹ سکینڈل کو ھی لے لیں۔ ھر چینل نے بنا کسی تحقیق و تصدیق کے اپنا اپنا اظہار خیال شروع کر دیا۔ اس کے علاوہ اپوزیشن پارٹی کو تو موقع ملنا چاہیے۔ نوٹ کرنے والی بات یہ ھے کہ زیادہ تر کیا سارے ھی چینلز نے پاکستانی سفیر حسین حقانی کا موقف لینے کے بجائے مشکوک کردار کے مالک منصور اعجاز جو کہ ایک امریکی شھریت رکھتے ھیں اور جنہوں نے کئی بار پاکستان اور اسکی افواج کے خلاف منفی خیالات کا اظہار اور منفی مضامین چھاپے ھیں سے رجوع کرنا زیادہ مناسب سمجھا۔
یہاں پر یہ بات قابل ذکر ھے کہ حامد میر سب سے پہلے اینکر تھے جنہوں نے حسین حقانی سے رابطہ کیا اور ان کا موقف اپنے پروگرام میں پیش کیا۔ اس پروگرام کی کلپ نیچے ملاحظہ کری
اس کے بعد امریکہ میں موجود پاکستانی سفیر حسین حقانی نے دیگر پروگرامز میں اپنے حوالے سے اٹھائے گئے سوالات کا جواب دیا۔ حیران کن بات یہ ھے کہ اس انٹرویو سے قبل اور اس کے بعد بھی منصور اعجاز مختلف چینلز پر اپنا مقدمہ پیش کرتے رھے اور مزید حیران کن بات یہ ھے کہ ایک امریکن سٹیزن سے رابطہ کرنا زیادہ آسان ھے جو کہ یورپ منتقل ھو چکے ھیں اور ایک پاکستانی سفیر سے زیادہ مشکل جو کہ واشنگٹن میں پاکستانی سفارتخانے میں پائے جاتے ھیں۔ تعجب خیز بات یہ بھی ھے کہ ہر ٹی وی چینلز مختلف قیاس آرائیوں پر مبنی خبریں پیش کرتے رھے مثلا اےآرواے نے کہا کہ پاکستانی سفیر اپنی ڈی سی کی رہائش گاہ سے کہیں اور منتقل ھو چکے ھیں۔ دنیا نے کہا کہ ان کا استعفی صدر کو موصول ھو چکا ھے جبکہ موصوف ایمبیسیڈر نے ابھی تک استعفی دیا ھی نہیں۔ خواجہ آصف صاحب نے امریکی شہریت رکھنے کا الزام حسین حقانی پر لگایا کیا ان کے پاس ایک عرب روپے ھیں کیونکہ شاید وہ یہ بھول گئے کہ اسی بات پر نوائے وقت نے حال ھی میں پاکستانی سفیر سے معافی مانگی تاکے انہیں ایک عرب روپے کا ہرجانا نا دینا پڑے۔
پاکستانی میڈیا کو ذمہ داری کا ثبوت دیتے ھوئے حقائق پر مبنی تحقیق کے بعد ناظرین کے سامنے صحیح صورت حال کو پیش کرنا چاھئے اور من گھرٹ قیاس آرائیوں سے پرہیز کرنا چاھئے۔
A flurry of interesting pieces have begun to appear in the media today, all reporting about a secret meeting between DG ISI Shuja Pasha and Mansoor Ijaz in a London hotel room last month. While PMW is in no place to question the information presented in the news reports, we are troubled by many of the questions raised about the origin of these reports, and what that says about the “news” we are being fed.
Newsweek Pakistan quotes a source “who was privy to the meeting”. What source would be privy to a meeting between DG ISI and Mansoor Ijaz in a London hotel, I wonder? Probably not room service. The News (Jang Group) says that its story is based on “highly classified information obtained by The News”.
Newsweek Pakistan‘s piece certainly contain one of the funniest lines in recent memory. According to the reporter, Fasih Ahmed, his source “spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of offending the general”. And what did he say that he was so worried may offend the General? “Pasha seemed like an intellectually-sound man and while he grimaced and looked shocked at times, he did not give away how he intended to proceed, if at all, with the information provided to him.” Was this “source” really worried that describing a General as “an intellectually-sound man” would be risky?
PMW does not have access to “highly classified information”, nor do we have access to any sources with access to DG ISI’s private meetings in London hotel rooms (or anywhere else, for that matter). So we cannot comment on whether these reports are factually correct. We only comment on them here to raise the question of whether these news reports are based on information provided by a neutral source, or if they are provided by state agencies themselves.
If a neutral source has access to the DG ISI’s private meetings, we as a nation should be quite worried about our national security. On the other hand, if the agencies are providing the information to reporters themselves, why not do so openly?
ISPR is the official channel for communicating with the public. If the agencies are bypassing the official communication channels to provide information to reporters, it raises the question whether the intent of the leaked information is to inform or to influence. Provided the facts, we should be allowed to make up our own minds. We do not need hidden hands writing a script for us.
A curious article appears in The News today which claims that Jang Group researchers discovered that Mansoor Ijaz, the American millionaire at the center of the “memogate” controversy, had previously “negotiated between the United States and the Sudanese government in an otherwise failed effort to apprehend Osama bin Laden”. This is an old and well known claim of Mr Ijaz, and one that this blog researched when Mr Ijaz originally published his infamous opinion column in The Financial Times. While researchers at The News found quite a bit of information, what is curious is just what information they found – and what information they didn’t.
The News‘s research staff didn’t even read this blog where we revealed that in 1997, The Washington Post reported that Mr Ijaz used his political connections to advance his financial interests in Sudan1.
Wealthy and well-connected, Ijaz was more than willing to pitch in. By Election Day in November, he had raised $525,000 for the Democratic cause, including $250,000 from his personal funds and $200,000 donated by guests at a fund-raising reception for Vice President Gore at Ijaz’s New York penthouse in September, according to Federal Election Commission records, White House documents and Ijaz.
Now Ijaz is trying to reap what he has sown. Having earned access to the Clinton administration through his fund-raising prowess, Ijaz has met with a succession of senior officials in the White House, State Department and Congress to further his business interests through changes in U.S. policy toward Islamic countries, particularly Sudan, a government long accused of sanctioning international terrorism.
What information was The News able to find? Apparently they could only find the testimony of Mr Mansoor Ijaz himself before US Congress. Testimony that was considered by the US government as too unreliable to be included in the 9/11 Commission Report.
It appears that US officials who have met Mansoor Ijaz have a habit of terming his claims as ludicrious, unreliable, and uncredible. It is quite unfortunate that The News either could not find or forgot to include in their report all of the independent, third-party information. It might have been a little more informative than only taking Mr Ijaz’s word.
1. Ottaway, David B. ‘Democratic Fund-Raiser Pursues Agenda on Sudan’. The Washington Post. 29 April 1997.
Once again the national interest has been used to justify a media blackout. This time, foreign media channels deemed as anti-Pakistan are being turned off, but not by the government – by the media itself.
