Archive for February, 2012

What’s next for Pasha? Depends where you get your news…

Monday, February 27th, 2012

Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha was offered a historic third term as DG ISI last year. As the end of his appointment once again draws near, rumours and speculation have begun to run rampant about what is next for the ISI chief. At times like these, people look to the media to inform them of what is happening in current events. Once again, though, people can have two very different perspectives based on where they are getting their news.

On the front page of Pakistan Today, readers were told that Gen Pasha is likely to move Strategic Plans Division – the institution that controls the nation’s nuclear assets.

Pakistan Today front page

On the front page of The Nation, readers were told that Gen Pasha is likely to receive an unheard of fourth term as head of ISI.

The Nation

Which is true? There can only be one person who knows for certain – the PM himself – and he is not talking about the matter. With that known, how is it that two newspapers can carry contradictory front page headlines about the same issue? It’s very simple, actually, since neither newspaper knows for sure. What determines their position, then? Is is wishful thinking? Are anonymous sources with their own agendas giving statements to journalists in order to build a media narrative one way or the other?

The only thing that is known for certain is that where Gen Pasha lands after his current term expires will not be known until an announcement. Then it will be news. Now, it is speculation only.

Jang Group Attacks Human Rights Watch

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

The News (Jang Group)In Daily Jang and The News, Ahmad Noorani accuses Pakistan Director Human Rights Watch Ali Dayan Hasan of “presenting wrong facts and figures” and presenting a one-sided view of the Balochistan crisis in his testimony at the US Congress earlier this month. Noorani’s article supports a popular narrative – that the American hearing was not a fair and representative discussion of the situation. But is The News being any more fair in its own reporting on Human Rights Watch?

In his spoken testimony at the US Congress, Ali Dayan did allege the military of forced disappearances and target killings. Though PMW has no way to know whether military personnel have or have not been involved in such acts, it is hardly a novel claim. Actually, it is not uncommon to see protests about this very claim.

It should also be noted that the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case about the issue of missing persons possibly detained and abused by security forces also. This does not mean that allegations are true – that is for the court to determine. But it does mean that Ali Dayan’s claim is not unheard of.

Despite Ahmad Noorani’s characterisation, Ali Dayan did not offer a one-sided view or hold security institutions “solely responsible for the whole crisis” as claimed by Ahmad Noorani. In his spoken testimony, Ali Dayan told the hearing that “there are abuses that we have documented by Baloch nationalist militants, particularly against education personnel and against other non-Baloch residents of the province”. He went on to note that “Non-Baloch, particularly Punjabi settlers and Urdu-speaking settlers in Balochistan, are living equally in fear of their lives because of fear of attack from Baloch nationalists”. And it was not just the military and Baloch militants who took criticism from Human Rights Watch. Ali Dayan also pointed out attacks by sectarian militants against Hazara Shia in Balochistan.

In his longer written statement, Ali Dayan goes into more detail about “non-state groups” responsible fore human rights abuses in Balochistan including attacks against “police and security forces and military bases”.

Armed militant groups in Balochistan are responsible for targeted killings and destroying private property. In the past several years, they have increasingly targeted non-Baloch civilians and their businesses, as well as major gas installations and infrastructure. They have also struck police and security forces and military bases throughout the province.

Three distinct non-state groups are responsible for violence against civilians in the province: militant Baloch nationalist groups seeking separation or autonomy for Balochistan that target Punjabis and other minorities; militant Sunni Muslim groups such as the Lashkar-eJhangvi that attack members of the Shia community; and armed Islamist groups that have most recently attacked those who act contrary to their interpretation of Islam.

Militant nationalist groups such as the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and the Baloch Liberation United Front (BLUF) have claimed responsibility for most killings of non-Baloch civilians, including teachers and other education personnel. They attempt to justify these attacks as a nationalist Baloch response to grievances against the state, and retaliation against abuses that state security forces have committed against Baloch community members.

Amidst the violence, Balochistan’s long-term problems of governance and the stand-off between the Pakistani military and Baloch militants have deepened a general perception in the province of neglect, discrimination, and denial of rights. These are exacerbated by the continuing tribal system and its archaic social structures, the influence of the tribal chief on the justice system and police, and the consequent denial of citizens’ fundamental rights.

The poor and marginalized, particularly women, are adversely affected by traditional forms of dispute resolution and lack of access to other redress mechanisms. They lack assets and opportunities, have no social safety net, and are bound by practices that affect their welfare. There are frequent reports of both state law enforcement agencies and local power-brokers committing abuses against marginalized populations. Labor conditions are abysmal, and there is no single system of justice despite a uniform civil and criminal code. The widespread use of tribal jirgas (councils) and other informal forums of justice increase the difficulty of seeking redress and obtaining justice, devaluing its quality.

Finally, the violence has denuded the already thinly spread provision of public safety. Organized police services cover only a fraction of the province’s territory (about 4 percent of the land area), while the rest is covered by tribal recruits forming levies.

Unfortunately, readers would not know the facts about Ali Dayan’s testimony because Ahmad Noorani failed to report them in his piece. Ahmad Noorani claims in his article that Ali Dayan presented ‘wrong facts and figures’, but he addresses no facts or figures in his piece. He did, however, give significant space in his article for political statements against the government by Senior PML-N leader Khawaja Asif, which has nothing to do with the subject of the article.

Instead of reporting what Ali Dayan actually said, Noorani implied that Ali Dayan blamed the military for all abuses and then reported his phone numbers including his international cell number which serves no legitimate journalistic purpose and only invites abuse and harassment.

Neither is this the first time that Ahmad Noorani and The News have attacked Human Rights Watch. Last month during the ‘memogate’ hearings, The News published multiple hit pieces targeting Human Rights Watch, even accusing HRW of being ‘a foreign organisation working in Pakistan under the cover of human rights’.

Human Rights Watch is an internationally respected NGO, not a political activist group. And Ali Dayan Hasan is a respected human rights advocate, not a Baloch militant. The responsibility of professional news journalists and media groups is to report facts, not hit pieces.

کامران شاھد کی اپنے پروگرام میں شرمناک اینکرنگ

Friday, February 17th, 2012

 

ایکسپریس ٹی وی کے کل رات کے پروگرام فرنٹ لائن ود کامران شاھد کو دیکھنے کے بعد پاکستانی میڈیا کی رپورٹنگ کھل کر سامنے آگئی ھے۔اگرچہ یہ پہلی بار نھیں ھے کہ لائو ٹی وی پر ٹاک شو میں مہمانوں نے بد تمیزی کی ھو لیکن اس حد تک پہنچ کے بھی اینکر کا اس طرز کا لاابالی رویہ شرمناک ھے۔ کلپ نیچے ملاحظہ کیجئے۔

نوٹ فرمائے کے اس شرمناک گفتگو کی شروعات سے اختتام تک کامران شاھد چپ کر کے سنتے رھے اور مدخلت کی کوشش تک نھیں کی۔ سونے پر سہاگہ یہ کہ بریک کے بعد کامران شاھد نے سانحے کو انصاف کے ترازو میں تولنے کے بجائے ایک تیسرے آدمی کے اس شو سے اٹھ کر جانے پر تنقید کرنا شروع کر دی۔ کلپ نیچے ملاحظہ کیجئے۔

سوال اب یہ پیدا ھوتا ھے کہ کیا ایکسپریس نیوز اس طرح کی اینگرنگ پر مثبت رد عمل کا اظہار کرتے ھوئے کسی قسم کے اقدام اٹھاینگے یا ریٹنگز کی خاطر چپ سادھے رھیں گے۔

Media Under Siege

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

On Monday’s Capital Talk, Hamid Mir reviewed a clip from the Difa-e-Pakistan Council’s rally in Karachi on Sunday. At issue was something that has become a troubling trend in Pakistan – threats to journalists.

For those who do not understand Urdu, please allow me to explain. The clip that Hamid Mir played shows Qari Sheikh Yaqoob speaking from the Difa-e-Pakistan Council stage. Yaqoob is leader of Tehrik-e-Hurmat-e-Rasool, a spinoff group of Jamaat-ud-Dawa that called for the death of Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer. Here is what he said on Sunday:

I am announcing this with extreme sadness that media is working extremely coldly and this decorating of cameras here is merely an attempt to fool the Difa council. And, know this that masters should listen also that if you can show full coverage of anti-state powers, you will have to give full coverage to the patriots here or else this ground will be made into the media graveyard.

Hamid Mir expresses serious concern about this threat. Some have tried to downplay Qari Sheikh Yaqoob’s comments by saying that he was just asking the media to give equal airtime to the views of DPC. But Yaqoob’s threats are taken seriously, and this one was accompanied by another incident earlier the same weekend.

On Saturday, Wajahat S Khan interviewed former DG ISI Lt Gen Hameed Gul who has been involved with DPC and attended its rallies. Wajahat was pressuring Gen Saheb about the involvement of ‘outlaw groups’ in DPC.

For the first time in the interview, around 10 minutes in, Gul struggled, outright rejecting the claim that Malik Ishaq was at the Multan rally. As we tend to do in our show, evidence was promptly presented. A screen shot of The Express Tribune, with Ishaq in living colour at the Multan stage, was displayed on our monitor, and Gul struggled some more. Doing what he does best, Gul upped the ante, claiming that the Tribune’s pics were doctored. I challenged him, defending the Tribune’s reporting standards. He counter-challenged, and said it was not the paper, rather the reporter who was lying. I rebutted, and hence we moved on. Around this part of the show’s broadcast, the call came.

He didn’t say hello. He knew my name and my address. He kept it short, and told me exactly what he would do to my body parts when he was done detaching them. He then hung up. That was caller one.

But that was just the bad cop routine. The good cops, several of them, came knocking with a flurry of text messages. One of them started off by asking why I was siding with India. My reply was that I was not siding with any collective, and in fact had brought up the disturbing statistic of India’s arms expenditures with Gul, asking the former ISI chief what he and the DPC were doing besides screaming murder about matching the $100 billion dollars that the Indians plan on weapons procurement spending over the next decade. He pinged back after a few minutes, concentrating his grammar on the imaginings between my mother and some animals. The other good cops started in similar vein, one of them asking me whether I had learnt my English in America. Seeing where this could lead to, I didn’t respond. That action further lit up my afternoon, as references to pre-Islamic debauchery, disasters and disease continued to flash on my phone. No names were offered, but when my address and location was confirmed, again and again, I pressed the panic button.

The international NGO Committee to Protect Journalists has taken notice of threats, but ultimately they can only bring attention to the issue. They cannot defend journalists who find themselves out of favour with militants.

In the case of Wajahat Khan, he was advised to “move for the night” and asked if could “handle a weapon”. A truly free media does not require journalist to take up arms to defend themselves. That’s a media under siege.

Historical Revisionism

Tuesday, February 14th, 2012

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”. History will not be so kind to another Prime Minister, not if Ansar Abbasi (Jang Group) writes it. In fact, Ansar Abbasi has decided that rather than way for events to actually play out, he’s going to to go ahead and write history now. Of course, that’s not history at all – it’s just predictions coloured by wishful thinking.

On the front page of The News and Daily Jang on Monday, Ansar Abbasi writes that “Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani would make history today (Monday), not as a hero but as a villain”.

Now, if your first reaction to this is, “Wait…that’s not reporting facts, that’s just Ansar Abbasi’s opinion”, then congratulations – you are correct. But Jang Group publishing opinions instead of news is an old story. So let’s take a look at exactly what leads Abbasi to his opinion and see if he is at least giving readers all the facts so that they can make an informed decision about whether Abbasi’s harsh judgment is warranted.

According to Ansar Abbasi, “The Supreme Court had given him all possible opportunities to uphold rule of law by implementing the apex court’s order in the NRO case but Gilani has opted to be remembered as a loyal to his soiled party leadership”. This is certainly one interpretation of events. But there is interpretation that Ansar Abbasi conveniently ignores – one actually based in the constitution.

The Prime Minister has said continually that he has not written a letter requesting the Swiss authorities to open corruption cases against the president because he has been advised that to do so would be in violation of Article 248.

It should be noted that PM Gilani is not trained as a lawyer – his educational background is as a journalist. But being a lawyer is not a requirement for being Prime Minister. Actually, there is the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs which tenders advice to all the Federal Government on legal and constitutional questions.

In this case, the Prime Minister was advised by the Ministry of Law that writing the letter would be a violation of Article 248 of the Constitution, which says that, “No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office”. This is advice that his attorney, Aitzaz Ahsan, has confirmed and argued before the Court.

Essentially, the Supreme Court is ordering the PM to act against the advice of the Ministry of Law under threat of contempt – something legal experts have described as a ‘contempt trap’

If one were to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused in the instance of Gilani’s contempt proceedings, one could see that Gilani has fallen victim to a type of contempt trap. The court has continued to demand that Gilani write a letter to Swiss authorities, asking for Pakistan to be reinstated as a party to the money laundering case against President Zardari. However, under Article 248 of the Constitution, Zardari enjoys immunity from all prosecutions while he is sitting as President of Pakistan.

During the recent hearings, Aitzaz Ahsan went so far as to say that the Swiss authorities had been contacted by government and they have chosen not to pursue a case against Zardari, respecting his immunity under the Pakistani constitution. The court was perhaps frustrated to hear this information so late in the game, after so many requests from the Prime Minister to explain his position and to show that his government took the court’s orders seriously.

Despite the fact that the court’s order to reopen the Swiss cases is no longer likely or possible, they are continuing in their contempt hearings against the Prime Minister. This is remarkable because the court is essentially asking the Prime Minister to violate Article 248, which the Prime Minster cannot do as a sworn member of Parliament, and thus invoking his contempt of the court proceedings.

Others have noted that Article 248 does not only provide immunity to the President, but provides qualified immunity to the Prime Minister.

The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not he answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions

Despite these assessments, the Prime Minister has not questioned the Supreme Court’s right to hear the case nor attempted to create a political issue out of the case. Rather, he has appeared before the Supreme Court not once but twice – ironically, making history as the first Prime Minister to show such respect to the judiciary where past Prime Ministers have chosen to storm the Supreme Court.

Nor did the Prime Minister request the president to remove the justices as was done by Gen. Mushararaf. Actually, Gilani’s first act as Prime Minister was to release from house arrest those judges who had been detained by Gen. Musharraf.

Unfortunately, none of these historical facts appears in Ansar Abbasi’s front page column. Instead, he quickly moves away from the facts of the case at hand and resorts to repeating claims like, “corruption of Rs8,500 billion has been recorded during these four years as per the Transparency International’s assessment”. We have searched the TI website and have been unable to find any such assessment. Perhaps Ansar Abbasi is referring to his previous articles that have already been discredited.

In the past, history was often written by the victors. With the spread of the printing press, competing histories became written by different sides. With the advent of the Internet, this has become even more the case. Histories can be found that are written from all sides and perspectives – winners, losers, and bitter old men. Certainly Ansar Abbasi will have his own view of history, and that is his right. But facts are facts, and we hope that in the future, Jang Group will seek to include more facts and less biased opinion.

What’s the right number of visas?

Friday, February 10th, 2012

Passport visa

Over 50,000 Americans were granted visas to Pakistan since the past four years, media reported this week. When you hear that bit of news, what does it tell you? Does it tell you that Pakistan has become a top tourist destination? Or does it tell you that every province and village is overrun with Blackwater agents and Raymond Davises? What should this media headline tell you?

Express Tribune reported that over 50,000 Americans were issued visas to visit Pakistan between 2008 and 2011. The information was provided by the Foreign Ministry in response to a question by PML-Q Senator SM Zafar. According to the Express Tribune report, 13,115 were categorised as those for diplomats and other senior officials, and over 2,200 were given after approval from the defence ministry. That means that around 38,979 visas were given for American citizens who were not diplomats or senior US officials over a four year period – or about 9,745 each year.

What the report doesn’t tell us is who those 9,745 people are.

According to 2010 US Census data, at least 409,163 Americans have Pakistani ancestry. What percentage of those 9,745 who travel to Pakistan each year are visiting family or perhaps visiting their ancestral country for the first time?

What about Americans who do business in Pakistan? American Business Council of Pakistan has 67 members – most of whom are Fortune 500 companies – that operate in all sectors of Pakistan’s economy. They include business giants like AT&T, Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, Cisco Systems, Microsoft and IBM just to name a few.

What about American journalists in Pakistan? Or aid workers? What about the American friends of Pakistanis who come for weddings? What about tourists who come to witness our incredible cultural heritage?

Total US population is over 307 million. That means that each year, less than .00003 per cent of Americans are coming to Pakistan, and there are over 18,471 Pakistanis for every American with a visa. More proof that Americans are not invading after all.

It should also be noted that the comparable numbers are not provided for visas issued to citizens of other countries. A horse is large compared to a dog, but not compared to an elephant. Is 50,000 visas a lot? Compared to what? Even the number in the headline – 50,000 – is the total over four years, not the number of Americans who had visas at the same time. How many Americans are here at any given time? How many Chinese are here? How many Afghans? And how many foreigners who are not Americans come without going through the proper visa process int the first place?

Unfortunately, the Express Tribune reporter doesn’t answer any of these questions. We are left to decide for ourselves who these Americans are. And when we are constantly fed conspiracy theories and doom-and-gloom scenarios, how should we be expected to interpret a headline like, ‘Over 50,000 Americans issued Pakistani visa from 2008 to 2011′?

Transparently Ridiculous

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

With the Memogate dud finally fizzling out and the hearing on contempt charges against the PM not set until next week, it promised to be a slow news week. Right on cue, the old reliable story of corruption is back in the headlines again, at least at one media group. The latest headlines, though, are almost comical and may do more to harm than good the cause of exposing corruption.

The latest series of stories began last weekend when Ansar Abbasi reported for The News that “Pakistan has lost…more than Rs8,500 billion…during the last four years”. Abbasi’s source, for once with a name, is none other than Transparency International Pakistan (TIP) Advisor Syed Adil Gilani giving the claim some credibility. But the numbers quoted, rather than giving a clear view of corruption, actually provide a confusing and convoluted picture of the so-called “corruption”.

After several paragraphs of condemning statements, Abbasi finally gets to some hard numbers. But what readers are presented with are not cases of government officials pocketing money or steering it to their cronies. Instead, we are told that “circular debt is Rs190 million”, “state-owned enterprises like PSO, PIA, Pakistan Steel, Railways, SSGC, SNGC are eating away Rs150-300 billion per annum”, and “tax to GDP ratio in 2008 was 11%, which in 2011 has reduced to 9.1% instead of being increased”.

Economists can debate the proper level of circular debt and whether the government should own enterprises like airlines, railways, etc. But this is not corruption. Neither is the tax-to-GDP ratio. According to Abbasi, “this the drop of 1.9% in the tax GDP means annual loss of US$ 3.3 billion”. Even if his maths are correct, does he honestly expect us to believe that the PM has personally evaded US $3.3 billion in taxes? Again, this is a cultural problem – not official corruption.

Abbasi’s article takes a turn for the truly bizarre, however, when he attempts the following mathematical misdirection:

The TIP adviser added that India’s tax-GDP ratio is 18%, and at that rate, Pakistan’s tax evasion/corruption in FBR is 9% of $175 billion, which is US$15.5 billion per year, i.e. Rs1,400 billion per year.

Did you see what he did there? He’s not even comparing apples to oranges. Rather, he is suggesting that we pretend that the apples are oranges so that we can get an even higher number!

Believing he had discovered a magic formula for attacking the government, Ansar Abbasi continued his assault on mathematics a few days later when he claimed that he was mistaken on Sunday. The present government has not cost the nation Rs8.5 trillion – but Rs20 trillion!.

Where did Abbasi find an additional Rs9.5 trillion? After his article appeared on Sunday, he apparently received a phone call from his friend Dr Shahid Siddiqi who suggested some additional “corruption” that he could add to his equation. Now, in addition to counting spending for public enterprises like transport and steel, Ansar Abbasi is including national security spending as “corruption”.

Quoting the State Bank of Pakistan figures, Siddiqi said the cost of war on terror to country’s economy from April 1, 2008 till January 31, 2012 stands at Rs4400 billion ($50 billion).

And not only is he adding military spending, he is also adding in trade deficits and monetary devaluation!

The trade deficit of these years has been $47 billion where as the Pak rupee fell from Rs68.16 per dollar in June 2008 to Rs90.50 in February 2012. The rupee fell by Rs22.3 per dollar during these years. A total of $30 billion has been transferred out of Pakistan during the first three financial years of the Gilani regime.

At this point the question must be asked if there is anything Ansar Abbasi and his sources believe is not corruption?

It should be noted that Dr Shahid Siddiqi appears to be a ‘go-to’ economist for Ansar Abbasi’s economic hit pieces. In October 2011, Ansar Abbasi quoted Dr Siddiqi extensively terming the government as “lying” about economics and bleeding the country through corruption. Ansar Abbasi quoted Dr Siddiqi again in December 2011 as saying “the overall economic situation of Pakistan under the present regime is the worst in the 64-year history of Pakistan”.

Mr Adil Gilani, too, may have a grudge to bear against the present government as he has found himself summoned before Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Lahore over questions about his relationship with National insurance Company Ltd board member Qasim Amin Dada. Previously, it was reported, Mr Adil Gilani’s son resigned from his position as board member of Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (PNSC) after questions were raised about his appointment.

We do not question that corruption is a legitimate and serious problem in society. But stirring up a cloud of dust and calling it smoke does not make a fire. Hit pieces based on formulas that inflate numbers do not help expose and eliminate corruption, it only serves to distract from those who are legitimately trying to shine a light on serious issues of corruption and governance. If we are going to reduce and eliminate corruption, we need serious journalists to do the honest work of reviewing data and separating what is and is not legitimate use of taxpayer funds.

Fragmented Media, Fragmented Nation

Saturday, February 4th, 2012

Not that long ago, two people from different walks of life would learn about the issues of the day from the same source. We relied on PTV and a handful of newspapers to bring us the news, and even this was vetted and censored by government officials. It was Gen Musharraf, ironically, who loosed the media from its chains and led to an incredible growth in the number of media outlets. The rich and the powerful who didn’t like what they were seeing in the media simply started their own newspapers and TV channels. Today, we live in a nation with over a hundred channels including dozens dedicated to news. But increased competition between media groups has not resulted in better reporting. In fact, it may be creating further divisions within society.

Mubasher Lucman and Najam Sethi may both talk about the same issue on their shows, but their viewers are likely to take away very different perceptions. Fans of Mubasher Lucman are likely to think that Najam Sethi is a liberal and possibly a paid agent of America. Fans of Najam Sethi, on the other hand, are more likely to think Mubasher Lucman is right-wing and possibly a paid agent of the establishment. They watch the person whose views align more closely with their own, and dismiss the views of the other.

This phenomenon is not confined to talk shows either. Are the same people reading The Friday Times reading The Nation also? How much overlap is there between readers of The News (Jang Group) and Dawn? While there is probably some overlap between readers of these large circulation newspapers, how many The News fans cannot stand Nadeem Paracha? And how many Dawn readers refuse to read anything by Ikram Sehgal?

But it’s not just the personalities that differentiate media groups. Each group’s editors also makes decisions about what stories to emphasise and which to play down. As an experiment, we looked at several major newspapers on Friday to see what was considered headline news. What we found was interesting.

In the English media, The Nation, Express Tribune, and Dawn each carried two front page stories about contempt charges against the PM. The News carried seven. On first two inside pages, neither Express Tribune nor Dawn published additional stories. The Nation added one, and The News filled almost the entire second page with two more bringing their total number of articles on the first two pages about the PM’s legal troubles to a grand total of nine – six more than the next closest paper!

We then looked at editorial pages. Express Tribune and Dawn both published editorials about the issue. The Nation did not. Here again, The News stood out by publishing an editorial right next to a major opinion piece by the editor, Mohammad Malick, also!

Things were even more interesting when we compared to Urdu media. Nawa-e-Waqt carried 9 front page articles about the issue, Daily Express and Jang both carried 11. The front pages of Urdu newspapers are notoriously crammed, but 11 articles on the same story?

Nawa-e-Waqt had nothing on the first two interior pages, while Daily Express added two more and Jang added an additional three.

This was fascinating to us. For readers of The News or Jang, charges against the PM didn’t seem like a story, it seemed like the only story.

It should also be noted that The Nation, the only English language newspaper that had no editorial about the issue, used most of its editorial space to write about Kashmir, NATO and the WTO.

What does all this mean? We think it indicates that the media may becoming increasingly fragmented. Rather than competing over quality reporting, different media groups are simply providing different groups ‘news’ that reinforces their point of view. Liberals have liberal voices to look to for analysis, conservatives have conservative voices, and with online publishing fueling the growth of alternative media, extremists and conspiracy mongers have their own media groups also.

As a result, society is becoming increasingly fragmented. People assume that those they don’t agree with are liars or hypocrites. They don’t understand how someone can possibly see things in a different way since everyone they read and listen to agrees with them. Certain positions become “obvious” or “undebatable”. What they don’t realise is that the other guy is thinking the exact same thing about him.

Fragmented media might be a good business model by allowing media groups to focus on appealing to one specific niche market, but the question should be asked whether it also creates problems for society. Readers of Jang are likely to think that PM’s contempt case is the most pressing issue of the nation, while readers of The Nation might think that national security takes center stage. How can we agree on how to solve the most important issues facing the nation if we can’t even agree on what the most important issues are?

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers for this. The most readily available solution, though, may be to change our habits as media consumers. We should challenge ourselves by not only consuming that media that reinforces our own beliefs, but should also consider the points of those we disagree with. In order to do this, we should not limit ourselves to one or two media groups that we are comfortable with, but should venture outside our comfort zone to see how other media groups are reporting the news. And if we see that one media group, for example, is treating a story completely differently than every other media group, maybe we should ask ourselves if they are reporting the news…or trying to influence it.

PEMRA should not confuse satire with defamation

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

PEMRAChasing the coat tails of public outcry over Maya Khan’s infamous show, PEMRA has finally taken notice of undesirable media practices. According to a report in The News (Jang Group), PEMRA has stated that it intends to curb not only programmes that invade personal privacy, but satire also.

The authority also reiterated its resolve to curb the derogatory and defamatory satirical programmes aired by many channels in the guise of parody that are inadvertently being used for demeaning and defaming dignitaries.

Defamation is defined under Article 3 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 requires that “a false statement or representation”. The reason for defamation laws, which are common throughout the world, is to prevent the spread of malicious and vindictive lies to damage someone’s reputation.

Satire is something very different. Satire is the use of irony, sarcasm, and humour to highlight folly with the intention of making an editorial point. It is an ancient art form practiced all over the world, often to point out the mistakes and misbehaviour of elite and powerful figures in society. Satire is inherently promoting a particular opinion or perspective, and is usually considered a specially protected form of free speech.

Examples of satire include many of Nadeem Paracha’s columns for Dawn, Beygairat Brigade song ‘Aalu Anday’

and Aaj TV‘s 4 Man Show

These programmes are not presenting false representations to defame or demean anyone. They are merely using humour to highlight the eccentricities and particularities of prominent issues and persons in society. Just because someone is a dignitary or has achieved a high reputation, it does not mean that they are flawless. Actually, many argue that the more influence a person or institution has, the more important it is to scrutinise them so that they live up to the expectations that society places on them.

PEMRA does not need to curb satirical programmes, which are part and parcel of a healthy debate and discussion in society. Rather, the regulatory agency needs to curb the false and defamatory information that is all too common in news reports. Rather than crack down on satire, PEMRA should issue guidelines about biased reporting and publishing opinions and viewpoints outside the clearly labeled spaces for such views so that readers and viewers clearly know when they are being presented with facts and when they are being presented with someone’s personal opinion.