Archive for the ‘Daily Times’ Category

Are Some Journalists Providing PR For Banned Groups?

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

Are some journalists, either unwittingly or for pay, providing PR for banned militant groups? That is a question raised by Gulmina Bilal Ahmad in today’s Daily Times, and one that bears close examination.

Gulmina takes to task reporter Yousaf Ali from The News for an article he wrote last week claiming that “Islamic charities most effective in relief activities”.

If I were associated with an ‘Islamic’ charity, I would file a suit against the reporter because he goes on to mention organisations that are old wines in new bottles. In other words, banned militant organisations operating under new names. There are a number of Islamic charities that are doing excellent work and do not use militant ways and means. They are funded not by mafias, crime and drug money as the militant organisations are, and have transparent, audited accounts.

The reporter is supposed to report, not give an opinion. Opinions are reserved for the op-ed pages. However, in the said news story, in the very title, the reporter has given his considered opinion. Throughout the four-column story, he fails to establish what is the basis of his sweeping conclusion displayed prominently in the heading.

Clearly, there is a problem raised by the fact that the author makes a bold claim that is not supported by the facts presented in his reporting. The reporter may believe that his claim is true – in fact, the claim could be true – but without providing evidence to support the claim, the reporter is wrong in making it.

But even the reporters claims are questionable. Yousaf Ali writes that,

Cooked food has been distributed among 0.25 million so far, while 23,046 packages were distributed among 161,322 families, the handout stated.

But according to Daily Mail News, the US has sent over 77,000 food packets for flood victims.

Talking to a privet television channel, the NDMA chairman said that they had demanded 380,000 food packets from the US for the flood stricken people in the country. He said the US sent a first batch of 77,000 food packets through C-130 plane which had been dispatched to affected areas.

Nadeem Ahmad said that another 43,000 boxes were expected to reach soon. “The US has assured of more cooperation to ease the miseries of people,” he said. Meanwhile, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson announced that the US government is continuing to send assistance for flood relief efforts in Pakistan. “The United States supports Pakistan’s emergency relief efforts on behalf of people affected by recent monsoon floods,” she said.

Surely Mr Ali knows that 77,000 is more than 23,046. So why does he ignore such facts in his article?

Gulima suspects a bit of spot-fixing going on at Jang Group’s English newspaper:

The news story further goes on to declare that the “most effective among the Islamic charities” is “the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation which is linked with the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD)”. The reporter clearly is aware of the way the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation is linked with the JuD. Is the reporter not aware then that the JuD is a banned organisation? As if the heading of the news story was not enough, the reporter, to really imprint it in the reader’s mind, further states, “much discussed in the international media, the Falah-e-Insaniat is another major contributor in the relief activities”.

Since, in this space, I am clearly asked to give my opinion, I will venture to state that it seems to be a paid, placed piece to do some damage control and spin some ‘feel good’ stories about the Falah-e-Insaniat, given the fact that “much has been written in the international media” about it.

Banned organizations are well known to change their names in order to avoid being closed down. Despite this, they are well known. They are also being praised by some in the media – as evidenced by Yousaf Ali’s column as well as articles in The Nation, and Dawn.

And this is not an issue that appears only in English media, of course.

Leading English newspapers do not have the monopoly over promoting irresponsible reporting nor is the militant media confined only to English. Just this week, an Urdu paper prominently displayed a statement of Hafiz Saeed, head of JuD, claiming that “there is no al Qaeda”. If there is no al Qaeda, then how is it that there is a group that has, to date, claimed responsibility for global terrorism attacks? Another question that begs to be answered is what is the basis for this claim of Mr Hafiz Saeed?

Just yesterday, Urdu newspaper Daily Khabrian included an article claiming that “foreign hands” were involved in the Lahore attacks. The evidence for this conspiracy? A statement from Rana Munir of Pakistan Muslim Rajput Federation.

The reporter for Daily Khabrian did not feel it necessary to ask how Rana Munir knew of such a conspiracy, and the newspaper’s editors did not (as evidenced by the publication of the article) feel it necessary to ask why such a statement by Rana Munir was significant enough to be a priority for publication. All of this despite the fact that banned group Lashker-e-Jhangvi claiming responsibility for the attacks.

These articles raise important questions: How is it that banned groups are getting a disproportionate amount of positive press coverage for the relief work that they are doing? Why do media outlets continue to publish conspiracy theories absolving banned groups from responsibility for attacks – even after the groups admit responsibility? And why do major news outlets like The News (Jang), The Nation, and Dawn consider it a priority to publish articles praising the work of banned groups over others?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Khabrian, Daily Times, Dawn, Jang, The News, Urdu | 1 Comment »

Media Priorities

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

Today we began what we believe will be an interesting experiment in observing media priorities. We started by looking at what different newspapers found to be worthy of front page coverage and also the topics of each paper’s editorials. The results might surprise you…but probably not.

Yesterday, Pakistan suffered a serious attack in which at least 33 people have been killed and hundreds more wounded. The attacks targeted a Shi’a procession in Lahore. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claimed responsibility for the attack almost immediately.

With this recent tragedy still fresh in the nation’s consciousness, we wanted to know what the media companies thought was important today? First, let’s take a look at the front pages of several newspapers:

Dawn Front Page 2 Sept 2010 The News Front Page, 2 September 2010 The Nation Front Page, 2 Sept 2010
Judging by column space, the most important story seems to be what a good deal you will get from the media companies’ advertisers. Okay, yes, newspapers do require advertising to keep subscription fees low. But it is worth noting still that The Nation has more advertising than actual reporting on the front page, though Dawn and The News are not far behind.

What’s more interesting, though, is what each newspaper thinks is most important to report on the front page. The Nation has a few stories about the attacks in Lahore, but devotes at least as much space to stories about Supreme Court’s hearings on the 18th Amendment, US-Pakistan strategic talks, NAB, and inflation.

Dawn devotes the majority of its print space to coverage of the terror attack in Lahore, with the next biggest stories being flooding and the Sialkot lynching.

The News devotes about equal space to the Lahore attacks as they do advertising, but the majority of column space is for stories about floods and politics.

Editorial Pages

Editorial pages are where the official position of a publication is printed. The following topics appeared today.

The News

  • Sialkot Murders
  • 18th Amendment and appointment of judges
  • School reading curriculums

Dawn

  • Taxes
  • Criticism of US treatment of military officers
  • Objectives resolution

The Nation

  • Criticism of US treatment of military officers
  • Oil prices
  • Criticism of government handling floods

It’s interesting, I think, that none of these three major newspapers had any editorial condemning the Lahore attacks. Surely they will make some statement at some point, but why was it not a priority? That’s not to say that school reading curriculum and oil prices are not important, but why did the news organizations decide those were more important than making a statement on the killings?

American intellectual Noam Chomsky has spoken for decades about what he calls “manufacturing consent”. He describes the way that major media organizations decide what is worthy of discussion, and that this has an influence on the way that society evolves.

It’s basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model. We’re talking primarily about the national media, those media that sort of set a general agenda that others more or less adhere to, to the extent that they even pay much attention to national or international affairs.

Now the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media. That means The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major television channels, and so on. They set the general framework. Local media more or less adapt to their structure.

And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.

Mr Chomsky was, of course, writing about the media in his own country, but the same theory pertains to our media as well. This is not a judgment against the media, but it is something to be aware of. Not only does the content of reporting shape the way people perceive certain issues, but the decision about what is newsworthy is a very powerful part of media. Thus, you should ask yourself – are the media’s priorities my priorities? Or are they different?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn, The Nation, The News | 2 Comments »

Media Double Game Against Bilawal?

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Last night Bilawal Bhutto Zardari released a statement about his immediate future. In short, he says, “I am currently looking into the possibility of studying law” and will not be jumping into politics as widely reported. According to his statement, Bilawal felt compelled to act out, “to counter some inaccurate information that has recently been reported”. While there was certainly much media attention to the alleged speech planned for Saturday, what is more telling is the way Bilawal’s future and his more immediate decision to open a donation center for flood victims has been treated in the news media.

On Thursday, Dawn reported that “Speech by Bilawal fuels talk of political career”.

But now he has finished his history degree at Christ Church, seen as one of the most aristocratic of Oxford’s colleges, speculation is growing about what steps he will now take towards his political destiny.

Bhutto, who is already chairman of the PPP, is expected to speak before several thousand of its supporters at an event in Birmingham, central England, alongside his father who is visiting Britain.

It was not so far fetched for media to report that Bilawal would be at the rally scheduled for Saturday since Waheed Rasab, the PPP’s coordinator in Britain, told reporters as much. But the truth is, this was mostly speculation.

As a result, Dawn reported today about Bilawal’s statment.

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on Thursday spoke for the first time in many months, only to categorically deny the prevalent impression created by a section of the media that he was to launch his political career over the weekend by attending a public meeting in Birmingham.

One has to wonder, with all the speculation about whether Bilawal will make a speech and enter politics, all the party coordinators and “anonymous sources” who were telling what was going to happen – why did no journalist actually bother to ask Bilawal what he thinks?

More disturbing, though, is that even Bilawal’s statement has not stopped certain media companies from continuing political attacks in their reporting.

The Nation’s report on the statement includes the following conclusion:

The sources said that PPP took decision not to launch political career of Bilawal Bhutto Zaradri due to severe criticism launched by the media and politicians that in tough circumstance, President Zardari has left for UK to launch political career of his son.

Nowhere in the article does it reveal who these “sources” are, or what their evidence is for this claim, of course. This seems like a pretty transparent attempt for the media to take the credit for something that Bilawal is doing. So, when Bilawal does something they don’t like, it is his fault. When he does something they do like, The Nation claims credit.

The News, however, is even worse. On 1 August, the newspaper wrote that Bilawal “would do well by stepping in to cancel the ceremony and instead setting about to prove himself a worthy leader through more solid action rather than flamboyant gestures.”

Upon the release of Bilawal’s statement, however, The News quickly changed its tune. This morning’s newspaper is actually critical of Bilawal’s move.

Chairman of the PPP Bilawal Bhutto Zardari dramatically declared last night that he would not address the Birmingham rally on Saturday, August 07, putting cold water on the plans that he would be launched as the party chief and adding a new sense of drama to the countrywide campaign against President Zardari.

In a dramatic climbdown, the 21-year-old son of Benazir said that he would continue with his studies and wanted to stay away from the media. The move comes as a humiliation to the party mandarins who were preparing for weeks for his grand entry into politics.

It is worth noting here that The News may have slipped in admitting that there is a “campaign against President Zardari”. Of course, this should not be a surprise to readers of The News, which has a sordid history recently of publishing unsubstantiated political attacks.

But it is especially important to note that the political bias of The News is clearly evident in their inability to give proper recognition to Bilawal even when he does something that the very newspaper says it hopes for! Rather than praising Bilawal for canceling his appearance and setting up a donation point for flood victims, The News calls the move “a humiliation”. This is a double game against Bilawal – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

To their credit, Dawn, Daily Times and Express Tribune reported the development without infusing an opinion into their reporting. This shows that there are some journalists content to simply report the facts, and this should be encouraged.

Still, we must look at this episode as a part of the ongoing problem with media speculation, wishful journalism, substituting opinions for facts, and playing political double games. Bilawal aside, we all deserve better.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn, Express Tribune, Jang, The Nation, The News | 14 Comments »

Aliya Anjum: An unfettered media

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

In her Daily Times column today, Aliya Anjum continues the public outcry for a responsible and constructive media that provides something of value for the people and not just cynical politics to increase advertising revenue. Will the media barons hear this plea?

n the Hollywood flick ‘Spiderman’, the protagonist receives an advice from his uncle: “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Press Freedom Index (PFI) of 2009 prepared by Reporters without Borders has ranked Denmark at the top spot, which is not surprising given the international outrage that followed its sacrilegious cartoons. The freedom of the media is a double-edged sword and it is rarely allowed to be wielded freely. It may be noted that the world’s ‘greatest’ democracy, the US, barely makes it to the 20th position in the PFI. Even the US does not let its media go unchecked. Those who view the US from a superficial pop culture perspective cite caricatures of President Bush appearing in the print media and hail the freedom of speech. However, foreign policy is a restricted area for the media of the world’s sole superpower, which claims to champion the cause of freedom of speech. The war in Afghanistan is covered with major censorship. Dead bodies are never shown on television and casualties, rarely discussed, are under-reported. The same US media has zero tolerance for even the slightest criticism of Israel. The infamous Turkish Flotilla attack and its resulting remark cost 89-year-old Helen Thomas her job at the White House — a job she held for half a century. The free media of the US is, therefore, largely a myth. It is free as long as inane issues such as the private lives of celebrities are discussed, but it is hardly free when the interests of the establishment are threatened.
(more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Daily Times | 1 Comment »

Journalists Or Political Stooges?

Friday, January 29th, 2010

The embarrassing case of dual nationality and the national media

Pakistan media - journalists or political stooges?

Pakistan media - journalists or political stooges?

Earlier this week a report was widely circulated in the media that some government officials were holding dual nationalities. Only there was one major problem with the story — the journalists did not investigate, and simply parroted what appear to be false accusations. This embarrassing episode raises a vital question about our media: Does our news media employ journalists or political stooges?

Tuesday morning, the headlines screamed across the papers: The News – “NA echoes with concerns over dual nationality,” DAWN – “Lawmakers oppose dual nationality for civil servants,” Daily Times – “MPs want to ban dual nationality holders from public office,” Frontier Post – “Govt urged to suspend dual nationality holder officials.” Ill-informed parliamentarians had read off a list of names of public officials who supposedly had dual nationality including Shaukat Aziz, Moin Qureshi, Hamish Khan, Hussain Haqani, Azam Swati, and Salman Farooqi. The newspapers dutifully reprinted these names without ever verifying if they were true, accusing government office holders of having questionable loyalties.

The next day, the newspapers were forced to print retractions and corrections, but by this time the damage was already done. The newspapers failure to verify the accuracy of the accusations they repeated gave readers the impression that they were true. The rumour was already started that these officials are holding foreign citizenships, even though there is no evidence to support the claim.

The scandal here is not so much that some politician would tell a lie in order to make attention for himself or to slander some opponent. Sadly, we have become rather accustomed to that. Worse, the scandal is that the newspapers – all of them – printed these statements without even attempting to verify the claims, despite the fact that they know good and well that such accusations must be verified. This is a serious failure on the part of the media to perform its most basic job.

Proper journalists investigate and verify claims, they do not simply repeat wild accusations. This situation could have been easily and properly managed if these journalists had done their job and simply requested the evidence of dual nationality from the parliamentarians making these claims. If the politicians cannot or refuse to provide evidence of their claims, is that not a key part of the story? The journalists could have easily called the respective immigration authorities in the nation where the official supposedly has dual citizenship. Surely they have telephones in their offices?

And this was not some minor claim that was being reported. These were serious accusations with serious consequences. The Constitution disqualifies for some government offices anyone who acquires the citizenship of a foreign state. One would think that, considering the seriousness of these accusations that the journalists would take a few moments to verify the claims before printing them. But, rather, each of the newspapers ran the story without question, printing the accusations as if they were not journalists but political stooges working in street level politics.

People rely on the media not to be an echo chamber of lies and half-truths used for political gamesmanship. Journalists are supposed to be more than just film stars lip-syncing to the playback of political speeches. The people rely on the media to report hard facts, not rumours and gossip. If the journalists who are writing for major newspapers are not checking their facts, it calls into question the very reliability of the media itself.

The media should do more than issue a correction on their websites. These are serious accusations that these news organizations have simply parroted. They owe their readers and the accused a proper response by investigating the claims and publishing new stories that state very clearly what the facts are in this case.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn, The News | 4 Comments »