Daily Times | Pakistan Media Watch –– پاکستان میڈیا واچ

Archive for the ‘Daily Times’ Category

Media Wants Headlines Against Government, Not Fodder for Reforms

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

Deputy Chairman Planning Commission Nadeem Ul Haque had an interesting interaction with the media recently when a reporter from a local English daily called to tell him that he was scheduled to talk against the nuclear programme at the National Defence University (NDU) on December 26. Only problem was the reporter had his facts 100 per cent wrong.

Nadeem Ul Haque was not scheduled to speak against the nuclear programme at NDU. Actually, he wasn’t scheduled to speak at all. He had been asked to speak on the Planning Commission’s (PC’s) New Growth Framework (NGF), but the event had been cancelled due to lack of interest. This interaction raised certain questions for Nadeem Ul Haque about the role that media plays in improving the status of the country – or impeding it.

I also told him that society at large and the media seem to be uninterested in reform, economic development and growth. The media needs to give more attention to these issues alongside security and other issues. Unless a society takes interest in reform, it will not happen. Pakistani intellectual space, which is fuelled daily by the media, is too preoccupied with issues other than economic development. Because of this, economic reform remains little understood. Unless this changes, there will be no economic development in the coming years.

Despite the need for investigative journalism and informative articles on issues of development and economic reform, the media appears fixated on headlines against the government, he wrote. If there are problems with policies or reforms, why not write about those problems so that they can be fixed? Rather, the media only takes the issues as the basis for political attacks against whoever happens to be in government at the time.

I keep telling the media that our mindset is not the result of the policy or views of any one government. I know they want a headline against the current establishment. Consequently, I tell them that all governments regardless of creed and origin have avoided serious governance/civil service reform. All have failed to change the paradigm on market competition. No government has attempted to use public service delivery to underpin our governance approach. No government has reviewed our current approach to urban development that produces a sprawl. This government has adopted the NGF, which is taking up these issues. Let the media review the NGF! But then why blame governments? Society also unveils its preferences through discussion and debate. Our intellectuals’ efforts, evident in the media, display little interest in these crucial issues. Countries seeking development spend a far larger proportion of their public debate on crucial development issues than we do.

As we wrote on Sunday,

“The media serves a function in a democratic society other than simply ‘infotainment’. We rely on the media to inform us of facts and developments related to the most important issues of society so that we can make informed decisions about how to transform the country.”

If reporters are hunting for headlines against the government with utter disregard to whether their stories are factual or in any way useful to the country, they are failing in an important responsibility as journalists. Issues and policies should be investigated and reported, but that is not mean that such reports should be turned into political attacks. Media needs to focus its energy on helping the nation achieve reforms and stop selling it for sensational headlines.

PDF

Tags: bias, Ethics, Nadeem Ul Haque, political attacks
Posted in Daily Times, Ethics | 2 Comments »

Media and Zardari

Saturday, December 17th, 2011

When Asif Zardari was whisked away to Dubai last week, rumours of a coup began to swirl in the tail winds of the president’s helicopter. As usual, this was the same show by the same old media circus with countless ‘journalists’ filing reports based on drawing room gossip and overactive imaginations. As the truth began to seep through, the story turned out to be (also as usual) pretty bland. The president, who has long suffered from medial troubles, was going abroad to receive specialized treatment. The media stories then took on the new question of what exactly he was being treated for: Did he have a heart attack? A mini-stroke? Indigestion? Questions that seemed almost as interesting as how much sugar he prefers in his tea, or whether he likes light or medium starch in his shalwar kazmeez. In other words, nobody really cared. Discussing the ridiculousness of the whole thing at General Headquarters PMW (aka a local dhaaba), one person was overheard to remark that, whatever the president’s condition, those praying the hardest for his health and his safe return were not his party jiyalas or even his family, but the media.

This statement brought the expected silent glances followed by deep laughs and uncontrolled coughing from our chain smoking friends. But the more we discussed it, the less it seemed like a joke. After all, if Zardari goes, what will all these private cable channels talk about? Ansar Abbasi and Shaheen Sehbai will be completely out of material. Even the media’s fawning over Imran Khan only makes sense as long as he is the under dog foil to the mastermind of Asif Zardari.

Abbas Zaidi, author of Two and a Half Words and Other Stories, explained the phenomenon beautifully in a column for Daily Times earlier this week.

The point is: what will happen if Zardari quits politics and goes into retirement? What will happen to hundreds of journalists, thousands of politicians and their various flunkies, and millions of Pakistanis? Zardari has spawned an entire genre of yellow journalism. He has never sued, jailed, or harmed anyone for levelling the basest and meanest allegations at him. Thus, in a way, he has encouraged the journalistic industry, which lives off his ‘misdeeds’.

Once Zardari is out of office, he will be sorely missed, I can assure you. Where in the world will you find a president who is incessantly and viciously demonised, but never says a thing? One media house has been publishing one shameless lie after another, but Zardari has never said a thing. Our corps commanders hold a meeting and reject the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act, but Zardari does not have them sacked for their insubordination. The Americans finish off Osama, but no general is sacked for complicity or incompetence (or both). There is not a single political prisoner in Pakistan today. But no one will give Zardari the benefit. People like Zaid Hamid openly invite the army to take over because Zardari is bad, but nothing happens to them. Can anyone cite just one example from Pakistan’s history where people got away with insulting the head of the state and the largest political party?

Zaidi sahib makes an especially noteworthy point there at the end – it may have been Musharraf who opened up the media flood gates as part of the efforts to hold onto power, but it has been Asif Zardari who has weathered such unprecedented attacks without threatening to pull the plug. Actually, the private channels themselves have done more censoring than the embattled president. It was All Pakistan Cable Operators Association that censored the broadcast of foreign channels. And even when Geo Super was running their anti-censorship campaign, it was Geo itself that was censoring the transmission, not the government.

As the oppositions ‘Go Zardari Go’ campaign is being gleefully projected from every corner of the media, we can’t help but imagine that these same journalists are carefully updating their CV for presentation to PTV. After all, the next guy in president’s house might not be as patient as this one and that might be the only channel left.

PDF

Tags: Daily Times, Geo, political attacks, wishful journalism, Zardari
Posted in Daily Times | 2 Comments »

When Even the Facts Aren’t the Facts

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

How often do we see academics, ‘analysts’, and experts of all sorts filling the newspapers and TV channels with shocking reports about this or that? It seems to be almost daily occurrence. Recently, businessman Munir Attaullah heard some claims and rather than simply accept them without question, he investigated the claims of Maria Sultan in the media with his own research. Guess what he found?

I think it is time to get away from the general practice of hiding behind genteel phrases such as ‘a well known anchor’ or ‘a leading TV channel’ and not name names when being critical of some publicly expressed views of celebrity media professionals. Surely, such a namby-pamby approach, based on misguided notions of solidarity within the tribe, is not in the public interest.

So, what is it that I intend to discuss today? The preamble should give you a clue. Some weeks ago I discussed the maddeningly infuriating power of belief over reason. This makes it doubly important that those in our media, who are in such a powerful position to influence the thinking of the average Johnny, take seriously their fiduciary duty to at least critically examine their beliefs before inflicting them upon us. That is because, for all the interdependence — and remembering my take on the Feynman homily — the media shapes public opinion far more than reflects it.

And this is especially important in the context of our foreign, defence, and nuclear policies, that have long been the tightly guarded preserve of our military. In the new information age many more people than hitherto are now aware how our security agencies have successfully manipulated our media — and continue to do so by all available means, fair or foul — to mould public opinion as they see fit in their own interest. A genuine point of view — no matter how outlandish or stupid — I can understand; but artful and egregious dissimulation? What should one say of such wilful deceit (in ‘national interest’?) posing as ‘a possible point of view’ that merits a respectful hearing? To add insult to injury is that large sections of our baa’sha’oor (aware) populace readily swallow such nonsense.

In this context, forget for a moment the likes of Zaid Hamid (though I would like to know where he gets his funding). Instead, let me discuss the publicly expressed views of Ms Maria Sultan, reputedly an academic, who is often seen on TV as a serious and thoughtful expert on defence and nuclear issues.

On the Mehran base attack she was there immediately with the standard deep insight of ‘the hand of RAW cannot be ruled out’ (has she changed her mind since, I wonder?). And she was a prominent critic of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill at the time our army launched its short-lived domestic PR campaign against the Bill. But what takes the cake is her view on the issue of the ‘threat’ from the US to our nukes, expressed in the context of the recent debate that seeks to identify the US as ‘the biggest threat to our security’.

This is what the lady had to say (on Dawn TV, in The News of May 24 and in her SASSI blog): “The US can hit nuclear sites under a new law which allows the US to invade a country and confiscate its nuclear weapons” and “the US has allocated a budget for possible attack to secure our nuclear assets”.

To add the necessary verisimilitude to lend plausibility and expert authenticity to her view she went on to cite the precedent of how the US successfully stripped the former Soviet Republics of their WMDs under the 1991 US ‘Co-operative Threat Reduction Programme’. Not only that, she added for good measure that “the US carried out more than 300 sting operations in the former Soviet Republics to this end”.

Now, if even a quarter of all this be remotely true then indeed we should worry. But let me ask two questions. Will the lady provide evidence for her claim about those alleged sting operations in the former Soviet Republics? For all my research I have not been able to find any. And what is this ‘new US law’ she is talking about that authorises such US actions and has set aside funds for such purposes? I cannot find any such law.

The closest I can get to is to assume she is referring here to the Obama-Luger Bill of 2009 (hardly new) that carries forward the thinking behind the 1991 US initiative and its follow-up legislation. But in all such legislation, nowhere is there even the slightest hint of allowing the US to forcibly and unilaterally carry out its allegedly nefarious designs. The policy is, “…To provide monies (some $ 75 million) to train and equip personnel in friendly countries for the detection and interdiction of proliferation related shipments of WMDs, etc.” (An example would be the setting up of facilities at a port to check containers being exported.) As in the case of the former Soviet Republics, where the US came up with more than $ 1 billion a year for more than 10 years to assist them in their weapons de-commissioning programme, the policy is one of assistance to those who seek it, not one of enforcing something against the will of another state.

Am I wrong or being unfair? Perhaps the good lady will put me right then. Until such time, how much credibility do you think she enjoys with me? Next week, I intend to discuss other similar cases.

Another conspiracy theory easily debunked when a private individual takes the time to do some basic research. But this piece is not about one specific mistake. Rather it points out a continuing pattern in the media in which journalists, anchors, editors, and producers broadcast misinformation without performing the minimum fact-checking. We are lucky that someone such as Munir Attaullah will be willing to take the time to investigate and correct misinformation, but isn’t this the job of the editors, anchors, and producers themselves?

Too often we allow ourselves to be misled by impressive sounding titles and elaborate writing. Individuals are allowed their own opinions, but not matter what your degrees, no one is entitled to his own facts. Facts are facts…except when they aren’t.

PDF

Tags: anti-Americanism, Daily Times, Dawn News, fact checking, Jang Group, misinformation, Munir Attaullah, The News
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn News TV, The News | 6 Comments »

Conspiracy theories and anti-Americanism Distort Reporting on High Level Talks

Monday, April 25th, 2011

A column by Shahzad Chaudhry in Daily Times starts with a very informative history of drone strikes that illustrates how the tactic has increased over time. But then the author veers very much off of a straight path and begins weaving in baseless conspiracy theories.

Questions are being asked of illicit relations between such agents and the Punjab-based militant groups and the increasing incidence of bomb blasts in Punjab and other centres, seeking hidden motives characterising these as the CIA’s sinister moves to cement further dissent in Pakistani society.

Chaudhry continues on to say that “The CIA has always had a separate agenda from the declared stance of both the state and defence departments in Washington”. But what is the evidence for any of this, and why does his informative history of the drone program spiral out of control and into a conspiracypalooza? Though some countries intelligence agencies may operate very independently from oversight of parliament, the US has kept its intelligence agency on a tighter leash following embarrassing incidents of the past. According to a report in TIME:

Bucking a veto threat by Obama and overruling a deal among the White House, Republicans and two Democratic committee chairmen, Pelosi is pushing to dramatically expand congressional oversight of the CIA and other intelligence agencies. At issue is Congress’s ability to monitor the intelligence programs deemed most sensitive and closely held by the Executive Branch. And the battle is turning into the biggest confrontation yet over Executive power between the liberal House Speaker and a White House that has moved steadily to the center on national security matters.

Pelosi wants the CIA and other intelligence agencies to inform all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees when they launch any covert action or other controversial program, not restricting that information to the chairmen and ranking opposition members and party leaders, or “Gang of Eight,” as required by current law. She also wants the congressional intelligence committees to have the power to task the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with auditing any intelligence program, Democratic aides say, a power the GAO has for classified Pentagon programs but not for the intelligence agencies. “The Speaker has made it very clear that she wants disclosure for the full membership of the intelligence committees, not just the ranking members,” says Pelosi’s press secretary, Brendan Daly.

It is pertinent to note also that even after all the Wikileaks documents have been released and made available to the public, no evidence of a CIA plot to destabilize Pakistan has surfaced. Surely in the thousands of top secret documents there would be some mention of such a nefarious scheme.

Another column, riddled with contradictions and conspiracies, is by none other than Ahmed Quraishi writing in The News. The author begins by asking “Is ISI the problem?” You can imagine what Ahmed Quraishi’s answer will be before even reading one more word. But what is worth mentioning are the contradictions and conspiracies in his answer.

Ahmed Quraishi states that Admiral Mullen’s suggestion that ISI maintains links to Afghan Taliban factions is “factually incorrect” and blames the Pakistani side for not loudly correcting him. But then, a few paragraphs later, Ahmed Quraishi states that actually we are maintaining contacts with Afghan Taliban who are killing American troops, just as Admiral Mullen said.

We should tell Washington that we will maintain ties to legitimate Afghan parties, including the Afghan government and Afghan Taliban. American demands to cut off ties to any one of them are misplaced. If an Afghan group that Pakistan maintains links with is killing US soldiers in Afghanistan, this is not necessarily Pakistan’s design or responsibility.

Which is it? First Ahmed terms Admiral Mullen’s statement ‘factually incorrect’ and then he says the same thing that Admiral Mullen says also.

In addition to such contradictions, Ahmed Quraishi finished his column with a repeat of the conspiracy theory that we read in Shahzad Chaudhry’s columns – the claim that the US is trying to destabilize Pakistan.

The US military and CIA inflate these assessments to justify prolonging the Afghan war and, more importantly, to justify meddling in Pakistan.

Actually, the US has announced that it will start removing troops from Afghanistan this year and will be out of the country by 2014. If the US plans to prolong the war, it has a funny plan to do so.

It should also be noted that Ahmed Quraishi’s claim that “The strength and ability of terror groups such as TTP and BLA to resupply will end when CIA ends its grand strategic project in Afghanistan” does not make sense as BLA first launched attacks prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11 attacks. If BLA could resupply and pose attacks before US involvement in Afghanistan, why would it be affected once the US leaves? This makes no sense.

Ironically, Ahmed Quraishi concludes his column with the sentence, “This is political propaganda.” Perhaps here he is correct. Both Shahzad Chaudhry and Ahmed Quraishi writing in two different newspapers are parroting the same conspiracy theories based in anti-Americanism and not solid evidence. As high level talks continue between the military and their counterparts in the US, media should inform the people of developments so that they are aware. But media should not invent developments and spread conspiracy theories that are absent of supporting facts.

PDF

Tags: Ahmed Quraishi, anti-Americanism, CIA, Conspiracy Theories, Daily Times, ISI, Jang Group, Shahzad Chaudhry, The News
Posted in Daily Times, Jang, The News | 8 Comments »

The Power of Words

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

Very interesting comment on the power of words and the importance in choosing our words carefully as journalists. The author reminds us that we have through our words the ability to shape public opinion and heavily influence the path of the nation. This is a great power but also a great responsibility and we should take this responsibility seriously. The following article is by American Lieutenant Commander Tammy Swofford and was published in Daily Times.

The Ameri-Pak situation appears at an all-time low. Headlines across the globe trumpet the same news, whether the Daily Times of Pakistan or The New York Times of April 12, which sported the headline, ‘Pakistan tells US it must sharply cut CIA activities.’

The lead sentence for the article also bears mention: “The demand that the US scale back its presence is a sign of the near collapse of cooperation between the two testy allies after the arrest of a CIA security officer in Pakistan.”

All acknowledge the existence of a complex problem. All involved understand that blame, while never being coequal in status, must still be shouldered with equal responsibility if solutions are to be negotiated. But what complicates things immensely are the journalism drones. We are a pompous lot, those of us who serve up opinions from our desks, whilst sipping our tea and gazing out the window. Our thoughts take quick flight with the least whiff of a stink. Journalists love a ready-made story and this current drama presents multiple angles of presentation. Because this current stench betwixt and between our nations is likely to continue in unabated manner for months to come, it is good to remember a few basic rules of professional journalism.

Words have power. Each word is like a bullet with velocity and impact. The word ‘murder’ takes on a different meaning when presented as a ‘heinous murder’. The same is true for the word ‘rape’ if presented as ‘brutal rape’. But we cannot forget that words also have the power to heal, mend, lift and restore. This is also the task of a journalist, one that requires greater writing skill.

Articles written for news organisations must be read by the author twice, and in view of two different audiences: the reasonable man and the unreasonable man. It is after reading the piece for the latter audience that necessary corrections and adjustments to text are made. This is the careful copy-edit that looks into the soul of the writer to assure that integrity prevails and human bias and sentimentality do not overshadow otherwise excellent thoughts. The writer who consistently invalidates their craft by seeking to chamber a bullet with excessive passion must be held accountable. They must not easily escape the impact of their words.

Truth should never be obscured from the reader. The truth currently lies bare between our nations, and it is the function of a free press. But there is a greater truth, which must be understood when writing on a level that addresses difficulties between sovereign powers. What cannot be immediately changed must be walked through with endurance and resolve. Nations are bound by treaties and policy and complexities that the average citizen can scarcely grasp. Nations can find themselves within a foreign policy wasteland, which necessitates sustaining a status quo to avoid a greater political instability. So words must be chosen with special care when tackling policy issues in the print media.

The best of journalists are able to speak the truth in a manner that strengthens the weak, anchors the thought and brings comfort and hope to the reader. It is the art of gracious words, a somewhat lost art in the world of print journalism. I am always optimistic. The best writers are out there. They will rise to the top of their game — with the right choice of words.

PDF

Tags: Daily Times, Editorial Judgment, Responsibility, Tammy Swofford
Posted in Daily Times | 5 Comments »

A Tale of Two Courts

Friday, April 8th, 2011

A visitor from another country who learned about the judiciary from Pakistani media might be forgiven for believing that there are two high courts in the land.

One court is made up of innocent angels who are incessantly bullied by a power-obsessed strong man in the presidency. This court is described by Taj M Khattak in a column for The News. In case you are wondering what are Taj M Khattak’s qualifications for commenting on judiciary and government relations, he is a retired military officer. Here is how Vice Admiral (retd) Khattak describes things.

Back on Nov 28, 1997, during Nawaz Sharif’s second term as prime minister, charged political workers of his PML-N stormed the Supreme Court on Constitution Avenue in Islamabad. The judges inside had to scramble for safety to their chambers.

The PPP continues this undesirable practice of intimidation of the higher judiciary. It began with the appearance of Law Minister Babar Awan in the Supreme Court in July 2010, accompanied by a large posse of cabinet ministers and party politicians. One of the judges on the occasion remarked that the law minister had not been summoned but invited.

According to Vice Adm. (retd) Khattak, political workers storming the court in 1997 is the same as the government ministers appearing at the court per an invitation by the justices – a threat to order.

But there is a competing view of the courts which is less popular among media talking heads. This view, expressed by President Supreme Court Bar Association Asma Jahangir in Dawn earlier this week, describes a Supreme Court that, driven by a desire to demonstrate its independence, has been acting outside the boundaries of its legal mandate.

Simply grabbing more and more authority does not enhance independence. It only makes the judiciary controversial and partisan. Two recent judgments of the SC, ousting the constitutional powers of the Parliamentary Committee (PC) from decision-making while appointing judges to the superior courts and suggesting that the chief justice of Pakistan be consulted while appointing a chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) indicates that the SC wishes to assume the role of legislating and in running the affairs of the state.

Which is the more accurate representation? That is a complex question that requires more space than is available here. But it should still be asked why the opinions promoted by some media groups so closely follows the opinions of retired military officers while the opinion of the President Supreme Court Bar Association is resigned to reports on her own remarks.

When editors request columns for the opinion pages, they have the power to shape public opinion by molding people’s perceptions of reality. When people read several individuals taking the same view on an issue, they are inclined to agree with the popular viewpoint. Therefore, the question should be asked why the opinions of retired military officers are more popular in the media than the opinions of legal experts?

PDF

Tags: Asma Jahangir, Dawn, Editorial Judgment, Jang Group, The News
Posted in Daily Times, Jang, The News | No Comments »

Libya, Conspiracies, and Double Standards

Monday, March 28th, 2011

Last week, director at the South Asia Free Media Association, Khaled Ahmed, held a mirror to the nation’s commentariat and observed the uncomfortable truth that it’s only when non-Muslims kill Muslims that we complain. He was writing about how so many turn a blind eye to daily atrocities committed by Taliban jihadis, choosing instead to express all anger against a random event like the Raymond Davis case. But the point continues, and is perhaps best illustrated by media coverage of the international enforcement of a ‘no-fly zone’ in Libya.

Daily Times calls the Libya no-fly zone a ‘disastrous military intervention by the western forces’ and claims that the no-fly zone is part of a plan for American global domination.

Ever since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has seen a horizontal expansion of capitalism into the formerly socialist countries and under the rubric of globalisation into the rest of the world. The world’s dominant countries, who like to call themselves the ‘international community’, have set out to re-conquer the world through military means. It started with the Balkans, and via Afghanistan and Iraq, is now being witnessed in Libya. The goal is Pax Americana (global empire).

Sadly, this Daily Times editorial follows the position of the anti-American far right wing as expressed by Gen (R) Mirza Aslam Beg.

…another Muslim country has been invaded with such arrogance of power, which is seen as continuation of the last thirty years of state-sponsored terrorism against the World of Islam

If the enforcement of UN resolution 1973 is part of a conspiracy by the US to conquer the world, why did the US hand over control of the operation to NATO? And if this is a western conspiracy, why are fighter jets from Qatar and United Arab Emirates participating?

According to Daily Times, “Libya is a relatively weak country when it comes to the global powers but this provides no justification for attacking it”. But this claim ignores the reasoning behind the UN resolution which was was passed because the dictator Col. Gaddafi vowed “no mercy” against pro-democracy demonstrators and had actually been using air strikes against his own people which prompted the Arab League to request the UN resolution, a resolution that was celebrated in the streets of Libya after it passed.

The Nation accuses the US of a hidden agenda because it is participating in the no-fly zone against Libya but not intervening in Bahrain.

If the US purpose in Libya is democracy, it does not seem interested in democracy for Bahrain, which is not just up in arms, but also a US fleet HQ.

While it is valid to examine why intervention is carried out in some countries and not in others, it is ironic to question America’s dedication to democracy considering that we are presently sending thousands of our own people to Bahrain to serve as pro-regime mercenaries willing to fight against pro-democracy demonstrators. It is also ironic considering that just last month The Nation published promoted the position that America was employing a double standard by not supporting Arab democracy movement.

They only know the stark hypocrisy and double standards: Western societies enjoy democracy and prosperity, while American influence is preventing our people from having their freedom by the force of weapons and oppression. They are forcing poverty on our people by squandering their wealth and laundering the money of their friends, the corrupt dictators.

Now that America is supporting the pro-democracy movement against a corrupt dictator, The Nation has changed its position. Of course, The Nation is not the only media group to make this sudden change of position. In fact, it seems that many of the same people who only a few weeks ago were asking why America was not using its military might to support pro-democracy movements against corrupt Arab dictators are now defending those same corrupt Arab dictators and condemning the Americans support for the pro-democracy rebels.

The UN resolution authorizing enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya and the way such enforcement is carried out is a valid topic of discussion. But any discussion should be honest and based on the facts, not twisting positions to fit an anti-American ideology. At present, what we are seeing from much of the media on the Libya story is not an honest and objective analysis of the issues, but a repetition of conspiracy theories and double standards that undermine the credibility of our media and make us look like the only principle we stand by is that “if America is for it, we are against it”.

PDF

Tags: anti-Americanism, Conspiracy Theories, Daily Times, double-standard, Mirza Aslam Beg, The Nation
Posted in Conspiracy Theories, Daily Mail, Daily Times, The Nation | 4 Comments »

Urdu Media’s Jihadi Propaganda

Saturday, February 19th, 2011

by Farhat Taj

Some people in Waziristan have requested that I write about a column published in the Urdu daily Mashriq on January 2, 2011. Following is the summary of the column, titled ‘Hakeemullah Mehsud’s lover’.

A senior female French journalist contacted a tribal journalist form Waziristan via Facebook. The French lady requested him to help her with some research on Waziristan. The tribesman agreed and the French journalist landed in Pakistan. During their meeting, the French lady said that she was madly in love with Hakeemullah Mehsud, a Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commander and that she wished to marry him. She also said that one of her friends wanted to marry Qari Hussain, the Ustad-e-Fidayeen or master trainer of suicide bombers in the army of the TTP. She further said that another four of her friends also wished to marry some Taliban commanders from the TTP. Out of utter surprise, the tribal journalist wondered how that could be because people in Europe believe that the Taliban are brutal beasts. The lady blatantly responded that, in actuality, the Europeans are the brutal beasts, not the Taliban. She said that no one in Europe had the courage to speak the truth when it came to the Taliban. Everyone who had the opportunity to closely interact with the Taliban had been deeply impressed by them. Take, for example, the lady journalist, Mariam, who had been imprisoned by the Taliban. She became so impressed by the Taliban that she converted to Islam. People who care so much for their prisoners would certainly be much kinder towards their wives and children. In Europe, the family system has collapsed. Children do not know who their fathers are. Wives have no clue about the whereabouts of their husbands. My friends and I have studied Islam and now we wish to know about the Taliban. This is, therefore, why we wish to marry them. We will burn our French citizenship documents in front of the media in Waziristan to terminate our ties with our native land. We will become tribal women forever. The lady also said that she was madly in love with Hakeemullah and would marry him come what may. “What if Hakeemullah refuses?” asked the tribal journalist. The lady’s response was: “The heart speaks to the heart”. The tribesman warned her that, under Pakistani law, she could not go to Waziristan. The lady said she would plead to Allah to punish Pakistan for having laws that stood in the way of her and her friends’ marriages with the Taliban. The lady was crying uncontrollably. Finally, the tribal journalist, who had full sympathy for the woman but had no means to help her, agreed to spread her story through a newspaper column.

The tribesmen who brought this story to my attention said that the story had been planted by the intelligence agencies of Pakistan to romanticise the beastly Taliban in the eyes of young tribesmen. One of them said that he saw a group of teenage tribesmen discussing this story with keen interest. He tore into pieces the newspaper copy being held in the hands of the teenagers and had a two-hour long counselling session with them whereby he explained to them that such fake stories were planted in Urdu newspapers to lure young tribesmen into terrorism, and that it had nothing to offer but only death and destruction for FATA and its people. The young men seemed convinced, but the tribesman expressed the apprehension that there must be many teenage tribesmen out there who might have been misled into jihad by the story. The tribesmen have no hope in the Pakistani media. One of them even said that the Urdu media was capable of prostituting its conscience to spread malicious information about FATA. They, therefore, request the journalistic community in France to take note of the fake story and remain on guard so that their name is never again misused in misleading the tribal youth into a so-called jihad that clearly threatens the western streets with violence.

The tribesmen also guess that perhaps the journalist Mariam, referred to in the fake story, is Yvonne Ridley. They complain that Ridley has been at the forefront in defending Aafia Siddiqui. If the journalist Mariam is indeed Ridley, they expect her to come forward and condemn those who misuse her name and conversion to Islam — which is her sovereign right — for dirty tricks to lure innocent tribal youth into the fold of terrorism that has devastated FATA and threatens Ridley’s own country with violence. For once, Ridley should show that she stands with the victims of Pakistani state terrorism, like the people of FATA, rather than terrorists who enjoy covert state support.

The reason I wish to write about this planted story in Urdu daily Mashriq is to give to the sane-minded Pakistani English readership a glimpse of how the Urdu media has lowered itself in perpetuating the military establishment’s inflicted terrorism in FATA. I also understand that the forces of sanity in Pakistan have been reduced to a frightened state of mind by the religious extremists. They could not even rise to the occasion upon the assassination of Salmaan Taseer and the threats to Sherry Rehman. How can one expect them to stand up to the military establishment — the original force behind all terrorism in Pakistan — in support of the people of FATA, the people whose sufferings do not mean anything significant for the wider Pakistani society? I just wish to bring to their notice that disappointment and even hatred against the military is accumulating in FATA. The cowardice of those who should speak up for what is right will also be a factor in the case of any future catastrophe in Pakistan.

This piece was originally published by Daily Times on 19 February 2011. The writer is a PhD Research Fellow with the University of Oslo and currently writing a book, Taliban and Anti-Taliban

PDF

Tags: Daily Times, Farhat Taj, intelligence agencies, Media Talibans, Propaganda, Urdu media, Yvonne Ridley
Posted in Daily Times | 26 Comments »

Poor Reporting on Raymond Davis Confusing Issues

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

The Raymond Davis case continues to dominate media headlines, though the people are probably more confused than ever about the facts due to poor reporting on the issue.

Ansar Abbasi has termed the issue in The News ‘the Lal Masjid of present govt’, a term he appears to have borrowed from Hamid Gul.

“A national consensus has developed on the issue of Davis. The people demand his trial here and are not ready to see him going in US hands without being punished,” former ISI chief Lt Gen (r) Hamid Gul said, warning that if the man is given back to Washington it would not only depress ordinary Pakistanis but would serve as another Lal Mosque disaster.

Hamid Mir’s report in The News is seasoned with such phrases as “imperial arrogance” and “shady secret agents”. He then quotes anonymous ‘diplomats’ that make sensationalist claims such as, “tomorrow Raymond Davis type secret agents may kill more people in other capitals of the world and then the US will claim diplomatic immunity”, or compare Raymond Davis to Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists. It must be noted that Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists do not have any claim to diplomatic status.

Other reports in The News have quote Munawar Hassan terming MNA Fauzia Wahab’s statement that Raymond Davis is entitled to diplomatic immunity as “a disgrace to the ‘Shuhda’ of Pakistan”, once again invoking ghairat in place of actual facts on the law.

This is a similar position taken by The Nation which published an editorial today which says,

It would seem that asking for his release is morally wrong of the US, and, at the same time, handing him over to Washington would demonstrate Pakistan’s undue weakness, reflecting its unhesitating compliance with the US commands, right or wrong.

Pakistan Today published the headline ‘Charge Raymond under anti-terrorism sections’ and quotes from the bereaved families of the dead men. Certainly this is an emotional issue, but emotions should not have bearing on the facts.

Dawn published one of the worst examples of emotional manipulation and terrorising the people which is Mohsin Hamid’s article comparing Americans to hunters paying to kill Pakistanis in cold blood.

So what is going on? Who is Raymond Davis, and what are people like him doing in Pakistan? I’ve read articles likening him to Rambo and RoboCop. But I believe another Hollywood film franchise metaphor is more apt. Predator.

The Raymond Davis affair has brought home what should have been obvious to us Pakistanis for a long time. Pakistan has become a game preserve, a place where deadly creatures are nurtured, and where hunters pay for the chance to kill them.

What is missing from all of these discussions is the fact that the issue rests on one question only which is does Raymond Davis enjoy diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Conventions, not on emotional manipulation, ghairat, or sensational horror stories about Americans hunting Pakistanis in the streets.

This poor reporting has not been unnoticed by Dr Syed Mansoor Hussain, who writes in Daily Times that every journalist who terms Raymond Davis as ‘Rambo’ should be forced to sit through the movies until they know what they are talking about.

It was also interesting that some ‘intrepid’ journalists started to refer to Davis as ‘Rambo’. Clearly none of them had ever seen a Rambo movie. Rambo, as they should know, is always on the right side of morality, always gets his man, always escapes the clutches of evil, sadistic and clearly bigoted oppressors and tormentors by killing most if not all of them. And yes he never wears a shirt. So for those who continue to compare Davis with Rambo and do so without having any idea what Rambo represents should in my opinion be forced to see all the Rambo movies one after another for three days in a row without being allowed to fall asleep.

Dr Hussain’s point is on worth thinking about because, as he points out the case is being exploited for political agendas

The Davis scenario is getting progressively complicated. The reason is politics. Anti-American sentiment is rampant in Pakistan and anything which even remotely reeks of pro-Americanism is immediately seized upon by the religious parties and politicians of a ‘certain’ predisposition to vilify the present government of Pakistan.

Though Dr Hussain writes specifically of relgious parties here, the same can be said of the media. When Ansar Abbasi is not taking advice on diplomacy from Hamid Gul, he proposes there is a threat of ‘a possible Hollywood Rambo-style sting operation by the US forces to get Raymond Davis released’. The Nation, never one to be easily outdone in anti-American zeal, uses the term ‘Rambo’ over 100 times since the incident!

All of this fills the pages with spicy and sensational stories that may sell to an audience which is hungry for action movies. But while we are filling our bellies with this channey, our minds are starving for relevant facts and information. Instead of demanding that the US stop pressurizing the government on Raymond Davis diplomatic status, the media should stop playing the anti-American card and give the reader something that will help him understand the situation, not give him indigestion.

PDF

Tags: Ansar Abbasi, Daily Times, Dawn, Hamid Mir, Jang Group, Mohsin Hamid, Raymond Davis, sensationalism, The Nation, The News
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn, The Nation, The News | 12 Comments »

A Tale of Two Editorials

Friday, December 24th, 2010

Two very different editorials about The New York Times story suggesting American officials are planning to put being raids into Pakistan’s territory serve as an excellent demonstration of unbiased media versus ‘playing to the gallery’.

First, The News (Jang Group) wrote on Wednesday that the article was proof of American duplicity.

When The New York Times speaks you are hearing the voice of the American government. Thus when the NYT says as it did on Monday that US commanders in Afghanistan want to expand Special Forces operations into Pakistan; we can be sure the report is accurate. We can also be sure that the report is as much designed to twist diplomatic arms as it is to inspire fear in the enemy; and it is a reflection of the frustration felt by the Americans for our perceived failure to ‘do more’ by way of counter-terror operations in the borderlands. With America working towards a reduction in troop levels and an eventual pullout it will also be looking downstream for somebody to blame if, as expected, the war in Afghanistan is not won by the US and its allies. It is not difficult to see who might be in the frame once blame starts getting apportioned, and no matter how engaged we may be, how great our casualties – and they are greater by far than any other nation fighting this war – the ‘do more’ mantra is moving towards being ‘never did enough’.

This raises a few questions. Is The New York Times, as alleged by The News, actually the voice of the American government? If that is the case, one must believe that the American government supports the opposition. One must also believe that the American government criticises itself for not doing a good enough job of communicating with the Pakistani people.

Also, it could be asked if newspapers merely serve as mouthpieces, who is The News a mouthpiece for?

Now compare The News‘s editorial with one that appeared in Thursday’s Daily Times.

Pakistan is already in enough trouble politically and economically. Terrorism has added to our woes and it seems like that in the coming days, more trouble may follow. According to a report published in The New York Times (NYT), “senior American military commanders in Afghanistan are pushing for an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground raids across the border into Pakistan’s tribal areas”. It is plain that this proposal has more to do with military strategy than with politics. Pakistan has been stalling a military operation in North Waziristan for some time now. Our argument is that the military is already stretched in Swat and South Waziristan, that we fear more IDPs, and we do not have enough money to conduct a large-scale operation. This delay has not gone down well with the US military commanders based in Afghanistan. The US-led NATO forces are running out of patience with us because of the safe havens that have been provided to the Afghan Taliban on our soil, particularly in North Waziristan. The military commanders now want to hit the Taliban in their rear base areas to make life difficult for them.

The NYT reports that the “Afghan militias backed by the CIA have carried out a number of secret missions” in our tribal areas. Although NATO forces have denied these reports, Pakistan’s military establishment should understand the gravity of the situation. NATO’s denial is due to the political sensitivity involved. Pakistan is the frontline ally of the US/NATO in the war on terror and the Americans want to keep us on their side rather than push us away. On the one hand the withdrawal date of foreign troops from Afghanistan is looming large and on the other hand, the frustration of military commanders is growing. Will they be held back by political considerations is a question worth pondering. Already there is outrage in Pakistan against the increase in drone attacks, which WikiLeaks has confirmed are with the tacit approval of Pakistan’s government. The political fallout of more clandestine operations can be seriously damaging, but under the circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the Americans might opt for it if our military establishment keeps up its dual policy.

Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, has ruled out ground operations and asserted that our military is quite capable of handling the terrorists within our borders. With all due respect to Ambassador Haqqani, our military is definitely capable of doing this, but does it really want to? Our military establishment must understand the limits to which we can push this dual policy because great danger lies ahead now if we keep on with our misadventures.

Here we see a much more reasoned analysis of the story. Where The News appears quick to play to the gallery by repeating hyper-nationalist slogans, Daily Times is considering the facts and trying to put them in perspective.

Even the handling of Ambassador Haqqani’s statement shows some colouring of the facts. Daily Times reports his statement about not allowing foreign troops on our soil, but asks how long we will be able to keep up this posture. On the other hand, The News all but accuses the Ambassador and all other government officials of being dishonest without providing any reason to think that Haqqani’s statment was not hearfelt and true.

People read the news for facts. They read editorials for context and perspective, the idea being that the professionals who write the editorials are being objective in their analysis. Obviously, there can be an opinion to the piece, but it should not be merely parroting slogans and playing to the gallery. You can see the clear difference in the two editorials between The News and Daily Times – one trying to make sense of the news of the day, the other using the news of the day to push a particular political agenda. Which do you think better serves the public interest?

PDF

Tags: Daily Times, editorials, hyper-nationalism, Jang Group, New York Times, The News
Posted in Daily Times, The News | 2 Comments »

Archive for the ‘Daily Times’ Category

Tags

Archives