We have written before about the problem of an unquestioning media either intentionally or unintentionally presenting information as facts that is actually carefully managed propaganda. This comes in many forms, from reporters embedded with intelligence agencies, to analysts picking and choosing evidence to support a predetermined conclusion. to journalists simply repeating what they are told without verifying the claims made by their sources. A recent report by The New York Times shows why journalists must always investigate and verify the claims of their sources, even if they consider them trustworthy.
The New York Times report by C.J. Chivers examines claims made during the fighting in Libya by a doctor and others. The journalists’ sources made some claims about fighters that, when fact checked, turned out to be false.
How often do we hear our own journalists and anchors make statements such as, “We don’t need an inquiry, I am telling it is true!” Or, “This information has come from a source at the highest levels!”. Whether the information confirms the anchors personal beliefs or the source is a person of great respect, facts are facts – even when they are inconvenient. Journalists can trust their sources, but we still have the responsibility to verify what we are told and not simply act as parrots who repeat without question.
Whether this happens as the result of bias on the part of the journalist or on the other hand an attempt by the journalist to remain neutral, the end result is the same – the public is misled and their conclusions are based on incorrect information. If we are going to successfully address the issues facing our nation, we must be armed with facts, not lies and conspiracies. For this to happen, we need journalists who are willing to verify what their sources tell them before passing along to the public.
The thin line between journalism and managed media was pointed out by Ejaz Haider in his column for Pakistan Today, ‘Journalism or Jabberwocky‘. Writing about a recent BBC report claiming that ISI is training and arming Taliban, Ejaz points out that, wait, the entire investigation was managed by Afghanistan’s spy agency, National Directorate of Security (NDS). “How could the BBC ensure the veracity of its story when the primary facilitator for it was the NDS”. This is not to say that the BBC report is inaccurate or accurate, it is just to say that when the information is provided by an intelligence agency, journalists should look for neutral sources who can verify the information, recognising that intelligence agencies have specific agendas that they are charged with promoting, none of which are ‘good journalism’. As Ejaz Haider notes, the response denying the BBC‘s claims by ISPR does not help much either. “How should I treat this statement, as gospel?”, Ejaz asks. “I can’t. It is the general’s job to defend the Pakistani military and the ISI.”
This is an underlying problem with much of the information we are presented by media today. How much of it actual journalism, and how much is actually media carefully managed by intelligence agencies of one nation or another? Without knowing who is the man behind the message, we, the public, are left in the dark.
What is the line between ‘reporting’ and ‘mouthpiece’? When is a reporter simply telling about an event, and when is he amplifying a political message? This is not an easy question – it raises important questions of neutrality and professional responsibility in journalism, as well as what is media’s role in society. But whether or not the question is difficult, it is one that needs to be considered.
Earlier this month, several newspapers reported on a conference of Aalmi Majlis Tahafuz Khatme Nabuwwat in a way that was criticised as being less like a news report and more like a press release. Each of the pieces in Daily Jang, Daily Khabrain, and Daily Express is basically the same report about what was said at the Khatme Nabuwwat conference, including the claim that “the real threat is not Haqqanis but Qadiani’s denial of Prophet’s finality”.
In each piece, the anti-Ahmadi claims are published without comment. While Daily Jang, Daily Khabrain, and Daily Express will certainly offer the defense that this is not their position, that they are simply reporting what was said, is it possible that readers of these newspapers could come away with the idea that Khatme Nabuwwat’s positions are validated by the reports?
But even if the report was neutral about the Khatme Nabuwwat gathering, why was only one side of such a controversial issue presented for readers? With such a strong statement against Ahmadiyyas by Khatme Nabuwwat, why did the reporter not seek out a comment from an Ahmadiyya leader for his response? Since the claim involves matters of national security, why did the reporter not request a clarification from ISPR about whether terrorists or Ahmadis are the real threat to Pakistan?
On Monday, The Nation published an article titled, ‘NWA action to pave way for US boots’. The unsigned article describes a speech by Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan Ameer Syed Munawar Hassan at a press conference in Sahiwal. The reporter dutifully describes the JI chief’s claims: America is hell-bent on making India super power of the region, Pakistani rulers have taken dictation from America, Pakistani government is pro-America and anti-Pakistan, American aid is breeding corruption in Pakistan, etc.
While we have no reason to doubt that the JI chief said these things, as The Nation reported, we would like to ask our dear readers again whether reporters have a responsibility to their readers to fact check the subjects that they are reporting, or if they should simply publish what they are fed without question.
Actually, there is no easy answer. The Nation cannot be condemned for taking the side of JI in this case because they are only reporting what was said. But neither does it appear that the reporter asked the political leader for proof of his claims. For example, Munawar Hassan claims that “America is hell-bent on making India super power of the region” and “Pakistani rulers have taken dictation from America”. These are serious charges. Shouldn’t Munawar Hassan be asked to show his evidence for making such claims? Or are we supposed to merely take him at his word that this is true? Why didn’t the reporter ask for a response from government officials who were being accused of being ‘anti-Pakistan’?
The question comes down to whether these media groups are reporting, or just transcribing? Are they giving readers a complete understanding of issues and events, or are they, intentionally or unintentionally, acting as mouthpieces for political groups? Unfortunately, the answer is not so easy. But these difficult questions must be answered if we are to improve the quality of our media and, with it, the quality of discussion that we have on the issues of the day.
An article by Issam Ahmed for The Christian Science Monitor yesterday rocked the journalism community as the reporter discussed payments made to two Pakistani journalists from an American nonprofit that receives funding from the US State Department. Two reactions dominated discussion – those on the right saw an American propaganda machine unmasked and those on the left asked why the same scrutiny is not given to the funding behind pro-jihadi propaganda that is prevalent in Pakistan. However there is another point which we hope Mr Ahmed’s piece will open to discussion: The culture of ‘lifafa journalism’ that has taken root in Pakistani media.
According to Issam Ahmed’s investigative reporting, two Pakistani media groups have reporters on staff that received payments from an American media nonprofit, but did not disclose this fact.
Neither of the two media organizations, Express News and Dunya News, discloses that their reporters are paid by the nonprofit America Abroad Media (AAM) on their websites or in the reports filed by their correspondents. Though the journalists have worked under the auspices of AAM since February, AAM only made their links to the news organizations known on their website Wednesday, after being contacted by the Monitor.
First it should be noted that sensational claims being spread that Pakistani journalists or media groups are on secret US government payroll are not supported by Mr Ahmed’s report. The nonprofit America Abroad Media (AAM) reported that it has paid the journalists has done many programmes that are meant to introduce American audiences to issues in Pakistan. Actually, a few months ago AAM produced a 5 part series about the growing role of Islamic charities in the world and even reported a piece about Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s flood relief work that many would consider sympathetic to the group. If this is an American propaganda machine, it is certainly a strange one.
Second, it should also be noted that Issam Ahmed actually did report on extremism in Pakistani media. His piece of 23rd June 2010, ‘What’s on Pakistan TV talk shows? Extremists.’ takes a very critical look at Pakistan’s own version of sensational “FOX News” style reporting.
While [Zaid] Hamid generally reserves his venom for what he perceives as Pakistan’s external enemies, others, like televangelist Amir Liaquat Hussain openly call for violence against Pakistan’s minorities. In a show recorded in 2008, the Karachi based religious-scholar, who held the post of minister of state for religious affairs in the Musharraf regime, said it was incumbent on all true-believers to kill Ahmadis.
Within two days, a prominent Ahmadi doctor and an Ahmadi rice trader were shot dead in Sindh province.
Though Hussain’s membership in the secular MQM political party was terminated, no further action was taken against him or his channel, Geo, owned by Pakistan’s largest media group.
So it is that AAM is not a conspiracy by the US government and Issam Ahmed has reported on extremist media. Rather than let this be another headline used to score cheap political points, let us turn to the more pressing issue which is that a culture of ‘lifafa journalism’ that has taken root in the media.
That many journalists are on payrolls other than from the media groups they are supposed to work for is an open secret, if anyone even bothers to pretend it is any type of secret anymore. In his book, Web of Censorship the respected journalist and leader of of the freedom of press movement in the 1990s, Zamir Niazi, noted that since the Ayub Khan regime agencies began recruiting and paying journalists to promote an establishment line. Is this practice a thing of the past? Consider that after PNS Mehran attack in May, ISPR held a private ‘briefing’ with 20 journalists, many whose names you will easily recognise.
Raheem Ullah Yousafzai
Mujeeb Ur Rehman Shami
Haroon Ur Raheed (columnist)
Talat Hussain
Zahid Hussain (Wall Street Journal)
Ijaz Haider
Moeed Peerzada
Qatreena Hussain
Mehar Bokhari
Sana Bucha
Hamid Mir
Javed Ch.
Saleem Safi
Arshad Sarif
Kashif Abbasi
Ibsaar Aalam
Mubashir Luqman
Nadeem Malik
Rana Mubashir
Haroon ur Rasheed (BBC)
Two of the journalists that attended the briefing by DG ISI even work for foreign media groups Wall Street Journal and BBC.
And it’s not just agencies that are known for recruiting journalists. Politicians have even taken the practice to a new level. Dawn News recently reported that one politician could not find envelopes large enough, so he opened an entire store for journalists only that treats reporters to VIP protocols.
NGOs and private companies, too, are known to provide envelopes to journalists who are invited to cover their latest products and developments. One journalist recently wrote that some small payment has come to be expected by many journalists.
While it’s unfortunate that this culture exists in our profession, what’s even more disgraceful, I feel, is that many among us actually demand it. It seems as though these journalists hang a price tag, and not a press card, around their necks. Like good moneychangers, they offer competitive rates in exchange for writing one sided reports.
Meanwhile, journalists continue to battle media owners in court over wage schemes that have been fixed since 1996. Even these wages are not always paid on time. In the approach of the Eid holiday, Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) issued an ultimatum to media owners demanding payment of salaries owed since 4 or 6 months.
Two things need to happen. First, media owners need to pay employees fair wages for their work. This will help to prevent the lure of the ever present envelope by making journalists financially secure.
The second thing is improved transparency. It is not uncommon for journalists to take freelance work or to receive some benefit such as a trip to a conference or a fellowship at a think tank. This additional income should not be considered as suspect as long as it is declared openly. In the present case reported in Issam Ahmed’s article, it seems that the entire problem could have been avoided if the media groups had disclosed the agreements and payments from AAM openly.
We should not accept ‘Everyone is doing it’ as an excuse. We should hear it as a call for reform.
Last week we revealed that almost the entire article attributed to ”highly placed defence sources” of senior Jang Group employee Mr Muhammad Saleh Zaafir was actually a cut-and-paste job from the website Wikipedia. Today we have received a statement from Mr Zaafir that gives his side of the story. According to Jang Group‘s “Editor Special Reporting”, the fact that almost the entire article is plagiarised from Wikipedia is not his responsibility since it was provided to him by his defence sources and he does not question or verify information received from his defence sources, he only publishes it word for word.
After some discussion, we have agreed that as a professional journalist and especially as one who has risen to the rank of “Editor Special Reporting”, it is in fact the reporter’s responsibility to verify the authenticity of all information received from sources. This is called fact-checking. We were able to determine the true source of Mr Zaafir’s information using a very high-tech system called GOOGLE. We recommend that Mr Zaafir and Jang Group please look into acquiring this technology as soon as possible as it can easily help improve the quality of reporting.
We also agreed that professional journalists have a responsibility to verify and authenticate any claims made by all sources, especially if they are official sources. Simply re-printing information received from anonymous government or defence sources without taking the basic step of fact-checking is not journalism, it is propaganda.
Actually, we would think that Mr Muhammad Saleh Zaafir would be well acquainted with this practice since he has already been warned by the Supreme Court for this failure in journalistic responsibility, after which he tendered his unconditional apology to the Court.
Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, who is the reporter of the said news items, when confronted with the same, frankly and honestly conceded that he had made no effort to verify the veracity of the allegations levelled in the said news items before publishing the same nor did he have any proof in support of the contents thereof. He, however, added at the very outset that he had utmost regards and respect for not only the said hon’ble judges of this Court but for the entire judiciary; that he did not have even an iota of doubt about their integrity and character and that reporting the said news items was a grave mistake on his part.
That the contents of the article in this instance are not specifically called into question is beside the point. Mr Zaafir found himself called before the court and made to humbly apologise for being an unquestioning mouthpiece four years ago. Today, he uses this same lapse in professional judgment as his defence. We hope that, in the future, such a senior journalist will set a better example for junior staff by carrying out his professional responsibilities before publishing articles.
We thank Mr Zaafir for explaining his position in his response, which we have re-printed in full below so that readers can decide for themselves.
SUBJECT: SUBMISSION
My attention has been drawn towards a blog pertaining to a story that appeared in The News with regard a controversy about the debris of a US stealth chopper that was crashed in the so-called compound of Osama bin Laden on May 2 this year.
The western media claimed that Pakistan has provided access to the Chinese to the debris of the chopper since it contained the most sophisticated US technology used in the manufacturing of the machine.
It prompted me to contact the defence sources dealing with the subject. They came out with the denial of the story by saying as: 1-China never asked for access to the debris of the chopper. 2-No Chinese expert visited the site of the crash and examined the chopper debris. 3-China doesn’t need to have access to the US stealth technology and hence not interested in ‘stealing’ of the same through the debris of the tail of a crashed chopper. 4-China has already developed stealth fixed wing plan (Stealth Plan) that undertook successful test flight earlier this year. It shows that China has already complete access to the technology in question. 5-Pakistan did not receive any request by the Chinese for having access to the debris.
The sources provided additional information about the stealth technology and since it was highly technological and at the same time it did not involve any controversy regarding the subject matter. It was used in the story as added information which had only educational characteristics. Had this information not part of the news item, it would have no impact on the standard of the story. The information was not classified in any manner. Why it has been made subject of dispute that I am not interested to know because everybody has his/her on motives. The piece of simple information provided me by the sources is picked by some web or from any other mode that is not my responsibility. I should not question about it. Had I gathered some information from some web I would definitely quote that as it is normal in the news production these days reporting.
The blogger should show courage by giving credit to The News for the story that was CONFIRMED by the highest official spokesperson of the Chinese government on the following day in Beijing. All the facts and essential ingredients of the story were verified word by word. The government of Pakistan through its spokesperson also verified the facts narrated in my story. The confirmation of the information is the real credit of The News and the blogger must appreciate it with ‘heavy heart.’
The exclusive story of the Group must have hurt someone who has some professional jealousy with me or our group. I do take benefit from various sources of networks but I always avoid cutting and pasting because it could prove at times wrong. The question is the basic information that was disputed by any official from China or Pakistan and answer is big NO sir. The blogger has consulted the web and according to him he came to know through this that the additional piece of information was taken from there. Consulting and studying various webs is not a sin and if useful information provided by my sources from there, they have not committed any crime. I hope it should satisfy the dispute mongers and expect that they would come out with their trauma next.
Muhammad Saleh Zaafir,
Editor Special Reporting,
JANG Group- Islamabad
Express Tribune includes excellent analysis by Saroop Ijaz, a lawyer and partner at Ijaz Co in Lahore, in a piece titled, ‘Shouting fire in a crowded theatre‘. Coming so soon after our posts on Meher Bokhari and Zaid Hamid as well as Geo‘s controversial interview with Hafiz Saeed, we thought Mr Saroop Ijaz’s observations brought an important perspective to the discussion of where to draw the line between freedom and responsibility of media.
The confusion regarding the freedom of speech remains at the centre of the non-regulation of the media. It is a case of horribly skewed priorities. Those making wild and licentious accusations can be held accountable not by the fragile coalition government but only by the media themselves. Aamir Liaquat Hussain and the sort should be asked to explain themselves not for petty indecencies but for sickening invocation to violence. The imam leading Taseer’s funeral has as much right to freedom of choice and expression as anyone else. Every time we decide to exercise prudence and hold our peace, we are cowardly relinquishing the only semblance of freedom that we have left. Mehr Bukhari, Zaid Hamid and many others are falsely and piercingly shouting fire in a very crowded theatre.
Every analyst and viewer is entitled to his own opinion, but nobody is entitled to his own facts. News programmes do not have to be dry and boring, but there is a line between entertainment and incitement that should not be crossed. As journalists, we should have an honest debate about this and determine where that line is drawn. If we do not, it may be someone else that decides for us.
I received several notices since the past few days about a possible media hacking scandal. No, I’m not referring to the recent hacking scandal that brought down the News of the World and found the chief of News Corp media group Rupert Murdoch summoned before Parliament for a public shaming. No, this is a pukka desi version all our own.
A few weeks ago, Google began posting a small alert in the inboxes of Gmail users letting them know if their emails were being automatically forwarded to another account. Google requested that users verify that the email forwarding was indeed authorised and not the result of hacking.
Apparently this alert showed up in the email accounts of several prominent Pakistani politicians, alerting them to the possibility that their emails had been hacked and their private messages forwarded to an unknown party.
It is currently unknown who is behind the alleged hacking, but there is some evidence that it may have been done by someone involved in the media to dig through the private emails of leading political figures.
Is Pakistan looking at its own News Corp scandal in the works? That remains to be seen. But it is worth taking a few steps to make sure your email account is safe. Google recommends the following steps:
If you see unfamiliar account access, please change your password immediately. This may indicate that someone has unauthorized access to your account. It’s a good idea to pick a strong password for your Gmail account and never use it again on other websites.
Sign back in to your Gmail account and click the gear icon in the top right corner of Gmail and choose Mail settings.
Click the Forwarding and POP/IMAP tab.
In the ‘Forwarding’ section, select the Disable forwarding radio button.
Click the first drop-down menu in the ‘Forwarding’ section and remove any unfamiliar email addresses.
Does Pakistan have a News Corp scandal of its very own? Time will tell if this is the work of an overly ambitious reporter or something else. Whether you are a prominent politician or a private citizen, though, your personal messages should be your own and not for others to secretly read. Please take some time to check your own accounts and protect yourself from hackers.
Ikram Sehgal: Without seeking to achieve parity with India, Pakistan has to maintain the status quo, by upgrading its non-conventional weapons capabilities i.e. better and more accurate delivery platforms, more plutonium (instead of uranium) based warheads for its ballistic and cruise missiles (because they ensure a better ratio of yield versus weight of the fissile material used per warhead) and ensures second nuclear strike capability by deploying plutonium based warheads on its subs. This does not achieve parity with India but maintains status quo. The delay will enable Pakistan to accumulate sufficient plutonium stocks before negotiating over it.
Keeping in view of the above mentioned reality, it can be argued that Pakistan cannot afford to, nor will ever seek to achieve parity with India. So then, how does it maintain the status quo? Essentially by upgrading its non-conventional weapons capabilities.
When I refer to the word ‘upgrading’, it doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in the ‘number’ of nuclear weapons but instead better and more accurate delivery platforms, more plutonium (instead of uranium) based warheads for its ballistic and cruise missiles (because they ensure a better ratio of yield versus weight of the fissile material used per warhead) and an ensured second nuclear strike capability by deploying plutonium based warheads on its subs. The idea is not to achieve parity – but to maintain the status quo.
This is where Pakistan’s strong objections to FMCT come into play. The idea behind the delay and the sudden increase of plutonium reactors is to enable Pakistan to accumulate sufficient plutonium stocks before Pakistan can no longer postpone entry into the FMCT.
Abdullah Saad notes on Twitter that he has written to The News Editor Talat Aslam about the allegation requesting a response. We hope that he shares the response publicly.
Geo TVreport quotes DG ISPR Major General Athar Abbas criticising The New York Times for unsubstantiated reports based on anonymous sources “without any concrete evidence”. According to the official ISPR press release, Gen Abbas gave the following statement:
‘In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in reexamining the claims as new evidence emerged-or failed to emerge’.
The Military Spokesman further said: “if the newspaper continues with its vilifying campaign without any concrete evidence, I am afraid at some point it may end up expressing its deep regret the way it did in the case of its Iraq coverage.
Pakistan Media Watch agrees with DG ISPR that it is unacceptable for media groups to allow controversial and questionable information that is insufficiently qualified to stand unchallenged. We further agree that concrete evidence is a necessary requirement of proper reporting.
Pakistan Media Watch looks forward to our own media adopting this same standard.
The News today leads with a troubling story about a PEMRA executive instructing an employee to play games with the broadcast of cricket World Cup on Geo Super. The whistleblowing employee, Regional General Manager of Pemra in Balochistan Gul Muhammad Kakar, provided a document that describes his claim. This case should be investigated to ensure that PEMRA is operating in an objective and fair manner and not targeting any particular media group.
Jang Group which is the owner of Geo is understandably upset, but cries of nefarious plots hatched in the top echelons of power and conspiracies par excellence are premature. Jang Group’s claim that “it has become clear that the government is bent upon bulldozing its way, breaking all laws, trampling upon the rights guaranteed by the highest of courts and the constitution of the country” is an overstatement of the facts as are presently known. Such sensationalism and hyperbole threaten to undermine the cause of objective review of the facts that is required by the course of justice. Certainly there should be “an open and rapid accountability” of anyone involved in attempting to suppress media. But accountability require objective inquiry and not media trials with pre-determined conclusions.
This is a serious accusation that had been made, and it is imperative that the authority of PEMRA not be tarnished by the inappropriate actions of any PEMRA officer. Accordingly, there should be an investigation into the claims of Gul Muhammad Kakar and if any PEMRA officer has acted outside the boundaries of professionalism, he should be sacked immediately. However, the investigation should not be turned into a ‘witch hunt’ and used to score political points and settle personal rivalries. Jang Group needs to let the law take its course and, while defending its own rights, not respond in an extreme manner that undermines its own cause.
PDF 
