جاوید چودھری اردو اور پاکستانی میڈیا کی ایک بلاشبہ مشہور ہستی ھیں۔ ایکسپرس نیوز کے پروگرام کل تک کے اینکر ھونے کے ساتھ ساتھ وہ زیرو پوائنٹ نامی کالم ایکسپریس کے ہی اردو اخبار میں بھی لکھتے ھیں۔ اس بات میں کوئی شک نھیں کہ چاھے لوگ انھیں زاتی طور پر پسند کریں یا نا کریں لیکن اردو اخبارات میں جاوید صاحب کی ریڈرشپ یعنی پڑھت کافی زیادہ ھے۔
یکم اپریل کو ان ہی جاوید چودھری صاحب کا ایک ایسا کالم چھپا جسے پڑھ کے کسی بھی عزتمند انسان کو سخت غصہ اور شرم آ جائے۔ وہ کالم یہاں ملاحظہ کیجئیے۔
حالانکہ بظاہر تو جاوید صاحب کالم میں تیزاب پھینکنے والے آدمی کی جھوٹے منہ مزمت کرتے پائے جاتے ھیں لیکن پورا کالم پڑھنے کے بعد معلوم ھوتا ھے کہ کہانی کچھ اور ہی ھے۔ کالم پڑھنے کے بعد اس بات کا اندازہ ھوتا ھے کہ جاوید صاحب پنجابی جملہ منگدی پئی ھے کے مترادف اپنے قارین کو سبق دینا چاھتے ھیں۔ ان کی بظاھر مزمت اس بات کو عیاں کرتی ھے کہ شاید عورتیں اپنے اوپر خود ھی یہ مصیبت لے کر آتی ھیں مردوں کی نافرمانی کر کے۔
جاوید صاحب کے کالم کا محور تیزاب پھکوانے والے آدمی ھے اور قارین کو پڑھتے ھوئے یوں محسوس ھوتا ھے جیسے وہ لاچار اور بے بس تھا جبکہ وہ عورت جس کے اوپر تیزاب پھینکا گیا صرف کالم میں اپنے زخموں کی تفصیل کے بنا پر سامنے آتی ھے۔
اس بات میں کوئی شک نھیں کہ معاشرے میں جو نفسیات اور خیالات پائے جاتے ھیں ان کا اظہار ھمارےحالات حاضرہ ٹاک شوز کے اینکرپرسنز میں ھوتا ھے۔ سوال یہ پیدا ھوتا ھے کہ کیا کالم نگار اور مشہور ٹی وی شخصیات اس طرح کے روئیے سے بغیر عدالتی مداخلت کےکسی بھی مرد کے نظریے سے اصاف حاصل کرنے کو فروغ دے سکتے ھیں۔ جاوید چودھری کا یہ کالم درندہ صفتگی کو پھلنے پھولنے کا پلیٹ فارم فراہم کرتا دکھائی دیتا ھے۔ ان کے اس طرح کے کالم مردوں کو عورتوں پر ظلم کرنے کی کھلی چھوٹ دینے کی اجازت دیتے دکھائی جاتے ھیں۔ اس طرح کے کالم نا صرف خطرناک ھیں بلکہ ایکسپریس اردو کی سب سٹینڈرڈ رپورٹنگ کو کھل کر سامنے لاتے ھیں۔
ایکسپریس ٹی وی کے کل رات کے پروگرام فرنٹ لائن ود کامران شاھد کو دیکھنے کے بعد پاکستانی میڈیا کی رپورٹنگ کھل کر سامنے آگئی ھے۔اگرچہ یہ پہلی بار نھیں ھے کہ لائو ٹی وی پر ٹاک شو میں مہمانوں نے بد تمیزی کی ھو لیکن اس حد تک پہنچ کے بھی اینکر کا اس طرز کا لاابالی رویہ شرمناک ھے۔ کلپ نیچے ملاحظہ کیجئے۔
نوٹ فرمائے کے اس شرمناک گفتگو کی شروعات سے اختتام تک کامران شاھد چپ کر کے سنتے رھے اور مدخلت کی کوشش تک نھیں کی۔ سونے پر سہاگہ یہ کہ بریک کے بعد کامران شاھد نے سانحے کو انصاف کے ترازو میں تولنے کے بجائے ایک تیسرے آدمی کے اس شو سے اٹھ کر جانے پر تنقید کرنا شروع کر دی۔ کلپ نیچے ملاحظہ کیجئے۔
سوال اب یہ پیدا ھوتا ھے کہ کیا ایکسپریس نیوز اس طرح کی اینگرنگ پر مثبت رد عمل کا اظہار کرتے ھوئے کسی قسم کے اقدام اٹھاینگے یا ریٹنگز کی خاطر چپ سادھے رھیں گے۔
جاوید چوھدری اپنے پروگرام کل تک کے ابتدائی حصے میں حزارہ میں ھونے والے افراد کے قتل پر تبصرے کے بجائے اس بس ڈرایور کی زیادہ تعریف میں مصروف رھے جو ان کی لاشوں کو ھسپتال لے کر گیا۔ نیچے دی گئ کلپ ملاحضہ کیجیے
پروگرام کا ابتدائی حصہ دیکھ کر یوں لگتا ھے کہ جیسے جاوید صاحب اھم اشو کو چھوڑ کر غیر اھم باتوں پر زیادہ توجہ دے رھے ھیں۔ بجائے اس کے کہ وہ اختر آباد کے لوگوں کے قتل کی مزمت کریں جاوید صاحب حکومت سے اس ڈآیور کے لیے تمغے کی ڈیمانڈ کرنے لگے۔
اس شرمناک روئیے کو پاکستان میڈیا سے ختم کرنے کی ضرورت ھے اور جاوید چودھری کے اس رویے پر مزمت کی بہت سخت ضرورت ھے۔
Following Zaid Hamid’s recent appearance on Meher Bokhari’s showCrossfire, South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) announced that it was planning to file a libel notice against Zaid Hamid for accusations he made during the programme. Last night, to discuss the issue on his show Shahid Nama, Shahid Masood invited as his guests two individuals whose views could not be further apart.
On the one hand was SAFMA co-founder Marvi Sirmed, a political commentator and journalist who holds Masters’ degrees in Political Science, Science Education and English Linguistics and has worked with Members of Parliament. She has also been the Institutional Development Specialist with the Ministry of Women Development, Government of Pakistan and as Policy Advocacy Specialist with National Commission on the Status of Women.
On the other hand was Zaid Hamid, a political commentator who has a Bachelor of Engineering (BE) degree in Computer Systems Engineering and the individual at the center of SAFMA’s complaint. Mr Zaid Hamid is the former host of the programme Brasstacks.
During the debate between Marvi Sirmed and Zaid Hamid one point of disagreement related to a claim by Marvi Sirmed that Allama Muhammad Iqbal was against the creation of an Islamic state. Miss Sirmed claimed that she had proof in a letter written by Iqbal to The Times newspaper of London in 1931. Due to the research of a reader of this blog, we are able to confirm that this letter was written. A photocopy of the letter is below:
The question is part of an ongoing debate about the way that Zaid Hamid presents Allama Iqbal in his media programmes as an advocate of the creation of a new Khalifat. An example can be seen in this video clip:
But was this the view of Allama Iqbal? According to Dr Javid Iqbal writing in October 1987 issue of Iqbal Review,the answer is no. Justice Iqbal wrote that Allama Iqbal “has no hesitation in approving the establishment of a multi-party system or political groupings in modern Islamic Democracies, for, in his opinion, this was in accordance with the practice of early republican phase in Islam”. He goes on to quote Allama Iqbal as supporting an expressly democratic system of governance and rejecting an imperialist Khalifat as “failed in practice”.
Let us now see how the Grand National Assembly has exercised this power of Ijtihad in regard to the institution of Khilafat. According to Sunni law, the appointment of an Imam or Khalifah is absolutely indespensable. The first question that arises in this connexion is this – Should the Caliphate be vested in a single person? Turkey’s Ijtihad is that according to the spirit of Islam the Caliphate or Imamate can be vested in a body of persons, or an elected Assembly…Personally, I believe the Turkish view is perfectly sound. It is hardly necessary to argue this point. The republican form of government is not only thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam, but has also become a necessity in view of the new forces that are set free in the world of Islam*…In order to understand the Turkish view let us seek the guidance of Ibn Khildun – the first philosophical historian of Islam.
Ibn Khildun, in his famous ‘Prolegomena’, mentions three distinct views of the idea of Universal Caliphate in Islam.
(1) That Universal Imamate is a Divine institution, and is consequently indispensable.
(2) That it is merely a matter of expediency.
(3) That there is no need of such an institution. The last view was taken by the Khawarij.
It seems that modern Turkey has shifted from the first to the second view, i.e. to the view of the Mu‘tazillah who regarded Universal Imamate as a matter of expediency only. The Turks argue that in our political thinking we must be guided by our past political experience which points unmistakably to the fact that the idea of Universal Imamate has failed in practice. It was a workable idea when the Empire of Islam was intact. Since the break-up of this Empire independent political units have arisen. The idea has ceased to be operative and cannot work as a living factor in the organisation of modern Islam*…Such is the attitude of the modern Turk, inspired as he is by the reality of experience, and not by the scholastic reasoning of jurists who lived and thought under different conditions of life.
Would Allama Iqbal have supported Zaid Hamid’s desire to see “the flag of Pakistan fly atop Delhi fort”? Did he believe in “Two Nation Theory”? Unfortunately, Iqbal is not here to answer the question himself, and so we are left to debate our own interpretations and hypotheses about his beliefs. Debates about interpretations of the words and intentions of Jinnah and Iqbal will continue, and it is perfectly reasonable to debate these issues as a part of discussions about politics and history. But these debates should be based in the actual words of the fathers of the nation, and not fantasy re-imaginings of what someone might wish Iqbal or Jinnah had said.
Marvi Sirmed and Zaid Hamid are both entitled to their own visions for the future of Pakistan. But nobody is entitled to re-writing the past.
پاکستان میڈیا واچ جنگ گروپ کی دوغلی اور مکار اردو اور انگریزی اخبارات کی مختلف رپورٹنگ تو سامنے لا ھی چکا ھے۔ اب ملاحظہ فرمائیں روزنامہ ایکسپریس اردو اور ایکسپریس ٹریبیون انگلش کی رپورٹنگ میں فرق۔
سب سے پھلے ایکسپریس ٹریبیون انگلش کی یہ مکمل رپورٹ دیکھیے۔ اس بات کا دھیان رھے کہ اس انگریزی کالم میں کھیں بھی نام نھیں بتائے گئے اور یہ صاف صاف لکھ دیا گیا کہ چمکانی پولیس اسٹیشن نے اس واقع کی تصدیق نھیں کی ھے اور انھیں اس واقع کے بارے میں علم نھیں۔ اسی خبر کا ایک حصہ نیچے ملاحظہ کیجئے۔
اب اسی موضوع پر ایکسپریس اردو اخبار کی کلپ ماحظہ فرمائیں۔
جیسے کہ قارین ملاحظہ فرما سکتے ھیں ایکسپریس اخبار اپنی اردو پڑھنے والے قارین کو کچھ اور اور انگلش پڑھنے والے قارین کو کچھ اور خبریں پیش کرتے ھیں۔
اردو اخبار میں ان چار امریکی باشندوں کو فوجی قرار دے دیا گیا ھے اور ان کے من گھڑت نام تک بنا کر پیش کئیے گئے ھیں۔ اردو اخبار تو یہ خبر دیتا ھے کہ ان امریکی فوجیوں مایک کا نام کرنل پاول ھے اور ایک کا نام لیفٹیننٹ جان لیوی ھے۔ واضح رھے کہ یہ نام من گھڑت ھیں اور اردو ایکسپریس اپنے قارین کو بلا تصدیق غلط انفارم کر رھا ھے۔
یہ بات بھی واضح رھے کہ اردو اخبار میں یہ بھی نہیں بتایا گیا کہ چمکانی پولیس تھانے نے اس واقع کی تصدیق نھیں کی اور نا ھی اس موضوع پر کوئی پریس سٹیٹمینٹ دی ھے۔ روزنامہ ایکسپریس اخبار نے یھان تک خبر دی کہ صوبائی حکومت نے دفتر خارجہ کو آگاہ کر دیا ھے جب کے ایسی کوئی بات نھیں ھوئی۔ جب چمکانی پولیس تھانہ ھی تصدیق نھیں کر رھا تو صوبائی حکومت کو کیسے کوئی خبر مل سکتی ھے۔
صاف اور شفاف رپورٹنگ پاکستانی عوام کا حق ھے اور ایکسپریس کی دوغلی رپورٹنگ پاکستانی عوام سے انکا یہ حق چھینتی نظر آتی ھے۔
It seems Azim Mian may have some competition in his quest to be PTI media advisor. A dear reader pointed us to the following video clip that shows Shahid Masood interviewing Imran Khan on his programme Shahid Nama, and it leaves us shaking our heads.
Anyone watching the program can see that Shahid Masood’s famous ability to grill his guests has gone missing when Imran Khan appears on the set. Rather, Masood falls over himself to praise the PTI leader as gaining popularity. It is hard to watch the clip without feeling that Shahid Masood is trying to create a soft corner for the potential 2013 contender in public’s eyes.
Obviously Shahid Masood can support any politician he chooses, but the question is whether or not in his capacity as a journalist would Shahid Masood extend the same gentle treatment to Asif Zardari whose failure the TV anchor began predicting from day one.
Journalists and anchors have a responsibility to the audience to act as a neutral moderator. Rather than trying to become best friends with Imran Khan, Shahid Masood could have asked his guest whether the Pew poll he mentions can be reflective of national support since it was conducted in majorly urban populated areas and reflected mostly the opinions of youth and urbanites, a vote bank not completely representative of Pakistan’s 180+ million population. He could have asked for details of how Imran Khan would address the issues facing the nation.
Showing favour to one politician over another one is not journalism, it’s campaigning. Shahid Masood should not pronounce Imran Khan as not competitive, but neither should he crown him as king. The people of Pakistan will choose their leaders, not the media elites. In order to make that decision wisely, the people rely on journalists to ask tough but fair questions of all politicians.
Since Geo took a report from AFP and added two bodies to the death count from a pair of drone strikes in North Waziristan on Monday, news agencies have been in a race to the top of the pile of bodies.
Each article appears to have the death count confirmed by ‘security officials’, but contains different numbers – even news outlets that are part of the same media group. Geo has different numbers than Jang and Express Tribune has different numbers than Daily Express. Which report is correct? We do not know. What we do know is that this is another example of poor reporting and editing which serves only to confuse the public on grave issues facing the nation.
As the details of the assassination of Shahbaz Bhatti begin coming to light, journalists are scrambling to meet deadlines and be the first to have the lead report on the topic. In this rush, mistakes will be made and facts will go unverified. But a much greater problem plagues media accounts – the willingness of journalists and bureau chiefs to give consideration to politically motivated conspiracy theories.
The first conspiracy theory registered states that, despite the Taliban claiming responsibility for the killing, it was really a CIA operation. This was stated by chief of Jamaat-i-Islami Sindh chapter Asadullah Bhutto and duly reported by Express Tribune.
It must be asked why Express Tribune believed it was important to publish such a statement, especially in an otherwise factual report. Often the excuse for reporting such conspiracy theories is that sensationalism sells, and this is only feeding the demands of the public. But there is increasing evidence that the answer could be that a significant number of journalists actually believe these conspiracy theories.
In an email discussion immediately after the assassination on Wednesday, several prominent journalists including a Bureau Chief wrote the following:
Zahir Shah Sherazi, Bureau Chief Dawn News wrote in an email:
A question always come to my mind, Do you all believe its always the militants and extremists elements who are doing it OR there may be another hand involved to cash in on such controversies, we have to keep in mind that also
regards
zahir
Mian Najib Ur Rehman, Publisher/Editor Daily Lahore Post wrote the following:
Yes! if Raymond Davis is being investigated for having links with terrorist networks . then this issue automatically links itself with Raymond Davis i am sure he must be knowing that people are coming for gun down the minister today . i must say again it is a very sad day again for Pakistan after the assassination of Sal-man Ta seer .. today once again the voices gunned down – -
lord save us . our country. and its people ..
Ameen
Journalist Khalil Ahmed writes,
May be another Raymond Davis killed the Minority Minister to further pressurize Pakistan. Its too early to comment who is behind this assassination. Thanks.
Journalist Yasir Zahoor writes,
Yeap Khalid ahmed I m agree with u ……….before some days American CIA was already warned to Pakistani intelligence agency (as foreign media reported) that they would take revenge of Raymond Davis issue ……… should also mention this ……. except blasphemy law …
Conspiracy theories have already reduced much of Pakistani media to a mockery on the world stage. It has become a regular feature in international headlines that ‘transparently silly’ conspiracy theories are the bread and butter of our mainstream journalism.
Often journalists and editors are given the benefit of the doubt and it is accepted that this is more cynicism than incompetence on the part of the journalists. But if we have entered a phase in which news reports are being filed and edited by journalists who cannot tell the difference between fact and fantasy and who readily accept wild conspiracies over obvious truths, then we are in serious trouble indeed.
Hamid Mir explains that he used the term because he had seen it used by an American author, Jonah Goldberg.
I would like to invite his attention towards the book Liberal Fascism written by American Journalist Jonah Goldberg, published in 2008. Mr Goldberg wrote the history of liberal fascism from Mussolini to the American Left and declared Hillary Clinton as a liberal fascist. If an American journalist can use the term liberal fascism then the Pakistani media can also make comparisons between religious extremists and liberal-fascists.
While it’s true that this term was used by the American Jonah Goldberg, the facts are a little more complicated. Jonah Goldberg is not a journalist like Hamid Mir or Talat Hussain. Jonah Goldberg is a right-wing political columnist who is a regular guest on Glenn Beck and a commentator on FOX News which he even described as a populist, tabloidy network.
Jonah Goldberg made headlines last fall for calling Islamophobia “a myth” and said that Americans should stop worrying about Muslim sentiments regarding plans to build a New York City mosque. Is this really who Hamid Mir is taking his ideas from?
For the record, here is famous American cultural critic Jon Stewart interviewing Jonah Goldberg about the book that Hamid Mir is such a fan of:
It should be noted here that this term was also discussed recently as the topic of Kamran Shahid’s show Front Line on Express News of 6 February.
As could be expected, Orya Maqbool Jan presented some fairly right-wing views, but nothing particularly noteworthy and overall the entire programme seemed to be an excuse for Kamran Shahid complaining about English-language media not allowing rebuttals – a complaint that is proven meaningless by the very English-language articles by Khaled Ahmed and Hamid Mir which consist of an ongoing debate and rebuttal on the specific issue!
Hamid Mir has been writing about the bogey of ‘liberal fascist’ for a month, and the only definition of what exactly is a ‘liberal fascist’ that anyone seems to be able to come up with is ‘someone who doesn’t agree with me’. Certainly Hamid Mir is entitled to his opinion, but we must ask whether the time and energy of our journalists is best spent having a debate about name-calling while the country struggles with serious issues of economy and security.
PDF 
-
