For reference, the cartoon we are examining is below:

Let us now recall the true outcomes of each of the events noted in the cartoon:

Dr Aafia’s Case: President Zardari ordered the government to provide free legal aid to Dr Aafia, and government officials in Islamabad and the US worked for her defence from the beginning of her case, including hiring an expensive legal team on the insistence of her brother Mohammed Ali Siddiqui. The government’s support for Dr Aafia continues as Interior Minister Rehman Malik met with Dr Aafia’s sister in March to discuss continued efforts to obtaining her early release.

Raymond Davis Case: Raymond Davis was arrested by Pakistani police, indicted by a Pakistani court, and was sentenced to 41 days imprisonment, Rs 20,000 fine for carrying an illegal weapon, and diyat of Rs 200 million to the heirs of the deceased.

Osama’s Case: This is a tougher nut to crack. What exactly is the case? That Osama was present in Pakistan? This much has been confirmed by al Qaeda and his wife. That the Americans carried out the raid without informing Pakistan? That too is not contested. There was never a “surrender” to anyone, so it is not clear what this means.

US Apology over Salala: The same day this cartoon was published, Ambassador to the US Sherry Rehman was quoted in Dawn saying, “Pakistan will continue to press for an apology, and work for best outcomes for our nation. As the foreign minister said, Pakistan has made its point, and we will continue to do so”. Again, it seems that no surrender has been offered.

NATO Supplies: Discussion on whether or not to re-open NATO supplies took place at a joint meeting of Defence Committee of the Cabinet and military leadership. No decision was announced, but there are reports that the leadership is close to an agreement to re-open supplies at a cost of $1 million each day and other possible conditionalities. That’s a negotiated settlement, not a surrender, and it hasn’t even happened yet.

To surrender is to quit, to give up, to submit. In none of these cases did Pakistan surrender to anyone. The Nation may not agree with the outcomes in each of these cases, but to term any of them as ‘surrender’ is misleading.

Print PDF

…it is only in utopia, where one can live without weapons and expect enemies not to attack. We have fought three conventional wars with India because of its belligerence, that has its roots in its forcible and illegal occupation of Kashmir immediately after partition. Talking of nuclear weapons, he must not forget that it is Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent that has prevented India from taking it on. Our nuclear capability has minimised the likelihood of a war, and though ironic as it might seem, they are agents of peace nevertheless. There are instances when India avoided open confrontation owing to the fear that Pakistan would hit back with full force. Equally important is the fact that the nuclear arms race was triggered by India’s detonations in 1974 that forced Pakistan to follow suit. New Delhi has also been spending a lot on other lethal weapons as part and parcel of its strategic plans against Pakistan. Our survival lies in keeping ourselves strong enough to successfully foil India’s machinations.

But let us look at what Bilawal actually said:

Unlike the way it was characterised by The Nation, Bilawal did not recommend a one-sided peace. Neither did he recommend Pakistan disarm or stop spending on the national defence. Actually, he expressed disappointment that because of ongoing tensions, Pakistan and India both spend such large sums on weapons at the expense of education, healthcare and trade, and a desire for both nations to resolve outstanding issues so that more money could be used to improve the lives of the common people.

Actually, The Nation missed the distinct echo of similar principles of his mother Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto who said in her last speech on 27th December 2007:

We have a firm conviction in the thinking that strong army lone does not make countries strong, the real strength of a country lies in the empowerment, development and well being of its people…You may have nuclear power or missile technology but if you are poor and deprived of basic necessities, non-one can ensure the strength of the any government or the people to make that the country’s defence is secured.

Nowhere does Bilawal suggest, as The Nation implies, that Pakistan should not have a strong national defence including a nuclear deterrent. Rather, he merely expresses that weapons alone cannot provide a quality of life to the citizens. The Nation concludes its editorial saying ‘We want Bilawal to be our ambassador in that worthy cause [of resolving tension with India], not just in recommending a one-sided peace’. Is appears their prayer is answered.

Print PDF

Keeping with its iniquitous record of sheer indifference to the masses, the government Saturday dropped yet another inflation bomb by making record increase in oil and CNG prices – up to Rs8.94 per litre and Rs11.57 per kilogram respectively.

Using terms like “iniquitous record”, “sheer indifference” and “inflation bomb” are a clear indicator of the anti-government political bias of the reporter and has no bearing on the facts of the report. This paragraph can not even be excused as “giving context” to the facts presented because it does nothing to explain the economics behind the decision to increase fuel prices.Rather it is simply an attack against the government.

Whether OGRA was justified to issue these notifications is a matter for debate, and arguments both for and against the government’s decision would properly be found on the editorial and opinion pages of the newspaper, not the first sentence of a front page report.

Print PDF

The first hint we have is the name of the reporter who filed this sensational story. Actually, the hint comes from the fact that the reporter has no name. Let’s next look at the names of the sources for the information in the report:

• “it is said”
• “knowledgeable sources say”
• “According to sources”
• “Observers say”
• “It is said”
• “It is learnt”
• “sources say”

Here we have a front page report in The Nation written by no one that makes sensational claims about a threat to the national security based on information provided by no one.

Now let us examine the claims made by these ghosts.

According to the report, America’s plans for the period after their withdrawal from Afghanistan is to “sneak in” to Pakistan. And how is it planning to sneak in? The report claims that the US is adding new levels to its Embassy in Islamabad. We have no way of knowing if the US plans to expand the size of its Embassy here, but we do think this has got to be the least sneaky way of expanding its footprint in the nation.

Actually, the threat of this supposed Embassy expansion is curious itself. According to the anonymous reporter’s anonymous sources, “having nine levels enables the US snoopers to overlook most of the ministries and government offices’ buildings, including the Parliament House, the Presidency and the PM Secretariat.”

The Americans are sneaking in to build a taller Embassy so they can look out the window into government offices? This is the CIA’s greatest strategy to spy on Pakistan? Mashallah! We are saved!

Jokes aside, there are real threats to our national security, and these should be reported honestly and objectively so that the people understand why military and civilian leaders take the decisions that they do to protect the country. Filing silly anonymous reports about American conspiracies to build a taller Embassy so they can peek into government offices and publishing these reports as real news stories spreads confusion and conspiracies as the people are unsure what the real threats are and what are simply tall tales.

Print PDF

The first example is the much anticipated and debated issue of a new DG ISI term. Would Pasha be given an unprecedented fourth term? Or would a new face take over the head of the premier national agency? As we wrote last month, what you believed to be the answer probably depended on where you were getting your news. Today, though, the question can be answered with certainty. As The Nation reported on Friday night, PM Gilani appointed Lt Gen Zaheerul Islam as new ISI chief.

Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani Friday appointed Lt. General Zaheer-ul-Islam as the new chief of the country’s major intelligence agency, the Prime Minister office said. Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the incumbent chief of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) will retire on March 18. “Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani has appointed Lt. General Zaheer ul Islam, Corps Commander Karachi, as new Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI),” a brief statement from the PM office said.

This might be an unremarkable news report about a routine government appointment if only the same newspaper had not reported only a few weeks ago that PM Gilani was giving Pasha a fourth term.

Sources said the prime minister has been vocal in supporting Gen Pasha, claiming he (PM) has also taken on board President Asif Ali Zardari on the issue of Pasha’s extension. They were of the view that Gilani believes that certain media outlets had created some misunderstandings related to ISI DG and army chief by overplaying the memogate scam, but those were later removed. The prime minister, they said, was also convinced that some US agencies were actively involved in backing media campaign to malign armed forces and security agencies including the ISI to achieve certain objectives.

The DG ISI appointment is not the only issue that has caused a media group to turn a quick ‘about face’ recently.

In Decemeber, Editor The News Mr Mohammad Malick wrote a stinging piece about ‘Memogate’ in which he charged that “it’s only a matter of time before the real facts of the memo issue replace the perceived truths”. It was hard to not suspect that the Jang Group Editor was not reveling in a bit of personal attack when he claimed the president’s helicopter was delayed “reportedly by a perturbed and teary-eyed Husain Haqqani who, according to more than one eyewitness, was insistent that the president take him along” and that “word has it that he may already be wearing out his welcome at the prime minister’s house”. Petty gossip that has nothing to do with the substance of the ‘Memogate’ claim

A few weeks later, on 31st Demember, The News claimed in its editorial that “There are continuous efforts to politicise, even scandalise” what it termed “a simple case”.

On Friday, though, The News was singing a different tune. In its new editorial it now claims that the case is not so “simple” after all.

Some of the allegations made by Ijaz are grave indeed; but there is a creeping doubt emerging that they may not be of as much substance as he would have us believe. So far he has not produced any incontrovertible evidence. What he describes as a receipt from Haqqani for the email he sent is a BBM message open to alternative explanations and interpretations. Ijaz is thought by some to be pursuing an agenda beyond just sharing a truth.

Once people had a chance to recover from the initial shock of the memo and Mansoor Ijaz’s allegations, questions began to arise and proper scrutiny was finally given to Ijaz’s claims and his supposed ‘evidence’. Now, even The News is suggesting that it is time to move on.

This newspaper led the demand for an investigation into the origins of the memo. In several editorials we have focused on seeking a transparent inquiry and the ascertainment of all facts…But for truth and objectivity to be visible there has to be a lot more beef on the table than there has been to date. It is also clear that an early resolution of the memo issue is unlikely and, as such, should not distract the country from other, more significant and less confusing issues.

This is a perfectly reasonable position. It’s too bad it took The News so many months to get there. It’s especially too bad when you realise that it wasn’t necessary to take so long. Had The News showed a little less excitement about catching officials being naughty and a little more excitment about facts.

In both cases, media groups gave too much attention to rumours and gossips and too little attention to verifiable facts. In both cases also the expectations and understanding of the people could understandably be confused and possibly misled. We look to news media for facts. We’ll take care of the gup shup ourselves.

Print PDF

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

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

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

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

Print PDF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Print PDF

A report in The News today serves as an excellent example of how the media’s power to shape the way we perceive events can be used to serve a political agenda. According to reporter Sohail Khan, former Senator Azam Swati (PTI) through his counsel Tariq Asad has petitioned the Supreme Court to place the name of President Asif Zardari on the Exit Control List. Why? Because an article in The New York Times said that Zardari could be planning to leave the country after 27th December. Swati’s counsel argued that this raised a question of public importance per Article 184(3).

A few things should be noted here. First is the New York Times article which serves as the basis of Swati’s petition. Here is the part that Swati quotes:

Some Pakistani and Western officials said last week that if Mr. Zardari returned, it could be only for a cameo appearance before Dec. 27, the fourth anniversary of the death of Ms. Bhutto, the two-time former prime minister, in a gun and bomb attack in the city of Rawalpindi, near Islamabad.

After that, Mr. Zardari would probably leave for a long — perhaps permanent — convalescence in London or Dubai, the officials said.

Who are these “Pakistani and Western officials”? Nobody knows. Are they opposition party members or some other kind of agents? Do they have any way of knowing the president’s plans, or is this pure speculation based on thin air and wishful thinking?

Additionally, the same New York Times article also says that “General Kayani told the United States ambassador at the time, Anne W. Patterson, that he “might, however reluctantly,” pressure Mr. Zardari to resign and presumably leave Pakistan”. Would this not result in a question of public importance per Article 184(3) also? Why does Swati selectively quote The New York Times article? Is it because he is using the media to report the facts or to promote a political agenda?

Actually, Azam Swati is not the only one who selectively quotes from the foreign media. In his own petition to the Supreme Court, Swati notes that “the news of NYT has been reported by all the newspapers of Pakistan”, giving it extra importance. But these reports also selectively quote the original article.

The Nation reported the Times story with the headline, ‘Zardaris return cameo appearance’, as if it were a statement of fact and not a speculation attributed to unknown people. And in its report, The Nation conveniently left out the part where Ambassador Patterson claims that Gen Kayani told her he was contemplating a coup.

The News included even less in its report, saying the Times “quoted some Pakistani and Western officials”, but failing to note that nobody knows who these “officials” are. The News even went further and removed every part of the original New York Times story about the military threatening the civilian government and making it seem like the president was thinking of running from the country.

Dawn pared the original report down to little more than just a headline, but at did note the Times’ claim that the Supreme Court was being “pushed by the Army” to investigate the president.

This was reported the same way in Urdu papers also. Jang carried the story as a brief news piece suggesting there was reason to believe the president might leave. Nawa-i-Waqt carried the brief version of the story as well, and Express even added a little touch of its own by reporting that “according to New York Times report, 27 pakistani officials and western ‘diplomats’ have said that his return is temporary” – none of which actually appears in the New York Times story.

In other words, there is a petition before the Supreme Court that is based on media reports that selectively summarise a foreign media report that paraphrases the speculation of unidentified people. As a result, the people’s perception of events may have been manipulated, and what they believe is reality may actually be a carefully designed version of reality that better serves a political end. Ironically, the foreign media group at the foundation of this case is one that is routinely criticised for “publishing anti-Pakistani reports” that are “planted to derail a country like Pakistan” when the claims it reports are viewed less favourably.

The public interest is not defined by political ends, but by knowing the truth. This is a shared responsibility of both media and judiciary. If one fails, it can cause the other to fail also. Reporting rumours and innuendo is not journalism, and legal decisions based on such rumours and innuendo is not justice. If the media fails to do its job responsibly, it can have disastrous consequences.

Print PDF

In March, you might remember, General Officer Commanding 7-Division Maj-Gen Ghayur Mehmood said in a briefing that drone strikes are effective and have low civilian casualty rates.

“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many, but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”"

“Yes there are a few civilian casualties in such precision strikes, but a majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements.”

Two months later in May we learned from Wikileaks that there may have been requests for increased drone strikes from the highest levels in government – only, not the civilian branch.

Newly released Wikileaks cables revealed that the US military’s drone strikes programme within Pakistan had more than just tacit acceptance of the country’s top military brass, despite public posturing to the contrary. The cables state that the country’s military was requesting the US for greater drone back-up for its own military operations as long ago as January 2008.

This blog has no knowledge of whether drone strikes were ever officially authorised, requested or approved or if they were not. If an investigative journalist wants to look into this question, I’m certain many people would be quite interested to learn the answer. Of course, if any journalist is actually interested in learning the truth, he shouldn’t limit his search to Islamabad.

Print PDF

Having finished his studies in the UK, Bilawal has recently returned home. This, along with some statements by his father, set off a firestorm of speculation about Bilawal’s future in politics. This speculation was quickly dampened when Bilawal explained that he would not contest the 2013 elections. That was that for a while, until Bilawal began visibly taking part in party politics. The grandson of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and son of Benazir Bhutto, one might think that politics is part of Bilawal’s DNA. He is also co-chairman of Pakistan People’s Party founded by his grandfather, so most people were not surprised that he has become involved. Still, though, he has turned down a ticket saying that his goal is to spend the next years learning politics before diving in head first.

In a time when popular slogans include terms like ‘untested’ and ‘change’, one might  be forgiven for thinking that Bilawal’s interest in politics would not be seen as a bad thing, especially by a media that seems fixated on another recent entry to politics. Like most of the population, Bilawal  is young. Unlike many sitting politicians, his degree is not only valid but quite respectable. Unlike many of the elites, he is not asking his father to secure him a ticket – actually, quite the opposite as he turned one down. Instead, he is spending his days traveling the country and visiting the people. No one has to praise Bilawal, but we are hard pressed to find some justification for a front page attack. Yet that is exactly what we saw on the front of Monday morning’s The Nation.

According to the reporter, Zamir Sheikh, ‘Debutant Bilawal to carry a lot of baggage’. The piece, which is published as if it were news and not merely the opinion of Zamir Sheikh, begins the very first sentence saying “he lacks the charisma of these two leaders and would find it difficult to handle the affairs of the party and lead a campaign in the coming general elections whenever they are held”. The second sentence, just in case you didn’t read the first, claims that the charisma and egalitarian ideology of his grandfather and mother “would be missing when Bilawal goes out in public to garner support for his fast declining party”.

Since Bilawal has not demonstrated any lack of charisma or anti-egalitarian ideology, the author obviously cannot provide any evidence to support these attacks, so he spends the next several paragraphs complaining about the President and Prime Minister, neither of whom are named Bilawal.

Most shamefully, though, the author closes his article with an obvious attempt to inject a family feud into Bilawal’s life, alleging that he will be opposed by the Bhutto family. Zamir Sheikh does not offer any quotes from any member of the Bhutto family, he only throws this claim out as if he were the Bhuttos’ official spokesman and not a journalist. Judging by this article, it is not clear that he is legitimately either.

This blog takes no position on Bilawal Bhutto Zardari entering politics. In a democracy, all citizens have the right and responsibility be involved in politics, and any citizen who is eligible has the right to contest elections if he so chooses. Targeting one person who is not an elected official and has not been accused of any wrongdoing suggests that powers opposed to him are afraid of what he might accomplish and have begun to launch a ‘preemptive strike’ against the young man. Bilawal should not receive any special treatment, but neither should he be the target of special attacks – especially when he hasn’t even done anything yet.

Print PDF