From the very introduction of the column, it is clear that the author has no intention of presenting a factual report, but is only filing a vicious attack.

Sardar Assef Ahmed Ali has found a role model, not someone to be proud of though, in the fake degree holder Babar Awan. Both are now the assigned demolition squad leaders to crush national institutions. One did the NAB, the other is after HEC.

Both these state organizations are designed to catch the thieves, fraudsters and cheats which for obvious reasons the present PPP government does not like or cannot afford. The demolition squad got its assignment directly from President Asif Ali Zardari to put these organisations to bed as they have become the main hurdle in the way of implementation of the government’s agenda of protecting the corrupt and the immoral.

It is not necessary to reproduce any more of the column. Suffice it to say that the entire piece is filled with accusations, conspiracies, rumours, and innuendo. What is entirely missing are facts, evidence, and reason.

Over the past week, The News has published contradictory conspiracy theories, multiple opinion columns as news reports, and even a vicious political attack that belongs in gutter politics, not on the pages of a respectable newspaper. As such, we have great concern about whether there are any professionals in charge at The News.

We hope that Mir Rahman, as Editor-in-Chief, has the decency to discipline his employees and requires Tariq Butt to either show solid evidence backing his claims or, if he cannot do such a thing, a public apology and retraction. The legitimacy of his newspaper as a source of “News” is quickly coming into question.

The Media Doth Protest Too Much

The recent drama surrounding the Punjab Assembly’s resolution criticising the media has been nothing short of a farce. But while neither group comes out of the drama looking like a mature or sensible institution, there is a good opportunity to learn from the fiasco and improve for the future.

While possibly not the best way of airing its frustration with media, the original language of the resolution was not exactly worthy of the response it received from the media community. To borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, “The media doth protest too much.” After five days of loud and disruptive protests by media, though, the PA turned around and passed a resolution praising the media. What has been the result? Both the PA and the media look childish.

Azhar Ghumro observes that the media’s reaction to the criticism of the PA demonstrates that perhaps we need to use this episode of political drama as a lesson. Azhar hopes that the opportunity for some self-reflection and improvement by the media is not missed.

Criticism is a highly specialised job and people unless qualified, intrinsically at least, should refrain from engaging in it as it can harm more than the intended good. But, after the advent of the electronic age in Pakistan, our 24/7 news crazy media jumped onto this bandwagon and thus criticism turned into entertainment. Now, every day, willingly or unwillingly, we are compelled to absorb a daily dose of criticism in the form of TV news shows.

Here it is worth mentioning that almost all TV show hosts invite the same sharp-tongued politicians, retired generals, bureaucrats and pseudo-intellectuals to hold a debate on critical issues being faced by the country, irrespective of whether the invited guests possess or do not possess any influence on public opinion or party policy making.

During these TV shows, a majority of the show hosts, instead of facilitating such debates towards a conclusive and logical end such as highlighting the weakness or absence of a tangible policy to handle a particular issue, providing suggestions and seeking commitments from the guests to address these issues, prefer the unnecessary grilling of their invited guests. In such an exercise, guests belonging to rival groups accost them. This unnecessary grilling has become a trademark of all such TV shows and the rating of shows and show hosts are now being based on their degree or height of grilling their guests.

Perhaps, then, we need not be surprised that in response to the PA resolution criticising the media, journalists and media representatives responded similarly to their regular program behaviour – yelling.

The media held countrywide demonstrations against the parliamentarians and political parties involved in the episode. During these demonstrations, effigies of the movers of the resolution were burned and they were cast as villains. Similarly, the electronic media dedicated regular shows in solidarity with their community and started making fun of the involved parliamentarians.

The media has overcome immense pressure and censorship from governments in the past, so it is understandable that journalists will be sensitive to official government resolutions that criticise them. But suffering censorship in the past is not a license to act recklessly and irresponsibly, nor does it mean that you are exempt from criticism for such.

Media should be setting an example of maturity and reasonable criticism, not engaging in street politics to intimidate those who dare to criticise them. If everyone is yelling only, how should we expect anyone else to react? Better to be rational and honest. If you want others to respect your criticism, perhaps you ought to consider if there is any truth to theirs as well.

On Wednesday the Punjab MPAs rightly pointed out that the media needed to be careful in reporting on the subject — as it should be careful in its work generally. They were absolutely right in complaining that they are often singled out for flogging by the media while some others are considered too holy for criticism.

The Dawn editorial goes on to offer some relief to journalists, saying,

“…at least in this case, the media was not the principal investigator or the initiator. It can hardly be expected to not report what it sees, just as it is duty-bound to listen to the other side and report it fairly.”

But shouldn’t the media take care not to be used as a political weapon by operatives who are peddling information with a particular goal in mind.

Meanwhile, in the Express Tribune today, Mahreen Aziz Khan roundly criticises the declining quality of TV talk shows.

With over 80 channels, the majority being so called “news” channels, the Pakistani viewers should be spoilt for choice. Except they are not. Far from it. Most of the “news” channels are miserably short on original content and high on opinion masquerading as reporting, bias dressed as analysis, and rabble rousing substituting for impassioned debate. The multiple political talk shows resemble clones of each other, with standardised sets and unoriginal formats for nightly shouting matches between the political egos that appear as guests. There are of course a couple of notable exceptions where solid research and in depth analysis are presented in an informative and intelligent manner. But, by and large, what is offered is an ungainly assortment of “anchors” browbeating their guests, who themselves are regulars, often appearing simultaneously on multiple channels thanks to pre-recording. The end game is to encourage, cajole or instigate by any means necessary, a cat fight amongst the handful of politicians offered up for the evening. With the majority of anchors gunning for the government of the day, the result is a shouting match — the television equivalent of a neighbourhood backyard argument laced with scurrilous allegations, name calling and low blows.

But Mahreen is not here to bury the media, but to save it. She points out quite eloquently that TV talk shows, by attempting to appeal to the ‘lowest common denominator’ of viewer are driving people away and reducing the quality of their programmes. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Okay it’s not all bad — yes the news/current affairs media has played a constructive role on some issues, most notably in the change in public opinion towards those who commit acts of terrorism on our soil. The self-imposed code of conduct has worked fairly well and stemmed the horrible trend of showing carnage and panic in the aftermath of tragedy, of sensationalising terror acts by adrenaline fuelled breaking news. But the electronic media is crucial for shaping public opinion on key issues, especially in a largely illiterate society and has a much greater duty. Yet the vast majority of these shows are compromising content quality to suit the lowest common denominator rather than raising standards and providing viewers with informed discussions.

I shall resist making appeals to sense of duty, since that has a poor track record for results. So let me exhort self-interest instead. Most news channels are losing ground and revenue due to the downward trend of viewership, so they should take action to avoid losses. Anchors are turning people away from the news/current affairs genre and losing audiences to entertainment — just witness the increase in TV drama productions and ratings in the past year. And, most of all, politicians are damaging their own (little remaining) credibility by taking part in these verbal brawls, so they need to take a stand by opting to not to appear on shows which openly disrespect and lower the tone of our political discourse. The viewers are already voting with their remote controls. They have had enough of this mindless media-ocrity.

Sadly, as long as the CEOs of giant media corporations continue to give more importance to the billions in advertising income that line their pockets rather than to the betterment of the nation and the people, it will be hard to convince some of them to do the right thing.

Perhaps these ‘media moguls’ will recognize the warning signs and take the advice offered to create quality programming that attracts viewers and helps better the country also.

According to Ahmed Quraishi, Haqqani and Malik let this old man with poor health and a criminal record into the country because they mistakenly thought he was a top-secret CIA agent. Here is an interview with this man that supposedly Husain Haqqani and Rehman Malik mistakenly believed was a spy:

The man is clearly mentally disturbed. It is sad really. But how are we supposed to believe that anyone mistook him for a CIA agent?

Ahmed further claims that “only a few months ago Ambassador Haqqani faced accusations he issued visas to tens and possibly hundreds of US citizens without verifying who these visa applicants represented.”

Where is the evidence for this? This is a very serious claim for Ahmed Quraishi to make. If he has some evidence that this is a fact, he should present this to the government. If he has no evidence, is this anything but slander?

Despite what Ahmed Quraishi might want to believe, an Ambassador does not usually issue travel visas personally. Actually, there is an entire Embassy staff to review visa applications and grant a stamp of approval.

Second, the deportation of an individual instead of prosecution is not unusual, even from US to Pakistan. In May, a US judge ordered a Pakistani man suspected of helping Faisal Shazad to be deported back to Pakistan, not to to “rot in US jails” like Ahmed tries to say. Even Ahmed’s claim that Haqqani has been “forcing these kids to accept the false charges against them” does not follow reality. A Boston Globe article from May reported that Haqqani was working to protect Pakistanis accused by American law enforcement.

Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States said yesterday that three Pakistani men arrested in New England last week as part of the investigation into the attempted Times Square bombing do not appear to have any involvement in terrorism.

Husain Haqqani, who has been briefed by Pakistani officials, said that law enforcement cast a wide net during the investigation and that the three men were only taken into custody because alleged immigration violations were discovered while they were being questioned.

“For all we know, there will be no connection at the end of it,” Haqqani said during a telephone interview. “I’m a little critical of law enforcement who ran to the press first, because you can actually destroy people’s lives. So far, there is nothing that implies anything of a terrorist nature.”

When Ahmed sums up his argument, it is laughable.

Moral of the story is that Pakistanis can rot in US jails but a US citizen who is in clear violation of Pakistani laws will always be promptly released by a pro-US government in Islamabad.

Except that this is not even close to true. Does Ahmed not read the news? Is he so disconnected from reality that he is living on another planet? Let me provide a news clipping from the USA today: “Americans Get 10 Years in Pakistan in Terror Case”.

A Pakistan court sentenced five young Americans from the Washington, D.C., area to 10 years in jail for plotting terrorist acts in the country after they connected with an al Qaeda-linked jihadi via the Internet.

…

A State Department spokesman said embassy representatives have followed the case closely and ensured the defendants’ rights were protected.

“We have met periodically with each individual and have not seen any evidence of mistreatment,” said the spokesman, P.J. Crowley. “We will continue to…support them during the appeals process.”

It turns out that Ahmed Quraishi is once again incorrect. Americans can rot in Pakistani jails just the same. He won’t admit this, though, because he is not a real journalist but a propagandist only.

Let’s be realistic, please. If Ahmed Quraishi really believes that a “50-year-old ex-con and construction worker with ailing kidneys” could be mistaken for a CIA agent, he needs to have his head examined. More than likely, though, Ahmed Quraishi thought this would be a clever way to plant a new conspiracy theory. Problem is, his theories have gotten so silly that they don’t even make sense to people who want to believe them.

One of the by-products of the Musharraf era are television talk show hosts. Far from the new sensation, this lot has degenerated into sensationalistic, populist and deluded evangelists who are high on self-righteous pretence. Often they open their shows with teleprompter-driven debate like monologues, full of hyperbole and exaggerations. With an inflated air of self-importance, they proceed to denigrate and belittle guests, provoking and testing their patience with taunts and backhanded insults. More often than not, this tactic works: guests take the bait as they fume and froth and indulge in ugly verbal sparring.

Millions then sadistically enjoy the spectacle.

There is no sense of balance. Objectivity is conveniently forgotten and put aside. Political agendas and motivations are sugarcoated as analysis. Emotionalism and cheap sentimentalism is presented as something intellectual and profound. Emphasis on factual accuracy is absent.

All this is justified in the name of ‘ratings.’

Talk show hosts and politicians have become strange bedfellows. Both loathe each other but need one another badly.

If anchors indulge in excesses, politicians don’t lag far behind as they lay bare their shortcomings and deficiencies in utterly foolish displays. Shouting down their opponents in a crude and ruffian manner is a regular feature on such programs. There is almost no debate on policy or vision for the future. ‘In the moment’ kind of shows dominate the airwaves — their importance as ephemeral and transient as the passing moment.

Callers are also a unique feature. Every second caller forgets to or ignores turning down the television volume but remembers to praise the talk show host in absolute and grandiose terms. These callers prop the anchors not just as media celebrities but more as ‘messiahs’ and ‘harbingers of change’ who should feel the weight of the nation on their shoulders. And most anchors have already started to act as if only they know the cure to the malaise that ails the nation. Anchors act or seem to want to act, less like media-journalist types and more like politicians, bureaucrats, diplomats and policy makers. Public impatience with the incumbents is usually short but these media crusaders are now prompting such emotions to run extremely high. Demands for action in any sort of a situation are urgent and instantaneous. Any sort of delay is portrayed as a conspiracy or apathy of the highest order.

But what panacea are they offering?

These talk shows are only inducing and moulding the public to prefer sensationalism to rationality and reason. In the garb of awareness, they are promoting extreme ideas, oversimplification of often complex and multifaceted issues and above all: superficiality.

Some time back, I had a conversation with a female talk show host. She was concerned about another rival anchor having the same time slot. She wanted input about her show but was not particularly concerned about improving the quality of content. Her rival seemed to have a knack of inciting and instigating his guests, many of whom had left the programme in the middle, storming out of the studio after throwing down the mic in protest. Her producer wanted her to ‘spice things up’ and she was psyching herself to do so. “Do you see yourself as shouting at the guests or conducting your show like your rival?” I asked. “Its not that I can‘t do it,” she replied.

Expediency and showmanship is the winner on the screen.

“What is your source for this information?” he asked. I was stunned. Everybody knew the rumours. It was common knowledge. “You can’t just go around making such claims about people without some very solid evidence! If you are wrong, you will look like a fool and I will look like a fool also!” He was irate. My piece never ran. And a good thing it was, too – I had accused the wrong man.

This taught me a very important lesson about reporting. Sometimes reporters get a little bit caught up in a story. It becomes hard to separate yourself and see the facts objectively once you are sure that you have your man. You actually become part of the story yourself – the hero reporter who exposes corruption.

This is where the editor has a vital job. It is his responsibility to look at the story, judge it based on the sources and the evidence, and decide if it is fit to print. At least, he should. It seems that too often our editors today are falling asleep on the job and letting any Tom, Dick or Harry run whatever wild story they want. We need our editors to please do their job.

Babar Ayaz understands what I am saying. His column for Daily Times yesterday perfectly describes the problem of editors asleep on the job.

Once upon a time, there used to be a thing called editorial judgement. With the advent of private sector electronic media, mushrooming of the print media and extreme shortage of experienced professional journalists, editorial judgement about what is printable or fit for telecast and what is not is scarcely exercised. Almost everything is telecast and printed without considering its consequences. In the absence of an effective watchdog to monitor the watchdog, a label media likes to use for itself, it is free-style wrestling in the media. The subject of media ethics is discussed sometimes in private sittings by senior journalists. The only structured debate on the electronic media, democracy and extremism was held in late 2008 by SAFMA.

Let us take a few recent incidents that have made people think about whether the media should not be prudent about what it says and prints. And that objectivity, which is the fundamental requirement of journalism, is missing in most news reports and talk shows. For instance, opposition leader Mian Nawaz Sharif expressed his concern against the killings of about 100 Ahmedis in Lahore. As he considers all the Pakistanis his brothers and sisters, and rightly so, he addressed them in the same manner. But then some religious extremist declared him apostate just because he called the Ahmedis his brothers and sisters. Some channels and most Urdu newspapers printed statements against him in which the religious parties asked him to apologise or be excommunicated from the realm of Islam. Now the question is, should such statements be given coverage where one sect declares a person or a sect non-Muslim or an apostate? This question becomes more relevant as we have seen that many killings were incited by the intolerance built by extremist mullahs and tele-bigots. Both the persons who issue and print such statements can be sued for defamation.

It is here that editors, if there are any real editors left, have to exercise their editorial judgement. Inciting people to violence in the name of religion, ethnic differences or, for that matter, against any other country is a cognisable offence. This law is not only violated by the bigoted mullah from the pulpits and through press statements, it is quite often disregarded by editors. There are many in our country who preach violence against other sects and countries using all means of communication.

Another example is that of Fauzia Wahab who was criticised just for quoting a historical fact. She is being hounded by some religious leaders. The irony is that Fauzia Wahab became apologetic once the mullahs got after her. If these religious scholars would have been there in the first four centuries after the advent of Islam, I am afraid Islamic jurisprudence could not have developed an inch as many celebrated Muslim scholars would have been declared apostates by the present breed of clergy. There is no possibility of an educated open discussion on religion without inviting threats from the narrow-minded clergy. And these people are supported by their media disciples. Any move to check them is called an attack on freedom of expression. But this freedom of expression is one-sided indeed and is not available for the humanists who want to challenge the extremist views.

The frenzy built by these religious parties is so noisy and violent that even the Punjab chief minister got cowed down and did not visit the families of the Ahmedis who were killed. He did visit the family of a policeman who was killed by the extremists, but avoided to be seen with any Ahmedi. Even if we accept the constitutional and legal sins of Bhutto and Zia that declared the Ahmedis as a minority, they still have a right to their chief minister’s attention. But I am glad that Mian Nawaz Sharif has shown courage and did not retract from his statement. That shows signs of political maturity.

Another good sign was that a private TV channel in one of its talk shows had the courage to allow the leader of the Ahmedis to explain his community’s position on a number of issues. Though the participants of his programme were ideologically against the Ahmedis, they at least condemned the killings. However, when one of the participants said that the governor Punjab was the only one who visited them, the anchor’s comment that one does not know about Governor Taseer’s religion was unbecoming. I did not expect him to say this because he was preaching tolerance for others’ faith.

We have a right to disagree with the Ahmedis’ interpretation of Islam, but they have a right as well to disagree with us. The majority of the English media, however, took a clear stand against the sectarian killings and avoided to give coverage to hate-spitting statements.

Now let us take another incident that has rocked the media world. This publication printed the alleged transcript of a phone call of the popular talk show host, Hamid Mir, with one of the Punjabi Taliban. I have consciously used the word ‘alleged’ because that is what media ethics require. Till such time the allegation is proved, one should not be presented as guilty. Initially, according to another English daily’s report, he said that it was his voice but the tape was doctored. Then he retracted and said it was not his voice. A number of questions remained unanswered here: whether it is Hamid’s voice or not? Who taped it and on what authority? Only one thing is certain, that the views expressed in the tape were not denied by Hamid. They are the same as those written by him in his column after the murder of Khalid Khawaja. All this in a civilised society with developed institutions would have been probed by an independent press commission in the light of a laid down code of ethics.

The channel for which Hamid works said they have formed an internal committee. I believe the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) has also established a committee to probe into these charges. Not much is expected from these inquiries. The problem is that the Press Council, which is supposed to take up media ethics violation cases, is in incubation now for many years. At present it is a headless chicken. Even if it was functional, it could only deal with issues related to the print media and not the electronic media.

There were two men and a woman on the panel and they yelled and shouted at one another as if they were on a street corner – which is all very well if you are on a street corner but perhaps not the best way to comport yourself in front of the viewing public. But then I thought a bit more deeply about what I was looking at – which was street-corner politics but transferred to a TV studio. These were people who felt no constraint by virtue of being ‘on the telly’. They interacted as they do in real life. In real life, sans cameras and producer and anchor, if they disagree they bellow and yell, interrupt, wave shoes and hurl insults at one another.

Then I considered the audience, and came to the conclusion that those watching would have expected the panellists to behave like this because that is how politicians behave; certainly at the grassroots and not infrequently in the various parliamentary chambers.

The sense of outrage that those of us in the chattering classes may feel or express is not mirrored by the majority of the viewing public. I took a quick and unscientific survey within my own household. Nobody thought that the people on the TV were doing anything that was inappropriate, and they were happy to see their elected representatives scrapping like cats in an alley.

Mr Cork is concerned that perhaps there are too many channels and that causes each of them to dumb down their content to get guests and appeal to the widest audience. Whether or not that is true I cannot say. But whatever the cause, his solution is correct: “please -we’ve dumbed down far enough, let’s not get any dumber.”

To help solve this problem, the bloggers at Let Us Build Pakistan have started a new initiative to cut through the nonsense and make a place where journalists and media workers both in Pakistan and abroad can share information.

Are you a journalist, columnist, reporter, blogger, media worker, media activist working in print, electronic or social media in or related to Pakistan?

Would you like to be connected to a vibrant group of media workers and activists where you have complete freedom to network with other media workers, where you can freely exchange your ideas and opinions in a reasonable manner without any fear of censorship or retribution?

If you are already a member of any such group, are you sick and tired of the biased and manipulative attitude of the group moderator/s?

We are pleased to announce that we have created a new google group “Pakistan Press” with an aim to provide an interactive and impartial email discussion forum to Pakistani and international journalists and media workers.

The Pakistan Press has its own website: http://pakistanpress.blogspot.com/

In addition to our colleagues in the traditional print and electronic media, we also encourage media activists in the cyberspace (blog, facebook, twitter etc) to join Pakistan Press.

One thing we can assure you of, you will have complete freedom (except hate speech and foul language) to express and exchange your ideas and opinions. We will hear your voice and let it be heard.

Dialogue, mutual respect and tolerance are three guiding principles we hold dear.

In order to join this group, send an email to: pakistanteam@gmail.com

You can visit the group at the following link:

http://groups.google.com/group/pakistanpress

The group’s address is: pakistanpress@googlegroups.com

This is a great project and one that could do a lot of good. One of the key goals of this blog is to point out misinformation and problems with media reports not to attack any one person, but because we want journalists to recognize problems so they can fix them.

The West has had ‘free press’ for hundreds of years. Ours is very young, and in many ways I think we are still learning how to balance independence with objectivity. We have suddenly been given this great ability to criticise those in power – which we should absolutely exercise. But we should exercise this ability responsibly. Otherwise, how are we any different from those we criticise?

Jang, for example, we focus on quite a bit and there are certainly some employees of that company that we believe practise very irresponsible and unethical behaviours. But there are may more journalists with Jang who are hard working and do a good job. It is these journalists who could most benefit from a group like this one because by organizing as responsible and ethical journalists who are more interested in reporting than making a famous name for themselves, they will be the ones to make our media as good as it can be.

A young British woman joined our newspaper as a reporter in Dubai. It was her first job as a journalist, but on pressure from the local owners the editor assigned her the sensitive crime beat. In one of her first stories, she came back with the following copy: “Two Asian women and five British ladies were arrested for prostitution by Dubai Police on Saturday.”

The Sri Lankan chief reporter ticked her off for a possible ethnic bias in the presumptuous use of “ladies” and “women” to (unwittingly perhaps) underscore the identities of the arrested persons. The Indian news editor detected a lack of consistency because the copy identified the nationality in one case and the geographical location of the other group. But the most instructive criticism came from the genial editor from Pakistan. He reminded the young reporter of the importance of the word alleged. She must insist on using it for anyone accused by police of wrongdoing till they were convicted by a court of law. It is curious how in South Asia, more than anywhere else, the good old-fashioned words of caution have all but disappeared from daily reportage.

Nowadays in India terrorists are arrested or killed in encounters, not alleged terrorists. A Pakistani or a Bangladeshi is accused of this or that crime, not a suspected Pakistani or suspected Bangladeshi. And within minutes of the tragedy last month, all the passengers in the Mangalore plane crash were declared killed, not feared killed. Why have we become so casual with facts? Or perhaps more worryingly, why do the media more and more lean on the side of the mob when they are not busy creating one with tendentious froth whipped up in the name of journalism? I couldn’t go to a three-day media seminar in Goa to discuss the theme “Media and Terrorism”. But I am sure some of these questions must have been asked.

It’s amazing how the home minister or his home secretary get away with toying with the media in Delhi. Their daily handouts are hardly ever put to the test. It’s not that the minister is infallible, quite the contrary in fact. Take the story from the other day about widespread reports of an attempt to shoot a popular “godman” near his Bangalore headquarters. The home minister with all the intelligence paraphernalia at his command confidently told the media that it was no assassination attempt but appeared to be the result of some rivalry between the godman’s disciples. The godman with his divine insights cried foul. He was certain his car if not him was the target of a bullet that hit someone nearby. However, now it turns out that it was a farmer in the neighbourhood trying to scare away stray dogs from attacking his cattle whose bullet crossed into the godman’s compound. This is a matter for investigation, not quick and easy claims. But it is not really the minister’s fault. It is for the media to ask vital questions. For example, when he claims that Maoists have blown up so many schools in the forests, it may be worthwhile to find out if the schools were serving as schools or had they been taken over by the security forces involved in the operations against the rebels.

The minister says the needle of suspicion points to Maoist subversion in a recent train tragedy in West Bengal. His ministerial colleague, the railway minister does not agree at all. And what is the point about a needle of suspicion anyway. A high-level commission which investigated Indira Gandhi’s assassination claimed a needle of suspicion pointed to her senior aide’s involvement. And if my memory is right, the aide remained a member of the sanctum sanctorum in her son’s establishment and continued to enjoy considerable clout with Sonia Gandhi.

Why are the media not asking the good old-fashioned questions that are still interestingly enough in great use in the West? Why did just one journalist have the courage and was allowed to ask of the prime minister at a supposedly open press conference a straight question: how come some named members of the security forces had not been arrested for human rights abuses in Kashmir – this in spite of the prime minister’s promise last year to declare Kashmir a zero tolerance zone for rights abuses?

Yes some journalists will argue back that this is a war zone and in a war on terror human rights of everyone cannot always be protected. Well then let’s look at other examples. Here’s one that does not cross wires with heavy responsibility of nationalist fervour. Take the case of a young schoolgirl Aarushi Talwar who was murdered in her house in May 2008. A few in the media immediately bought the police version with sexual innuendo thrown in. They blamed the servant. But then he too was found dead the next day. They then blamed the parents and the doctor couple had to face jail, courts, police, media before being let off. Even this last Saturday a newspaper persisted, this time asserting that the inquiry was looking at a former police officer and an eye doctor. No alleged. No suspected. No claimed or thought to be. Is Aarushi’s tragic saga a case of collateral damage in the era of terrorism?

Forget the elementary discipline of asking questions, how shall we explain a completely concocted story filed by an Indian news agency a day after an event when all the newspapers had already carried a faithful report of the event? The Press Trust of India claimed that writer Arundhati Roy had dared the government to arrest her for she would not give up her support for the Maoists.

Those who attended the meeting in Mumbai, wrote the following letter to the news agency.

“…The PTI report of the speech made by Arundhati Roy in Mumbai at a meeting organised by the CPDR (Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights) on June 2nd in Mumbai, was in many respects false. The report has ripped sentences and phrases from her presentation and re-arranged them in a way as to completely misrepresent what she said.

“At the meeting Roy went on record to say she was against the killing of innocents and as correctly reported in the Times of India, Mumbai edition, June 3, 2010, that “she was not here to defend killing by any side”. She said that the Maoists were the most militant end of a spectrum of resistance movements all of who are protesting corporate landgrab and that the government deals with all of them with antagonism and repression. Contrary to the PTI report, she did NOT say that “… she will continue to back the Maoists’ armed struggle even if she is put behind bars.” She did NOT call upon the government to put her in jail for supporting Maoists, nor did she offer support to the Maoists. In fact, the Times of India, Mumbai edition, June 3, 2010, reports that she stated that “Maoists have revolutionary methods but not a revolutionary vision” and “their mining policy is not very different from that of the state. They too would mine the bauxite instead of leaving it in the hills, which is what the people they are fighting for want”. The Times further correctly records that she said “We need a vision outside of capitalism as also communism”. Thus, in fact, she posed many serious questions to the Maoists…the most significant part and the real gist of her talk, have been completely and blithely ignored by your staff reporter…”

Oddly newspapers and TV channels whose own reporters had covered the event accurately, then went ahead and carried the agency’s concocted report the following day. One newspaper pounced on it with glee and said the “publicity seeking Arundhati Roy” wanted to be an Aung San Su Kyi. The question is, how do we trust the news any more?

Tariq Butt’s article makes the laughable assertion that the government has changed its position that the cases against the President of the nation must be prosecuted after his term of office ends, as defined in the constitution.

The federal government had voluntarily finished off President Asif Ali Zardari’s immunity in a statement filed by its lawyer Kamal Azfar with the Supreme Court during proceedings on the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) that categorically said those who had benefited under the NRO should be proceeded against under the appropriate laws before the courts having the competent jurisdiction.

Actually, this presents no change from the government’s previously stated position. The government has always said that cases will be addressed according to the law. Further, the government’s position has been that any case against Asif Ali Zardari must be brought after the completion of his term as President. This is in accordance with the constitution which provides immunity from prosecution during the President’s term.

This is not a controversial position, except among certain media personalities and the Chief Justice. The Swiss prosecutor Daniel Zappelli has more than once stated his agreement with the government’s position.

But [Swiss prosecutor Daniel Zappelli] said he can’t reopen the case against Zardari, who was elected president in 2008 after years of battling corruption allegations, because he enjoys “absolute immunity” as a head of state.

“We could go further only if the competent authorities in Pakistan decide to lift the immunity of the head of state, which I do not know whether it is possible according to their constitution,” said Zappelli, speaking in English. “If not, we can’t. Absolutely not. Period.”

Any competent attorney would understand that “relevant laws” would include, of course, articles of the Constitution. If the government has changed its position, Tariq Butt presents no actual evidence. Rather, he presents a bizarre interpretation of what appears to be a pretty straightforward statement.

Merey Mutabiq? Or Shahid Masood's Court?

More troubling, though, is the appearance of the involvement of some media personalities in a coordinated attempt to influence the court. As Tariq Butt tells,

Former spokesman of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and prominent lawyer Athar Minallah raised this extremely important point in Dr Shahid Masood’s programme ‘Meray Mutabiq’ of Geo TV, aired on Saturday night, and asserted that the government had, on its own accord, ended the president’s immunity when its lawyer had said those (including Zardari) who benefited under the NRO were to be proceeded against, in paragraph 4 of his statement, which had given no exception. It is obligatory to write letters to the Swiss authorities and these would have to be written as there is no escape, he emphasised repeatedly.

Why is Shahid Masood pretending he is Chief Justice?

Media and courts are two separate institutions for a reason. I am certain that the lawyers for both sides do not require either Shahid Masood or Tariq Butt to make legal arguments. Please, sirs, let the court do its job also.

Once again, Jang appears to be improperly using its media companies as political propaganda machines. First, on the Geo TV show ‘Merey Mutabiq’ Shahid Masood hosts a panel of political operatives to make a case, and then The News published and opinion column as a news article reiterating the case. Both Geo TV and The News are part of Jang Group.

There is a place for opinions – even silly ones – that is called the opinion page. But when we begin to see political operatives and so-called ‘journalists’ working together towards a specific political goal, we should be very worried. This is not ‘journalism’ it is ‘propaganda’.