Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Ansar Abbasi Served With Defamation Notice

Sunday, May 16th, 2010

The News (Jang) reports today that Mr. Ansar Abbasi has been served with legal notice under Section 3 (1) of Defamation Ordinance, 2002 for comments made about Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Information Secretary Fauzia Wahab on the TV programme ‘Dunya Today.’

She said in a TV programme, ‘Dunya Today,’ telecast on 10th of May, Ansar Abbasi referring to her allegedly uttered words ‘in ka bus chale to humari gardan utaar dein’, (if it was up to her (Ms Fauzia Wahab), she would slit our throats).

“These words were below the civilisation values and immoral, and tantamount to my insult and insult of my party,” she added.

The PPP leader said the media was independent, but it did not mean that ‘irresponsible statements’ should be uttered. She said she was in politics since last 30 years but not a single FIR had been registered against her on criminal or corruption charges. She said under these conditions, Ansar Abbasi’s words were allegedly an assault on her integrity.

I think Ms. Wahab makes an important point: Freedom of media does not grant license to slander and defame people.  With freedom comes responsibility. Ansar Abbasi has a long history of professional mistakes, many of which have been catalogued here on this blog. Now, it seems, Mr. Abbasi is being called to account for his words. 

Ansar Abbasi responded to the notice saying, in part,

I was making a general and sarcastic statement about the attitude of the government/PPP towards certain journalists, who have been receiving threats and death messages from certain members of the PPP and its government.

If this is true, these journalists should file reports against anyone who is making threats or death messages. Otherwise, it seems to fit the same pattern of Ansar Abbasi in the past in which he makes some general accusations against ‘mystery men’ without providing any names or evidence. Actually, one has to wonder if these people even exist.

It is also unfortunate that throughout his full reply, Mr. Ansar Abbasi cannot even have the character to apologize to Ms. Wahab after he says some nasty and brutish things about her on TV. 

It will be up to the proper legal authorities to ultimately decide this case against Ansar Abbasi, but it should be a lesson to other media personalities that proper journalism does not require and should not include nasty personal attacks. If you believe that you must resort to making up attack stories about someone, perhaps you should consider if the problem is actually the weakness of your reporting.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

NFP: ‘Concerned’ journalism

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

Nadeem Paracha spent some time actually talking to people outside the drawing rooms of the nation’s elite, and discovered something quite interesting – there is a huge disconnect between the ‘concerns’ of the media elites and the actual concerns of real Pakistanis.

Last week I visited one of Karachi’s sprawling (and impoverished) areas. I went there at the invitation of an old college friend who still lives there. Both of us were members of a progressive student organisation in college in the late 1980s.

I took this opportunity to talk to some folks of the locality. Almost all of them were from working class backgrounds. They whined and complained about the usual stuff: price hikes, lack of jobs, unemployment, crime, terrorism. But out of about ten men whom I managed to speak to, none had anything to say about either President Asif Ali Zaradri, or (thus) what the media claims to be Pakistan’s gravest issue: ‘corruption.’

No doubt Mr Zaradri is a controversial figure, but then, which prominent politician or for that matter, general wasn’t or isn’t? His misfortune lies in the way he was targeted by the media when he first arrived in parliament as a minister in his wife’s first government (1988-90).

An entire generation of military men and politicians had greedily harvested unprecedented rewards during the Zia dictatorship. It was a time when the US and Saudi Arabia were lavishly dishing out dollars as direct and indirect aid to keep Zia’s military regime (and cronies) afloat. This had an impact on the overall psyche of society as well. Exhibitionistic Islamic ritualism and lingo conveniently co-existed with overpowering greed and a get-rich-quick attitude.

This is the kind of Pakistan that Benazir’s first government inherited. Being an astute pragmatist, she understood well the kind of cynicism and materialism that had begun to dot Pakistani politics. There is now no secret about the fact that a humongous amount of rupees was being showered by the remnants of the Zia era (in the intelligence agencies) against her government.

For example, in 1989, industrial tycoons (in league with some leading media bosses and opposition politicians), who still hadn’t forgiven her father for his (albeit disastrous) ‘socialist economic policies’ in the 1970s, began running a paid campaign against the ‘corruption’ of her government and especially that of her husband. For weeks the country’s mainstream newspapers were dotted with glossy quarter-page ads against the ‘misdeeds’ of the first couple. Then, at the behest of certain intelligence agencies, the opposition parties moved a no-confidence motion against the prime minister.

Tons of money exchanged hands in the process, as the opposition tried to buy out the ruling members of parliament and the government retaliated by putting in money and resources to keep them on its side. Money spoke. In fact it screamed. Its exuberant and clandestine flaunting became the only valid option for politicians to take part and survive in politics. For this every prominent politician is guilty; just like the military men, the bureaucrats and the civilian faces of the Zia dictatorship who first introduced this trend to the game.

Thus, though it won’t be an overstatement to suggest that almost every prominent politician, military man and industrialist (ever since the 1980s) has, in one way or the other, been involved in what we generally perceive to be corruption, it is Asif Ali Zardari who has been bestowed the honour of becoming the punching bag of the nation in this respect. It was media that created this, and it is media (especially electronic) that has taken up the glorious task of turning Zardari into a punching bag once again.

But if volumes can be written on the corruption of our politicians, then one can easily scribble a vibrant comic book highlighting the shadowy and questionable ways of some of the media bosses and their talk show anchorpersons whom we see every day contemplating the date of Zardari’s fall.

At times such talk shows start sounding like televised sessions of a dedicated whiners’ club, foaming and dining on the latest slice of conspiratorial pizza coming out from the rumour oven in Islamabad. I won’t be surprised if one of these people begin to ramble about the presence of flying saucers over the President House, operated by evil aliens disguised as Swiss bankers!

But, alas. Against all odds and rumours, Zardari has actually got his name highlighted on the more luminous sides of the country’s political history, thanks to his role in the passage of the 18th Amendment and in the running of an unprecedented coalition government (of former adversaries).Something no government ever since Z A Bhutto’s demise could do (or perhaps even imagine doing) has been done by a regime whose main architect is a man most detested by the media.

But then what to say of an electronic media some of whose channels, for example, decided to place the cosmetic Shoaib-Sania saga at the top of their main 9:00pm news bulletins on the day the 18th Amendment was passed by the National Assembly and a terrible suicide bomb attack that ripped across a crowded area in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

So much for ‘concerned’ journalism.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Is Media Intentionally Trying To Destabilize Government?

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

That’s the concern of Kamran Shafi, who sees the invocation of the name of the Chief Justice as a cynical plot by some media types who are willing to put government on a collision course in order to to increase viewership for their TV programmes.

I was horrified to see recently a private TV channel advertising one of their talk shows with the blurb ‘Chief teray jan nisar…’ and then the names A.H. Pirzada, Akram Sheikh and one other that I do not recall.

The host of the show is the same person who was appointed head of PTV at a whopping salary and even more whopping perks but was sacked for reasons never fully explained, turning fiercely anti-federal government and all who sail in it.

In the event I could not see the first part of the programme for I was entertaining guests at the time so I do not know if the two gentlemen named in the advertising ticker appeared on the show. But I did manage to catch Imran Khan and Qazi Anwar, in the closing minutes, fulminating wildly against the government, 18th Amendment and all.

Now then, whilst it is no business of mine what anyone says about any government or person or matter, it is my bounden duty to protest the use of the chief justice’s name to push a TV talk show. Remember that ‘Chief teray jan nisar, beshumar, beshumar’ was one of the slogans coined during the movement to restore the superior judiciary, and one that I myself have shouted until I went hoarse.

My Lord the Chief Justice was particularly mentioned in the slogan because he it was that took the brave step of facing down an army dictator and his boorish flunkeys. We must remember too that some of those who are now professing (or are alleged) to be My Lord’s jan nisars are the same who were Dogar’s jan nisars during the days he was the so-called chief justice. They appeared in Dogar’s court, when the restored judiciary was incarcerated along with their families and protesting lawyers had boycotted the higher courts. To add insult to injury, one of their number is Ahmad Raza Kasuri who was the Commando’s own lawyer when the dictator was at loggerheads with the CJ. Can you believe any of this, reader?

Let me say that whilst I continue to be a jan nisar of an independent judiciary, I also stand unequivocally on the side of the people’s will as expressed by their representatives in parliament, of the rule of law, of a kind and gentle state which looks after all of its people no matter of which religious denomination or creed.

Whilst I stand for complete freedom of expression, I will loudly object when media houses deliberately goad organs of the state onto a collision course as seems to be happening right now. It is time for all concerned to step back, take two deep breaths, and live and let live.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

The Decline and Fall of the Pakistani News Anchor

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

The following is the first post from Wajahat S. Khan’s new blog, My Name is Khan. The piece originally published in Aurora, Dawn’s Marketing Magazine, in 2006. Khan was launching Dawn News TV at the time, as Head of the International Desk. You probably know him best from his show TalkBack on Dawn. Today he is not only starting his own blog, but also he is writing some really excellent critiques of the media for the new journal Express Tribune.

Let’s be honest. People watch people. We love it. It’s a part of our natural need and systemic.  Some of us get bored and start watching birds or writing columns. The rest of us keep at it – people watching is the modern endemic of man. Its voyeurism’s coup de grace.Thus the TV.

Television is the Henry Kissinger of media. It has survived half a century of questionable policy making with true grit. It’s been criticized and protested against. It has been used and abused by governments, and it has used and abused governments right back. It’s been malevolently targeted and violently attacked. It’s made some terrible errors and affected the lives of millions of people. It has survived slurs like ‘boob-tube’ and ‘idiot-box’ only to come back harder, like Tony Soprano after an anxiety attack, to stake its claim. Out of the Quartet of the Essentials of the Modern Living (the refrigerator, the microwave oven and the W/C being the other three), the TV is probably the most utilized in terms of hours of interaction with human-beings, unless you live in your kitchen or worse, your bathroom.

Now flatter, leaner and meaner, with more functions and less buttons, TV still dominates our lives and (depending on its placement and content), ends up being responsible for how much we love our families, our culture and our country. In effect, TV has become the chosen representative of the human race. If we were Greco-Romans, we would call it Telly: The God of Everyday Life.

And if Telly is our daily deity, then it’s high priest has to be The Anchor.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Pakistani Media’s Misplaced Priorities

Friday, April 9th, 2010
News media making morning headlines

News media making morning headlines

History was made in Pakistan this week when traditionally bitter rivals put aside their differences and concentrated on what they had in common, putting their personal ambition second to a greater good. Obviously, I am talking about the Shoaib-Sania wedding! What else could have possibly been worth reporting this week?

All this is a joke, of course, but it’s a joke that is meant to bring attention to a very serious issue – Are today’s journalists are doing their job and providing the in-depth reporting that the people need in order to make decisions for themselves? Or has our news media become more interested in sparkle and entertainment than hard-hitting news stories?

Today’s issue of Dawn includes an editorial that asks if the media is failing to uphold proper ethics when it concentrates so much time on a story like Shoaib-Sania marriage.

Media organisations are businesses of course but the ethos of journalism demands that ethics must not be sacrificed at the altar of the bottom line. Good taste also comes into it, though that is a more subjective issue. But consider this: in a country racked by militancy and terrorism, should a celebrity marriage dominate the news on a day when dozens are killed in suicide attacks? Should gossip about what is at best a footnote in the day’s events be deemed more important than the serious socio-political problems facing the country? News involves information, not sordid entertainment, and the line differentiating the two must be redrawn if the industry is to retain its integrity. It is not a news network’s job to titillate its audience or provide the kind of catharsis offered by film or channels dedicated to entertainment.

Dawn is not the only outlet to notice this problem. A recent post on the website NewAgeIslam.com suggests that the Pakistani news media is ‘bankrupt.’

You probably think that currently the Pakistani journalists are busy discussing and analysing the proposed amendments to the Constitution, or reporting on the first big conference of the landless farmers of Pakistan in which the intellectuals and experts expressed their opinions on the plight of farmers and their apprehensions and suggested solutions. Right? Wrong!

For Pakistani media, these affairs are less important than the Shoaib-Sania wedding. Like the Indian media, its Pakistani counterpart, particularly the Urdu and Punjabi media also considers the debates raging on the wedding more important than any other issue.

It seems that the Pakistani electronic media does not have any other topic since the day the Shoaib-Sania marriage was announced. A renowned Urdu journalist of India who regularly writes for Pakistani newspapers, recently sent a detailed report of the 9-hour long grilling of the chief minister of Gujarat by the SIT but to his surprise, he got a message which said,: “What have you sent? Please send something about the controversy involving Shoaib Malik and Sania Mirza. That is the most interesting news here.” It shows that the Pakistani media has no interest in the fact that for the first time in the history of democratic countries, after the Gujarat riots of 2002 the struggles of an NGO and a wronged widow bore fruit and the chief minister of a state had to be present before an investigative team appointed by the Supreme Court and face questioning for nine long hours.

To the Pakistanis, the news was not ‘interesting’. I also got a phone call from a Pakistani TV channel asking if we had a correspondent in Hyderabad and if so, his phone number should be provided to them. On telling them that we did not have a special correspondent in Hyderabad, he asked for the telephone numbers of the Urdu dailies published from there. We helped them with whatever numbers we had but at the same time, out of curiosity, we asked them why they needed the numbers? Was it because they wanted to know about the communal riots which had engulfed the city where the last Friday prayers were offered under police protection.?

The reply was, “No, sir, forget that. Shoaib Malik has arrived at Sania Mirza’s house in Hyderabad and we want to show a live telecast of the developments there?” I thought that the Pakistani media had become so bankrupt. We agree that the wedding of Sania Mirza and Shoaib Malik is news of public interest because both are star players of their respective countries and sports-lovers are familiar with their names.

But is this marriage more important than the amendments to the Pakistani Constitution under which the entire President’s powers are going to be transferred to the Prime Minister? Is this marriage more important than the problems of the poor landless farmers of Pakistan? Are the wedding celebrations of Sania Mirza and Shoaib Malik more important than the massacre of thousands of men and the rape of dozens of women?

It seems that the journalists have forgotten their professional and moral duties altogether. Wisdom has surrendered before moolah. The state of the Indian media is no different. Though people do not want to watch and read only news but want all kind of spicy stuff but that does not mean that the journalists should forget that their first duty is to keep the readers and the viewers abreast of the life and the happenings scattered around them. But regretfully all this has become a thing of the past.

There is very much a place for something sweet and spicy, just as there is always a place for entertainment. I have long been a fan of cinema, and will continue to be such. But that doesn’t mean that I want to replace news reporting with dancers and playback singers. Just because I enjoy a jilebi now and again, I will not stop eating rice and only eat jilebis. If I were to do this, my body would not get the nutrients it needs to survive.

Similarly, when our ‘news’ media becomes fixated on sweet and spicy snacks, it sometimes forgets that our brains need some facts and information about the world and society around us so that our minds stay healthy and able to properly analyze information and make proper decisions.

Journalists have a responsibility to truthfully and neutrally report the facts to the people, and news media organizations have a responsibility to support and encourage journalists in their mission. A jilebi now and then is a pleasant treat, but we must make sure that our priorities in order and that we are providing the mental nutrition we need to survive.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Watching the Watchers

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

Zaair Hussain’s column in Daily Times today is an excellent explanation of why it is so important that we, the citizens, keep a check on the media and do not allow it to become like a dictator in its own right.  We talk about accountability for government officials, politicians, and police – but rarely do we ask for accountability from our journalists.

For example, why is it that a journalist like Shaheen Sehbai can continually make wrong predictions, and still he continues? Or that Ahmed Quraishi can say the most wild conspiracy theories over and over again with no consequences?

This is not to say that there should be some laws against free speech. Quite the contrary. But what it does mean is that, if we are going to have a press that is both free and fair, we the citizens will have to keep our eyes on them to hold them to standards of professionalism – especially if they will not do it themselves.

(more…)

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Angry Media Act

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

The Angry Media Act

As was noted in the previous post about Zaid Hamid, it is a common misconception to believe that TV talk shows are “real.” What they are is entertainment. Just as WWE wrestling uses incredible and absurd theatrics to entertain people, so do the talk shows. Nadeem Paracha provides a behind the scenes look at this practice by TV producers (and now even other media types) of seeking out and encouraging the most sensational behaviour. For the sake of ratings, will they sacrifice the nation?

A friend of my brother’s, who is also the son of a pesh-imam, once told me an interesting incident. A bright young man doing an MBA, the imam’s son had decided to serve his father’s wish (nay holy insistence) on sporting a long beard. So, back in 2007, during Musharraf’s operation against the Lal Masjid fanatics, his university was visited by a team from a popular TV channel.

The team wanted to talk to some students about the Lal Masjid operation. After conducting a few on-the-spot interviews, the team then went looking for male and female students with beards and hijabs. One of them was the pesh-imam’s son. He was also asked by the team to become a guest on a political talk show. He agreed.

When he reached the studios he found himself among a group of about six more bearded young men and some women in burqas and hijab. They were all selected for the show by the channel from various universities and colleges.

After about half an hour, the assistant producer of the show addressed the students telling them about the format and topic of the show. The producer then told them that the channel expects them to ‘make the show interesting by exhibiting anger and disgust against the government (for its action against the Lal Masjid clerics).’

As a reference some of them were reminded (by the producer) of the way a burqa-clad guest (on the show) had hurled abuses and curses at the government ‘for killing innocent people holed-up (with guns, mind you) in the Lal Masjid.’

When the students were paraded on to the sets of the show, they were at once addressed by the host of the programme: ‘Ghusa karna hai, accha!” (You have to be angry, okay!), he reminded them.

Though the students tried their best to sound angry and offended by the Lal Masjid operation, the host did not seem happy with their performance. So, during the commercial break, he angrily asked the students to be more convincing: “Yeh log aap kay bhai aur bhenoon ko maar rahey hain,’ (These people are killing your brothers and sisters), he announced. “Kya aap ko in pe ghusa nahin araha?” (Aren’t you all feeling angry at them?).

The guest students were bemused because (according to the narrator of this incident), though they were all very ‘Islamic looking’ and conservative, none of them could relate to the militant ways of the Lal Masjid clerics. Just before the show came back on air, the host insisted that the students make a better attempt at exhibiting outrage against the operation.

So they tried again. But to no avail. The host was still not happy. He was, of course, comparing this performance with the one he got from the burqa-clad woman a few days before in which she had wailed and wept, swearing revenge against the government. This incident took place in 2007. Today, almost two years later, can we say that the ways of the Pakistani electronic media have got any better? Hardly. Things have actually gone from bad to worse. Every single day on one news channel or the other viewers can catch hours of terribly biased journalism in which, for example, one can see talk-show hosts running loathsome media trials of certain ‘corrupt’ politicians (as if the hosts and their employers were themselves in-the-clear to cast the first stones at dishonesty).

Worse still is the way some channels give an open floor to what are quite clearly mad men who unabashedly spout hatred and violence in the name of religion and nationalism. So one wonders, what is a bigger crime? A (media-confirmed, not court-proven) corrupt politician or a mad man in the disguise of a talk-show host; a preacher or an ‘expert’ glamorising hatred and violence?

It is quite a sight watching the so-called TV journalists — who would even struggle to win an election of a press club — demonstrating silly smug expressions and tones, behaving as if they were the true saviours of Pakistan. They actually believe this.

However, the truth is, if men (and some women) gladly sacrifice the concept of responsible (and sane) journalism just so they can pull off a sensational show that would win them fame and a bagful of corporate sponsors, if they are the ones claiming a ‘jihad against corruption’ and ‘patriotism,’ then God help us all.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Are So-Called Defense Experts Really Connected?

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Interesting article received from a dear reader by email. It raises the question of why some journalists who are considered defense experts were not invited to a recent press briefing by the military. As always, please write in your tips and articles to pakistanmediawatch@gmail.com!

Not invited

A few weeks ago, Army Chief Gen. Kiyani invited editors and columnists to a press briefing. Interestingly, Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood were not invited. Was this an intentional snub by the military brass to send a clear signal that these people do not speak for the military? Or was it just that these journalists are so irrelevant that the Army did not think to invite them?

Usually, if a reporter is truly close to the establishment, they are not only invited, they are given special access like a closed door briefing before the official briefing so that they can get background statements from the officials. These four not only got no invitation to a closed door briefing, they were not even invited to the regular press briefing!

Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood are well known for claiming to be unofficial experts on the Pakistani establishment – especially the military. They are always saying that they have spoken to high up sources, even when what they say turns out to be wrong. But it seems from this latest snub that they are not as connected as they claim to be.

Ahmed Quraishi and Shireen Mazari in particular tend to represent ‘old think’ on security issues. They support a military coup and for the military to cut iself off from allied powers and are opposed to the present democracy and the way that Gen. Kiyani is working with the government.

While each of them probably has some contacts from the military, it could be that their contacts may not be current military leaders. Also, it could be that their sources are actually retired military or ex-military who supported the Musharraf and Zia dictatorships and are filling their heads with false information rather than accurate information in attempt to disrupt the actual policies of the current military establishment.

If this is the case, it makes sense for them not to receive invitations to press briefings by the military brass. The military leadership would recognize them as working for elements that are opposing the actual plans and policies of Gen. Kiyani and his staff so they would refuse them any invitations.

None of these media personalities will reveal who their sources are, so we do not know if this is the case. It could be that sometimes their sources do not exist at all, but are simply invented in order to give their articles and talk shows some air of authority that is missing. But it seems very apparent that if they cannot even get an invitation to a public press briefing, they probably do not have sources that are very high up.

Was this a calculated snub? Is it because Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood do not represent the Army? Are Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood reflecting an old mindset from the past that the present establishment wants to distance itself from? Or does the military brass think that Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood are just too irrelevant to bother inviting them?

Whatever the answers are, one thing is made clear by the snub – Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood obviously do not speak for the military.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Wishful Journalism (part 3): The Firing of Hussain Haqqani

Sunday, March 14th, 2010

President Zardari may be the most popular person for the “Wishful Journalists” to try to pray out of office, but he is not the only one. In part 2 of the Wishful Journalism series, we looked at the case of Rehman Malik. Today, we consider Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States, Hussain Haqqani, and the journalists who have been wishing for his removal for almost two years.

Sajjad Malik recently wrote in Daily Times, “Rumours rife about Haqqani’s removal”:

Rumours about the removal of Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani are once again making rounds in the Foreign Office, with several top diplomats pulling strings to step into his shoes.

Senior diplomatic sources said the rumours about possible removal of Haqqani had gained momentum amid reports that the US may not oppose his replacement because of his widespread unpopularity among khakis.

Malik’s article goes on to not name anyone who actually says Haqqani is being removed. But this is an old line. Last November, Anjum Niaz wrote that the Army was going to “pull the plug on our leaders” in which she predicted the end of the Zardari government and the imminent firing of Haqqani from his post. Obviously, this never happened.

Anjum Niaz went on to suggest that Haqqani could not return to Pakistan because he would be in danger if he returned to his homeland.

“The [Pakistani] military clearly has decided that it would like to have him removed,” says The Boston Globe, citing a congressional aide not authorised to speak to the media. “If he returned home, friends say, his safety could be threatened,” reports the Globe. “Haqqani hasn’t returned to Islamabad for eight months.”

Actually, Haqqani was just in Pakistan where he met with the President and Gen. Kayani to discuss national security matters.

The president said the US drone attacks on Pakistani territory undermined national consensus on the war against terrorism.

Zardari expressed these views during a meeting with US National Security Adviser General James Jones – accompanied by US Ambassador to Islamabad Anne W Patterson and other US officials – who called on him at the Presidency.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Finance Minister Shaukat Tareen, Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani were also present at the meeting.

Anjum Niaz appears to have very unreliable sources, if they even exist.

As for the latest rumours of his imminent removal, these all appear to have started from the same source: an article in The Nation by Kaswar Klasra. Of course, this article also contains no sources, and appears to be based only on speculation and wishful thinking. What is missing from Klasra’s article, in fact, are statements from the Foreign Office or the Embassy. Any proper reporter worth his weight in salt would call the official offices to inquire about these rumours. I don’t know if Klasra took the time to call anyone, but he certainly did not report what answers he was given if he did.

I decided to check for myself to see if there is any truth to these rumours, so I called the Foreign Office and I called the Embassy in Washington. I was told by both offices that there was no plan to remove Mr. Haqqani, and that the rumours were just that — rumours.

But at this point, rumours of Haqqani being removed are a little bit ridiculous. After all, he has almost completed his entire appointment of two years, and has even served longer than other previous Ambassadors to the USA:

Ashraf Qazi served as Ambassador to the USA from 19 August 2002 to 6 August 2004. General (Retd) Jehangir Karamat served as Ambassador from 17 November 2004 to 3 June 2006. Maj. Gen (Retd) Mahmud Ali Durrani served from 5 June 2006 to 9 May 2008.

Hussain Haqqani began his term as Ambassador on 26 May 2008. He has been in this office for almost his entire two year appointment, despite the rather constant predictions of his removal.

Here, I will make some predictions of my own. Gen. Kayani is scheduled to retire in November. When he retires from his post, nobody will say that he was forced out. He will have served his appointment and that will be that. These same reporters,  even if Haqqani completes his appointment, will say that he is being forced out. There will likely be some unnamed ’sources’ that say that he was not offered an extension because he is viewed unfavorably. But is there any evidence for this? Looking at history, as we did above, the answer is no.

It is not for this blog to take any position on Hussain Haqqani and whether he should be Ambassador, or if he should be offered an extension of his appointment. There are plenty of people who have their own opinions about his performance, and they are entitled to whatever opinion they want. But Haqqani has served as Ambassador for almost his entire term, and longer than previous Ambassadors. Please, leave the wishful thinking to drawing rooms and verandas and publish proper facts in the news.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Representations of Aafia Siddiqui in Media

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Aafia SiddiquiA recent article in the American newspaper New York Times about the case of Aafia Siddiqui offers an informative and instructive look at the way that stories can be reported differently in our domestic media than they are in the rest of the world.

The article, by reporters Salman Masood and Carlotta Gall, discusses how it is that there can be two very different perceptions of Aafia in the US – where she is seen as a militant threat – and at home – where she is largely seen as a victim of oppression. As is well known, Aafia has become something of a martyr in local discussions, with the ruling political party (PPP) providing millions of dollars in legal assistance and the government raising the issue of her release with American officials and diplomats.

The broad outpouring has forced the government, led by the Pakistan Peoples Party, to publicly assure Ms. Siddiqui’s supporters that it will continue its legal assistance, which has amounted to $2 million already.

Pakistan’s government has also raised her case with American officials, most recently in February during a visit by Richard C. Holbrooke, the special envoy to the region.

“The prime minister has suggested to visiting American delegations that releasing Aafia Siddiqui unconditionally would greatly improve the image of the Americans in the public’s eyes,” a close aide to Mr. Gilani said.

But the Americans obviously have a very different perspective. After all, Aafia was recently convicted by a New York court of trying to kill American military officers in Afghanistan. How can there be so big a difference in opinion? Well, some say that the way media has treated the case in Pakistan has done more to create an icon than to report facts.

All of this has taken place with little national soul-searching about the contradictory and frequently damning circumstances surrounding Ms. Siddiqui, who is suspected of having had links to Al Qaeda and the banned jihadi group Jaish-e-Muhammad.

Instead, the Pakistani news media have broadly portrayed her trial as a “farce” and an example of the injustices meted out to Muslims by the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. She was convicted on Feb. 3 on seven counts, including attempted murder of American officials.

“People here have very little knowledge of who she is and what she did other than she is a Pakistani woman, so the reaction is much more knee-jerk Pakistani nationalism,” said Samina Ahmed, a director in Pakistan with the International Crisis Group, a policy advocacy organization.

This ‘iconization’ of Aafia is not lost on all Pakistanis, however. Raafia Zakaria, a columnist for Dawn, explains why it has been so easy for this representation of Aafia as oppressed victim of American conspiracy to take hold in the media.

There is no doubt that the case of an ultraconservative, educated middle-class Pakistani woman who shunned the ways of the West and defied America has resonated with the Pakistani public.

“The iconization of Aafia Siddiqui as an emblem of Pakistani womanhood represents the kind of female rebel acceptable in a rapidly Islamizing Pakistani society,” said Rafia Zakaria, a columnist for Dawn, the leading English daily newspaper.

“Leaving a husband for a second marriage, traveling alone, even putting your children in harm’s way, all acts that would be otherwise reviled, became acceptable when they are done with the ultimate aim of defying the United States,” she said.

It is not for this blog to pass judgment on the guilt of Aafia Siddiqui. Even if I was inclined to do so, I do not have access to all of the facts, and my own opinions are heavily influenced by the way that the information that I do have has been packaged and presented to me by the TV shows I watch and the newspapers and blogs that I read.

The case of Aafia Siddiqui is complicated without any help from media opinion makers. Even government officials who have access to more facts than reporters and the public have disagreements.

Last month, the Pakistani minister of state for foreign affairs, Nawabzada Malik Amad Khan, said the evidence against Ms. Siddiqui was insubstantial, local news reports said. But senior Pakistani officials acknowledged that it was almost impossible to defend her in a court of law.

Some of this confusion in a case as complex as that of Aafia Siddiqui is unavoidable. But we, as journalists, must do our best not to add to the confusion, but to cut through the speculation and innuendo to report only the facts. I worry that too often, Pakistani journalist are avoiding reporting anything unpleasant. But our job is to give people the facts only so that they can make up their own minds and hopefully come to the right decision – not necessarily the decision that is easiest or most convenient.

The building of icons and journalism are two different things. Media owes Pakistan the truth.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »