Gulmina takes to task reporter Yousaf Ali from The News for an article he wrote last week claiming that “Islamic charities most effective in relief activities”.

If I were associated with an ‘Islamic’ charity, I would file a suit against the reporter because he goes on to mention organisations that are old wines in new bottles. In other words, banned militant organisations operating under new names. There are a number of Islamic charities that are doing excellent work and do not use militant ways and means. They are funded not by mafias, crime and drug money as the militant organisations are, and have transparent, audited accounts.

The reporter is supposed to report, not give an opinion. Opinions are reserved for the op-ed pages. However, in the said news story, in the very title, the reporter has given his considered opinion. Throughout the four-column story, he fails to establish what is the basis of his sweeping conclusion displayed prominently in the heading.

Clearly, there is a problem raised by the fact that the author makes a bold claim that is not supported by the facts presented in his reporting. The reporter may believe that his claim is true – in fact, the claim could be true – but without providing evidence to support the claim, the reporter is wrong in making it.

But even the reporters claims are questionable. Yousaf Ali writes that,

Cooked food has been distributed among 0.25 million so far, while 23,046 packages were distributed among 161,322 families, the handout stated.

But according to Daily Mail News, the US has sent over 77,000 food packets for flood victims.

Talking to a privet television channel, the NDMA chairman said that they had demanded 380,000 food packets from the US for the flood stricken people in the country. He said the US sent a first batch of 77,000 food packets through C-130 plane which had been dispatched to affected areas.

Nadeem Ahmad said that another 43,000 boxes were expected to reach soon. “The US has assured of more cooperation to ease the miseries of people,” he said. Meanwhile, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson announced that the US government is continuing to send assistance for flood relief efforts in Pakistan. “The United States supports Pakistan’s emergency relief efforts on behalf of people affected by recent monsoon floods,” she said.

Surely Mr Ali knows that 77,000 is more than 23,046. So why does he ignore such facts in his article?

Gulima suspects a bit of spot-fixing going on at Jang Group’s English newspaper:

The news story further goes on to declare that the “most effective among the Islamic charities” is “the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation which is linked with the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD)”. The reporter clearly is aware of the way the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation is linked with the JuD. Is the reporter not aware then that the JuD is a banned organisation? As if the heading of the news story was not enough, the reporter, to really imprint it in the reader’s mind, further states, “much discussed in the international media, the Falah-e-Insaniat is another major contributor in the relief activities”.

Since, in this space, I am clearly asked to give my opinion, I will venture to state that it seems to be a paid, placed piece to do some damage control and spin some ‘feel good’ stories about the Falah-e-Insaniat, given the fact that “much has been written in the international media” about it.

Banned organizations are well known to change their names in order to avoid being closed down. Despite this, they are well known. They are also being praised by some in the media – as evidenced by Yousaf Ali’s column as well as articles in The Nation, and Dawn.

And this is not an issue that appears only in English media, of course.

Leading English newspapers do not have the monopoly over promoting irresponsible reporting nor is the militant media confined only to English. Just this week, an Urdu paper prominently displayed a statement of Hafiz Saeed, head of JuD, claiming that “there is no al Qaeda”. If there is no al Qaeda, then how is it that there is a group that has, to date, claimed responsibility for global terrorism attacks? Another question that begs to be answered is what is the basis for this claim of Mr Hafiz Saeed?

Just yesterday, Urdu newspaper Daily Khabrian included an article claiming that “foreign hands” were involved in the Lahore attacks. The evidence for this conspiracy? A statement from Rana Munir of Pakistan Muslim Rajput Federation.

The reporter for Daily Khabrian did not feel it necessary to ask how Rana Munir knew of such a conspiracy, and the newspaper’s editors did not (as evidenced by the publication of the article) feel it necessary to ask why such a statement by Rana Munir was significant enough to be a priority for publication. All of this despite the fact that banned group Lashker-e-Jhangvi claiming responsibility for the attacks.

These articles raise important questions: How is it that banned groups are getting a disproportionate amount of positive press coverage for the relief work that they are doing? Why do media outlets continue to publish conspiracy theories absolving banned groups from responsibility for attacks – even after the groups admit responsibility? And why do major news outlets like The News (Jang), The Nation, and Dawn consider it a priority to publish articles praising the work of banned groups over others?

Yesterday, Pakistan suffered a serious attack in which at least 33 people have been killed and hundreds more wounded. The attacks targeted a Shi’a procession in Lahore. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claimed responsibility for the attack almost immediately.

With this recent tragedy still fresh in the nation’s consciousness, we wanted to know what the media companies thought was important today? First, let’s take a look at the front pages of several newspapers:

Judging by column space, the most important story seems to be what a good deal you will get from the media companies’ advertisers. Okay, yes, newspapers do require advertising to keep subscription fees low. But it is worth noting still that The Nation has more advertising than actual reporting on the front page, though Dawn and The News are not far behind.

What’s more interesting, though, is what each newspaper thinks is most important to report on the front page. The Nation has a few stories about the attacks in Lahore, but devotes at least as much space to stories about Supreme Court’s hearings on the 18th Amendment, US-Pakistan strategic talks, NAB, and inflation.

Dawn devotes the majority of its print space to coverage of the terror attack in Lahore, with the next biggest stories being flooding and the Sialkot lynching.

The News devotes about equal space to the Lahore attacks as they do advertising, but the majority of column space is for stories about floods and politics.

Editorial Pages

Editorial pages are where the official position of a publication is printed. The following topics appeared today.

The News

• Sialkot Murders
• 18th Amendment and appointment of judges
• School reading curriculums

Dawn

• Taxes
• Criticism of US treatment of military officers
• Objectives resolution

The Nation

• Criticism of US treatment of military officers
• Oil prices
• Criticism of government handling floods

It’s interesting, I think, that none of these three major newspapers had any editorial condemning the Lahore attacks. Surely they will make some statement at some point, but why was it not a priority? That’s not to say that school reading curriculum and oil prices are not important, but why did the news organizations decide those were more important than making a statement on the killings?

American intellectual Noam Chomsky has spoken for decades about what he calls “manufacturing consent”. He describes the way that major media organizations decide what is worthy of discussion, and that this has an influence on the way that society evolves.

It’s basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model. We’re talking primarily about the national media, those media that sort of set a general agenda that others more or less adhere to, to the extent that they even pay much attention to national or international affairs.

Now the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media. That means The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major television channels, and so on. They set the general framework. Local media more or less adapt to their structure.

And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.

Mr Chomsky was, of course, writing about the media in his own country, but the same theory pertains to our media as well. This is not a judgment against the media, but it is something to be aware of. Not only does the content of reporting shape the way people perceive certain issues, but the decision about what is newsworthy is a very powerful part of media. Thus, you should ask yourself – are the media’s priorities my priorities? Or are they different?

Take, for example, a front page story from the Nawa-i-Waqt newspaper about a Christian church in Florida, USA that has organized a rally to burn copies of the Holy Quran. This article makes the claim that “Western countries have resorted to presumptuous attacks”, and reports that some Ulema have condemned the West and the United Nations for their silence.

But the truth is, there has not been a silence on this matter. It has been widely condemned by Christian religious groups in the US and even the the US government and the UN.

A quick Google search revealed that a newspaper of Baptist Christians in Texas reports that the National Association of Evangelicals has condemned the threat of burning Quran and demanded that it be canceled. Other Christian religious leaders have also condemned the threats. In fact, the newspaper USA Today reported that the officials in the city denied any permits for such an act.

This is an act being threatened by a small group of extremists, and clearly does not represent any official action by American Christians any more than the actions of Hizbut Tahrir represent the official position of the majority of Muslims here.

It should also be noticed that recently in the US there are even churches that have burned bibles.

A North Carolina pastor says his church plans to burn Bibles and books by Christian authors on Halloween to light a fire under true believers.

Pastor Marc Grizzard told Asheville TV station WLOS that the King James version of the Bible is the only one his small western North Carolina church follows. He says all other versions, such as the Living Bible, are “satanic” and “perversions” of God’s word.

Obviously, nobody will accuse the US or the UN of being anti-Christian. And yet they even allow the burning of bibles in America. This is because it is considered part of the right of free speech granted in their Constitution.

Despite this freedom, there has been a loud outcry in the Christian community against the plans for Quran burning, as shown above. But that is not all.

American Ambassador the United Nations Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe has written a public letter to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Right Navanethem Pillay supporting complaints from Ambassador Zamir Akram and condemning the threat to burn any Qu’rans or show any disrespect to Islam.

As United States Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council, I wanted to register strong support for the request sent to you by my colleague, Ambassador Zamir Akram of Pakistan, in his capacity as Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues in Geneva, dated July 9, 2010. In his letter, Ambassador Akram called to your attention a report that the Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida plans to hold an “international burn a Koran Day” on 11 September 2010 in alleged remembrance of the victims of 9/11 and to demonstrate against “the evil of Islam.”

The United States government in no way condones such acts of disrespect. To the contrary, the United States is deeply concerned about deliberate attempts to offend members of religious or ethnic groups. President Obama made clear in Cairo in his speech on June 4, 2009 that he considers it part of his responsibility as President to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they occur, a responsibility I share. I also note that many Americans of all faiths disagree with this initiative by the Dove Outreach Center. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, for example, is using education and outreach to counter this “Burn the Koran” campaign with a campaign to share the Koran.

As you know, Madame High Commissioner, the United States strongly believes that the best antidote to intolerance is a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression. As we have discussed in the past, the United States supports the full use of your office and moral authority to speak out against intolerance and instances of hate speech where they occur.

The front page report in Daily Nawa-i-Waqt is misleading and based on false rumours that are easily disproven with the smallest amount of research. Considering that the vast majority take their news from Urdu sources, it is essential that the people get fair and accurate information, not hysterical falsehoods and religious exploitation.

While it took me all of 15 minutes to discover that Mr Harrison’s reputation precedes his remarks in the US, our own media seems to be more than willing to repeat the wildest conspiracies without the least effort in fact-checking. More troubling is that the Mr Harrison’s conspiracy seems to have been fed to him in part by Pakistani media.

The first suspicion I had about Mr Harrison’s claim was that it was simply too outrageous to be believed without some proof. Of course, Mr Harrison provides none in his column.

Most troubling, as I said, is that Mr Harrison’s claim appears to be based at least in part on rumours by unnamed journalists. He says that his sources for this conspiracy theory are:

…reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers…

First, what foreign intelligence sources? While it would certainly be in keeping with journalistic practice to hold confidential the name of an informant, it is not unusual to at least report what agency the informant is associated with. Without playing into alternate conspiracy theories, it is well documented that intelligence agencies partake in disinformation campaigns designed to sow discord in targeted nations. Considering the location in question, is it not important to know which foreign intelligence agency is making these claims?

Second, it is quite troubling that some representatives of Pakistani media have been feeding such stories to foreign reporters. Considering Mr Harrison’s background (as we will explain below), it is worrisome that these Pakistani journalists went to Mr Harrison to promote their story. Certainly Mr Harrison will refuse to expose who these Pakistani journalists are, which is too bad. While there is reason to protect the identities of “whistle blowers” against official corruption for fear of their safety, there is little public good gained by allowing journalists to spread unsubstantiated rumours.

But let’s look at Mr Harrison’s claims directly. Many of Mr Harrison’s claims are nothing more than hysterical conjecture.

Mystery surrounds the construction of 22 tunnels in secret locations where Pakistanis are barred. Tunnels would be necessary for a projected gas pipeline from Iran to China that would cross the Himalayas through Gilgit. But they could also be used for missile storage sites.

I could not help but think of the famous American claims about Iraq’s “aluminum tubes”. The idea that China, which shares a border with China, would need to store missiles under Gilgit-Balochistan makes no sense. Unfortunately for Mr Harrison’s conspiracy theory, though, building tunnels for a gas pipeline would be a perfectly reasonable explanation for an increased presence of Chinese workers in the region. It’s just not quite as scary.

Of course, this is not the first claim that Mr Harrison has made about the break up of Pakistan. The Pakistan Policy Blog noticed this trend of Mr Harrison’s back in 2008, noting that “Selig Harrison has made a career of predicting the imminent break-up of South Asian states”. In 2006, Mr Harrison reported for the French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique that Baluchistan and Sindh were preparing to quit the nation.

While there is no denying that we have seen groups of separatists and ethnic strife in the country (what country has not experienced such?), Mr Harrison’s reports consistently take on a tone of imminent national dissolution that is simply not supported by the facts. Four years after Mr Harrison’s prediction in the French media and no such calamity has occurred, of course. Yet Mr Harrison continues to predict the breakup of Pakistan. Perhaps he believes that if he simply wishes hard enough, it will come true?

Joshua Foust, a respected American journalist and intelligence consultant on South Asia, wrote a scathing profile of Mr Selig Harrison in 2008 in which he calls Mr Harrison’s writings on Pashtunistan, “silly, over-hyped nonsense” and says,

As it is, Harrison casts a very unconvincing shadow on the discourse over the Pashtunistan issue. It merits serious discussion—separatist movements always do. But placing them in their proper context, both historically and socially, is just as important as making a case you’ve been trying to make for years. As it is, Harrison seems to rely on mischaracterization, hyperbole, and “the soft bigotry of low expectations” (to borrow a phrase and avoid slinging charges of Orientalism)—hardly the stuff of a world-renowned regional expert. I hesitate to accuse Harrison of wearing ideological blinders, as I can’t really figure out what his ideology is, simultaneously blaming the West for subjugating the Pashtuns while granting them unlimited power to unite, declare independence, and bring down that very same West.

But that’s par for the course for most writing these days on Pashtuns, and even on Afghanistan. It just doesn’t add up. My question here, though, is the same as it was for Ann Marlowe: who the hell keeps paying him to write? I have to assume it is simply the ignorant, those more aware of his reputation than his recent scholarship, without the means to fact-check what he writes so long as it confirms their biases. That is a major loss to the field, that rigor. But, as with the curious longevity of Thomas Johnson (whom, ironically enough, Marlowe has called “brilliant”), it doesn’t seem to be that unoriginal, either.

Today, of course, Mr Harrison is not talking only about a separatist rebellion, but he has added a twist by claiming the government is “handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China”. His evidence? Chinese PLA workers building roads and bridges.

Mr Harrison’s column, it is important to note, appears on the Opinion page of the New York Times. It does not even pretend to be an objective or investigative report, nor should it. Mr Harrison makes clear his position when he writes,

What is happening in the region matters to Washington for two reasons. Coupled with its support for the Taliban, Islamabad’s collusion in facilitating China’s access to the Gulf makes clear that Pakistan is not a U.S. “ally.”

This is a position in direct conflict with the official positions of the US and Pakistan. It is simply Mr Harrison’s opinion, and possibly an attempt to change the direction of Pakistan-US relations. Something, it seems, he has been trying to do for years.

An opinion column with no evidence, a discredited author, and sources from unnamed foreign intelligence agencies. One has to ask why the Pakistani media has been so ready to republish such rubbish. In fact, The News republished the piece in full today. The Nation makes note of the author’s “obsessive anti-Pakistan posture”, but then reproduces most of the author’s claims.

Worse still, who are the members of the Pakistani media who are feeding such conspiracy theories to foreign journalists? This blog has been criticized in the past for suggesting that there is a cycle in which Pakistani conspiracy theorists posing as journalists feed outrageous stories to the international press, who then repeat them, giving them the credibility needed to be repeated yet again in mainstream Pakistani media. But we see here an example of exactly this.

Actions of the media have consequences. Those consequences can be good – as when the media uncovers evidence of corruption or brings attention to pressing issues. Or they can be bad – as when the media causes confusion and distraction by placing more importance on sales than on research and facts. While we cannot control what discredited commentators like Selig Harrison write in the international media, we should not be fueling a cycle of misinformation and conspiracy theories. We should be setting an example of journalistic excellence that provides honest and accurate information at home and abroad.

Ahmad Noorani

According to Noorani, “the total present pledges so far stand at only $777 million and the actual money received so far is only $82 million”. This is false.

According to data compiled by The Guardian, committed funding (funds that have been received) stood at $687,228,789 on 26 August. And additional $324,309,146 in uncommitted pledges (funds that have been promised, but not yet delivered) is outstanding. That means that the total present pledges can be no less than $1 Billion.

The largest donor is the United States, which has given $155,930,000 and pledged an additional $50,000,000. The next two largest donors are Saudi Arabia ($74,448,904) and United Kingdom ($64,765,001). In addition to monetary donations, many countries have provided “in kind” donations of foods and transportation, such as over 30 helicopters that are being provided by the US.

According to Noorani,

“A spokesman for the Economic Affairs Division confirmed to The News that by the weekend the total aid received in cash stood at $82 million while relief goods worth $60 million had also arrived, making the total foreign aid received at $142 million.”

It is not clear from Mr Noorani’s column what account the representative from EAD confirmed, but the claim that “the total foreign aid received” was not more than $142 million is not possibly correct.

It is also of concern that Mr Noorani compares international response to the 2005 earthquake to the response to the 2010 floods without considering the very different contexts of these two disasters. In fact, there are several important differences between the two events that analysts believe to be responsible for the difference in international aid.

The death toll in the 2005 earthquake was over 73,000. The latest reports put the number of deaths from flooding at around 1,600. While the number of deaths attributed to the floods is expected to grow, it is a slower killer than the earthquake, potentially making it seem less urgent to many international donors. According to one NGO, disasters that are more quickly destructive raise more relief money.

World Vision typically raises 10 to 15 times more from donors responding to a hurricane or earthquake as opposed to a flood, said Randy Strash, World Vision’s strategy director for emergency response.

There are other obvious reasons as well: The economy in 2005 was much stronger than the economy in 2007, making many donors feel that they can give more of their personal funds to help others. And, while the worst crisis in recent history, the flooding comes only a few months after the earthquakes in Haiti resulting in what many are calling “donor fatigue”.

None of these points are addressed in Mr Noorani’s column.

It is also curious that, when describing donations, Mr Noorani switches between currencies without providing any constant by which to compare. After some basic conversions using the website XE.com, it appears that some of Mr Noorani’s data points may be misleading.

For example, according to Mr Noorani, the total demands of provincial governments amount to over Rs.1 Trillion, or $11.8 Billions in US dollars. While no one suggests that the amounts currently raised for relief and reconstruction are anywhere near adequate, none of the recent crises saw such a large amount of donations.

The most recent crisis before the floods, the earthquake in Haiti, has received a pledge from the international community for $5.3 Billions over the next two years. This is less than the $7.5 Billion pledged by the USA alone last fall even before the floods devastated the country. Furthermore, the pledge did not come until April, four months after the disaster. While everyone will hopefully do more to help the flood victims, saying that fundraising is a failure if it does not achieve such levels as Mr Noorani suggests does not provide a realistic metric for evaluation.

Given the introduction and conclusion so the column, the author’s intent seems to be to suggest that the present government is not as effective as the Musharraf regime. What the author actually does, however, is make false comparisons and ignore important qualitative and quantitative data that explain differences in the response to the 2005 and 2010 disasters. While we hope that Mr Musharraf is able to raise some funds to help the country, it is important that media reports of donations be accurate and impartial so as to encourage everyone to give generously. Misleading reports such as the one filed by Mr Noorani do not help.

I also really like Wajahat S Khan. I think that, among the TV personalities out there, he is a pretty reliable guy. Of course, everybody makes mistakes. I think Waj made a pretty big mistake today with a post on his blog today about a “confidential email” claiming that Zardari bought a million pounds flat in London. Why is Waj spreading rumours and political propaganda?

This “confidential email” is simply another smear against Asif Zardari, as is clear from its closing lines:

This is a small reminder to the sick people in Pakistan, who were against the throwing of the shoe to a “Respected President of Pakistan abroad”!!!

They are purblind to the realities of the damage this man called Zardari has done to the nation.

But what damage would Zardari have done by buying a flat in London, if that is even the case? And why is Waj publishing a rumour that even declares that it doesn’t know the facts? The email itself says that “The final bid was made by mobile phone from inside a bullet proof car”. Is Asif Zardari the only man to own a mobile and a bullet proof car? What kind of proof is this?

Frankly, it’s quite disappointing that Waj saw fit to promote this sort of obvious political propaganda on his blog. As a respected journalist, he lends such obvious political smears an air of authority that they do not deserve. Why did he not exercise his investigative skills and do more research rather than simply repeating an obvious political rumour?

But let’s get to the meat of this email rumour, shall we? Actually, let’s see if there’s really any meat there, or if it’s just a mess of mashed pulses mixed with a handful of masala meant to fool the unsuspecting.

First, is it really newsworthy if Asif Zardari buys a flat in London? Look at other leaders. Pervez Musharraf owns a flat worth many millions of pounds. In fact, many Pakistani politicians own London flats.

The meeting took place at his apartment on the ninth floor of the Castleacre, Hyde Park Crescent.

The cost of the accommodation certainly runs into millions of pounds. Musharraf would not talk much about how he mobilised funds to purchase this because the money was ‘pooled’ by his own lecturing resources, his US-based son, Bilal, and the assistance from a friend that was not named.

It is the same locale, a few meters from the picturesque Hyde Park, where fabulously rich Pakistani politicians like Nawaz Sharif, still have or had apartments. As I reached the high security multi-storey plaza twenty minutes before the appointed time, I was greeted by a well-built Pakistani, wearing the traditional Safari suit of the same colour, and was told that Sahib has just finished his physical exercise, spanning one and a half hours.

Actually, the Sharif family are quite the wealthy landowners in London, with several properties worth millions of pounds each.

Of these, the Sharif family residence, three flats at 17 Avenfield House, 118 Park Lane alone are worth around 12 million pounds (Rs1.6 billion). According to documents available, Flagship Investments Limited, one of the companies run by the Sharif family in London, owns property worth around 10 million pounds in Central London. This does not include the value of the company’s offices. Hasan Nawaz Sharif, the son of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, is listed as the director of company on official documents. According to its website www.flagshipinvestments.co.uk, the company refurbishes and redevelops luxury residential properties in top end Central London locations. Sought after properties in Mayfair, Knightsbridge, Kensington and Bayswater are their primary focus. The company’s address listed on the website is Stanhope House, Stanhope Place, Marble Arch – one of the city’s priciest neighbourhoods. However, according to documents, the company moved to Tower Bridge House on St Katherine’s Way in November 2007 – a much more upscale property located near the bank of the River Thames.

The company’s website lists several properties, which include Flat 8, Burwood Place – London W2, worth 700,000 pounds (Rs96.6 million); Flat 9, Burwood Place – London W2, worth 900,000 pounds (Rs124.2 million); 10 Duke Mansions, Duke Street, London W1, worth 1,495,000 pounds (Rs206.31 million); Flat 12a, 118 Park Lane, Mayfair – London SW1, worth 475,000 pounds (Rs65.55 million); Flat 2, 36 Green Street – London W1, worth 800,000 pounds (Rs110.4 million); and, 117 Gloucester Place, London W1 (value not listed). The website also features a piece of real estate near the Buckingham Palace, which is valued at around 4,450,000 pounds. In addition, one of the properties listed on the website – 841 Neil Gwynne House, Slone Avenue – is said to be the residence of one Waqar Ahmed, listed on the documents as the Company Secretary of Flagship Investments Limited.

MQM’s Altaf Hussain owns multiple million pound properties in the UK. Evan PTI’s Imran Khan’s massive property which includes a private cricket ground for his sons was paid for with the proceeds from a London real estate deal.

Like most world leaders, Asif Zardari is wealthy. This should not be any surprise. And while it is a popular for his political opponents to spread rumours about his wealth, it is also a fact that Asif Zardari was a very successful businessman long before he ever met Benazir Bhutto and got involved with politics.

While there is no evidence that Asif Zardari is the buyer of this flat, the buyer, however anonymous right now, will come to be known. All properties in the UK have to be registered, so even if it is bought in the name of a company, the owner will be easily traceable. Why not wait until the registration is complete to say who the buyer is? Is it because this is now political opportunity to undermine the credibility of the President? That’s fine for political operatives, but not for serious journalists. I expect better, Waj.

At issue are allegations of poll-rigging in the NA-110 Gujranwala by elections.

Yesterday, Tariq Butt reported on alleged incidents at the poll based on sources at the scene including police. While his report is largely a simple re-telling of the story as reported by sources, the article carries the sensational headline: “Inside story of how a poll was rigged, and saved”. This headline accepts that there was some misdeed – poll rigging – without allowing the proper course of justice to take place. A more appropriate headline would be “Allegations of poll rigging” or “Accusations of poll rigging mar by elections in NA-110″.

Despite a lack of proof or allowing the proper process of justice to take place, self-appointed judge and jury Ansar Abbasi accepts the prosecutorial headline of Tariq Butt’s column and declares a verdict as the ECP has asked to lodge a FIR.

FIR stands for “First Information Report” and is a report prepared by police when they receive information about an alleged incident. It is, as the title of the report says, first information only. It is not a conviction nor is it any proof of misdeeds.

But the way Ansar Abbasi reports the situation, a reader is likely to come away accepting that the accused are guilty and already convicted.

To the great embarrassment of the PML-N, the Election Commission of Pakistan has asked the Punjab election commissioner to lodge an FIR with the police against the persons who tried to rig the by-polls in NA-100, Gujranwala.

Vindicating the role played by the recently removed Regional Police Officer (RPO) Zulfikar Cheema, who faced the wrath of the N-League for not allowing rigging in the by-polls won by the PPP, the ECP has decided to proceed against those who had kidnapped the presiding officers or tried to tamper with the election results.

While it would be appropriate to report that allegations have been made and that the ECP is pursuing an investigation, the presumption of guilt on the part of PML-N is inappropriate. Both the headline of Tariq Butt’s column yesterday and the content of Ansar Abbasi’s column today cross the line between reporting facts and making presumptions of guilt or innocence. Reporting is the proper role of media, determining guilt is the proper role of courts. Mr Tariq Butt and Mr Ansar Abbasi should restrain themselves for making such presumptions and stick to reporting facts only.

Mr Saleem’s column cites troubling statistics from the flood, “One out of every eight Pakistanis is at risk of severe diarrhoea, asthmatic attacks, dysentery, meningitis, hepatitis, skin diseases or a whole host of food and waterborne diseases”, and then accuses everyone in the country not presently wearing khaki of “playing politics” with the disaster, mostly without citing any actual events.

For example, the author states that “in Punjab, PPP and PML-N are playing their own politics”. But the author fails to tell readers what this has to do with the flood response or anything else. PPP and PML-N being rival political parties, one is reasonable to assume that they will be engaging in politics. Birds sing, political parties play at politics.

More curious, however, are Mr Saleem’s statements with regard to the military. His concluding paragraph reads:

On a much broader canvass, generals of Pak Army are winning ‘hearts and minds’ and thus capturing more and more of the Pakistani political space—all at the cost of the political class. Pak Air Force has diverted 5 C-130Bs and 7 C-130Es, its tactical transport aircraft, for picking and delivering flood relief to wherever it’s needed the most. Pak Navy’s boats are speeding through floodwaters delivering food and saving survivors still floating just above the water level. Right is winning by doing while the left talks. Generals are also winning by doing while politicians talk. Would the khakis take over? Answer: They did that several months ago.

There are two major problems with this conclusion. The first, and most obvious, is that it takes a clear editorial stance, and therefore does not appropriately belong as a news report.

Second, Mr Saleem makes several claims that bear scrutiny.

1. “…generals of Pak Army are winning ‘hearts and minds’ and thus capturing more and more of the Pakistani political space—all at the cost of the political class”.

Politics is not a zero-sum game in which positive feelings about the military necessarily mean negative feelings about politicians and vice-versa. Furthermore, Mr Saleem in no way demonstrates that the military is “capturing more of the political space”. This smacks of wishful journalism more than actual reporting.

2. “Right is winning by doing while the left talks.”

This statement attributes to the military a specific political ideology that is not necessarily true. This may be partly wishful journalism, but it also falsely equates the military’s role in the government with “right-wing” politics. Consider the example of “doing” cited by the author:

Pak Air Force has diverted 5 C-130Bs and 7 C-130Es, its tactical transport aircraft, for picking and delivering flood relief to wherever it’s needed the most. Pak Navy’s boats are speeding through floodwaters delivering food and saving survivors still floating just above the water level.

This is an entirely apolitical exercise in which the military is simply doing its job. During the Soviet era, Russian journalists could very well have written of their own military exercises as “the left is doing”. The truth is, though, it is simply “doing”.

3. “Would the khakis take over? Answer: They did that several months ago.:

This is so blatantly editorializing that it is shocking that the editors allowed it to be published as a ‘top story’ instead of an opinion column where it belongs. Moreover, Mr Saleem at no point explains what he means by “taking over”. Clearly, the nation is still in the control of the elected government – the same elected government that recently extended the appointment of COAS Gen. Kayani and the same elected government that funds the very military exercises that Mr Saleem praises as “doing”. In fact, you cannot have one without the other.

And this is the most important point of all – the khakis are able to do their jobs because of the politicians in the same way that the politicians are able to do their jobs because of the people. There has been no coup – soft or otherwise – and the military and politicians are working together to address the flood crisis. Certainly one can make the argument that the politicians are taking more of the blame than the military, but this is the nature of politics. To reprise the analogy above, birds sing and people blame politicians.

I’m a little bit uncomfortable with Nadeem’s statement that perhaps the media needs to show ’self-censorship’. Whether censorship is dictated by a government bureaucrat, a military officer, a party official, or an editor, it is still illegitimate. No one person, party, or group should stop someone from publishing or saying something in order to promote or hide a specific agenda. Perhaps Mr Nadeem Paracha had a different meaning for “self-censorship”, but I wanted to make this point for the sake of argument.

Obviously, editors are responsible for reviewing articles to determine that there is a line between opinion/editorial content and factual reports. And editors can make decisions about when a story is ready to report. Too often, in the age of electronic media, there is a failure on both counts – editors allowing all sorts of biased and inflammatory remarks to boost advertising sales and instant reporting of rumours even before the facts are determined in order to have the “breaking” story that improves ratings.

If media reports are hyperventilating partisan talking points or outlandish conspiracy theories, the media outlet that presents them ultimately discredits itself. Yes, it may see advertising revenues or ratings increase in the short term, but in the long term it will see itself wither away. It is like a candle that burns on both ends. It shines brightly for a moment, but then it consumes itself.

Nadeem gets to this point, too, in his conclusion. Those media voices that cry foul while they themselves are guilty are not respected enough to be taken seriously. They may have a legitimate complaint, but nobody wants to listen as it becomes their “just desserts”.

Till then, I am afraid, all those hysterical spiels by populist media outfits about free speech just do not hold much credence in my eyes; though I would not condone the banning of any channel.

And this is also what sets Nadeem Paracha apart from many others: “I would not condone the banning of any channel”. To this, I think that the answer to Nadeem Paracha’s question as to “how suitable or justified are we to wave the free speech flag?” is: Quite justified. Individuals may be upset about a particular story or the way it is reported, but that does not give license to threaten a journalist, destroy newspapers, or shut down TV broadcasts. Two wrongs do not make it right.

The best – in fact the only – antidote to media bias, conspiracy theories, and propaganda is for reasonable, rational people to publicly correct this misinformation. When media make false or biased claims, they are doing so with the expectation that they will not be caught out. Once they are exposed, they will face a choice: correct their practices to conform with responsible standards, or be discredited and fade away.

I think what needs to be done is a careful presentation of the facts in a balanced way. Stop being so aggressive and interrupting everyone on the show. When you shout and speak more than the guest, you are projecting your prejudices and blocking the other point of view. If you believe that someone is hiding or misrepresenting the facts, then your calm and pointed questions will indeed expose him or her and the viewers will understand. Your aggression puts the viewer off. An anchor’s calm creates the benchmark for the tone of discussion. Please realise that viewers have already been educated, thanks to your efforts. Now they expect more. They look for an analysis of the situation. They want a dispassionate, thought provoking appraisal and a way forward. They expect public opinion to be motivated for short-term and long-term solutions. One anchor interviewed a Sindh ‘nationalist’ leader and probed his reservations about the present scheme of water management. Some positive thinking emerged. This was an example. While the nation has experienced this colossal natural tragedy and is prepared to avoid a recurrence, we need to focus on acceptable planning. If the civil government fails to rehabilitate, reconstruct and plan for the future, the media must take it to task.

Anchors have the power of communication beyond the reach of anyone else. It is the nature of your job that it is burdened with social responsibility. If you appreciate the good work of the armed forces, highlighting it is the right thing to do, but also encourage those who are sincerely mobilising. Build role models. Look at the causes and hold responsible those who have neglected the proper need for water management. Focus on developing a consensus on future strategy. Of course, expose corruption, mismanagement, apathy and incompetence. But be a role model yourself — of character, knowledge, investigation and decency.