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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The authority also reiterated its resolve to curb the derogatory and defamatory satirical programmes aired by many channels in the guise of parody that are inadvertently being used for demeaning and defaming dignitaries.

Defamation is defined under Article 3 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 requires that “a false statement or representation”. The reason for defamation laws, which are common throughout the world, is to prevent the spread of malicious and vindictive lies to damage someone’s reputation.

Satire is something very different. Satire is the use of irony, sarcasm, and humour to highlight folly with the intention of making an editorial point. It is an ancient art form practiced all over the world, often to point out the mistakes and misbehaviour of elite and powerful figures in society. Satire is inherently promoting a particular opinion or perspective, and is usually considered a specially protected form of free speech.

Examples of satire include many of Nadeem Paracha’s columns for Dawn, Beygairat Brigade song ‘Aalu Anday’

and Aaj TV‘s 4 Man Show

These programmes are not presenting false representations to defame or demean anyone. They are merely using humour to highlight the eccentricities and particularities of prominent issues and persons in society. Just because someone is a dignitary or has achieved a high reputation, it does not mean that they are flawless. Actually, many argue that the more influence a person or institution has, the more important it is to scrutinise them so that they live up to the expectations that society places on them.

PEMRA does not need to curb satirical programmes, which are part and parcel of a healthy debate and discussion in society. Rather, the regulatory agency needs to curb the false and defamatory information that is all too common in news reports. Rather than crack down on satire, PEMRA should issue guidelines about biased reporting and publishing opinions and viewpoints outside the clearly labeled spaces for such views so that readers and viewers clearly know when they are being presented with facts and when they are being presented with someone’s personal opinion.

That Ansar Abbasi’s article is speculation and not evidence-based is admitted by Abbasi’s own words:

Talking to media persons on his return from Davos after attending the World Economic Forum Conference, the prime minister is reported to have said, “Any decision about the extension of DG ISI would be taken at an appropriate time.”

There is no explanation as to why did the prime minister say this but given the track record of the rulers and their style of soiled politicking, Gillani may use the extension card as a lever to get Pasha softened on memo issue.

In other words, “There is no explanation as to why did the prime minister say this but” I am going to invent an explanation anyway.

Ansar Abbasi is, of course, entitled to his own speculation and whatever conspiracy theories are born in his head. And if Jang Group believes Ansar Abbasi’s fantasies and conspiracy theories are worth publishing, they have every right to do so. But such inventions are not reporting, they are opinions and should be properly published on the pages clearly marked as containing opinions so that readers are not intentionally or unintentionally misled into thinking that Ansar Abbasi’s speculation is something other than what it is.

Maya Khan’s little stunt may have been intended to shame unsuspecting young people, but she ended up only shaming herself. It was Maya Khan’s raid itself that resulted in expressions of disgust not only across Pakistan, but internationally. A week later, Samaa TV announced that Maya Khan has been sacked along with her team. Her insincere ‘apology’ was apparently a slap in the face to not only Samaa’s viewers, but her bosses as well.

As usual, Cafe Pyala notes some important lessons to be learned from the sorry affair. Other media groups, too, are recoiling from the embarrassment. The editorial board at The News termed Maya Khan’s behaviour as ‘Beyond the pale’:

Once again the question of ‘how far’ has arisen. It concerns the limits of private space and how far into that space journalism is entitled to go and under what circumstances. Given the conservative nature of our society there are considerable risks attached to this type of journalism, which panders to the lowest common denominator and fawns at the feet of extremism. It is tantamount to vigilantism, and some might view the segment as a licence to take matters into their own hands and harass – or worse – people who are breaking no law by being together in a public space, whether or not they are related by blood or marriage. The argument has been made that in journalism there are no boundaries – but there are. A responsible news organisation will have a set of ethical rules, the limits beyond which they do not go. This was guttersnipe journalism, unworthy of the name. Young lives may well have been damaged in the sleazy scramble for ratings. It was also indicative of just how far the media in Pakistan has to go before it reaches maturity. This was beyond the pale, and we should not see its like again.

We don’t disagree with Samaa TV‘s decision to fire Maya Khan, and we hope that it sends a strong signal to other journalists that such behaviour is not going to get you fame and fortune. But we also hope that the discussion of journalistic ethics does not stop with Maya’s sacking.

Outrage around Maya Khan’s show resulted largely from the sympathy we all could feel for the victims of her ‘raid’. As The News correctly reflected, “Given the conservative nature of our society there are considerable risks attached to this type of journalism, which panders to the lowest common denominator and fawns at the feet of extremism”.

But it is not only young people who are at risk of this ‘guttersnipe journalism’. Governor Salmaan Taseer lost his life in part due to his treatment by the media. To this day, a disturbing number of people hold the mistaken belief that Governor Taseer was a blasphemer despite their being no evidence to support such accusations.

Salmaan Taseer is an extreme case, but how many people believe that Nawaz Sharif is soft on India, that Asif Zardari tried to flee the country, that Husain Haqqani wrote a memo to Admiral Mullen, or that Imran Khan is secretly meeting with American officials? Just as Maya Khan’s programme gave the impression that the young people were doing something wrong without every actually having any evidence, the media gives false impressions of politicians and public figures also.

Certainly the private lives of ordinary citizens should be treated differently than the public lives of politicians. And certainly politicians who engage in illegal or corrupt practices should be exposed. But they should be exposed with facts and evidence, not with rumour and innuendo designed to give the impression of guilt without ever actually having to prove it. Just as “young lives may well have been damaged in the sleazy scramble for ratings”, the lives of public figures and their families are also damaged by the sleazy ratings race.

Maya Khan may deserve a public sacking, but firing her will not clean up journalism. If we treat Maya Khan’s firing as the solution to the problem, rumours, innuendo and conspiracy theories will continue to dominate headlines long after Maya Khan’s few minutes in the spotlight are long forgotten.

News vs. Opinion

Conflict of Interest

Quoting Anonymous Sources

Intelligence Sources

The Ratings Race in times of Tragedy

Imagine our disappointment, then, when we opened today’s edition of The News only to find another editorial, this time giving utmost sympathy to the claims of Mansoor Ijaz about his own security concerns in what appears to be a blatant double-standard.

This is what The News said about Husain Haqqani:

There has been no fulminating cleric calling for Haqqani’s demise, nor protests or rallies against his alleged treachery. Today Haqqani remains in the PM house, and one might reasonably wonder why there and not some other place – his own home for instance, suitably guarded against intrusion or attack. But that is another unknown, alongside all the other unknowns of this curious affair. We wish no ill to Mr Haqqani, but might attach greater credence to his claims of insecurity were he able to support them with something a little less ephemeral than euphemistic references to ‘powerful quarters’. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?

This is what The News said about Mansoor Ijaz:

Can anyone be blamed, then, for accusing the government of trying to intimidate Ijaz into staying away from Pakistan and standing in the way of the memo investigation reaching its logical end? It boggles the mind why the government would want to lose its already tenuous moral ground by shirking from its primary responsibility of witness protection. If the judicial commission fails to complete its work, the assumption of Husain Haqqani’s guilt and the complicity of top government leaders will be recorded in historical memory. An easier way out has already been suggested by Haqqani’s lawyers when they asked the commission to arrange testimony of their witnesses through video conferences. If this can be done for one side, why not for the other? The government must exhibit that it is committed to protecting Ijaz for the sake of the truth, and make every effort to get him to come to Pakistan or get his testimony for both the judicial and parliamentary commissions. On his part, Ijaz also needs to exhibit more faith in the judicial process to which he says he is ready to surrender the truth.

According to The News, Husain Haqqani is crying crocodile tears while he is placed on the ECL and sitting behind armed guards at PM’s house, but Mansoor Ijaz has an understandable complaint while he enjoys the comfort of his home in South France and is able to travel freely. We are not questioning whether Mansoor Ijaz has received any threats, but why are his claims more believable to The News than Husain Haqqani? Is it because The News wants to create different impressions about the two people? Or is The News simply unaware of their obvious double-standard?

This is the worst sort of double-standard because it so obviously takes sides in a case that is presently sub judice. Rather than acting like the media team for one side or the other, Jang Group would be appreciated to inform readers without bias. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?

First, the clip.

The indispensable Cafe Pyala hit the nail on the head.

Not only does Samaa TV’s goon squad invade the privacy of people, it blatantly ignores the consequences of putting these poor people’s faces on air (who knows or cares what their domestic circumstances are) and lies to them about having their mikes and cameras switched off. This is unethical behaviour beyond all limits.

We wrote one year ago about the danger of using religious judgmentalism to boost ratings.

It may be entertaining to watch people yell and insult each other over inanities. But when the line begins to blur between yelling on TV and yelling in the streets, entertainment turns quickly to incitement. We each make our own decisions in life, but these decisions are influenced by those we look to for information and guidance: parents, teachers, friends…and now TV. Perhaps Meher Bokhari did not look into Qadri’s eyes and tell him to kill Salmaan Taseer, but she didn’t have to. The message was already clear.

Reading fatwas against Salmaan Taseer, Meher Bokhari egged on extremists to commit violent acts against an innocent man. In the case of Maya Khan’s actions on Samaa TV, the people who she calls into question are not even public figures. They are private citizens and there is no evidence that they were doing anything illegal or immoral. In fact they were harassed in a public park during broad daylight, not caught in a hotel or sneaking around after dark. But the facts are not what viewers will take away. They will take away the impression, the innuendo that these young people were engaged in illegal or immoral behaviour. Their reputations are a price Maya Khan and Samaa TV are willing to pay to buy some extra ratings. And if, God forbid, some extremist decided to follow the example of Mumtaz Qadri, then will they too use hollow claims of media freedom to hide their shame?

The Embassy also issued an official denial to Dawn, telling their reporter that the US Embassy will not support Mansoor Ijaz with his security or any of his activities if he comes to Pakistan.

The US embassy had a word about Mr Ijaz’s trip, too. It came out with a denial of reports that he had been given any assurance.

Spokesman Mark Stroh, talking to Dawn, said the embassy would not be involved in coordinating his security or any of his activities during his stay here.

The comments came in response to Mr Ijaz’s media interviews in which he had claimed to have been assured by US authorities of support during his stay in Pakistan.

This raises the question if Jang Group knew that the US clearly refused to provide support to Mansoor Ijaz on Saturday, why did they publish an article on Sunday implying that US supports Ijaz? The article contains several statements by Mansoor that could be misunderstood as meaning that Mansoor Ijaz has the support and protection of his government, which had been denied by the US Embassy. But the statements by US Embassy spokesman denying Mansoor Ijaz’s claims do not appear, even though Jang Group had this information a day earlier.

Readers of The News must be scratching their heads and wondering what other information Jang Group selectively leaving out of news reports.

With last week’s piece, we asked if it was possibly “intended as blackmail to prevent a politician from participating in elections”. The latest article makes the situation even more curious. According to Abbasi, his anonymous source “received a copy of the communication sent by Musharraf’s confidante to the ex-US Congressmen”.

So now there is an alleged secret memo written by the envoy of Musharraf and delivered to a retired American official asking for US support in Pakistan. And even though it was a secret carried out only by trusted emissaries, somehow it wound up at the office of Jang Group.

Why does this plot sound familiar…? Of course! The first ‘Memogate’ saga was obviously such a box office success that it was only a matter of time before a sequel appeared. Only it seems that in their rush, the memogate’s producers have forgotten that the first episode of ‘Memogate’ has not even finished before they already rolled out the next episode in the series.

As we wrote last week, Ansar Abbasi does not need to reveal the name of his ‘influential diplomatic source’, but it is becoming increasingly strange that the supposed ‘secrets’ of every unpopular politician are suddenly ending up in the pages of Daily Jang. Has Ansar Abbasi suddenly learned the art of investigative reporting? Or is someone feeding him this information? What is the motivation of these ‘sources’? Who will be the next politician to have a ‘secret memo’ to US officials magically appear in Daily Jang? I guess we’ll have to wait for the next sequel to find out.

Actually, these basics are not new by any means. As she notes in her excellent piece for The Express Tribune blog, they consist of nine principles of journalism outlined in 1997 as part of the Committee of Concerned Journalists Statement of Shared Purpose. The nine principles are:

1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth (read: assemble facts and verify them)
2. Its first loyalty is to the citizen (read: not to any political party or politician)
3. Its essence is the discipline of verification (read: separate yourself from fiction, propaganda, and entertainment. Refer to principle 1. Also refer to Shamsul Anwar)
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover (stay neutral; stay fair. Your credibility as a journalist comes from accuracy, not your devotion to Imran Khan or your fondness for the judiciary)
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power (read: journalism can serve as a watchdog over those in power; that freedom need not be exploited!)
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise (read: we love discussion. Najam Sethi, though whatever his background may be, has one of the most peaceful talk shows. Discussion and foul-mouthed arguments during live broadcasts are two different modes of communication.)
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant (read: entertainment engages your audience; news enlightens it. Understand the difference.)
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional (read: know your demographics.)
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience (read: carry a moral compass)

All of these together could probably be summarized in one simple phrase – “Just the facts!”  Something that our celebrity journalists could do to remember.  Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but just because you are on TV does not mean you’re entitled to your own facts.