The short, four paragraph piece in Saturday’s newspaper contains a sensational headline and opening paragraph which can only be read in a way that will influence the readers to believe that Asma Jahangir is anti-military – a dangerous accusation in these times.

Mr Noorani’s article appeared on the same page as another piece that terms the respected international human rights NGO ‘Human Rights Watch’ as taking ‘a highly objectionable and partisan position against the superior judiciary of Pakistan’ after Pakistan Director Human Rights Watch Ali Dayan Hasan expressed concern about the Supreme Court’s verdict. According to The News, the ‘highly controversial statement’ insisted that “all arms of the state must act within their constitutionally determined ambit and in aid of legitimate civilian rule”. Does Jang Group really find the Constitution ‘highly objectionable’?

Just below this piece, in fact, was another piece attacking Human Rights Watch, this time terming it as ‘a foreign organisation working in Pakistan under the cover of human rights’. In an utterly bizarre and inexplicable practice, The News then goes on to quote its source against Human Rights Watch – none other than Mr Ahmad Noorani!

The News goes on to attack the person of Human Rights Watch director Ali Dayan Hasan. After printing his statement:

“No one from the government approached me to issue this press release and it was issued by my organisation considering the fears and threats to constitution, democracy and human rights in Pakistan”

The News injected a rumour that “It was also being said that he had issued this press release on directions of the federal government”. As with very many Jang Group sources, these cannot be verified and The News offers no evidence to support the claims their mysterious ‘sources’.

It should be noted that the person who appears to behind a few of these biased and sensational articles, Ahmad Noorani, has a track record of reporting incorrect information and biased articles attacking the present government.

As the issue of the memo case is presently sub judice, journalists should report only the facts and not attempt to influence proceedings or to anticipate the course of the inquiry or predict the outcome. Let the court do its work. It does not need Jang Group prejudicing the courts statements and decisions and thereby undermining the very independence of the court itself..

The government has decided not to conduct inquiry of any kind at any level whatsoever about the shameful Abbottabad incident to find out the real culprits responsible for intelligence failure and violation of Pakistani borders and sovereignty. Only an in-house probe will be conducted by the Pakistan Army, it is reliably learnt from federal cabinet sources.

Credible Foreign Office sources say that this attitude of the Zardari-led Gilani government is also under American pressure that there was no need now to find out how the Pakistan intelligence agencies and intelligence system failed to monitor Osama or detect the arrival, operation and departure of US helicopters and other aircraft.

Apparently Ahmad Noorani’s sources are as credible as those of his mentor Ansar Abbasi.

Speaking before parliament today, PM Gilani stated that

“we are determined to get to the bottom of how, when and why about OBL’s presence in Abbottabad. An investigation has been ordered.”

It is fitting that the PM also said the following:

Very often it is the virtual or the media reality that obscures the actual. Yet, truth cannot for long be submerged in falsehood.

Today this was illustrated perfectly when the media reported one thing only to have it disproved within mere hours.

From the beginning, Shaheen Sehbai takes such a sensational tone that he threatens to discredit any legitimate argument about oversight of discussions on the mine. For example, he writes:

Before these highly enticing visits of the mining tycoons to clinch the deals, which followed intense behind-the-scene negotiations and bargaining through middle men, some highly bizarre developments have been taking place, leaving experts and the rest of the mining world stunned, amazed and confused.

These companies want that the mining licences should be issued by Pakistan immediately after their exploration licences expire soon. But there are legal hitches and pressure is now being put through the backdoor to get the target.

In recent years, so many games have been played to keep Pakistan’s share in the enormous treasure to a bare minimum, thanks to some greedy politicians and bureaucrats who sold their country’s natural wealth.

This sounds like the plot of some film, not a piece of serious investigative journalism. Why not simply provide the evidence without all the spices also?

Actually, this may be the problem – all spices and no meats. Sehbai claims to have conducted a “deep study” of documents and interviews to back his claim, but he can name none of these documents.

Reading the piles of documents, statements, interviews and legal papers available with The News, the picture that emerges is one of a grand deception, loot and plunder that never happened before on such a scale and the facts, untruths, half-truths, attempts to sabotage, frauds and backdoor bribes, are all documented.

Considering Shaheen Sehbai’s own record of “untruths, half-truths, attempts to sabotage and frauds”, perhaps he will not be so offended if readers would like a little bit more explanation of these documents. In fact, if he is correct and he has evidence of “a grand deception”, why not publish this evidence like the New York Times published The Pentagon Papers? Or, if Mr Sehbai is concerned about his confidentiality, he could send them to the Wikileaks website.

Instead, he chooses to shroud his claims in a mystery. Only he can see the evidence, and we are expected to trust him.

But there is other evidence that counters Sehbai’s claims. Only last week, APP reported that the PM was holding public talks with a delegation from Chile – public and open talks – during which time he stated that Pakistan is conducting talks to ensure the best deal is reached for the Pakistanti people.

The Prime Minister said that Pakistan really wants foreign investment and intends to encourage the best firms and companies which can give the best results. It is with the same intention that the government has prepared investor friendly policies and opened up various sectors for the interested investors, he added.

The Prime Minister said that it was an encouraging sign that the foreign companies wanted to avail the investment opportunities in the mineral sector in Pakistan for their mutual advantage.

Pakistan has a vibrant private sector best suited for public-private partnership for the good of the people of both countries, he added.

The Prime Minister assured full support and fair deal in handling the Reko-Diq project and would provide all possible cooperation for early launching of this mega project.

Shaheen Sehbai also tries to claim that there is some trick being played by the mining company named ‘Tethyan’.

An Australian mineral exploration firm originally started the exploration and invested some $30 million but in 2006 sold the company to a Canadian and Chilean joint venture for $230 million. The old company was an Australian public company Tethyan Copper Prosperity Limited and the new company was named Tethyan Copper Company (TCC) of Pakistan. A trick game is being played in these cosmetic changes. The Canadians and Chileans, according to publicly declared information to their shareholders and regulators, took 37.5 per cent share each, while Pakistan only had the remaining 25 per cent.

But this is no trick. Actually, it is public knowledge that has been reported in the press.

Tethyan Copper – jointly owned by Canada’s Barrick and Chile’s Antofagasta – holds 75% of the project and the Balochistan provincial government owns the remaining 25%.

Sehabi next tries another sleight of hand trick by quoting stories about an Afghani mining corruption which has nothing to do with the Reko Diq mine.

According to a Washington Post report on Nov 18, 2009: “The Afghan minister of mines accepted a roughly $30 million bribe to award the country’s largest development project to a Chinese mining firm.”

Quoting a US official, the Washington Post said: “The alleged payment to Mohammad Ibrahim Adel was made in Dubai within a month of December 2007, when a big Chinese metallurgical group received the contract for a $2.9 billion project to extract copper from the Aynak deposit in Logar province. Aynak is considered one of the largest unexploited copper deposits in the world.”

What does this have to do with the story of Reko Diq? Nothing. Sehbai seems only concerned with making readers angry about mining and corruption so that they will assume that any Reko Diq agreement is also tainted with corruption, even if there is no evidence of such.

Sehbai pulls another sleight of hand later by saying that a company that owns some shares of Tethyan is “being accused on the web of some strange activities”.

The Canadian company, Barrick Gold, with 29 mines all over the world, is already being accused on the web of some strange activities. These include spills of cyanide, mercury and other heavy metals, police and legalistic repression of critics, threats to water resources on four continents and even food poisoning, as well as rape.

And this should tell the reader everything he needs to know about Shaheen Sehbai’s journalistic ethics. How can someone who claims to be a professional journalist write such slander? Surely Sehbai is aware that any living person can write anything on the web with no oversight and virtually no consequences. That he would include such as his evidence shows that he is willing to stoop to any lows to write a sensational tabloid article, not serious investigative news.

Sehbai even says that CM Balochistan was asked if he is being pressurized by Zardari, only to have the CM reply that the answer is no! Why does Sehbai report the CM’s reply “as an after thought”? Is it because he is trying to influence readers not to believe the CM’s own word?

Shaheen Sehbai may not believe the word of the CM Balochistan, but he is certainly willing to believe the word of his fellow “reporter” of The News, Ahmad Noorani even though this very site has proven before that Mr Noorani includes incorrect statements in his articles.

The Reko Diq mine is a project worth billions in investment for Pakistan. Certainly such an important venture must be taken with public discussion and transparent process so that we can be sure that Pakistan gets the best possible result and the most benefit for the people of this country. But public discussion and transparent process does not include sensationalism and fictions. The people deserve the facts, not Shaheen Sehbai’s drama screenplays.

The article claims that:

In different countries with developed political systems, including US and India, apex courts have struck down constitutional amendments.

This is not true. No constitutional amendment has ever been struck down by a US court. Actually, that would not be possible as in US law the written constitution is considered the supreme law of the land.

Let us take the example of NRO, which has made its way back to the headlines after a short nap. This week has seen headlines like On the chopping block? (Express Tribune), PM seeks list of NRO-beneficiary baboos (The Nation), and Will President Zardari’s name be included in NRO list? (The News International).

Many of these articles are filled with speculation and little factual reporting. For example, the article by Ahmed Noorani, “Will President Zardari’s name be included in NRO list?”, is less a news report than an argument for removing the President.

But more than simply being speculation and predictions, the vast majority of news articles and commentaries are based on a premise that the NRO list is accurate. But is it? Judging by some news reports, that is not decided.

An article that appeared in The News yesterday reminds readers that the original NRO list contained many errors.

The original NRO list that was revealed to the media and later submitted to the Supreme Court by the then state minister for law Afzal Sandhu proved to be full of many mistakes. “Some of names were included with malafide intentions in the list by the NAB officials who owed their positions to General Musharraf’s era,” NAB sources said and added the NAB was now defending cases in the courts, but did not have sufficient grounds to defend its actions.

It is worth mentioning here that Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar had to face embarrassment at the hands of some over zealous bureaucrats when his name was put on the exit control list and he had to cancel an official visit to China. Ahmad Mukhtar’s name was also included in the list of NRO beneficiaries but later both the NAB and the Law Ministry admitted that his name was included by mistake.

Pakistan’s Ambassador to US Husain Haqqani’s inclusion in the list is also unique in the sense that the NAB had not filed any reference against him. Investigation agencies never had sufficient basis for prosecution against him, but still his name was included on the basis of an inquiry that was started in 1997. Haqqani was arrested in 1999 on the then accountability czar Saifur Rehman’s orders and kept in detention for more than 70 days.

Haqqani had immediately challenged the inclusion of his name in the list in the Lahore High Court where his writ petition is being heard now. The NAB has admitted in the court that his name was included by mistake by NAB’s legal department.

This should be no surprise, actually. We have already seen acquittals of so-called NRO “beneficiaries” such as Usman Farooqui earlier this year, and the LHC is even asking NAB to show documents explaining why some people were included on the list in the first place.

Despite NAB’s own admission that the NRO list contains inaccuracies and mistakes – even after the national embarrassment caused when Ahmad Mukhtar was refused to leave on an official visit – the media continues to write about the issue as if it were an accepted conclusion that the names included on the list were guilty.

The truth is that the media seems to have a memory problem. This could be because its short attention span makes it forget what it has already reported, or it could be because some reporters are ignoring facts to promote a political agenda. Either way, it is an example of the media repeating past mistakes and not giving proper reporting on an important issue.

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.

Ahmad Noorani, journalist or political operative?

Ahmad Noorani writes a ‘top story’ in The News today that is an example of yellow journalism at its worst. The article, “President confuses PPP Jialas and the nation“, is a political ‘hit job’ and not a serious piece of journalism. Moreover, the author’s argument contradicts recent reports found in his own newspaper.

Ahmed claims that the president does not want to locate and try the killers of Benazir Bhutto. This is a blatant mischaracterization of the president’s remarks in an effort to score political points.

Despite making this claim about the president’s statements, Noorani does not actually provide quotes that back up his claims. Perhaps that is because the actual statements of the president are not as Ahmad Noorani tries to twist them.

Actually, the president has repeatedly said the same thing – that his government will not practise revenge, but will respect the due process of proper law and order. This is even reported in The News on 22 April 2010:

“We do not believe in the politics of revenge. The law will take its own course and the people who are responsible for the martyrdom of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto will be brought to justice, not to revenge,” the president said while addressing PPP workers, members of the bar and the People’s Lawyer Forum from Bahawalpur, Multan and DG Khan divisions here at the Ashraf Sugar Mills.

This is clearly a call for a proper investigation and trial of the killers of Benazir Bhutto, not, as Ahmad Noorani falsely characterizes it, a call to abandon the investigation. Or does Ahmad Noorani believe that there should be simply a revenge killing of some scapegoat with no due process?

Because President Zardari’s statements about the ongoing investigation and forthcoming trials for Benazir Bhutto’s murderers have been quite clear, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that Ahmad Noorani is not engaging in journalism, but is using his position at The News to engage in a political ‘character assassination’ of the president.

It turns out, Mr Noorani, a protege of long-time Zardari critic Mr Ansar Abbasi, is no stranger to political hit jobs. According to research conducted by blogger Mohtasib, in April 2000,

In April 2000, Bahawalpur’s Civil Lines Police registered a case against AhmedNoorani for violating section 144 CrPC, which was imposed to refrain miscreants from provoking sectarian sentiments in the area known as a hotbed of sectarian militancy.Noorani had plastered the walls of Islamia University of Bahawalpur with posters carrying objectionable slogans against some sects (see the police report).

Nor is this the first time that Ahmad Noorani has used his position at The News to write some political propaganda under the cover of journalism. Mr Yousuf Nazar wrote about Ahmad Noorani’s misleading reporting about the 18th Amendment in April of this year.

This raises the question of whether or not Ahmad Noorani is a reporter or a political operative. Judging by this article, the answer does not look good.

I am getting quite fed up with the planted, biased, illiterate, and highly unprofessional so-called reporting by the The News International.  Its current owner Mir Shakil ur Rehman was not above cheating in the exams. More about this in a moment.

At one point of time, I was very negative about Asif Zardari, and still am, [read my article of Sep. 04, 2008] but whatever he is or his past, he is at least a known commodity. And to be honest, what the PPP government under President Zardari has achieved in political terms in just two years, Zia and Musharraf could not achieve in the twenty two years, these murderers and traitors ruled the country. Zia killed ZAB and Musharraf killed Akbar Bugti. Whatever ZAB and Bugti’s wrongs might have been, every one deserves a fair trial. Both Zia and Musharraf violated the constitution and the law of the land with impunity and contempt. So it is not out of line to accuse them of murder and treason.

Now about the Jang Group. On Saturday, April 10, 2010, the News published a report by Ahmad Noorani that claimed, “a highly controversial clause regarding the judges’ appointment in the 18 Amendment bill has changed the whole scenario of lawyers’ politics with the government trying to gain their loyalties. According to the Law Ministry sources, sensing the lawyers’ reaction on the passage of the controversial clause of judges’ appointment, the law ministry has decided to launch a full-fledged campaign against the country’s independent judiciary. Credible sources confided to The News that senior officials of the ministry had been deputed for this purpose and they had been assigned to give cases to certain lawyers so that they feel obliged and sympathise with the government at an appropriate time.”

What kind of nonsense, unprofessional, planted and inspired reporting is this or for that matter reporting at all. Law Ministry sources, credible sources, reliable sources.. and so on! Another one was “lawyers plan to challenge the 18th amendment” without naming a single lawyer. This is not reporting. Name the sources or have the guts to say that it is your opinion. But then put it on opinion pages and stop publishing one-sided and inspired material as front page news items.

First of all, to term the clause regarding the judges’ appointment in the 18 Amendment bill as highly controversial is ludicrous, dishonest, and factually incorrect. The Amendment won an overwhelming majority and this particular clause was passed without any opposition, whatsoever, by the National Assembly. Would any one who is a journalist worth his salt and has any professional caliber, term this as “highly controversial” unless he is either very biased or is working on some agenda.

Such journalists should join politics and then they would be free and entitled to say whatever they fancy but as long as they profess to be journalists, they should learn to observe some professional standards. Or is that too much to expect. Maybe it is.

Specially from the Jang Group. This Group has played a special role in Pakistan’s history in promoting dictatorships, jingoism, sectarianism, ethnic conflicts, and in general keeping its readership in a world that can be described as xenophobic. Its role in projecting Jamaat-e-Islami in the 1970s, turning the newspaper into a pamphlet and printing highly inflammatory slogans [as a border] that provoked the language riots in Sindh (1972), barely six months after the dismemberment of Pakistan, remains one of the darkest chapters in Pakistani journalism.  Jamaat Islami Chief, Tufail Mohammed was an uncle of Zia ul Haq and an agent of the CIA as Mr. Bhutto documented in detail in his book, If I am Assassinated.

Jang Group’s TV channel has promoted people with dubious credentials like Aamir Liaqat Hussain who have fake degrees. GEO, on its website,  prides itself as the CNN of Pakistan, totally oblivious of the reality that in most countries outside the United States, CNN is considered to be a biased mouth piece of American establishment and is not exactly known for objectivity or independent reporting. GEO TV colloborates with the Voice of America, which is an official news arm of the government of the United States. Yet, it claims to be indpendent and objective.

Observing this lowly and sleazy standard of journalism, I have been reflecting on an evening in the distant past. I was preparing for my final exams for the B.Com in 1976 in Karachi. One evening, when I was studying, my door bell rang. When I went out, it was my friend Zain Ghazali, son of Commander Ghazali, a former manager of Pakistan’s cricket team. He asked me to come and sit in the car parked outside my house. As I got into the volkswagen, I saw a nice looking boy on the wheels. It was Mir Shakil ur Rehman. He was very excited as he had managed to get the Accounting paper “OUT”. So I asked what then was the problem?  “I don’t know how to solve it”, was the answer. I hope the readers get a picture.

I believe, Shakil has now moved to Dubai with his family and does not even live in Pakistan. I wonder if such people, who did not have the ability to even cheat in an exam and do not even live in Pakistan despite making so much money here, would have even bothered to provide some elementary training in journalism and its basic standards to the members of their staff. It seem not.