Posts Tagged ‘anonymous’

Abbas Nasir on Journalism Ethics

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

HoshMedia has done a great service to media. They sat down with respected veteran journalist Abbas Nasir (Dawn) to talk about fundamentals of good journalism including the difference between opinion and fact, properly using anonymous sources and intelligence sources, and avoiding traps in the ratings race during times of tragedy. The advice in these short videos is excellent, and can really be summed up in one important reminder: As a journalist, your obligation is to the truth, not any particular agenda. But don’t take our word for it, we’ll let Abbas Nasir tell it:

News vs. Opinion

Conflict of Interest

Quoting Anonymous Sources

Intelligence Sources

The Ratings Race in times of Tragedy

If only our own media was held to the same standard

Sunday, July 10th, 2011

Geo TV report quotes DG ISPR Major General Athar Abbas criticising The New York Times for unsubstantiated reports based on anonymous sources “without any concrete evidence”. According to the official ISPR press release, Gen Abbas gave the following statement:

‘In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in reexamining the claims as new evidence emerged-or failed to emerge’.
The Military Spokesman further said: “if the newspaper continues with its vilifying campaign without any concrete evidence, I am afraid at some point it may end up expressing its deep regret the way it did in the case of its Iraq coverage.

Pakistan Media Watch agrees with DG ISPR that it is unacceptable for media groups to allow controversial and questionable information that is insufficiently qualified to stand unchallenged. We further agree that concrete evidence is a necessary requirement of proper reporting.

Pakistan Media Watch looks forward to our own media adopting this same standard.

Jang Group Promotes Sensational PNS Mehran Conspiracy Theory

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

A front page article in The News by Mayed Ali that claims to report on the assault on PNS Mehran on Sunday night, but after listing details about the combat radius and onboard radar of the destroyed Orion aircraft the reporter ventures into the land of Hollywood movie-style conspiracy plots.

However, it is believed, the exact info on the details of the complex, which is not visible otherwise, the hangar and the aircraft suggests the plan just cannot be a work of amateur terrorists. The way the entire mission was executed, the sources in Pakistan Navy believe, it seems some specialists must have worked on the plan quite extensively. Moreover, the ex-Navy officials were of the view it was an inside job, implying that someone from within had provided vital information to saboteurs for the mission. And, if the investigation zeroes in on the possibility of sabotage from outside, the RAW (Research and Analysis Wing), Mossad (Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations) or even the CIA (Central Investigation Agency) could be a suspect. Interestingly, in such a scenario, the US technicians, working on the new Orions, might have to be interrogated.

Notice that this conspiracy is pure speculation, which the reporter reveals through the careful use of conditional words such as “if” and “could be”. Actually, the initial claim of this conspiracy is not even attributed to an “official source”, rather the reporter simply claims that “it is believed…” Believed by who? We do not know.

The conspiracy blaming the PNS Mehran attack on CIA is particularly weak when one considers that premises that it is based on: Americans were on the base and knew the maintenance-cycle of the Orions. As Mayed Ali reports, there were seven Americans on the base. But there were eleven Chinese also, and as as the reporter also notes, “the attackers did not touch any other aircraft (Fokker) or helicopter (Chinese ZA-6) parked in the same vicinity”. Based on this information, one could just as easily speculate that the operation was carried out by Chinese intelligence to drive a wedge between America and Pakistan. Of course, if you believe this alternative conspiracy theory you would be just as foolish, for there is no evidence for this either.

Unfortunately, this is not the only article from Jang Group that promotes this baseless conspiracy theory. On page 2 of The News reporter Shakeel Anjum goes beyond his colleague’s pure speculation and quotes unnamed “senior intelligence sources” as saying that the attack was “accomplished by RAW certainly with the consent of CIA and a group of al-Qaeda”. Furthermore, according to this anonymous source, “a group of al-Qaeda and Taliban got training in a base camp of RAW in Afghanistan”.

Shakeel Anjum admits that the evidence is “circumstantial”, but even this requires readers to believe that any evidence exists at all. Obviously, none of this evidence is actually presented for readers to judge for themselves. Rather, they must accept the word of an unnamed “intelligence source” – not even an intelligence official.

But most important to consider is that believing this conspiracy theory requires that one believe the following statement: US, India, Taliban, and al Qaeda are all working together. In order for Jang‘s conspiracy theory to be true, you have to believe that extremist fundamentalist Islamists are conspiring with Hindu nationalists. You also have to believe that Taliban and al Qaeda are both fighting and killing American soldiers and also working with American soldiers.

Dawn reports that an officer-in-charge at the base who spoke with the militants described the attackers as speaking clear Urdu with a local accent. The same report details that the militants tried to kill the Americans on the base who were saved only by bullet proof vehicles. So now Jang Group‘s conspiracy requires us to believe that RAW trained al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan and taught them to speak clear Urdu with a Karachi accent. Then RAW and CIA sent these al Qaeda and Taliban militants to PNS Mehran with permission to kill Americans along with Pakistanis.

And while Jang Group published in its English language newspaper a front page story with a slightly more speculative tone and put the more sensational conspiracy on the second page, its Urdu newspaper Jang boldy proclaims the wild conspiracy theory as fact from the front page headlines.

25-5-2011-Daily-Jang

Following the past weeks attacks on the nation’s security forces, people are looking for answers. Government officials and military leaders are holding hearings and announcing investigations into security lapses. Rather than play its role as watch dog and ensuring that the hearings and investigations are carried out openly and honestly, media is spoon feeding the people sensational conspiracy theories that would embarrass a C-grade bollywood screenwriter.

Lage raho media bhai…

The Nation Report About Obama Speech Belongs On Opinion Page, Should Be Properly Sourced

Thursday, January 28th, 2010
American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

Today’s The Nation includes a report by an anonymous person known only as “Special Correspondent” on American President Barack Obama’s speech to the American Congress last night which chastises him for not mentioning Pakistan specifically enough. While it is true that Pakistan was not mentioned by name in the speech, the article is clearly meant to suggest a snub against Pakistan and thus belongs more appropriately on the Opinion page of the newspaper. Moreover, the suggestion that a lack of a specific mention of Pakistan in a speech by the American President to the American Congress is a snub is really quite silly.

The Nation’s anonymous reporter begins the article by criticizing Obama for not speaking enough about Pakistan and India-Pakistan relations.

Declaring that the United States has strengthened partnerships with its anti-terrorism allies, President Barack Obama on Wednesday cited his adminitration’s effective fight against al-Qaeda militants but said nothing specific about close ally Pakistan.

Although Obama took note of partnerships in Asia, his first State of the Union address made no mention of Pakistan, a US ally in the war on terror. There was also no reference to India-Pakistan relations and their impact on regional stability. The contentious Middle East conflict was another
major ommission in the speech.

It is true that Mr. Obama’s speech did not mention Pakistan by name, but it also does not mention any other nations that are currently fighting against terrorists. Mr. Obama did mention partnerships broadly, but does not single out any specific nations. For example, he said:

We’ve prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.

Actually, the reason that Mr. Obama did not mention Pakistan or India-Pakistan relations in his speech was not a snub against Pakistan but because his speech was mostly about US affairs only. In fact, the anonymous reporter for The Nation even admits this in his report:

Obama’s address focused largely on economic recovery initiatives that his administration is pursuing…

Additionally, while Mr. Obama did talk briefly about foreign policy challenges, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he did so from an American perspective for his American audience. He did not mention any of the other countries with troops in those wars, not only Pakistan. The anonymous reporter from The Nation does not mention that Mr. Obama also does not specifically mention other nations that are fighting against terrorism, including:

  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • Canada
  • Italy
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Australia
  • Spain
  • Romania
  • Turkey
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Belgium
  • Norway
  • Bulgaria
  • Sweden
  • Hungary
  • New Zealand
  • Croatia

Even though they were not mentioned, none of the media in other countries are writing anonymous opinion articles suggesting they were snubbed and trying to pass them off as ‘news’.

The Nation has a well-documented anti-American position with regards to foreign policy. Obviously, they have the right to this position and it is their right to continue to publish anti-American Editorials and Opinion columns. But such political positions belong on the Opinion page, not in the  sections for actual news reporting. The column in The Nation is clearly meant to raise anger among those people known as the Ghairat Brigade. The fact that the report is sourced to an anonymous “Special Correspondent” makes it even worse than misleading, though, it’s simply unprofessional.