The media profession has been all a twitter this week following reports of a meeting between government and military figures to discuss formulation of guidelines for electronic and print media. It is our sincere hope that no such ‘media muzzle’ will come to pass, but we must ask whether some in the media are actually inviting these problems?

Daily Times today includes an editorial on reports that the ministry of foreign affairs, information, and the army’s ‘Joint Staff Headquarters’ (JSHQ) have discussed whether or not there should be media guidelines to ensure national security interests.

The first reaction of any honest journalist should be discomfort with any government constraints on a free press. Constraining the ability of the media to serve as a check on power is a sure path towards abuses of power. But as with any freedom, there are responsibilities. Actions have consequences: Just as eating too much sweets will cause diabetes and rot your health, so can unhealthy reporting rot journalism. Here is what Daily Times says:

Relative freedom of the media has been achieved after great struggle and sacrifice. But there is no such thing as freedom without responsibility. Some sections of the media have used this relatively new found freedom irresponsibly and invited this kind of intervention, as we have been warning repeatedly. The media has failed to self-regulate and hold itself accountable by setting up institutions and structures that provide mechanisms for redress of complaints by the public and affected groups. The Press Council instituted by former president Musharraf failed to become functional and there is no such forum for complaints against the electronic media. Even now, if the media houses come together and, while rejecting this external oversight by essentially the military establishment, produce a code of conduct and structures to regulate themselves, perhaps this ‘sinking’ ship can be saved.

It’s worth noting that Daily Times warning about the problem of irresponsibility and unaccountability in media comes on the same day that The News, a newspaper of the giant media corporation Jang Group, publishes an article by Afzal Khan that could be read as wishing for the president to be assassinated. In an article about his hatred for President Zardari, Afzal Khan writes:

For many it may not be a very pleasant thought that he will not only survive to complete the present term but we may be condemned to bear with him even for another term. It is rather a dreadful scenario of having him as our helmsman and guiding our destinies. Unless he changes his wayward ways and crooked thinking, this is likely to be an unmitigated disaster. Yet it is a ground reality that we may have to face.

Certainly the author will claim innocence and plead his case that he means political survival, not a question of life or death. But why did he not say “stay in office”? Why did he choose the word “survive” which has a very clear meaning of life and death? Even if the reporter, Afzal Khan, could not understand that his article can be read as promoting assassination, was his editor asleep? How did such rhetoric make it to publication?

Even for a company that has admitted that they take anti-government positions to boost their advertising income, on the day following a multiple suicide bombing attack against such a place as the Data Darbar, is it unreasonable for the military and security agencies to worry that media is finally going too far? If a reporter suggests killing the President, is it possible for journalism to become terrorism? If so, at what point will the security agencies step in to stop it?

Despite reporters’ concerns about a crackdown on free press, Zardari and the government have been impressively silent as they suffer daily assaults – often completely unsupported by facts – from all corners of the media. From the moment Zardari was elected, many media elites have seemed determined to topple the government by hook or by crook, and have published a constant stream of ‘wishful journalism’ that is based not on any facts or evidence, but on a determination to cause Zardari to fail. This in itself is irresponsible, unethical, and unprofessional. But Afzal Khan, The News, and Jang Group crossed a line today with what was published.

The Daily Times editorial makes clear that the intention behind discussions of some JSHQ developed media guidelines has been to protect the national security. This is an important and laudable goal. But national security cannot come at the sacrifice of freedoms, otherwise what are we securing? Muzzling the media will only result in blowback from an already hostile press, and invite stern rebukes from the international media as well.

Unfortunately, if Jang Group is unable or unwilling to instruct its publishers, editors, and reporters to uphold a basic sense of responsibility and accountability, it may be that they place the muzzle on themselves. How the people at The News could think it is ever justified to wish for the death of the President of the nation – even if only rhetorically so – is beyond understanding. For the sake of the free press, it is time for the legitimate journalists to take back control of their profession and ensure a basic level of responsibility, accountability and decency. If they do not, someone else surely will.

[UPDATE]Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Qamar Zaman Kaira on Friday ruled out any possibility of imposition of curbs on the media. While this is good news certainly, let us hope that it does not prevent Jang Group and other media corporations from taking their own responsibilities more seriously.

Before moving on with the issue of media ethics, which was touched by me in the last column, let me affirm that I am a staunch supporter of freedom of expression. Whatever freedom of media we have today is largely thanks to the valiant struggle of the journalists and advent of cyber technology. But we are still far from achieving freedom of expression in our society. This issue I would leave for some other time.

Coming back to the media ethics issue in Pakistan, most governments have used absence of any self-imposed code of ethics by the media as an opportunity to curtail media freedom. This governmental onslaught on the media has created a kind of aversion for any talk about responsible journalism. These terms have been misused so many times by successive governments and ruling parties that in reaction we are afraid to talk about it, lest we should be branded as government agents. In recent history, the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) organised a seminar in 2008 in association with the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and did develop a 10-point code of conduct guidelines urging the media to follow them. But like all seminars there was no follow up on the recommendations.

If we are bold enough to criticise the bad and corrupt governance of the civil government, dangerously foolish national security policy of the establishment and militant organisations, then why shy away from self-criticism? Consistent self-evaluation is the only way to improve qualitatively.

The issue of ethics of journalism or code of conduct has remained under discussion for over half a century. There has been a tussle between the government and the various representative bodies of the press in this period. Different governments tried to impose their own codes of conduct, which actually were veiled attempts to control the media. But after many negotiations, a Press Council of Pakistan Ordinance was promulgated in 2002. This ordinance got parliament’s approval under the 17th Amendment.

Although this ordinance had said that all the 19-members committee would be nominated within 30 days of the notification of this law in the gazette, eight years have passed and the nominations process has not been completed. Two chairmen were appointed by the government, but both left within a short span of time. The post has to be filled in by a retired Supreme Court judge. According to the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (APNS) and Council of Pakistan Newspapers Editors (CPNE), they have nominated the required four members each. PFUJ had initially objected that CPNE members are mostly owner-editors, hence the owners representation would outnumber the working journalists. But PFUJ office bearers say that they have now nominated four journalists.

Other members who have not been nominated so far are from: the Pakistan Bar Council, Higher Education Commission, leader of the house in the National Assembly, leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, a mass media educationist, and a woman member.

It seems that nobody is in a rush to get the Press Council up and running. This so-called ‘autonomous and independent commission’ is at present manned just by a section officer. So when the print media is blamed, at times rightly, for transgressing the code of ethics, there is nobody to complain to. Yes, one can go to court, filing a defamation and damages suit, but litigation takes years. By the time the decision comes, everybody has forgotten the disputed report and perceptions are made. And every time there would be a hearing, the same allegations would be published again by the media. After repeated such reports, the perception sets in that the reports are true. The word ‘indicted’ is now perceived as pronounced guilty and the word ‘alleged’ is seldom used.

The media and the government had agreed to a 17-clause code of conduct, which is attached as schedule to the Press Council Ordinance 2002 (It can be downloaded from the Press Council website). Here I would just highlight a few clauses of the code of conduct and leave the judgment to my fellow journalists and the readers how frequently these ethical virtues are being flouted:

* The press shall strive to uphold standards of morality and must avoid plagiarism and publication of slanderous and libellous material.

* The press shall strive to publish and disclose all essential and relevant facts and ensure that the information it disseminates is fair and accurate.

* The press shall avoid biased reporting or publication of unverified material, and avoid the expression of comments and conjecture as established fact.

* The press shall respect the privacy of individuals and shall do nothing which is tantamount to an intrusion into private family life and home.

* Rumours and unconfirmed reports shall be avoided and if at all published, shall be identified as such.

* The press shall avoid originating, printing, publishing and disseminating any material, which encourages or incites discrimination or hatred on grounds of race, religion, caste, sect, nationality, ethnicity, gender, disability, illness, or age, of an individual or group.

* The press shall rectify promptly any harmful inaccuracies, ensure that corrections and apologies receive due prominence and afford the right of reply to persons criticised or commented upon when the issue is of sufficient importance.

* Sensationalism of violence and brutalities shall be avoided. All reporting shall be accurate, particularly when court proceedings are covered, and an accused person must not be presented as guilty before judgment has been pronounced.

Now had the Press Council been functional, people could take complaints to the inquiry commission as stipulated in the law under Article 9 of the ordinance. The inquiry commission is supposed to consist of one retired high court judge or a person qualified to be a judge of the high court as chairman, and one nominee each of APNS and CPNE. However, the working journalists feel that the inquiry commission should have their nominee also as they fear that both APNS and CPNE are media owner-driven. But the counter-argument is that nobody from the newspaper industry should be on the board as the members may not give decisions against their own peers. This possibility cannot be ruled out, as we have seen that most professional associations and trade unions have failed to take any action for malpractice against their peers, e.g. lawyers’ and doctors’ associations.

“What is your source for this information?” he asked. I was stunned. Everybody knew the rumours. It was common knowledge. “You can’t just go around making such claims about people without some very solid evidence! If you are wrong, you will look like a fool and I will look like a fool also!” He was irate. My piece never ran. And a good thing it was, too – I had accused the wrong man.

This taught me a very important lesson about reporting. Sometimes reporters get a little bit caught up in a story. It becomes hard to separate yourself and see the facts objectively once you are sure that you have your man. You actually become part of the story yourself – the hero reporter who exposes corruption.

This is where the editor has a vital job. It is his responsibility to look at the story, judge it based on the sources and the evidence, and decide if it is fit to print. At least, he should. It seems that too often our editors today are falling asleep on the job and letting any Tom, Dick or Harry run whatever wild story they want. We need our editors to please do their job.

Babar Ayaz understands what I am saying. His column for Daily Times yesterday perfectly describes the problem of editors asleep on the job.

Once upon a time, there used to be a thing called editorial judgement. With the advent of private sector electronic media, mushrooming of the print media and extreme shortage of experienced professional journalists, editorial judgement about what is printable or fit for telecast and what is not is scarcely exercised. Almost everything is telecast and printed without considering its consequences. In the absence of an effective watchdog to monitor the watchdog, a label media likes to use for itself, it is free-style wrestling in the media. The subject of media ethics is discussed sometimes in private sittings by senior journalists. The only structured debate on the electronic media, democracy and extremism was held in late 2008 by SAFMA.

Let us take a few recent incidents that have made people think about whether the media should not be prudent about what it says and prints. And that objectivity, which is the fundamental requirement of journalism, is missing in most news reports and talk shows. For instance, opposition leader Mian Nawaz Sharif expressed his concern against the killings of about 100 Ahmedis in Lahore. As he considers all the Pakistanis his brothers and sisters, and rightly so, he addressed them in the same manner. But then some religious extremist declared him apostate just because he called the Ahmedis his brothers and sisters. Some channels and most Urdu newspapers printed statements against him in which the religious parties asked him to apologise or be excommunicated from the realm of Islam. Now the question is, should such statements be given coverage where one sect declares a person or a sect non-Muslim or an apostate? This question becomes more relevant as we have seen that many killings were incited by the intolerance built by extremist mullahs and tele-bigots. Both the persons who issue and print such statements can be sued for defamation.

It is here that editors, if there are any real editors left, have to exercise their editorial judgement. Inciting people to violence in the name of religion, ethnic differences or, for that matter, against any other country is a cognisable offence. This law is not only violated by the bigoted mullah from the pulpits and through press statements, it is quite often disregarded by editors. There are many in our country who preach violence against other sects and countries using all means of communication.

Another example is that of Fauzia Wahab who was criticised just for quoting a historical fact. She is being hounded by some religious leaders. The irony is that Fauzia Wahab became apologetic once the mullahs got after her. If these religious scholars would have been there in the first four centuries after the advent of Islam, I am afraid Islamic jurisprudence could not have developed an inch as many celebrated Muslim scholars would have been declared apostates by the present breed of clergy. There is no possibility of an educated open discussion on religion without inviting threats from the narrow-minded clergy. And these people are supported by their media disciples. Any move to check them is called an attack on freedom of expression. But this freedom of expression is one-sided indeed and is not available for the humanists who want to challenge the extremist views.

The frenzy built by these religious parties is so noisy and violent that even the Punjab chief minister got cowed down and did not visit the families of the Ahmedis who were killed. He did visit the family of a policeman who was killed by the extremists, but avoided to be seen with any Ahmedi. Even if we accept the constitutional and legal sins of Bhutto and Zia that declared the Ahmedis as a minority, they still have a right to their chief minister’s attention. But I am glad that Mian Nawaz Sharif has shown courage and did not retract from his statement. That shows signs of political maturity.

Another good sign was that a private TV channel in one of its talk shows had the courage to allow the leader of the Ahmedis to explain his community’s position on a number of issues. Though the participants of his programme were ideologically against the Ahmedis, they at least condemned the killings. However, when one of the participants said that the governor Punjab was the only one who visited them, the anchor’s comment that one does not know about Governor Taseer’s religion was unbecoming. I did not expect him to say this because he was preaching tolerance for others’ faith.

We have a right to disagree with the Ahmedis’ interpretation of Islam, but they have a right as well to disagree with us. The majority of the English media, however, took a clear stand against the sectarian killings and avoided to give coverage to hate-spitting statements.

Now let us take another incident that has rocked the media world. This publication printed the alleged transcript of a phone call of the popular talk show host, Hamid Mir, with one of the Punjabi Taliban. I have consciously used the word ‘alleged’ because that is what media ethics require. Till such time the allegation is proved, one should not be presented as guilty. Initially, according to another English daily’s report, he said that it was his voice but the tape was doctored. Then he retracted and said it was not his voice. A number of questions remained unanswered here: whether it is Hamid’s voice or not? Who taped it and on what authority? Only one thing is certain, that the views expressed in the tape were not denied by Hamid. They are the same as those written by him in his column after the murder of Khalid Khawaja. All this in a civilised society with developed institutions would have been probed by an independent press commission in the light of a laid down code of ethics.

The channel for which Hamid works said they have formed an internal committee. I believe the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) has also established a committee to probe into these charges. Not much is expected from these inquiries. The problem is that the Press Council, which is supposed to take up media ethics violation cases, is in incubation now for many years. At present it is a headless chicken. Even if it was functional, it could only deal with issues related to the print media and not the electronic media.

Geo TV's Hamid Mir Accused of Conspiracy

In a serial drama that promises a new twist every day, Hamid Mir has written a letter to The Washington Times newspaper responding to an article in that same newspaper on Monday that details the contents of the tapes and the storyline of the controversy. In his email, Hamid Mir makes clear that he no longer believes the government is behind any conspiracy but that it is elements within the intelligence community who were involved with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Hamid Mir’s email, published in full by The Washington Times contradicts recent claims by some of his colleagues that the government was behind the conspiracy:

Initially a government senator was also attacking me on different TV channels but Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira clearly said on May 25 that Hamid Mir is a target of a conspiracy and government have nothing against him. President Zardari has also cleared it to me personally that nobody from [the Pakistan People's Party] is involved in this conspiracy.

Hamid Mir goes on to identify those he now suspects as being members of intelligence who are retaliating for an article he wrote critical of a General.

I am forced to believe that some elements in the intelligence used my media colleagues against me because I was not in control of any intelligence outfit. One of my crimes was that I wrote an article against a serving general of the Pakistan Army.

But this is not just any General that Hamid Mir refers to, and this is what makes his claim really quite explosive, I think:

I am still not sure that who is my actual enemy because nobody have come out openly against me yet. There is no FIR (police complaint), no official inquiry and nobody contacted me for any investigation. According to my information, this whole drama was organized after one of my articles against a serving Army General, Nadeem Ejaz, was published in The News on April 26.This General was involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Hamid Mir still considers The Daily Times deeply implicated in the plot, though he does admit, “I am still not sure that who is my actual enemy…”

The new story does open some strange new twists, though. Hamid Mir claims that his voice is real, but that the militant is fake.

I think this militant is fake and somebody recorded his voice and fitted in a so-called conversation with me.

At the end of the same paragraph, though, he says that his voice also is doctored.

Here I am sure that they used my doctored voice but incorrect information about me never helped them.

At the end of Hamid Mir’s long and detailed email, I’m afraid we don’t really know more than we did before. The allegation of retaliation by pro-Nadeem Ejaz elements in the  intelligence may be more plausible than a conspiracy to silence all government criticism, but still Hamid Mir does not tell anything new or provide any evidence. There is only more speculation.

As this case continues to build international attention, it becomes all the more important that the facts come out. As we mentioned yesterday, it will be important that Jang and Geo conduct their own investigation and release the findings with the backing evidence. Only then will we able to close this case for good.

Today, Dawn adds their voice to the debate in the following editorial:

If the person on the line is indeed Mr Mir, an explanation is in order about his possible ties with militant organisations. He must also answer allegations that the information he ostensibly provided may have contributed to the killing of Khalid Khawaja, a former ISI official belonging to the air force who had been abducted by the Taliban. Mr Khawaja, believed by many to be a Taliban sympathiser, is repeatedly described as a CIA agent by the man who sounds uncannily like Hamid Mir.

Mr Khawaja and his wife are also held responsible in part for the bloodbath at Islamabad’s Lal Masjid. The person on the phone also spews venom of the vilest kind on the Ahmadi community. Slain Taliban leaders are referred to as martyrs.

Mr Mir denies most of the conversation and has served legal notice on the paper that broke the story. He claims that he and the organisation that employs him are being victimised for their consistent criticism of the PPP government and President Zardari in particular. Hamid Mir, who is not short of detractors even within the media, also maintains that the audio ‘recording’ is the work of the Intelligence Bureau which took a voice sample and then produced an entire conversation with the help of a “special gadget.”

Mr Mir has every right to proclaim his innocence but that alone will not suffice. In this digital age it is child’s play for independent experts to confirm whether or not the voice on the tape is Mr Mir’s. It is just as simple to distinguish a doctored recording from an unedited conversation. The credibility of the media is at stake here. What is needed is an investigation that is carried out with an open mind and whose outcome is accepted and acted upon by all parties. This is imperative if allegations of unethical conduct by the media and charges of dirty tricks by the government are to be laid to rest.

Hamid Mir has responded to the original story by sending legal notices claiming defamation and demanding a written apology and Rs 250 Million.

GEO News Islamabad Executive Editor Hamid Mir has sent legal notices to the publisher, editor and staff reporter of Daily Times, as well as the chief executive of TV channel Business Plus for publishing and telecasting “defamatory material against him”.

Mir claimed that the story carried and telecast by the newspaper and the channel, respectively, was “based on malafide intentions and had lowered him in the estimation of general public as the enemy of the state”.

Mir has demanded a written apology within 14 days and its publication in the newspaper and has asked the respondents to pay damages worth Rs 250 million in compensation, else legal action would be taken.

But Hamid Mir is not the only person sending legal notices, it seems. Reports today indicate that Khalid Khwaja’s son Osama Khalid has told reporters at Dawn that his family will be registering a case against Hamid Mir for being instrumental in his father’s murder.

On Wednesday, the family of Khalid Khwaja, the ISI official who was kidnapped by a militant group in the Tribal Areas in late March and subsequently killed, declared their intentions of getting a case registered against the television anchor, Hamid Mir.

“We will be first going to the police and also to the Supreme Court in a few days’ time to get a case registered against Mir for being instrumental in the murder of my father by Punjabi Taliban,” Osama Khalid, son of Khalid Khwaja, told Dawn by telephone on Wednesday.

Geo TV's Hamid Mir Accused of Conspiracy

I have been holding off on this story for a while just because I wanted to see if it actually developed into anything. Sometimes these things pop up, but then quickly disappear if there’s nothing to them. Actually, I will not take any opinion about the validity of the charges, but I think that since the issue involves a major media organization and the story has begun to be reported in the international press, it is worthwhile to examine the facts.

The story involves Hamid Mir who works for Geo TV. He is accused of instigating the murder of Khalid Khawaja, and ex-ISI official, by Taliban kidnappers.

What is the story?

In order to get beyond the suspicions and rumours that seem to be surrounding much of this story, let’s look at how this incident was reported by the UK newspaper Guardian. I have removed paragraphs about reactions to the incident to put together a basic storyline. We will look at Hamid Mir and other reactions to the story directly also.

The tape purports to be a recording of a phone conversation between the journalist, Hamid Mir, and a Taliban spokesman about the fate of Khalid Khawaja, a former intelligence agent being held by the Taliban.

In the tape Mir describes Khawaja as a CIA collaborator, questions his Islamic credentials, and accuses him of playing a treacherous role in the 2007 Red Mosque siege in which more than 100 people, including the chief cleric, were killed. When the abductor asks the journalist whether Khawaja should be released, he urges him to further interrogate him.

Last month Khawaja’s bullet-pocked body was found on a roadside in Waziristan with a warning note to other “American spies”.

…

The Taliban added to the controversy by issuing a statement that denied the tape was real but, confusingly, threatened the state telephone company for having taped the conversation.

…

On 24 April the Taliban issued a video showing a strained-looking Khawaja admitting to having worked for the CIA and betrayed the Red Mosque clerics.

A week later, after his execution, Mir wrote a detailed account of Khawaja’s life. He recycled the allegations against the former ISI agent, attributing them to militant sources.

Hamid Mir Responds

Hamid Mir publicly responded to the charges against him in a column for The News, the newspaper owned by Jang Group which also owns Geo TV on which his show appears. Calling the story a “grand plot against media.”

On his Facebook page, Hamid Mir threatened legal action against Daily Times and some blogs for publishing the story.

‘We are taking legal action against Daily Times(owned by Salman Taseer) and some US based blogs supervised by Mr.Hussain Haqqani for hatching a conspiracy against Hamid Mir by using a fabricated tape.’

The blog Let Us Build Pakistan, an independent blog of PPP supporters, has been tracking the story closely, since May 14 when they published the recording of Hamid Mir.

Daily Times has also responded to the legal threats from Hamid Mir today in its editorial:

In DT’s editorial “Shocking revelations” (May 17, 2010), we argued: “There should be a thorough investigation into the matter by the security agencies. It should first be ascertained whether it was actually Hamid Mir or an impersonator on the audiotape.” We did not pass judgment on the genuineness or otherwise of the audiotape, but left room for the possibility that it was a forgery, as Mir has subsequently claimed amidst his loud protestations of innocence. In an inadvertent admission, however, he says the audiotape is an amalgam of bits and pieces of other conversations (innocent journalistic exchanges, according to him). Even if this is conceded, there is sufficient in the ‘bits and pieces’ to arouse alarm. Surely Mr Mir should welcome the opportunity to clear his name if the tape is indeed a forgery. On the other hand, if it turns out to be genuine, Mir has a lot to answer for and the law should take its course. The country is in the middle of a life-or-death struggle against the homegrown jihadis who have declared war on the state. Journalists, who are engaged in an increasingly precarious and dangerous profession in conflict areas, may be required for professional reasons to keep lines of communication open with the ‘enemy’. However, this does not give anyone, journalist or not, room to transcend the law of the land or the ethics of his profession. If the tape is genuine and Mir did say the things about Khalid Khwaja that are on the tape, a prima facie case is made out for his arraignment on charges that could include being an accessory before the fact to the murder that followed, as well as in possible violation of the Army Act (applicable to civilians in times of war). The statement released by the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan denying the contents of the tape and trying to clear our intrepid anchor’s name has done more to muddy Hamid Mir’s case than anyone else could have.

Other Journalists Weigh In

Ayesha Sidiqqa is a regular contributor to Dawn, and has a Ph.D. in War Studies from King’s College, University of London. She has written two books on Pakistan’s military. On her blog, Dr. Sidiqqa writes,

Is the man conversing with, whats alleged as a member of the Punjabi Taliban, Hamid Mir? The simple answer is yes. The man in the tape is Hamid Mir beyond doubt. The voice and style of conversation is his. I have had conversations with him on several occasions and he breaks stories in this very style. The conversation should not surprise people as Hamid Mir has old links with the Islamiscts and the intelligence agencies. In the world of the armed forces information is difficult to access. Relatively better access to information comes at a price which Hamid Mir and many other journalists in the world, particularly Pakistan pay happily. There is not a single journalist, especially on the electronic media who comments on national security and is not fed by the military. I remember one very popular journalist who even writes for foreign press. He is considered an authority on military affairs. The poor chap cannot tell the front of a submarine from its back. Planting people in the media and intelligentsia is an old trick. The only matter of concern really is that how and why is the audio recording made available on the net? The real story is the disclosure rather than the conversation.

UPDATE: Journalist and former BBC correspondent Shahid Malik writes in an email today:

Award winning journalist and documentary maker Asad Qureshi life is under severe danger of being cut short by his captives in Waziristan. Hamid Mir claiming that the famous tape recording is fake and fabricated is naked lie, for no ones voice can be faked perfectly, as it is like your finger print and the voice on the tape certainly does belong to Hamid Mir. TTP member has supposedly come forward in support of him claiming it to be fake also.

As Hamid Mir is the only known clue to who have abducted Asad Qureshi as he is in touch with them, he should be questioned ASAP to recover Asad from his captors. The media trial and or taing sides can go on, but a stake is a innocent life and that also of the one of our best reporter/ director and documentary maker. Please to check the credentials of Asad Qureshi at www.imdb.com and also look at his award winning documentary on the 2005 earth quake and Wazirisan called ‘Wana Olives’ and many others.

Jamil begins by saying that there is a bias in Western media by referring to Faisal Shahzad as a Pakistani and not an American. This is just silliness. For one thing, do we deny that he was Pakistani? More importantly, though, a search of Google News for ‘Faisal Shahzad Pakistani-American’ shows almost 2,000 articles. A search of Google News for ‘Faisal Shahzad American Citizen’ found over 3,000 articles. All the media – including American and Western media are very open about his being American. 

Next, Jamil jumps straight to his point:

If one glances through the reports by Reuters and other news agencies, it is not difficult to conclude that this is a gimmick to keep Pakistan under pressure and push it to go after the Haqqani network in North Waziristan.

Actually, I think it’s pretty difficult to come to that conclusion. In fact, I think you have to throw logic and reason out the door in order to come to that conclusion. Consider Jamil’s logic:

The Reuters report said, “Any links between Pakistan’s Taliban and a failed bombing in New York’s Times Square could put the country under renewed US pressure to open risky new fronts against Islamic militants.” US agencies and investigators are trying to find a link between him and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), who reportedly accepted responsibility. Many security experts are sceptical about the ability of the TTP to stage terrorist attacks outside Pakistan. In April 2009, Baitullah Mehsud had claimed responsibility for being behind the attack by a US immigrant of Vietnamese origin who went on a murderous rampage killing 13 people. However, his claim was dismissed by Pakistani security officials and US investigators as rubbish. From his statement to the police, it appears that he is not at all a trained terrorist. His statement about changing of cars, forgetting the keys and use of firecrackers sounds intriguing. 

In order for Jamil’s article to make any sense, you have to believe that TTP is conspiring to put more pressure on Pakistan to expand the war on TTP. How do you even begin to respond to something this silly?

Jamil then says that “The US has repeatedly called on Pakistan to do more.” While it may be true that some Americans have said this, he conveniently ignores the chorus of high-ranking American officials who have been very grateful to Pakistan.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates offered strong praise Friday for Pakistan’s efforts to root out extremist militants amid concern about potential links between the failed Times Square car bombing and Pakistan-based Taliban forces.”The Pakistanis have been doing so much more than 18 months or two years ago any of us would have expected,” Gates told reporters traveling with him from Washington to this Army post on the banks of the Missouri River. He referred to Pakistani Army offensives, dating to spring 2009, against Taliban extremists in areas near the Afghan border, including in south Waziristan.

Gates said the Obama administration is sticking to its policy of offering to do as much training and other military activity inside Pakistan as the Pakistani government is willing to accept.

“It’s their country,” Gates said. “They remain in the driver’s seat, and they have their foot on the accelerator.”

Robert Gates is the Defence Minister of the US and he is hardly being disrespectful here. Actually, he is full of praise. So, what’s the problem?

Jamil then makes a turn for the truly bizarre:

 It should be borne in mind that an act by a Pakistani does not mean that Pakistan as a state is involved.

Who has ever said this? Does anyone truly believe that the Pakistani state was involved? Why would you even write such a thing?

Immediately after this sentence, Jamil contradicts everything he has written so far.

There is a perception that it could be part of a conspiracy to neutralise the goodwill Pakistan has earned by decimating the terrorists’ infrastructure and strongholds. And it seems to be an artifice to de-track the US government, which has decided to help Pakistan to overcome its economic difficulties and also to equip the Pakistan Army to effectively take on the militants.

This is the first thing he’s written that makes some sense – after all, wouldn’t Faisal (even if he wasn’t working with TTP) have wanted to de-track the growing Pakistan-US partnership? Okay, but that completely contradicts Jamil’s conspiracy theory! What is he thinking?

Okay, so now he has contradicted himself. But Jamil is not satisfied with merely making a fool of himself – he wants to be the biggest fool of all. Look at what he writes next:

Having said that, the US government should strive every nerve to ensure protection for Americans of Pakistani origin, who have to face the brunt after every botched attempt or real terrorist act. There are many questions: how was the suspect able to drive the car all the way to Times Square, and why had agencies failed to check the car on the way? And if, at all, the suspect had been able to reach the ‘destination’, what stopped him from carrying out the blast? 

Jamil says the American government should do everything to protect the rights of Pakistani-Americans. I agree 100%. Then he wonders why the American police didn’t stop this Pakistani-American from driving and why weren’t the American intelligence agencies following him. WHAT!?! Does he truly believe that FBI should be stopping all Pakistanis to question them? Faisal was able to drive to New York and park his car without being checked by some intelligence agency because he was treated with respect. FAISAL is the one who spit in the face of those who were trusting him not to be an idiot.

Jamil then goes on to list other people who have tried to attack America: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Nidal Hasan and David Headley. He says that these are all people who were educated in America, so America must be the problem! Here is what he writes:

The moot question is, what is wrong with the US system?

I will not suggest that there is nothing wrong with the US system. After all, certainly there are idiots in America like Columbine killers and Timothy McVeigh. But does Jamil dare to look in that mirror himself? What will he see? If America is to blame for the acts of Americans, who is to blame for the acts of Pakistanis? After all, it is our own fellow Pakistanis who are blowing themselves up in Karachi and Peshawar, killing our own children across the country. Why can we not admit that there are idiots here, too?

Jamil does make one point that I think is difficult to understand, but we must if we are ever going to move beyond this tit-for-tat killing.

In fact, the US has made many enemies by bombing other countries. It also has the reputation of hatching conspiracies that were responsible for the assassination of Lumumba, overthrowing Dr Mossadaq and the removal of President Soekarno. And the US had reportedly played its role in stoking the Iran-Iraq war, Arab-Israel conflict and support for the Contra saboteurs against the revolutionary government of Nicaragua. The list of its interferences, subversions, control and overthrowing of Third World governments is too long to be elaborated. 

This is true, certainly. But we must remember that a son should not bear the crimes of a father. Zardari is not Zia, and Obama is not Bush. If we are ever to see an end to the senseless killing, we must be able to overcome history. We should never forget the past, but we must learn to heal and move on. Otherwise, we are doomed.

Ultimately, Jamil concludes his awful column by saying that America and Germany were responsible for 9/11. This is just stupid. Actually, this is so stupid that I do not know why anyone would ever let this man write for their newspaper again. 

I don’t know how many times I can say this. There is a real world here. It is not some B-movie drama. Yes, I like to make some jokes about the sub-par Bollywood scripts that our news resembles. But this is no joke. Mohammad Jamil is a grown man, and yet he is writing silly stories for children. In the real world, there are some true idiots that are killing people in Peshawar, Islamabad, Karachi, New York, Mumbai, London, Gaza etc. Some of these people are from US, some are from Israel, some are from India, and…guess what? Some are from right here in Pakistan. 

It’s time to grow up and face the truth.

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

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

As our most recent military dictatorship melted away before the bright glare of overwhelming public pressure, two heroes — equal parts martyrs and warriors — were left standing hand in hand above the settling dust, bowing to our uproarious applause. The judiciary and the media came to represent the courage of the people against tyranny.

And so it came to pass that private broadcast media in Pakistan was no longer a child, to be seen and not heard. Its shoulders were broader, its voice deeper, the set of its jaw commanding. To silence it now would take more than a gesture, more than a sharp word; it had become, in a word, formidable.

Its power is awesome, its responsibility terrifying. No medium comes close to the visceral impact, the emotional connection of television. It is a breed removed from its older, quieter, cautious cousin, the newspaper. It is breathtakingly alive. It is in our living rooms, our offices and our coffee shops, never further away than the twitch of a finger. It bleeds into our casual conversations, our collective conscious and unconscious, our mental map of the world.

Soundbytes burrow into our minds, piercing deeper than any earworm jingle. Images embed themselves in our hearts long after our minds forget their context.

In this new epoch of media power, a dilemma appears: the dichotomy of public and private media. I would never advocate sliding back into the days of state-monopolised press. We (the people, not just the media) have struggled mightily against censorship and blackouts. Terrible crimes are committed in the darkness.

But the only alternative, private media, is beholden to profit and spectacular one-upmanship, particularly as our industry is passing through the exciting, wondrous, painful throes of puberty.

Pakistani mass media is now a dangerously powerful adolescent. It has its growing pains, its awkwardness, its susceptibility to bad examples. It has fits of anger, and an overriding desire to be accepted, to be liked, to be popular. Its potential is magnificent, but like any adolescent, it errs.

Channels heap dislike upon the despised and laurels upon the popular. They follow each other’s trends, even as they duel one another in spectacular sensationalism.

When the media lends its voice to one side and not the other, they become more than observers and reporters. The power to shape and focus the collective will, the power of propaganda (literally, to propagate a viewpoint) will crush most opponents. It is a fearsome weapon and invaluable in, say, fighting terrorism. But to turn it on legitimate politicians or parties is to subvert the very ideals of democracy that the media should protect.

It has become common practice to air accusations as truth without presenting proof (how many times has the ghastly spectre of “a foreign hand” been conjured without details?) and to repeat endlessly a spectacular image or soundbyte without context. To cut out a piece of the truth, with jagged blade and heavy hand, is to mutilate it, often worse than outright falsehood.

Political talk shows now arrest the attention of millions of households. They serve less as debates and more as political and public arenas. Thousands of years ago, arenas were venues where blood was spilled for the entertainment of a crowd that paid to become a mob. The blood has become metaphorical and a virtual arena seats millions, but little has fundamentally changed.

When private pictures of television anchors are released to the public, it is a shameful invasion. But it is merely an extension of the Schadenfreude that the media has helped foster. Part of the task of free media is to shine a light on shadowy dealings. But to delight in shame is a terrible instinct, and must not be fed.

All this amounts to more than lacklustre journalism. It actively hurts us. It turns us into a people attracted to storms, to thunder and lightning, to uproarious sound and naked fury with no real substance. It makes us delight in public shaming and humiliation, rather than true accountability. The truth is lost in the tussle, and we do not notice.

No freedom can be absolute. When we attack the speakers instead of the speech, invade the private lives of the family of a public personality or give airtime to hate speech because spectacle sells, we must remember that for true freedom, one man’s liberty must end where another’s begins.

We all err, and we cannot fairly expect otherwise from the media. Mistakes will be made. But to deliberately air hate speech or misinformation or groundless xenophobia is to sell the national interest for profit.

The greatest dangers of the exploding industry are we, the consumers. We are not a media-jaded culture. We think of the media as we think of the moon: an insentient satellite that watches over us, reflecting the infinite light of wisdom and truth so that we may gaze into it. But where the moon is incapable of infidelity and has capacity for neither fear nor favour, the media is a man-made entity, created and maintained by human beings. It is prone to human greatness and human greed, our passions and our prejudices, our courage and our cowardice, our marvellous wonders and our malicious whimsies.

Their power is not limited to reflecting the public will; they can mould it, shape it, focus it for good or ill.

Make no mistake, a watchdog media is an indispensible democratic institution, and its robust growth is amongst the greatest silver linings in Pakistan’s blackening cloud. But who watches our watchmen? What check can there be upon a young and powerful institution that we cannot shackle without maiming ourselves? Only we, the people.

We must be patient, but vigilant. We must never oppose the freedom of the media. We must evolve as consumers. If we change the market, the industry must change to survive.

We must recognise that the media does not and cannot pass down universal truths from on high to be accepted uncritically. We do not expect perfection from our politicians, Lord knows, and we cannot expect it from our media. But we can guide them into being all that they can be.

The guardians of our truth, and of our liberty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are very troubled times. Such times are a bonanza for conspiracy theorists because they know how best to simplify extremely complex situations while simultaneously grossly exaggerating the evil ingenuity of the plotters, and thus create thorough confusion. If such confusion can generate panic, then the conspiracy theorist has earned his living through real hard work. The art then is to top it off with an ending that results in the defeat of the evildoers. Such stuff is the bread and butter of writers of mystery stories and thrillers. Their works help shed everyday boredom, even if only for the moment.

Conspiracy theories and their authors become a cause for concern when they begin to hallucinate and can no longer distinguish between their own flights of imagination and the world around them. If such delirious moments only carry them into a world of make-believe, then the harm is limited. However, when they hijack a whole nation or community into another world, then they ought to be held accountable. When such characters appear in popular talk shows or, much worse, begin exploiting TV channels to present programmes full of war games and prophecies against a demonised group of plotters threatening the existence of a nation — nay, a universal community such as that of the Muslims — then I believe such persons should be held accountable for taking people on a ride with their yarns.

By now the readers must have guessed that I have no other person in mind other than Mr Zaid Hamid. Initially I was reluctant to comment on the farce he pedals in his talks and his TV programmes. The reason is that one can end up giving more importance to individuals than is due. On the other hand, the danger is that the angst and fears that run deep in Pakistani society will push our society even deeper into a pathological state of mind or national outlook. The daily bomb blasts by remote control or by suicide bombers, the galloping rate of unemployment and politicians who specialise in making a mockery of democracy and responsible governments have taken a huge toll on the spirits of the Pakistani people. Last year when I visited Lahore I took a long walk beginning from Anarkali up to Lohari Gate and then eastwards till I came to Mochi Gate. Then I walked down to Gawalmandi, from there I went down Nisbet Road till I came to Lakshmi Chowk. I can tell you that for the first time in my life I felt that Lahore was in mourning. People could not take any longer all the betrayal of hopes for a Pakistan without want and hunger.

Mr Zaid Hamid’s grand conspiracy has a happy ending, however. The Muslim world and the Islamic Ummah in general and Pakistan in particular are the victims of a Zionist-Brahminical-CIA-Mossad-RAW-MI5-MI6, and all the rest, plot, according to this celebrated defence and security analyst. Our only true friend is China. The latter of course is still wedded to Marxism-Leninism and thus to atheism, but that does not matter. Just as there are good and bad Taliban, there can be good and bad atheists. Is that not logical? Once upon a time, I remember, the Chinese with their special eye shape and high cheekbones, we were told, were the people that Islam would fight, also accordingly to some prophecies. That was of course when Pakistan and China had not become friends, whose friendship was later described as higher than the Himalayas. So, there is a season for prophecies — some come in while others go out.

Mr Zaid Hamid tells us not to worry. Pakistan is a nuclear power and the defeat of Hind (India) has been prophesied 1,400 years ago. It will not only be the end of India but Israel and the US and all other evil powers, including Russia. Pakistan and China and some true Muslims will triumph in the final father of all battles — the mother of all battles is dead since a long time, I believe. Hopefully then we will convert all the Chinese, otherwise what is the point?

What will happen to all the nuclear weapons that the enemies of Islam possess? Their total is in the thousands! Well, they will become un-useable or explode in their own countries so the Islamic forces will not be responsible for the genocide of billions of members of the human race. In any case, such details, which disturb the elegance of a simple but sensational conspiracy theory, have to be ignored. The green flag will fly atop the Delhi Fort as it should have had we not created Pakistan and denied ourselves that opportunity 63 years earlier.

Is there any chance that such prophecy may not hold or rather that no such prophecy has existed in the past and it has been manufactured by Mr Zaid Hamid to support his grand theory, which has already declared a Muslim victory? I think such questions should suffice to explain to interested readers to distinguish between conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

Attributing so much power to the Zionists or Mossad also makes no sense. The way Mossad has messed up its crime in Dubai when a hit squad was sent to assassinate a Hamas leader only shows that such an agency cannot sometimes manage even simple operations. RAW is even less likely to pull off an attack on Pakistan with impunity. Recently the Taliban killed a number of CIA operatives in Afghanistan. If Mossad-Raw-CIA were to join ranks, would they perform better or is it likely that in the absence of a common chain of command they can mess up things even more? I do not know. But I do know that neither Mr Zaid Hamid nor his theory allow for an error, and in any case whatever initial advantage these evil agencies and powers may have, our victory is a foregone conclusion. That is exactly a conspiracy theory.

Another thing to keep in mind is the following: conspiracies by their very nature are secretive and oftentimes catch their targets off-guard. ‘Et tu, Bruté?’ (Even you, Brutus?), exclaimed Julius Caesar, as his best friend joined other plotters and stabbed him to death. Of course his (Julius Caesar’s) wife, Calpurnia, had been seeing such a nightmare many times, Shakespeare informed his readers. So, maybe one can see visions about such happenings. In any case, conspiracy theories that have already exposed the culprits and punished them and defeated them are just flights of the imagination, or, could be deep dives into a bottomless void inside the belly of the earth.