The petitioner submitted that as per a report of the Transparency International the laptop scheme launched by Shahbaz Sharif would cause a loss of Rs1.70 billion to the national exchequer.

However there is no such report of Transparency International about the laptop scheme. So what is the petitioner actually referring to? It appears that the petition may actually be based on anonymous claims in a media report.

We noted last week that the alleged TIP report is actually nothing but the statement of TIP Advisor Adil Gilani that he had read something in the media, and that the way the media transformed the headlines to imply that Transparency International Pakistan had done some actual research beyond buying a copy of Daily Times amounted to something like allegation laundering.

The effect of media being used to launder rumours are on full display with this new petition before LHC. Why did the petitioner mention Transparency International and not the original report by Adnan Adil which makes no mention of Transparency International or any other credible source? Would the Court be so moved by a petition that said, ‘anonymous claims in a news report’? Or will the Court be misled to believe that the Transparency International Pakistan advisor Adil Gilani has done anything but tell journalists that he read a newspaper story?

Laundering allegations is unprofessional because it can mislead the people into believing that rumours are facts. When the people being misled are judges, though, this raises the question of whether the courts are being manipulated by someone with an agenda. That’s not journalism, it’s propaganda.

The allegations referred to by TIP appears to be a report by Adnan Adil in Daily Times that raises some questions about the provincial government’s laptop scheme. But the original report itself actually raises some questions also. For example, how did Adnan Adil discover this information? According to his article he was told by anonymous ‘sources’.

Whether or not the allegations are true we do not know. What interests us is another side to this story – how the allegations have been ‘laundered’ in the media.

The original reporter Adnan Adil appears to have simply taken the claims of his mysterious ‘sources’ and published them as facts. TIP Advisor Adil Gilani then took the unsourced report and used it as the basis of a letter requesting an investigation. The media then took TIP’s letter and published new reports with sensational headlines like, ‘TIP smells Rs 1.7b rat in free laptop scheme’. What started out as unverified claims of mysterious ‘sources’ has now become a TIP anti-corruption campaign, even though it is no such thing – it remains a collection of unverified claims by unknown ‘sources’.

What has happened is essentially ‘allegation laundering’, similar to the way criminals engage in money laundering. Criminals don’t want the source of their funds to be known, so they create ‘shell’ companies that they invest in. These fake companies then turn around and invest the money in some legitimate scheme, and the proceeds of that investment appear to be legitimate even though they actually originated from criminal activity.

In this case, unverified claims from unknown sources were reported, then repeated by a known organisation, then reported again as being the concerns of the known organisation. Like the laundered money, their true source remains hidden.

Allegations are easy to make, and the media is filled with all types of claims. Some of us still remember when the Supreme Court called emergency hearings based on ‘allegations reported in the media’. Laundered allegations can never truly be clean. When these claims come from mysterious and unknown ‘sources’, it is the responsibility of journalists to ask whether they are being led by the nose in the pursuit of some agenda.

This statement brought the expected silent glances followed by deep laughs and uncontrolled coughing from our chain smoking friends. But the more we discussed it, the less it seemed like a joke. After all, if Zardari goes, what will all these private cable channels talk about? Ansar Abbasi and Shaheen Sehbai will be completely out of material. Even the media’s fawning over Imran Khan only makes sense as long as he is the under dog foil to the mastermind of Asif Zardari.

Abbas Zaidi, author of Two and a Half Words and Other Stories, explained the phenomenon beautifully in a column for Daily Times earlier this week.

The point is: what will happen if Zardari quits politics and goes into retirement? What will happen to hundreds of journalists, thousands of politicians and their various flunkies, and millions of Pakistanis? Zardari has spawned an entire genre of yellow journalism. He has never sued, jailed, or harmed anyone for levelling the basest and meanest allegations at him. Thus, in a way, he has encouraged the journalistic industry, which lives off his ‘misdeeds’.

Once Zardari is out of office, he will be sorely missed, I can assure you. Where in the world will you find a president who is incessantly and viciously demonised, but never says a thing? One media house has been publishing one shameless lie after another, but Zardari has never said a thing. Our corps commanders hold a meeting and reject the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act, but Zardari does not have them sacked for their insubordination. The Americans finish off Osama, but no general is sacked for complicity or incompetence (or both). There is not a single political prisoner in Pakistan today. But no one will give Zardari the benefit. People like Zaid Hamid openly invite the army to take over because Zardari is bad, but nothing happens to them. Can anyone cite just one example from Pakistan’s history where people got away with insulting the head of the state and the largest political party?

Zaidi sahib makes an especially noteworthy point there at the end – it may have been Musharraf who opened up the media flood gates as part of the efforts to hold onto power, but it has been Asif Zardari who has weathered such unprecedented attacks without threatening to pull the plug. Actually, the private channels themselves have done more censoring than the embattled president. It was All Pakistan Cable Operators Association that censored the broadcast of foreign channels. And even when Geo Super was running their anti-censorship campaign, it was Geo itself that was censoring the transmission, not the government.

As the oppositions ‘Go Zardari Go’ campaign is being gleefully projected from every corner of the media, we can’t help but imagine that these same journalists are carefully updating their CV for presentation to PTV. After all, the next guy in president’s house might not be as patient as this one and that might be the only channel left.

I think it is time to get away from the general practice of hiding behind genteel phrases such as ‘a well known anchor’ or ‘a leading TV channel’ and not name names when being critical of some publicly expressed views of celebrity media professionals. Surely, such a namby-pamby approach, based on misguided notions of solidarity within the tribe, is not in the public interest.

So, what is it that I intend to discuss today? The preamble should give you a clue. Some weeks ago I discussed the maddeningly infuriating power of belief over reason. This makes it doubly important that those in our media, who are in such a powerful position to influence the thinking of the average Johnny, take seriously their fiduciary duty to at least critically examine their beliefs before inflicting them upon us. That is because, for all the interdependence — and remembering my take on the Feynman homily — the media shapes public opinion far more than reflects it.

And this is especially important in the context of our foreign, defence, and nuclear policies, that have long been the tightly guarded preserve of our military. In the new information age many more people than hitherto are now aware how our security agencies have successfully manipulated our media — and continue to do so by all available means, fair or foul — to mould public opinion as they see fit in their own interest. A genuine point of view — no matter how outlandish or stupid — I can understand; but artful and egregious dissimulation? What should one say of such wilful deceit (in ‘national interest’?) posing as ‘a possible point of view’ that merits a respectful hearing? To add insult to injury is that large sections of our baa’sha’oor (aware) populace readily swallow such nonsense.

In this context, forget for a moment the likes of Zaid Hamid (though I would like to know where he gets his funding). Instead, let me discuss the publicly expressed views of Ms Maria Sultan, reputedly an academic, who is often seen on TV as a serious and thoughtful expert on defence and nuclear issues.

On the Mehran base attack she was there immediately with the standard deep insight of ‘the hand of RAW cannot be ruled out’ (has she changed her mind since, I wonder?). And she was a prominent critic of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill at the time our army launched its short-lived domestic PR campaign against the Bill. But what takes the cake is her view on the issue of the ‘threat’ from the US to our nukes, expressed in the context of the recent debate that seeks to identify the US as ‘the biggest threat to our security’.

This is what the lady had to say (on Dawn TV, in The News of May 24 and in her SASSI blog): “The US can hit nuclear sites under a new law which allows the US to invade a country and confiscate its nuclear weapons” and “the US has allocated a budget for possible attack to secure our nuclear assets”.

To add the necessary verisimilitude to lend plausibility and expert authenticity to her view she went on to cite the precedent of how the US successfully stripped the former Soviet Republics of their WMDs under the 1991 US ‘Co-operative Threat Reduction Programme’. Not only that, she added for good measure that “the US carried out more than 300 sting operations in the former Soviet Republics to this end”.

Now, if even a quarter of all this be remotely true then indeed we should worry. But let me ask two questions. Will the lady provide evidence for her claim about those alleged sting operations in the former Soviet Republics? For all my research I have not been able to find any. And what is this ‘new US law’ she is talking about that authorises such US actions and has set aside funds for such purposes? I cannot find any such law.

The closest I can get to is to assume she is referring here to the Obama-Luger Bill of 2009 (hardly new) that carries forward the thinking behind the 1991 US initiative and its follow-up legislation. But in all such legislation, nowhere is there even the slightest hint of allowing the US to forcibly and unilaterally carry out its allegedly nefarious designs. The policy is, “…To provide monies (some $ 75 million) to train and equip personnel in friendly countries for the detection and interdiction of proliferation related shipments of WMDs, etc.” (An example would be the setting up of facilities at a port to check containers being exported.) As in the case of the former Soviet Republics, where the US came up with more than $ 1 billion a year for more than 10 years to assist them in their weapons de-commissioning programme, the policy is one of assistance to those who seek it, not one of enforcing something against the will of another state.

Am I wrong or being unfair? Perhaps the good lady will put me right then. Until such time, how much credibility do you think she enjoys with me? Next week, I intend to discuss other similar cases.

Another conspiracy theory easily debunked when a private individual takes the time to do some basic research. But this piece is not about one specific mistake. Rather it points out a continuing pattern in the media in which journalists, anchors, editors, and producers broadcast misinformation without performing the minimum fact-checking. We are lucky that someone such as Munir Attaullah will be willing to take the time to investigate and correct misinformation, but isn’t this the job of the editors, anchors, and producers themselves?

Too often we allow ourselves to be misled by impressive sounding titles and elaborate writing. Individuals are allowed their own opinions, but not matter what your degrees, no one is entitled to his own facts. Facts are facts…except when they aren’t.

Allegedly an examination of American influence in media, Ghani Jafar’s piece quickly descends into transparently silly claims packaged in hate speech. Take for example his claim that the electronic media is becoming a puppet of American propaganda.

The onslaught has become so pervasive that, barring some honourable exceptions, the electronic media space of Pakistan is becoming their Master’s Voice. A la CNN and Fox News, they have employed half-literate, attractive young females to keep male viewers glued to the screens.

Where to begin? First, the idea that the electronic media is a mouthpiece for the US is so laughable that I cannot help but wonder if Jafar sahib actually owns a television. But then let us ourselves examine the evidence he gives for this claim – TV channels “have employed half-literate, attractive young females to keep male viewers glued to the screens”.

What a proper journalist should look like?

The sexism of such a statement is beyond the pale and frankly shocking coming from such an esteemed journalist. Should the role of TV anchors be reserved for men only? And which of the female journalists does Jafar sahib believe are “half-literate”? Is he speaking of Ayesha Tammy Haq? Or Ayesha Siddiqa? Or does he mean Munizae Jahangir or Fareeha Adrees? Please tell which are the stupid women journalists you mean!

But Jafar’s hatred is not reserved for Pakistani women alone. He goes on to spit his venom at American journalists by terming a major American newspaper as a tool of “the powerful Jewish lobby”.

Talking of this mother of the US strategic communicators, I must confess being taken aback when a senior journalist in the New York Times editorial department had; in anticipation of my question regarding the daily’s linkage with the powerful Jewish lobby, for I was then visiting America (in 1991) as the Executive Editor of dear departed The Muslim in Islamabad; volunteered to confide that, yes, they did advance the cause of the Shylocks in the City of Gold.

Again, the writer offers no name for this New York Times editor who volunteered that the newspaper is a tool of Jewish hegemony leaving us to take Jafar’s word despite our own mind’s telling us that this conversation never really took place at all.

Neither is this the first time that hate speech has been featured prominently in mainstream media and neither is The Nation the only offender. Anjum Niaz infamously termed the same American newspaper as ‘Jew York Times’ in 2002 for a piece published by Dawn.

In both the instances of Anjum Niaz’s racist hate speech in Dawn and Ghani Jafar’s racist hate speech in The Nation, the question must be asked where were the editors when these pieces came across their desks? Were they sleeping on the job, or does this type of hate speech accurately reflect the beliefs of the media groups which own them?

After lashing out at the Jewish bogey, Ghani Jafar then proceeds to term Pakistani media as “terrorists” due to the response to the murder of fellow journalist Saleem Shahzad. According to Jafar sahib, “Fingers were instantly pointed at the ISI without the slightest clue as to who had picked him up, where, how – or other ‘unnecessary’ details.”

Actually, the ISI fell under suspicion after it was revealed that Saleem Shahzad had emailed Ali Dayan Hasan informing him that he was summoned to an ISI office.

Shahzad came under ISI scrutiny in October when he wrote in the Asia Times that Pakistan had freed a detained Afghan Taliban commander.

Within days, he was summoned to an ISI office, according to an email he sent to Ali Dayan Hasan, a researcher for Human Rights Watch. Intelligence officials pressured him to reveal his sources or retract the story. He refused.

At the end of the meeting, one of the intelligence officials issued what he took as a veiled threat. The official told Shahzad intelligence agents had recently arrested a terrorist who was carrying a hit list. The official then said he would tell Shahzad if his name was on the list.

This does not prove ISI complicity in Saleem Shahzad’s death, but it certainly provides “the slightest clue” that any investigative journalist worth his weight would be negligent to ignore. So why is Jafar sahib so quick to ignore it?

What is most curious about this bizarre rant in The Nation is that just a few weeks ago the same journalist wrote a long piece in Daily Times criticising Liaquat Ali Khan for “forcing both Islam and Urdu down the throats of his adoptive homeland of Pakistan”, Nurul Amin as “a wily, scheming and ruthless butcher”, and terms Gen Zia-ul-Haq as the biggest “compulsive liar”. Why is Ghani Jafar so offended by those who will question the establishment when he does the same in his next breath?

Jafar Sahib then goes on to claim that Osama bin Laden was innocent of the 9/11 attacks and that this was all an invention of CNN.

Anyway, going back to 9/11 and its scheme of things, President Bush had wasted little time after the establishment of the ‘fact’, by who else but the CNN, that the ‘terrorist’ happenings of the day were the handiwork of a little known network of Al-Qaeda, to announce the start of the global ‘crusade’ [his words] that now must be wrapped up because, among other things, Uncle Sam has gone broke.

Osama may well have been quick in condemning the 9/11 happpenings, but who was listening? Ten years later, America’s lackeys in Pakistan are not listening to anything that Uncle Sam may not like to hear.

But let us once again look at the facts. It was CNN that published the alleged statement of Osama bin Laden denying involvement only a few days after the attacks. When Osama bin Laden sent a video tape admitting responsibility, the statement was published by Al Jazeera. If Ghani Jafar performed even the minimum of research he would know these facts. Instead he has simply repeated transparently silly and easily debunked conspiracy theories.

It is both puzzling and unfortunate that Jafar stooped to this peddling of conspiracy theories and hate speech in what could have been an important and informative piece. Complaints about intelligence agencies using media for propaganda purposes have been bubbling under the surface for some time. None other than Ansar Abbasi has complained of this in his own writings that the military establishment is “feeding the media with distorted information”.

Additionally, Wikileaks cables have revealed that editors at Jang Group may even be aware of journalists taking payments from intelligence agencies but choose to look the other way.

10. We have protested directly to reporters, editors, and the Group Chief Executive and Editor in Chief Mir Shakil ur Rehman over the consistent inaccuracy of “Jang Group” reporting, as well as their refusal to apply the most basic standards of journalistic ethics, stating that we expect to be called about and to respond to any story any entity of the group is carrying about the Embassy or its activities, and even provided them with direct telephone numbers for the IO, the PAO, and the Ambassador. Despite these efforts, the “Jang Group” has not changed its practices.

11. All of this occurs under the eye of the Group Editor who has not exercised supervision or applied good journalistic practices when assigning and reviewing stories. When queried by Post’s IO he stated that they know that many of their reporters have political agendas, are paid by ISI, military intelligence, Jamaat-e-Islami, or other interests but that they prefer not to fire or reprimand these reporters.

If it is true that “the US has allocated $50 million” for buying media channels and journalists, why not conduct investigative research and provide facts that reveal which media channels and journalists are taking payments whether from US accounts or any other agency accounts? Does this not seem to be the sensible and rational reaction to such a claim? Instead, readers of The Nation are told this claim and then paragraph after paragraph following contains nothing on the subject.

Perhaps the most troubling of all, though, is that Ghani Jafar is referenced in his bio as “project consultant/editor at the Institute of Strategic Studies (ISSI)”. Does this article then reflect the quality of work being performed at ISSI? Let us hope that there has been some mistake, and that the conspiracy theories, hate speech, and lack of basic research were an accident that does not reflect the true nature of Ghani Jafar, The Nation, or ISSI.

Questions are being asked of illicit relations between such agents and the Punjab-based militant groups and the increasing incidence of bomb blasts in Punjab and other centres, seeking hidden motives characterising these as the CIA’s sinister moves to cement further dissent in Pakistani society.

Chaudhry continues on to say that “The CIA has always had a separate agenda from the declared stance of both the state and defence departments in Washington”. But what is the evidence for any of this, and why does his informative history of the drone program spiral out of control and into a conspiracypalooza? Though some countries intelligence agencies may operate very independently from oversight of parliament, the US has kept its intelligence agency on a tighter leash following embarrassing incidents of the past. According to a report in TIME:

Bucking a veto threat by Obama and overruling a deal among the White House, Republicans and two Democratic committee chairmen, Pelosi is pushing to dramatically expand congressional oversight of the CIA and other intelligence agencies. At issue is Congress’s ability to monitor the intelligence programs deemed most sensitive and closely held by the Executive Branch. And the battle is turning into the biggest confrontation yet over Executive power between the liberal House Speaker and a White House that has moved steadily to the center on national security matters.

Pelosi wants the CIA and other intelligence agencies to inform all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees when they launch any covert action or other controversial program, not restricting that information to the chairmen and ranking opposition members and party leaders, or “Gang of Eight,” as required by current law. She also wants the congressional intelligence committees to have the power to task the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with auditing any intelligence program, Democratic aides say, a power the GAO has for classified Pentagon programs but not for the intelligence agencies. “The Speaker has made it very clear that she wants disclosure for the full membership of the intelligence committees, not just the ranking members,” says Pelosi’s press secretary, Brendan Daly.

It is pertinent to note also that even after all the Wikileaks documents have been released and made available to the public, no evidence of a CIA plot to destabilize Pakistan has surfaced. Surely in the thousands of top secret documents there would be some mention of such a nefarious scheme.

Another column, riddled with contradictions and conspiracies, is by none other than Ahmed Quraishi writing in The News. The author begins by asking “Is ISI the problem?” You can imagine what Ahmed Quraishi’s answer will be before even reading one more word. But what is worth mentioning are the contradictions and conspiracies in his answer.

Ahmed Quraishi states that Admiral Mullen’s suggestion that ISI maintains links to Afghan Taliban factions is “factually incorrect” and blames the Pakistani side for not loudly correcting him. But then, a few paragraphs later, Ahmed Quraishi states that actually we are maintaining contacts with Afghan Taliban who are killing American troops, just as Admiral Mullen said.

We should tell Washington that we will maintain ties to legitimate Afghan parties, including the Afghan government and Afghan Taliban. American demands to cut off ties to any one of them are misplaced. If an Afghan group that Pakistan maintains links with is killing US soldiers in Afghanistan, this is not necessarily Pakistan’s design or responsibility.

Which is it? First Ahmed terms Admiral Mullen’s statement ‘factually incorrect’ and then he says the same thing that Admiral Mullen says also.

In addition to such contradictions, Ahmed Quraishi finished his column with a repeat of the conspiracy theory that we read in Shahzad Chaudhry’s columns – the claim that the US is trying to destabilize Pakistan.

The US military and CIA inflate these assessments to justify prolonging the Afghan war and, more importantly, to justify meddling in Pakistan.

Actually, the US has announced that it will start removing troops from Afghanistan this year and will be out of the country by 2014. If the US plans to prolong the war, it has a funny plan to do so.

It should also be noted that Ahmed Quraishi’s claim that “The strength and ability of terror groups such as TTP and BLA to resupply will end when CIA ends its grand strategic project in Afghanistan” does not make sense as BLA first launched attacks prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11 attacks. If BLA could resupply and pose attacks before US involvement in Afghanistan, why would it be affected once the US leaves? This makes no sense.

Ironically, Ahmed Quraishi concludes his column with the sentence, “This is political propaganda.” Perhaps here he is correct. Both Shahzad Chaudhry and Ahmed Quraishi writing in two different newspapers are parroting the same conspiracy theories based in anti-Americanism and not solid evidence. As high level talks continue between the military and their counterparts in the US, media should inform the people of developments so that they are aware. But media should not invent developments and spread conspiracy theories that are absent of supporting facts.

The Ameri-Pak situation appears at an all-time low. Headlines across the globe trumpet the same news, whether the Daily Times of Pakistan or The New York Times of April 12, which sported the headline, ‘Pakistan tells US it must sharply cut CIA activities.’

The lead sentence for the article also bears mention: “The demand that the US scale back its presence is a sign of the near collapse of cooperation between the two testy allies after the arrest of a CIA security officer in Pakistan.”

All acknowledge the existence of a complex problem. All involved understand that blame, while never being coequal in status, must still be shouldered with equal responsibility if solutions are to be negotiated. But what complicates things immensely are the journalism drones. We are a pompous lot, those of us who serve up opinions from our desks, whilst sipping our tea and gazing out the window. Our thoughts take quick flight with the least whiff of a stink. Journalists love a ready-made story and this current drama presents multiple angles of presentation. Because this current stench betwixt and between our nations is likely to continue in unabated manner for months to come, it is good to remember a few basic rules of professional journalism.

Words have power. Each word is like a bullet with velocity and impact. The word ‘murder’ takes on a different meaning when presented as a ‘heinous murder’. The same is true for the word ‘rape’ if presented as ‘brutal rape’. But we cannot forget that words also have the power to heal, mend, lift and restore. This is also the task of a journalist, one that requires greater writing skill.

Articles written for news organisations must be read by the author twice, and in view of two different audiences: the reasonable man and the unreasonable man. It is after reading the piece for the latter audience that necessary corrections and adjustments to text are made. This is the careful copy-edit that looks into the soul of the writer to assure that integrity prevails and human bias and sentimentality do not overshadow otherwise excellent thoughts. The writer who consistently invalidates their craft by seeking to chamber a bullet with excessive passion must be held accountable. They must not easily escape the impact of their words.

Truth should never be obscured from the reader. The truth currently lies bare between our nations, and it is the function of a free press. But there is a greater truth, which must be understood when writing on a level that addresses difficulties between sovereign powers. What cannot be immediately changed must be walked through with endurance and resolve. Nations are bound by treaties and policy and complexities that the average citizen can scarcely grasp. Nations can find themselves within a foreign policy wasteland, which necessitates sustaining a status quo to avoid a greater political instability. So words must be chosen with special care when tackling policy issues in the print media.

The best of journalists are able to speak the truth in a manner that strengthens the weak, anchors the thought and brings comfort and hope to the reader. It is the art of gracious words, a somewhat lost art in the world of print journalism. I am always optimistic. The best writers are out there. They will rise to the top of their game — with the right choice of words.

Daily Times calls the Libya no-fly zone a ‘disastrous military intervention by the western forces’ and claims that the no-fly zone is part of a plan for American global domination.

Ever since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has seen a horizontal expansion of capitalism into the formerly socialist countries and under the rubric of globalisation into the rest of the world. The world’s dominant countries, who like to call themselves the ‘international community’, have set out to re-conquer the world through military means. It started with the Balkans, and via Afghanistan and Iraq, is now being witnessed in Libya. The goal is Pax Americana (global empire).

Sadly, this Daily Times editorial follows the position of the anti-American far right wing as expressed by Gen (R) Mirza Aslam Beg.

…another Muslim country has been invaded with such arrogance of power, which is seen as continuation of the last thirty years of state-sponsored terrorism against the World of Islam

If the enforcement of UN resolution 1973 is part of a conspiracy by the US to conquer the world, why did the US hand over control of the operation to NATO? And if this is a western conspiracy, why are fighter jets from Qatar and United Arab Emirates participating?

According to Daily Times, “Libya is a relatively weak country when it comes to the global powers but this provides no justification for attacking it”. But this claim ignores the reasoning behind the UN resolution which was was passed because the dictator Col. Gaddafi vowed “no mercy” against pro-democracy demonstrators and had actually been using air strikes against his own people which prompted the Arab League to request the UN resolution, a resolution that was celebrated in the streets of Libya after it passed.

The Nation accuses the US of a hidden agenda because it is participating in the no-fly zone against Libya but not intervening in Bahrain.

If the US purpose in Libya is democracy, it does not seem interested in democracy for Bahrain, which is not just up in arms, but also a US fleet HQ.

While it is valid to examine why intervention is carried out in some countries and not in others, it is ironic to question America’s dedication to democracy considering that we are presently sending thousands of our own people to Bahrain to serve as pro-regime mercenaries willing to fight against pro-democracy demonstrators. It is also ironic considering that just last month The Nation published promoted the position that America was employing a double standard by not supporting Arab democracy movement.

They only know the stark hypocrisy and double standards: Western societies enjoy democracy and prosperity, while American influence is preventing our people from having their freedom by the force of weapons and oppression. They are forcing poverty on our people by squandering their wealth and laundering the money of their friends, the corrupt dictators.

Now that America is supporting the pro-democracy movement against a corrupt dictator, The Nation has changed its position. Of course, The Nation is not the only media group to make this sudden change of position. In fact, it seems that many of the same people who only a few weeks ago were asking why America was not using its military might to support pro-democracy movements against corrupt Arab dictators are now defending those same corrupt Arab dictators and condemning the Americans support for the pro-democracy rebels.

The UN resolution authorizing enforcement of a no-fly zone in Libya and the way such enforcement is carried out is a valid topic of discussion. But any discussion should be honest and based on the facts, not twisting positions to fit an anti-American ideology. At present, what we are seeing from much of the media on the Libya story is not an honest and objective analysis of the issues, but a repetition of conspiracy theories and double standards that undermine the credibility of our media and make us look like the only principle we stand by is that “if America is for it, we are against it”.

Some people in Waziristan have requested that I write about a column published in the Urdu daily Mashriq on January 2, 2011. Following is the summary of the column, titled ‘Hakeemullah Mehsud’s lover’.

A senior female French journalist contacted a tribal journalist form Waziristan via Facebook. The French lady requested him to help her with some research on Waziristan. The tribesman agreed and the French journalist landed in Pakistan. During their meeting, the French lady said that she was madly in love with Hakeemullah Mehsud, a Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) commander and that she wished to marry him. She also said that one of her friends wanted to marry Qari Hussain, the Ustad-e-Fidayeen or master trainer of suicide bombers in the army of the TTP. She further said that another four of her friends also wished to marry some Taliban commanders from the TTP. Out of utter surprise, the tribal journalist wondered how that could be because people in Europe believe that the Taliban are brutal beasts. The lady blatantly responded that, in actuality, the Europeans are the brutal beasts, not the Taliban. She said that no one in Europe had the courage to speak the truth when it came to the Taliban. Everyone who had the opportunity to closely interact with the Taliban had been deeply impressed by them. Take, for example, the lady journalist, Mariam, who had been imprisoned by the Taliban. She became so impressed by the Taliban that she converted to Islam. People who care so much for their prisoners would certainly be much kinder towards their wives and children. In Europe, the family system has collapsed. Children do not know who their fathers are. Wives have no clue about the whereabouts of their husbands. My friends and I have studied Islam and now we wish to know about the Taliban. This is, therefore, why we wish to marry them. We will burn our French citizenship documents in front of the media in Waziristan to terminate our ties with our native land. We will become tribal women forever. The lady also said that she was madly in love with Hakeemullah and would marry him come what may. “What if Hakeemullah refuses?” asked the tribal journalist. The lady’s response was: “The heart speaks to the heart”. The tribesman warned her that, under Pakistani law, she could not go to Waziristan. The lady said she would plead to Allah to punish Pakistan for having laws that stood in the way of her and her friends’ marriages with the Taliban. The lady was crying uncontrollably. Finally, the tribal journalist, who had full sympathy for the woman but had no means to help her, agreed to spread her story through a newspaper column.

The tribesmen who brought this story to my attention said that the story had been planted by the intelligence agencies of Pakistan to romanticise the beastly Taliban in the eyes of young tribesmen. One of them said that he saw a group of teenage tribesmen discussing this story with keen interest. He tore into pieces the newspaper copy being held in the hands of the teenagers and had a two-hour long counselling session with them whereby he explained to them that such fake stories were planted in Urdu newspapers to lure young tribesmen into terrorism, and that it had nothing to offer but only death and destruction for FATA and its people. The young men seemed convinced, but the tribesman expressed the apprehension that there must be many teenage tribesmen out there who might have been misled into jihad by the story. The tribesmen have no hope in the Pakistani media. One of them even said that the Urdu media was capable of prostituting its conscience to spread malicious information about FATA. They, therefore, request the journalistic community in France to take note of the fake story and remain on guard so that their name is never again misused in misleading the tribal youth into a so-called jihad that clearly threatens the western streets with violence.

The tribesmen also guess that perhaps the journalist Mariam, referred to in the fake story, is Yvonne Ridley. They complain that Ridley has been at the forefront in defending Aafia Siddiqui. If the journalist Mariam is indeed Ridley, they expect her to come forward and condemn those who misuse her name and conversion to Islam — which is her sovereign right — for dirty tricks to lure innocent tribal youth into the fold of terrorism that has devastated FATA and threatens Ridley’s own country with violence. For once, Ridley should show that she stands with the victims of Pakistani state terrorism, like the people of FATA, rather than terrorists who enjoy covert state support.

The reason I wish to write about this planted story in Urdu daily Mashriq is to give to the sane-minded Pakistani English readership a glimpse of how the Urdu media has lowered itself in perpetuating the military establishment’s inflicted terrorism in FATA. I also understand that the forces of sanity in Pakistan have been reduced to a frightened state of mind by the religious extremists. They could not even rise to the occasion upon the assassination of Salmaan Taseer and the threats to Sherry Rehman. How can one expect them to stand up to the military establishment — the original force behind all terrorism in Pakistan — in support of the people of FATA, the people whose sufferings do not mean anything significant for the wider Pakistani society? I just wish to bring to their notice that disappointment and even hatred against the military is accumulating in FATA. The cowardice of those who should speak up for what is right will also be a factor in the case of any future catastrophe in Pakistan.

This piece was originally published by Daily Times on 19 February 2011. The writer is a PhD Research Fellow with the University of Oslo and currently writing a book, Taliban and Anti-Taliban

Ansar Abbasi has termed the issue in The News ‘the Lal Masjid of present govt’, a term he appears to have borrowed from Hamid Gul.

“A national consensus has developed on the issue of Davis. The people demand his trial here and are not ready to see him going in US hands without being punished,” former ISI chief Lt Gen (r) Hamid Gul said, warning that if the man is given back to Washington it would not only depress ordinary Pakistanis but would serve as another Lal Mosque disaster.

Hamid Mir’s report in The News is seasoned with such phrases as “imperial arrogance” and “shady secret agents”. He then quotes anonymous ‘diplomats’ that make sensationalist claims such as, “tomorrow Raymond Davis type secret agents may kill more people in other capitals of the world and then the US will claim diplomatic immunity”, or compare Raymond Davis to Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists. It must be noted that Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists do not have any claim to diplomatic status.

Other reports in The News have quote Munawar Hassan terming MNA Fauzia Wahab’s statement that Raymond Davis is entitled to diplomatic immunity as “a disgrace to the ‘Shuhda’ of Pakistan”, once again invoking ghairat in place of actual facts on the law.

This is a similar position taken by The Nation which published an editorial today which says,

It would seem that asking for his release is morally wrong of the US, and, at the same time, handing him over to Washington would demonstrate Pakistan’s undue weakness, reflecting its unhesitating compliance with the US commands, right or wrong.

Pakistan Today published the headline ‘Charge Raymond under anti-terrorism sections’ and quotes from the bereaved families of the dead men. Certainly this is an emotional issue, but emotions should not have bearing on the facts.

Dawn published one of the worst examples of emotional manipulation and terrorising the people which is Mohsin Hamid’s article comparing Americans to hunters paying to kill Pakistanis in cold blood.

So what is going on? Who is Raymond Davis, and what are people like him doing in Pakistan? I’ve read articles likening him to Rambo and RoboCop. But I believe another Hollywood film franchise metaphor is more apt. Predator.

The Raymond Davis affair has brought home what should have been obvious to us Pakistanis for a long time. Pakistan has become a game preserve, a place where deadly creatures are nurtured, and where hunters pay for the chance to kill them.

What is missing from all of these discussions is the fact that the issue rests on one question only which is does Raymond Davis enjoy diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Conventions, not on emotional manipulation, ghairat, or sensational horror stories about Americans hunting Pakistanis in the streets.

This poor reporting has not been unnoticed by Dr Syed Mansoor Hussain, who writes in Daily Times that every journalist who terms Raymond Davis as ‘Rambo’ should be forced to sit through the movies until they know what they are talking about.

It was also interesting that some ‘intrepid’ journalists started to refer to Davis as ‘Rambo’. Clearly none of them had ever seen a Rambo movie. Rambo, as they should know, is always on the right side of morality, always gets his man, always escapes the clutches of evil, sadistic and clearly bigoted oppressors and tormentors by killing most if not all of them. And yes he never wears a shirt. So for those who continue to compare Davis with Rambo and do so without having any idea what Rambo represents should in my opinion be forced to see all the Rambo movies one after another for three days in a row without being allowed to fall asleep.

Dr Hussain’s point is on worth thinking about because, as he points out the case is being exploited for political agendas

The Davis scenario is getting progressively complicated. The reason is politics. Anti-American sentiment is rampant in Pakistan and anything which even remotely reeks of pro-Americanism is immediately seized upon by the religious parties and politicians of a ‘certain’ predisposition to vilify the present government of Pakistan.

Though Dr Hussain writes specifically of relgious parties here, the same can be said of the media. When Ansar Abbasi is not taking advice on diplomacy from Hamid Gul, he proposes there is a threat of ‘a possible Hollywood Rambo-style sting operation by the US forces to get Raymond Davis released’. The Nation, never one to be easily outdone in anti-American zeal, uses the term ‘Rambo’ over 100 times since the incident!

All of this fills the pages with spicy and sensational stories that may sell to an audience which is hungry for action movies. But while we are filling our bellies with this channey, our minds are starving for relevant facts and information. Instead of demanding that the US stop pressurizing the government on Raymond Davis diplomatic status, the media should stop playing the anti-American card and give the reader something that will help him understand the situation, not give him indigestion.