Posts Tagged ‘Ethics’

Firing Maya Khan is not the answer

Saturday, January 28th, 2012

Maya Khan screenshot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abbas Nasir on Journalism Ethics

Thursday, January 26th, 2012

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

News vs. Opinion

Conflict of Interest

Quoting Anonymous Sources

Intelligence Sources

The Ratings Race in times of Tragedy

Maya Khan Is Willing To Sacrifice Your Reputation For Her Career

Monday, January 23rd, 2012

Maya Khan may have wanted to gain fame and notoriety through a career in media, but this is probably not what she had in mind. Following a clip from her show Subah Sawerey Maya Kay Sath aired by Samaa TV over the weekend, her name has entered countless conversations as a public outcry has grown about the irresponsibility of the host, the producers and even the network that aired the show. But this latest outrage at media irresponsibility is, sadly, only the latest example of a problem that is rooted deep in the media – valuing entertainment over information, and the willingness to sacrifice other people to get ahead.

First, the clip.

The indispensable Cafe Pyala hit the nail on the head.

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

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

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

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

Journalism 101

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012

Zoha Waseem is not a household name. She doesn’t have her own talk show on Geo, her face is not the center point of full colour ads run in daily newspapers, and she doesn’t spend her days molding the opinions of the masses with a regular column in one of our many daily newspapers. But she does appear to have a better grasp of the fundamentals of journalism that many of those who do. Thankfully, she has taken the time to remind our esteemed colleagues of some of the basics that they may have forgotten along the way to building their successful careers.

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

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

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

Media Wants Headlines Against Government, Not Fodder for Reforms

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

Deputy Chairman Planning Commission Nadeem Ul Haque had an interesting interaction with the media recently when a reporter from a local English daily called to tell him that he was scheduled to talk against the nuclear programme at the National Defence University (NDU) on December 26. Only problem was the reporter had his facts 100 per cent wrong.

Nadeem Ul Haque was not scheduled to speak against the nuclear programme at NDU. Actually, he wasn’t scheduled to speak at all. He had been asked to speak on the Planning Commission’s (PC’s) New Growth Framework (NGF), but the event had been cancelled due to lack of interest. This interaction raised certain questions for Nadeem Ul Haque about the role that media plays in improving the status of the country – or impeding it.

I also told him that society at large and the media seem to be uninterested in reform, economic development and growth. The media needs to give more attention to these issues alongside security and other issues. Unless a society takes interest in reform, it will not happen. Pakistani intellectual space, which is fuelled daily by the media, is too preoccupied with issues other than economic development. Because of this, economic reform remains little understood. Unless this changes, there will be no economic development in the coming years.

Despite the need for investigative journalism and informative articles on issues of development and economic reform, the media appears fixated on headlines against the government, he wrote. If there are problems with policies or reforms, why not write about those problems so that they can be fixed? Rather, the media only takes the issues as the basis for political attacks against whoever happens to be in government at the time.

I keep telling the media that our mindset is not the result of the policy or views of any one government. I know they want a headline against the current establishment. Consequently, I tell them that all governments regardless of creed and origin have avoided serious governance/civil service reform. All have failed to change the paradigm on market competition. No government has attempted to use public service delivery to underpin our governance approach. No government has reviewed our current approach to urban development that produces a sprawl. This government has adopted the NGF, which is taking up these issues. Let the media review the NGF! But then why blame governments? Society also unveils its preferences through discussion and debate. Our intellectuals’ efforts, evident in the media, display little interest in these crucial issues. Countries seeking development spend a far larger proportion of their public debate on crucial development issues than we do.

As we wrote on Sunday,

“The media serves a function in a democratic society other than simply ‘infotainment’. We rely on the media to inform us of facts and developments related to the most important issues of society so that we can make informed decisions about how to transform the country.”

If reporters are hunting for headlines against the government with utter disregard to whether their stories are factual or in any way useful to the country, they are failing in an important responsibility as journalists. Issues and policies should be investigated and reported, but that is not mean that such reports should be turned into political attacks. Media needs to focus its energy on helping the nation achieve reforms and stop selling it for sensational headlines.

Media’s Newest ‘Moment of Shame’

Friday, November 18th, 2011

It has been one year since the media caused a national crisis by inaccurately reporting that the government was plotting to withdraw notification to reinstate the judges sacked by Musharraf. Unfortunately, it seems that journalists and TV anchors did not learn from this ‘moment of shame’ and are once again causing alarm by rushing to report unsubstantiated rumour without conducting the proper background checks. We cannot even call out one or another media group as the sad truth is that so many were guilty that the entire profession has been stained by the event.

We are referring, of course, to reports that created a stir on Wednesday night when media groups rushed to report the resignation of Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani. As the evening progressed, the reports escalated. Not only had the Ambassador resigned, but he had already moved out of the official residence. Then we were told that not only had he resigned and moved out of the official residence, but he was not returning to Pakistan. As it grew later there were even reports that Haqqani had applied for asylum in the US! The media frenzy had reached a full peak.

Of course, not one single one of these reports was true. It was all lies and fabrications invented by reporters and their sources and given the green light by unquestioning editors and producers.

Following the media’s false reporting of a conspiracy against the judiciary last year, Farrukh Khan Pitafi wrote the following:

In the golden days of journalism, we were taught not to carry any report unless there was prima facie evidence or at least three separate sources available. In the case of a breaking story or report of critical importance, this rule was relaxed to either two independent sources or word from the horse’s — in this case the prime minister’s or the law minister’s — mouth. As evident however, none of these precautions were taken, nor was any patience shown for such details to emerge. Innocent until proven guilty is the universal principle in case of unsubstantiated allegations. However, in this particular case it was deemed fit to consider the government guilty until proven innocent.

Unable or unwilling to find anyone at the Embassy in Washington or the presidency to confirm the rumours, our media not only ran with the story, they ran riot with it. Were the false reports necessary?

By 1:30am, Dr Firduas Awan was available to give a statement that the government had received a letter from Ambassador Haqqani offering his tender resignation by saying that he did not want to be “a distraction from the major challenges facing our country and our government”, but that no decision had been made to replace anyone. It was less than 24 hours later that Geo was able to contact Ambassador Haqqani by telephone to get his statement on the air.

Imagine if the news channels had simply taken the time to check not with their ‘reliable sources’ who every time prove embarrassingly unreliable, but with the actual people involved in the story. It would have prevented confusion, misinformation, and the continued humiliation of the media as incompetent and untrustworthy.

As the dust begins to settle, it is worth once again revisiting the recommendations of Farrukh Khan Pitafi.

The best practice would be to ask the concerned reporters or the channel managements to produce the evidence. It is important not to confuse a source with evidence. Even when we have sources we are not supposed to air an item without our own satisfaction. And in any case, no source will ever accept that it had generated such information in the absence of recorded evidence. If media outlets do not produce evidence they should be fined and asked to ground the reporter for a bit. This is about the only civilised way.

Now let us focus on the source of the problem in the heart of darkness. Apart from the culture of cynicism that has mushroomed around the current government and for which the government’s poor media policy is to be blamed, the institution of a professional editor is almost extinct in this country. In the presence of owner-editors the assurance of content quality and adherence to media ethics becomes impossible. Our profession has become highly complacent and in a conflict between the business owners and a professional editor, most journalists wish to stand with the former. Had there been professional editors in place, even if unverified information was produced, it would not have made it to the screen or print. Also the professional editor, given the damage caused, would have sacked someone.

Of course, there is the issue of talk show hosts-anchorpersons and their reckless attitude. It must be recognised that since each anchor-host is responsible for the content of his program, he/she is usually expected to act as an editor for the content. But remember in the heat of live programming there always is the chance of some inappropriate behaviour. A professional editor as the media’s conscience should always be there to remind the anchor and to issue the corrigendum. Yet these are mad times and even at stations with elaborate infrastructure, a tendency of getting carried away has been witnessed.

Getting carried away has become not only a tendency, but an addiction. It is time to break the habit.

China cracks down on rumours in media

Sunday, November 13th, 2011

Chinese newspapers

As government and military officials look more and more to China, members of Pakistan’s journalism community should take notice of certain recent developments. Chinese authorities announced this week that they are tightening regulations governing journalists, specifically, rule that require reports to fact check and have actual evidence before publishing sensational claims and conspiracy theories.

The new rules also require journalists to produce at least two sources for any “critical” news reports and to personally conduct interviews when gathering information.

False reports must be followed by corrections and apologies, the statement said, and serious violations could lead to the suspension or even the revocation of a news outlet’s government-issued license.

“False reports not only seriously hurt the interests of the parties involved, but also seriously undermine the credibility of the news media, or even seriously affect the social and economic order,” the agency stated in a question-and-answer article released by the state news agency Xinhua.

Because this blog does not support government restrictions on reporters, we hope that our colleagues in the journalism profession in Pakistan will implement a code of conduct to ensure professionalism voluntarily. The Zardari-Gilani government has demonstrated that it will allow all sorts of malicious rumour-mongering and conspiracy theories to be published without using the power of government to take revenge on the media, but no one can know if the next government will be as patient.

The line between ‘reporting’ and ‘mouthpiece’

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

What is the line between ‘reporting’ and ‘mouthpiece’? When is a reporter simply telling about an event, and when is he amplifying a political message? This is not an easy question – it raises important questions of neutrality and professional responsibility in journalism, as well as what is media’s role in society. But whether or not the question is difficult, it is one that needs to be considered.

Earlier this month, several newspapers reported on a conference of Aalmi Majlis Tahafuz Khatme Nabuwwat in a way that was criticised as being less like a news report and more like a press release. Each of the pieces in Daily Jang, Daily Khabrain, and Daily Express is basically the same report about what was said at the Khatme Nabuwwat conference, including the claim that “the real threat is not Haqqanis but Qadiani’s denial of Prophet’s finality”.

In each piece, the anti-Ahmadi claims are published without comment. While Daily Jang, Daily Khabrain, and Daily Express will certainly offer the defense that this is not their position, that they are simply reporting what was said, is it possible that readers of these newspapers could come away with the idea that Khatme Nabuwwat’s positions are validated by the reports?

But even if the report was neutral about the Khatme Nabuwwat gathering, why was only one side of such a controversial issue presented for readers? With such a strong statement against Ahmadiyyas by Khatme Nabuwwat, why did the reporter not seek out a comment from an Ahmadiyya leader for his response? Since the claim involves matters of national security, why did the reporter not request a clarification from ISPR about whether terrorists or Ahmadis are the real threat to Pakistan?

On Monday, The Nation published an article titled, ‘NWA action to pave way for US boots’. The unsigned article describes a speech by Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan Ameer Syed Munawar Hassan at a press conference in Sahiwal. The reporter dutifully describes the JI chief’s claims: America is hell-bent on making India super power of the region, Pakistani rulers have taken dictation from America, Pakistani government is pro-America and anti-Pakistan, American aid is breeding corruption in Pakistan, etc.

While we have no reason to doubt that the JI chief said these things, as The Nation reported, we would like to ask our dear readers again whether reporters have a responsibility to their readers to fact check the subjects that they are reporting, or if they should simply publish what they are fed without question.

Actually, there is no easy answer. The Nation cannot be condemned for taking the side of JI in this case because they are only reporting what was said. But neither does it appear that the reporter asked the political leader for proof of his claims. For example, Munawar Hassan claims that “America is hell-bent on making India super power of the region” and “Pakistani rulers have taken dictation from America”. These are serious charges. Shouldn’t Munawar Hassan be asked to show his evidence for making such claims? Or are we supposed to merely take him at his word that this is true? Why didn’t the reporter ask for a response from government officials who were being accused of being ‘anti-Pakistan’?

The question comes down to whether these media groups are reporting, or just transcribing? Are they giving readers a complete understanding of issues and events, or are they, intentionally or unintentionally, acting as mouthpieces for political groups? Unfortunately, the answer is not so easy. But these difficult questions must be answered if we are to improve the quality of our media and, with it, the quality of discussion that we have on the issues of the day.

Lifafa Journalism

Saturday, September 3rd, 2011

Lifafa journalism

An article by Issam Ahmed for The Christian Science Monitor yesterday rocked the journalism community as the reporter discussed payments made to two Pakistani journalists from an American nonprofit that receives funding from the US State Department. Two reactions dominated discussion – those on the right saw an American propaganda machine unmasked and those on the left asked why the same scrutiny is not given to the funding behind pro-jihadi propaganda that is prevalent in Pakistan. However there is another point which we hope Mr Ahmed’s piece will open to discussion: The culture of ‘lifafa journalism’ that has taken root in Pakistani media.

According to Issam Ahmed’s investigative reporting, two Pakistani media groups have reporters on staff that received payments from an American media nonprofit, but did not disclose this fact.

Neither of the two media organizations, Express News and Dunya News, discloses that their reporters are paid by the nonprofit America Abroad Media (AAM) on their websites or in the reports filed by their correspondents. Though the journalists have worked under the auspices of AAM since February, AAM only made their links to the news organizations known on their website Wednesday, after being contacted by the Monitor.

First it should be noted that sensational claims being spread that Pakistani journalists or media groups are on secret US government payroll are not supported by Mr Ahmed’s report. The nonprofit America Abroad Media (AAM) reported that it has paid the journalists has done many programmes that are meant to introduce American audiences to issues in Pakistan. Actually, a few months ago AAM produced a 5 part series about the growing role of Islamic charities in the world and even reported a piece about Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s flood relief work that many would consider sympathetic to the group. If this is an American propaganda machine, it is certainly a strange one.

Second, it should also be noted that Issam Ahmed actually did report on extremism in Pakistani media. His piece of 23rd June 2010, ‘What’s on Pakistan TV talk shows? Extremists.’ takes a very critical look at Pakistan’s own version of sensational “FOX News” style reporting.

While [Zaid] Hamid generally reserves his venom for what he perceives as Pakistan’s external enemies, others, like televangelist Amir Liaquat Hussain openly call for violence against Pakistan’s minorities. In a show recorded in 2008, the Karachi based religious-scholar, who held the post of minister of state for religious affairs in the Musharraf regime, said it was incumbent on all true-believers to kill Ahmadis.

Within two days, a prominent Ahmadi doctor and an Ahmadi rice trader were shot dead in Sindh province.

Though Hussain’s membership in the secular MQM political party was terminated, no further action was taken against him or his channel, Geo, owned by Pakistan’s largest media group.

So it is that AAM is not a conspiracy by the US government and Issam Ahmed has reported on extremist media. Rather than let this be another headline used to score cheap political points, let us turn to the more pressing issue which is that a culture of ‘lifafa journalism’ that has taken root in the media.

That many journalists are on payrolls other than from the media groups they are supposed to work for is an open secret, if anyone even bothers to pretend it is any type of secret anymore. In his book, Web of Censorship the respected journalist and leader of of the freedom of press movement in the 1990s, Zamir Niazi, noted that since the Ayub Khan regime agencies began recruiting and paying journalists to promote an establishment line. Is this practice a thing of the past? Consider that after PNS Mehran attack in May, ISPR held a private ‘briefing’ with 20 journalists, many whose names you will easily recognise.

  • Raheem Ullah Yousafzai
  • Mujeeb Ur Rehman Shami
  • Haroon Ur Raheed (columnist)
  • Talat Hussain
  • Zahid Hussain (Wall Street Journal)
  • Ijaz Haider
  • Moeed Peerzada
  • Qatreena Hussain
  • Mehar Bokhari
  • Sana Bucha
  • Hamid Mir
  • Javed Ch.
  • Saleem Safi
  • Arshad Sarif
  • Kashif Abbasi
  • Ibsaar Aalam
  • Mubashir Luqman
  • Nadeem Malik
  • Rana Mubashir
  • Haroon ur Rasheed (BBC)

Two of the journalists that attended the briefing by DG ISI even work for foreign media groups Wall Street Journal and BBC.

And it’s not just agencies that are known for recruiting journalists. Politicians have even taken the practice to a new level. Dawn News recently reported that one politician could not find envelopes large enough, so he opened an entire store for journalists only that treats reporters to VIP protocols.

NGOs and private companies, too, are known to provide envelopes to journalists who are invited to cover their latest products and developments. One journalist recently wrote that some small payment has come to be expected by many journalists.

While it’s unfortunate that this culture exists in our profession, what’s even more disgraceful, I feel, is that many among us actually demand it. It seems as though these journalists hang a price tag, and not a press card, around their necks. Like good moneychangers, they offer competitive rates in exchange for writing one sided reports.

Meanwhile, journalists continue to battle media owners in court over wage schemes that have been fixed since 1996. Even these wages are not always paid on time. In the approach of the Eid holiday, Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) issued an ultimatum to media owners demanding payment of salaries owed since 4 or 6 months.

Two things need to happen. First, media owners need to pay employees fair wages for their work. This will help to prevent the lure of the ever present envelope by making journalists financially secure.

The second thing is improved transparency. It is not uncommon for journalists to take freelance work or to receive some benefit such as a trip to a conference or a fellowship at a think tank. This additional income should not be considered as suspect as long as it is declared openly. In the present case reported in Issam Ahmed’s article, it seems that the entire problem could have been avoided if the media groups had disclosed the agreements and payments from AAM openly.

We should not accept ‘Everyone is doing it’ as an excuse. We should hear it as a call for reform.

The Nation Responds, Sets Example

Friday, September 2nd, 2011

The Nation logoToday we received a response from The Nation regarding our post of 1st September, ‘The Nation Still Publishing Taliban Propaganda‘. We appreciate the quick response from The Nation which clarifies that these articles were a result of the website being hacked. We believe the response from The Nation deserves special mention here because following our post they took the time to review the copies of the print edition to ensure that this propaganda was not being published in the print editions of Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore each, and they are also taking measures to prevent hackers from accessing their website in the future which displays an excellent level of professionalism that is rare.

It should also be noted that this is not the first time that The Nation has corrected an error after it was brought to their attention. On 16th August we noticed an incorrect photo being attached to an article on the website, and it was quickly corrected after the mistake was brought to their attention. As we said at the time, “mistakes happen”. This is understandable. Unfortunately, we are also living in a time when some groups will use illegal methods such as hacking websites in order to spread propaganda. As is clarified in the response from The Nation, this was the case with the articles by Zabihullah Mehsud which were not approved by The Nation and they are taking action to correct this.

No media group is 100 per cent perfect or accurate all the time. The most trustworthy ones, though, are the ones that are willing to admit and learn from their mistakes. By not only correcting the issue, but honestly and transparently investigating and offering a public clarification, The Nation deserves to be commended for setting an excellent example to all media groups.

Dear Pak Media Watch

Thank you and Mr Rumi and Ms Isfahani [Editors Note: Raza Rumi and Farahnaz Ispahani are not members of the PMW team, but we thank them for helping bring this matter to attention.] for bringing this post to my attention. I have gone through this PMW comment, as well as the previous one mentioned in the introduction, which I was not aware of at the time that it was published, roughly a year ago. Having looked into the matter, I am in a position to reply and address the concerns raised.

To begin, there are most certainly items posted with the byline “Zabihullah Mehsud” on our website. The last one is dated 28 August, 2011. Having carefully gone through all three (KHI, ISB and LHE) editions of The Nation’s print edition on the 27th, 28th and 29th of August, 2011 neither that news nor that byline has been published on our pages, nor would we normally have carried it in the manner it was displayed on the website. After checking the source of the news uploaded, it is with regret that we confirm that our website has been hacked and due to the gaps in our security this post and others like it, carrying the “Zabihullah Mehsud” byline, have not been identified or caught by our anti-hacking software. We apologise for this unfortunate incident and for the matter displayed and the inconvenience caused to our readers. The process of upgrading our site has begun; an emergency session was called at the head office of The Nation with our website managers and an advanced security system for nation.com.pk is being put into development immediately. The news items linked in the PMW post along with all others archived with the same byline are being removed as I write this.

As you said in your post of September 2010, “…it would not be unusual for a reporter to quote a Taliban spokesman,…” as is the practice in The Nation, Reuters, Telegraph, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and AFP, among others – all of whom regularly reference the Taliban spokesman (Zabihullah Mehsud) in their reports. The parts added directly from the Taliban website, which do not appear in our print edition, are also extensions of the hacking problem, that this PMW post has helped identify.

In response to your question regarding The Nation’s thoughts on “…the suicide bombing outside a Quetta mosque that killed at least 11 people on Wednesday…” please refer to our editorial, to be published tomorrow (3 September, 2011), which I hope will satisfy your curiosity. It may interest you to know that regarding the hacking of our site, we will also be carrying an editorial in The Nation to be published on the 4th of September, 2011.

Sincerely,
Rameeza Majid Nizami