Posts Tagged ‘fact checking’

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.

Corruption, Perceptions of Corruption, and Media

Friday, December 30th, 2011

Is the government corrupt? Which department is most corrupt? How much of your answer to these questions is based on hard facts, and how much is based on what you’ve been told by the media?

On 25th December, in a report titled, ‘Military stands at number five among corrupt institutions’The News reporter Usman Manzoor wrote that “sources said military stood at number five among the 10 most corrupt institutions of the country.” Once again, Jang’s sources have let them down.

The actual report, which was released on 28th December, lists the military at number nine. And the report does not list “the 10 most corrupt institutions of the country” – it lists only the 10 institutions TIP asked about.

Unlike the previous surveys, this year the NCPS covers only the basic survey report to measure the perceptions, nature and extent of corruption being faced by consumers of the following ten public sector departments:

1. Police
2. Electricity Supply
3. Health Dept.
4. Education Dept.
5. Military
6. Justice / Courts
7. Revenue / Property Registration
8. Taxation
9. Customs
10. Tendering & Contracting

Local Government has been deleted from the survey, and Military has been added for the first time in the list of departments surveyed

After the report was released, Pakistan Today, however, carried the headline, ‘In the list of corrupt, military among top 10 and ‘independent’ judiciary also climbs’. While not as bad as the headline in The News, it is still factually incorrect.

If reporters had bothered to read as far as the first page of the Foreward, they would have learned that, of the ten institutions covered in the report, “The least two corrupt departments are Education and Military“.

We would not be so bold as to suggest that corruption is not a major problem in society. The media has a role to play in solving this problem by investigating and exposing corruption where it exists. But this requires more than rumours, gossip, and misleading reporting – it requires real journalism.

Oh, and if TIP really wants to stir a hornets nest, perhaps they should do some research on corruption in another institution – media.

Jang’s “Special” Reporting

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)This has been a bad year for Muhammad Saleh Zaafir. The ‘Editor Special Reporting’ of Jang Group has been publishing one article after another of especially poor quality.

In January, Muhammad Saleh Zaafir wrote a bizarre conspiracy theory suggesting that President Zardari held a ‘mysterious meeting’ with President Obama, despite the fact that details of the meeting were available on the same day. Actually, the meeting was so not mysterious that photographers were even present.

President Zardari meeting with President Obama in January 2011

A few months later, the same Jang Group reporter was exposed when he claimed to have received detailed information from ‘highly placed defence sources’ that turned out to be nothing but a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.

Today, Muhammad Saleh Zaafir is back armed not with conspiracy theories or plagiarism, but drawing room gossip. Don’t take our word for it, this is how Mr Saleh Zaafir describes it himself!

This was gossip in the Kenyan reception held on Monday evening.

The gossip he ‘reports’ is that Husain Haqqani “tried to escape” but was prevented by the PM. The former Ambassador responded on Twitter noting that “First they said I will not come 2 Pakistan. Now they say I am in some hurry 2 leave. Wrong both times :) ”.

It is important to note that Muhammad Saleh Zaafir has a long history of inventing and reporting false information. In fact, he was warned by the Supreme Court against this habit and made to publicly apologise in 2007.

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, who is the reporter of the said news items, when confronted with the same, frankly and honestly conceded that he had made no effort to verify the veracity of the allegations levelled in the said news items before publishing the same nor did he have any proof in support of the contents thereof. He, however, added at the very outset that he had utmost regards and respect for not only the said hon’ble judges of this Court but for the entire judiciary; that he did not have even an iota of doubt about their integrity and character and that reporting the said news items was a grave mistake on his part.

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir needs to understand that ‘Special Reporting’ does not mean parroting drawing room gossips and cutting-and-pasting from websites, but actually taking the time to do some basic background research and fact-checking before filing an article.

Who authorised drone attacks?

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

The Nation logoIn The Nation on Tuesday, Dr Farooq Hassan asks ‘Who authorised the drone attacks?’. According to the senior advocate of Supreme Court, the two obvious suspects are President and PM. But it seems that Dr Hassan is overlooking some important research on the subject.

In March, you might remember, General Officer Commanding 7-Division Maj-Gen Ghayur Mehmood said in a briefing that drone strikes are effective and have low civilian casualty rates.

“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many, but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”"

“Yes there are a few civilian casualties in such precision strikes, but a majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements.”

Two months later in May we learned from Wikileaks that there may have been requests for increased drone strikes from the highest levels in government – only, not the civilian branch.

Newly released Wikileaks cables revealed that the US military’s drone strikes programme within Pakistan had more than just tacit acceptance of the country’s top military brass, despite public posturing to the contrary. The cables state that the country’s military was requesting the US for greater drone back-up for its own military operations as long ago as January 2008.

This blog has no knowledge of whether drone strikes were ever officially authorised, requested or approved or if they were not. If an investigative journalist wants to look into this question, I’m certain many people would be quite interested to learn the answer. Of course, if any journalist is actually interested in learning the truth, he shouldn’t limit his search to Islamabad.

The other casualty of ‘memogate’

Saturday, December 3rd, 2011

Farah Zia provides an excellent review of the way media handled the ‘memogate’ story as it broke. Now that the Supreme Court has begun hearing petitions on the case, it becomes even more important that media play its role of reporting facts and not intentionally or unintentionally influencing the outcome – an act that would negatively impact not only the people’s faith in journalism but in the very judiciary itself.

With the temperatures over the memo case having cooled a bit, this may be a good time to see how the media conducted itself in the whole affair. In fact, media is central to the entire controversy, if not indeed an active partner, beginning, of course, with a controversial article in the Financial Times on October 10. It was a startling revelation that ought to have come as a boon for a media-person anywhere. But the manner in which it was picked and presented in the next month-and-a-half to the Pakistani audience can be variously described as manipulative, sensational, unethical, agenda-driven and violating all norms of decent journalism.

Because of the ‘facts’ pouring in, in a chaotic manner, sometimes contradicting each other and not following any chronological scheme, there is no linear analysis possible. But to have a retrospective glance at all that was being published or televised is instructive. It is rather late when the Pakistani media at large got to know that the ISI chief Gen Shuja Pasha reportedly met with Mansoor Ijaz on Oct 22, 2011, but a section of the media apparently knew it as it happened. The analyses immediately after his ‘visit’ (Oct 26, 2011) spoke against the “mandated autocracy” that passed off as “elected democracy” because, note, “all the fact-finding” was over and those who mattered would now decide about the country’s future ruling structure.

Journalists taking notesSmart journalism, you would think, relying on excellent sources. But the truth is that it was a one-sided story that relied on Mansoor Ijaz’s words as the ultimate truth. The Financial Times, it was assumed and said, must have checked its facts before it published Ijaz’s Op-ed. And, so his words were blown up into a crisis where all depended on how the defenders of national security were going to react to it. Because here ‘treason’ had been committed and the accused — two people in particular, openly named — deserved to be punished under nothing less than Article 6 of the constitution. This was followed by a subtle direction from the media to the non-democratic forces to move in and remove the ‘corrupt’ and ‘incompetent’ government.

Once the tone was set, the belligerent content followed. Very smoothly, the term ‘Memogate’ got invented and was owned by the media.

Interestingly, some parts of the media are now raising questions that ought to have been raised before Ambassador Haqqani’s head got rolled. Who was Mansoor Ijaz, what has been his past role and why did he do what he did? If he was undertaking a secret operation, why did he feel the need to come out in the open and disclose it, especially when he claims the ambassador was a ‘friend’? Why did he decide to meet the ISI chief and share all ‘evidence’ with him when he had written a scathing critique of the ISI only twelve days back? Yes, the media is equally guilty of not letting the common people know that this was the subject of his FT column titled ‘Time to take on Pakistan’s Jihadist Spies’ and not the memo itself.

It is with the benefit of hindsight that the media has exposed Imran Khan who put a name to “senior Pakistani diplomat” in the FT column as he thundered against Hussain Haqqani in his famous Oct 30 rally in Lahore. How did he know it when none else did?

Some have hinted at the absurdity of the DG ISI meeting the accuser without his boss’s (the PM’s) permission but no one mentions the word ‘treason’. How one wished to see an article or a small package on the way words like ‘treason’ and ‘anti-state’ have been played out in our context and who were the people booked under those charges.

In this entire episode, all that the ‘whistle-blowers’ have achieved is an acceptance that there is a monopoly of one institution over national security issues and that the media won’t question it. One might see contrary views in the days and months to come but the whistle-blowers have already achieved what they were mandated to or at least just short of that.

Making Sense on Memogate

Saturday, November 26th, 2011

Dunya TVIt is unfortunately more common that our reports examine inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour by our respected journalists. Occasionally, however, there are moments that make us proud to be associated with the profession and we do like to recognise these as well. After a week of media circuses, we are pleased to be able to once again post some praise, this time for the responsible manner in which Mujib Shami handled the memogate story on Nuqta-e-Nazar.

What is important to note is that in his handling of the issue, Mujib Shami’s main point is not that one side or the other is correct or incorrect, but that too much of the media reports have been based on conjecture and assumption. For example, consider the way the conversation starts:

This entire case has rested on conjectures or assumptions. The conjecture is that Mansur Ijaz wrote a memo and that the letter was delivered and once delivered action was taken. But the alleged memo, what does it have? It asks Mike Mullen to immediately contact Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and warn him that he should not dare to overthrow the democratic government in the country. And that if Mullen gives this warning to Kayani and to Mr Shuja Pasha and they stop and the democratic government survives then the government will do the following for you. But since memo is unsigned we don’t know who wrote the memo.

Now tell me, did Mike Mullen call Kayani?

No.

Did Mullen warm him?

No, he didn’t.

Did they stop because of the warning? Were they going to do a coup?

That is a conjecture. They were not going to do a coup.

When all these are conjectures/assumptions then I am worried that where are we going, what are we doing and what kind of a country have we become?

This last line may be the most important line spoken on television in decades. When we start to treat conjecture and assumption with facts, where can we possibly go as a nation?

Actually, such behaviour has direct consequences on the ability of the nation to function. As Shami points out quite clearly.

That people got after Husain Haqqani so in a way it was important for the government to remove him because they felt that he would not be able to work in such a controversial environment. But please remember that an inquiry has to still take place. Now this is very interesting that the resignation has been taken even before the inquiry.

What if an independent inquiry clears Husain Haqqani’s name? Then an innocent man will have been forced to resign because of a media circus.

This is a serious consideration as we have written before that media coverage of the issue so far has been dominated not only by speculation, but that much of that speculation has turned out to be incorrect.

Once again, Shami lays this all out perfectly.

If Husain Haqqani had to run away from the country why would he return? Even before he returned our media started saying that he wont return. And the Indian papers said that he has sought asylum in US. Then we asked him to resign, he resigned. And when he Tweeted that he has resigned there were counter assertions by the PM house that he had not offered but was asked to resign. So petty are people…

So petty, indeed. Rather than help the people cut through the confusing mess of conjecture, assumption, rumour and innuendo, too many of our most popular media personalities are jumping at the opportunity to give their own opinions and add to the controversy. As Mujib Shami correctly notes, too much of what we believe is because we are not being told facts, but conjecture and assumptions. He is not saying that one side or the other is correct, he says quite clearly “please remember that an inquiry has to still take place.” Husain Haqqani has resigned, and there is a new Ambassador Sherry Rehman. Contrary to media assumptions and speculation, Husain Haqqani has returned to Pakistan and has turned over his Blackberry for investigation. An inquiry is being prepared and the facts will come out. This is what the media should be reporting – facts, not conjecture.

When the cameras are turned off, many people find Mansoor Ijaz’s story thoroughly questionable, but there are still some questions remaining and no one wants to pass up the opportunity presented by such a sensational story. The problem is, writing exciting and controversial stories isn’t be the basis legitimate news programmes. Such stories are for drama serials.

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.

Trust, but verify

Friday, November 4th, 2011

We have written before about the problem of an unquestioning media either intentionally or unintentionally presenting information as facts that is actually carefully managed propaganda. This comes in many forms, from reporters embedded with intelligence agencies, to analysts picking and choosing evidence to support a predetermined conclusion. to journalists simply repeating what they are told without verifying the claims made by their sources. A recent report by The New York Times shows why journalists must always investigate and verify the claims of their sources, even if they consider them trustworthy.

The New York Times report by C.J. Chivers examines claims made during the fighting in Libya by a doctor and others. The journalists’ sources made some claims about fighters that, when fact checked, turned out to be false.

How often do we hear our own journalists and anchors make statements such as, “We don’t need an inquiry, I am telling it is true!” Or, “This information has come from a source at the highest levels!”. Whether the information confirms the anchors personal beliefs or the source is a person of great respect, facts are facts – even when they are inconvenient. Journalists can trust their sources, but we still have the responsibility to verify what we are told and not simply act as parrots who repeat without question.

Whether this happens as the result of bias on the part of the journalist or on the other hand an attempt by the journalist to remain neutral, the end result is the same – the public is misled and their conclusions are based on incorrect information. If we are going to successfully address the issues facing our nation, we must be armed with facts, not lies and conspiracies. For this to happen, we need journalists who are willing to verify what their sources tell them before passing along to the public.

Dawn’s $118 mistake

Thursday, September 29th, 2011

Dawn suffered a public embarrassment yesterday when it made the mistake of publishing a photo without doing basic background research to verify the authenticity of the picture. The photo, used to accompany an article by Michael Georgy titled, ‘US will suffer if it tries to attack Waziristan, says Haqqani’  included the caption: “THIS picture taken from web shows Jalaluddin Haqqani, father of Sirajuddin Haqqani, with former US President Ronald Reagan. Courtesy Time & Life Pictures Getty Image. – Online”.

DAWN photo error Jalaluddin Haqqani and Ronald Reagan 28 September 2011

The photo, which had been circulating online for a few days provided damning evidence of American duplicity and backed up claims that Haqqani was CIA’s ‘blue eyed boy’. Only problem, no Haqqani appeared in the photo. Actually, it showed Mohammad Younis Khalis with former US President Ronald Reagan.

This is an easy mistake to make. Long beard, turban…they all pretty much look the same, right? And if the point of printing the photo was to embarrass the Americans, are the facts really more important than the message?

The funny thing is, as easy a mistake as this was for Dawn to make, it was just as easy to avoid. If you notice, the photo published by Dawn includes a watermark that says ‘TIME&LIFE PICTURES gettyimages’. These watermarks are tools used by media companies to protect their copyrighted material. The idea is that a publisher will not want to publish a photo that has writing all over it, and if they do, the copyright holder will know that they did not pay the proper licensing fee to use the photo.

One of the major companies to license images to publishers is GettyImages, and it is their watermark that appears on Dawn‘s photo. We decided to do a little photo research and discovered that, yes, this photo of Ronald Reagan and Mohammad Younis Khalis is a copyrighted image that can be licensed from GettyImages. The cost to license the photo? $118.

GettyImages License Fee

If Dawn would have researched the photo – and the source was printed across the front of it, so it wasn’t hard to track down – they would have seen that it was not Jalaluddin Haqqani, but Mohammad Younis Khalis. Instead, they printed the photo without doing any fact checking.

Oh, and as for photos of Jalaluddin Haqqani enjoying chai samosa with an American president, they don’t exist. But only because, despite the eager claims of media commentators, he never went to US. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story!

Terrorists Have No Taboos

Wednesday, September 7th, 2011

This post is a response to the editorial that was published in The Nation on Saturday 3rd September. The editorial talks about the suicide attack in Quetta on Eid:

The Nation logoThat these incidents occurred on Eid also highlighted the fact that, instead of praying for the prosperity and progress of the country on this sacred occasion, the perpetrators committed these deeds instead, making one doubt that they could have been Muslims. This gives rise to the suspicion that the perpetrators of these and other deeds of terrorism may well have been penetrated by India, particularly after it obtained consulates in Afghanistan from the Karzai regime.

Previously, the militants, who claimed that they were following the precepts of Islam, were careful enough to leave aside religious festivals, and it goes without mentioning that the biggest religious festival of Islam was among them. Now that this taboo has been broken, the government needs to be particularly vigilant at the next Eid, due in just over two months, and Ashura and its related gatherings.

The Nation claims that in the past, militants have not carried out attacks on religious festivals and holidays. Research into past militant attacks, however, reveals that this is not true. Actually, terrorists have been carrying out attacks at mosques, religious events, and Islamic institutions in Pakistan for years.

There have been dozens of attacks on mosques and other Islamic institutions and festivals in Pakistan over the years. Some of those incidents are listed as follows:

On 31st August, a suicide bomber detonated in a parked car outside a Quetta mosque, killing 11 people after Eid prayers.

A few weeks earlier, more than 40 people were killed in a suicide attack at a mosque in Jamrud in the Khyber tribal agency just after Friday prayers ended. This is during the holy month of Ramadan.

In April, the Taliban killed 41 people in a double suicide attack on a Sufi shrine (considered a holy place by some) in Dera Ghazi Khan in an attack on minority religious groups.

In March, at least 10 people were killed and 37 injured when a powerful bomb exploded in a mosque adjacent to the historic shrine of Akhun Panjo Baba in Akbarpura after Friday prayers.

In January, suicide attacks targeting Shia religious processions in Lahore and Karachi killed 16 people. The Fedayeen-e-Islam, a subgroup of the Pakistani Taliban, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and Jaish-e-Mohammed, claimed credit for the Lahore attack.

All of the attacks listed above took place since the past eight months. But terrorist attacks on religious occasions and places are not new. Actually, this was not even the first time an attack took place on the sacred occasion of Eid.

In 2006, 22 people were killed and dozens wounded in a suicide attack during an Ashura procession in Hangu. 20 more people were killed and 60 injured by a suicide bomb attack during another Ashura procession in Karachi in 2009. Ashura processions were not attacked in 2008, but only because police arrested five militants, including a suicide bomber, who were plotting attacks before they could carry them out.

In 2007, on the eve of Eid ul-Adha, a suicide bomb blast again targeted Aftab Ahmad Sherpao killing at least 57 and injuring over 100 at Jamia Masjid Sherpao, in Charsadda District.

In 2009, a suicide bomber killed five and injured 12 people at a girls’ religious school in Pishin district of Balochistan.

Also in 2009, at least 32 persons were killed and 85 others injured in a powerful suicide blast during funeral procession of a Shia elder, and more than 30 Shia Pakistani worshippers were killed and more than 50 wounded in a devastating suicide attack outside a mosque in the town of Dera Ghazi Khan.

In one of the most brutal and brazen attacks, as reported by Geo, a suicide assault team stormed a mosque that is frequented by Army officers. Forty persons were martyred, including children, and over 80 others injured in the terror attack at Parade Lane mosque in Rawalpindi.

Even religious clerics are not safe from militants, a fact proven when a suicide bomber killed five Pakistanis, including anti-Taliban cleric Dr. Sarfraz Naeemi, in an attack on a mosque in Lahore during Friday prayers.

As we can see most of these attacks took place on Mosques while prayers were in progress or people were getting ready for prayers. Since Friday prayers hold importance for Muslims, militants target mosques at Jumma Prayer times. These attacks, however, as clearly shown above have not been limited to mosques and include funeral processions, madrassas and religious congregations.

Neither are The Nation newspaper’s suspicions that perpetrators may have risen from India ignores the fact that responsibility for attacks has consistently been claimed by militant extremist groups such as Laskhar-e-Janghvi and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan who consider as ‘takfiri’ anyone who does not accept their extremist ideology.

It is important that prominent newspapers like The Nation condemn terrorism as they did in their editorial on 3rd September, but it is equally important that these condemnations tell the facts about terrorists and not make excuses for them, even unintentionally, by perpetuating conspiracy theories that confuse the masses about who is responsible. The fact is, terrorists have no taboos.