Fact Checking | Pakistan Media Watch –– پاکستان میڈیا واچ

Posts Tagged ‘fact checking’

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”.

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.

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!

Tags: Dawn, fact checking, fake photo, gettyimages
Posted in Dawn | 2 Comments »

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:

That 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.

Tags: Conspiracy Theories, fact checking, Nawa-i-Waqt Group, terrorism, The Nation
Posted in The Nation | No Comments »

Reality check for “insignificant” US aid

Saturday, July 30th, 2011

While the American Congress debates whether to cut aid to Pakistan, the media seems to be taking it upon itself to make the case that the US doe snot need to be sending any more money to Pakistan. No, I am not referring to FOX News, I’m talking about Pakistani media.

A prime example can be found in Humayun Gauhar’s article of Pakistan Today last week that inaccurately reflects the amount of aid Pakistan has received from US since 9/11.

Hamayun Gauhar in his piece says that “Since 9/11, Pakistan has received only about $448 million net in economic assistance”. But a February 2010 article in The News (Jang Group) reports that “Islamabad has received $6 billion in civilian aid after the September 11 attack in New York”. Which is correct?

We decided to do some research of our own to fact check Humayun Ghauar and The News to find out who is telling the truth, and who is stretching it thin.

Gauhar terms US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 27 May statement that “We provide more support than Saudi Arabia, China, and everybody else combined…” as ‘bull’. He later invites readers to compare American aid “to China’s spending of $30 billion in infrastructure projects in Pakistan”.

What Gauhar doesn’t tell is where this $30 billion from China is being spent. That’s because, there is no $30 billion in Chinese aid. What Gauhar is likely referring to is the $30 billion in trade agreements between Pakistan and China signed last year. Not only is this not aid, it doesn’t even exist yet.

The two sides inked 35 agreements; including 13 at the government level and 22 between their private sectors that are expected to bring around $25 to $30 billion of investment over the next five years.

This is not to look down on trade agreements which are actually quite important. But Gauhar is comparing apples to oranges by comparing the amount of aid US has given Pakistan since the past ten years and a promise of increased trade with China to happen over the next five years.

Let us, then, compare some apples to apples, shall we?

According to statistics from the State Bank of Pakistan and Pakistan Development Assistance Database compiled by Center for Global Development, for years 2004-2009 the US on average gave Pakistan $268 million in grant assistance. China gave only $9 million on average during the same years.

Additional research from Institute of Policy Studies Islamabad shows that between the years 2001 and 2006, US gave Pakistan $2,939.3 million in Economic Aid.

Year	Economic Aid, US$(2006) M	Military Aid, US$(2006) M	Per Capita Aid, US$(2006)
2001	212.1	0	1.45
2002	875.8	329	8.1
2003	362.7	287.9	4.29
2004	377.9	89.8	3.02
2005	467.8	322.4	5
2006	643	299	5.84
Total	2,393.30	1,319.10	4.62*
* Average per capita aid per year.Sources: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants [Greenbook] and US Assistance per Capita by Year.

According to Center for Global Development and Institute of Policy Studies Islamabad, the US has given Pakistan billions in civilian aid since 2001. In his article, Mr Gauhar says that “Mr Anjum Rizvi of Vibe TV helped me put these facts and figures together to expose the myth of US ‘aid’ to Pakistan”. It is unknown where Mr Gauhar and Mr Rizvi found their facts and figures, but perhaps they could share them with the Pakistan Development Bank, Pakistan Development Assistance Database, and Institute of Policy Studies Islamabad since they obviously have their figures wrong.

Mr Gauhar also states in his piece that “50 percent of the aid has to be spent on US ‘contractors’ under US law, so this goes back to America” and that “25 percent is wasted on administrative expenses. The rest is given to the US Ambassador’s favorite NGO to be deposited in US accounts. Almost none makes it to Pakistanis”.

Actually, what Mr Gauhar refers to is a change in US aid policy under the Obama administration that requires that at least 50 percent of aid money be spent through the government of Pakistan as the US moves development projects away from US contractors over to domestic groups in Pakistan.

The administration said it would funnel at least 50 percent of the funds through the Pakistani government, rather than using American contractors. The aim was to show America’s commitment to the civilian government and help strengthen its ability to deliver to its citizens, American officials said. Moreover, the large overheads of American contracting companies would be eliminated, they said.

As far as we have been able to determine from extensive research, Mr Gauhar’s claim that “The rest is given to the US Ambassador’s favorite NGO to be deposited in US accounts” appears to have been been invented from thin air by Mr. Gauhar for sensationalizing the issue at hand.

Also as the New York Times piece notes, much of the promised funds have not been released due to American concerns about corruption.

To keep a close watch on corruption, U.S.A.I.D. expanded its inspector general’s office in Pakistan to nine auditors in 2010, from two in 2009. Already, the office has opened 12 cases so far this year — involving bribery, kickbacks and collusion on bidding — compared with 13 cases in 2010, the office said.

To this, Mr Gauhar demands “Prove it. Or shut up”. According to him, “The problem is more likely with American bureaucracy, not Pakistani “mistakes”. And so just as we have learned from Mr Gauhar that the US has given almost no aid to Pakistan, so we have learned that there is no corruption in Pakistan also. Otherwise, we might be thankful that the Americans are carefully watching where the aid money goes so that it does not fill the pockets of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, which of course do not exist.

However it should be stated that at least one “mistake” has been found in Mr Gauhar’s maths. In the opening paragraph of his column, Mr Gauhar states that “Since 9/11, Pakistan has received only about $448 million net in economic assistance”. But later in his piece he states that “Pakistan’s ministry of finance was prompted to seek US clarifications on how $488.537 million being provided under the Kerry-Lugar-Burmen Law (KLL) were being spent”.

If US has only given $448 million in economic assistance since 10 years, how is it that $488.537 million has been spent since Kerry-Lugar-Burman which was passed only 2 years ago?

But what is a few hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars? According to Humayun Gauhar, whatever the actual number, it is “insignificant”. Let me tell you I was surprised when I first read this, that so much money could be termed “insignificant”. I immediately began researching and found that US economic aid helped Hyder Shah Fruit Farm in Sindh deliver “150,000 kilograms of processed mangos to the Middle East and earned more than four million rupees in profit”. I also found on the USAID website that US is funding additional power infrastructure and flood control systems in Pakistan.

An example of USAID’s impact can be seen at Pakistan’s power plants, and in the hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses that that will be powered thanks to infrastructure upgrades. USAID’s current energy program is designed to add 540 MW to Pakistan’s power grid by 2012.

USAID is also funding the completion of dams at Gomal Zam, Satpara, and Tarbela. USAID helped build the Tarbela Dam in the 1970s and has just completed the first phase of a turbine rejuvenation effort. When completed, Gomal Zam, located in South Waziristan, will generate electricity for 25,000 households and irrigate 191,000 acres, providing a livelihood for 30,000 households. It will also improve flood control systems, stemming serious damage that could be inflicted by future floods.

But Humayun Gauhar says this is “insignificant” and it is “the US that continues to cause problems for Pakistan”. And who are we to argue with such an esteemed journalist?

Ironically, it is US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that is most ardently defending the US aid to Pakistan, while commentators like Humayun Gauhar tell the Americans to “shut up” about their “insignificant” aid. We hope that Mr Humayun Ghauar will be willing to take a personal tour of Hyder Shah Fruit Farm and also South Waziristan to explain how the improvements to their businesses and homes is is “insignificant”. I am certain it will be an enlightening discussion.

Tags: American aid, Center for Global Development, China, fact checking, hillary clinton, Humayun Ghauar, Institute of Policy Studies, Jang Group, Kerry-Lugar, New York Times, Pakistan Today, The News, US aid
Posted in Pakistan Today | No Comments »

When Even the Facts Aren’t the Facts

Thursday, June 30th, 2011

How often do we see academics, ‘analysts’, and experts of all sorts filling the newspapers and TV channels with shocking reports about this or that? It seems to be almost daily occurrence. Recently, businessman Munir Attaullah heard some claims and rather than simply accept them without question, he investigated the claims of Maria Sultan in the media with his own research. Guess what he found?

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.

Tags: anti-Americanism, Daily Times, Dawn News, fact checking, Jang Group, misinformation, Munir Attaullah, The News
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn News TV, The News | 6 Comments »

Factual Problems In Shaheen Sehbai’s Latest ‘Analysis’

Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011

In his latest column for The News (Jang Group), Shaheen Sehbai holds a ‘funhouse mirror’ to the president’s speech and comes up with a curious 10-point list of what the president did not say in his address to the National Assembly on Tuesday. Sehbai’s column is purely editorial, though it is labeled as ‘News Analysis’ so that it can appear on the front page and not properly the opinion page. So let us examine Sehbai’s 10-point list as if it were actually ‘analysis’ and judge it’s factual accuracy as such.

1. He has run the country as a one-man show…

President Zardari’s one man show includes highlights of reinstating Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry, also signing 18th Amendment to return more power to the National Assembly, and asking for open discussions and negotiations about difficult issues. He has gone to war with the opposition by consulting them on important issues – how else was the 18th Amendment passed unanimously? And he has isolated the PM by handing over powers to him.

2. His failure to become a respected national leader with credibility, depth and vision has turned Pakistan almost into an intolerant, wayward and undependable pariah state…

Holding Zardari responsible for intolerance in the nation is shameless, especially while Sehbai’s friend Ansar Abbasi is playing the part of religious jurist for the country. Worst, though, saying Asif Zardari “has turned Pakistan almost into an intolerant, wayward and undependable pariah state” is to ignore the decades of support for extremism and militancy by dictators while placing all the blame on those left holding the bag. This is not analysis but is willful ignorance.

3. His style and pettiness in politics has earned him no new friends…internationally he has not been trusted with any aid money. Even the Kerry-Lugar dollars are tied to strings because of lack of trust.

One wonders if the second bit was added on at the insistence of an editor worried about the sheer ridiculousness of claiming that Zardari has been entrusted with no aid money. Yes, Kerry-Lugar bill includes conditionalities, but similar conditionalities were present in most US aid bills since 2001, so it would be a far cry to blame Zardari for this. One might also wonder how badly the president’s “style in pettiness in politics” can be since he has managed to hold together the coalition even during the most trying times. Even PML-N has said it wants to see the government complete its term.

4. His domestic politics is in shambles.

Again, domestic politics is messy, but despite the predictions of devastating storms from ‘journalists’ like Shaheen Sehbai, most have turned out to be storms in teacups, and all so far have resulted in strengthening the democratic process through the recognition of opposition and coalition demands. Far from being in shambles, domestic politics seems to be maturing.

5. …rule of law is being buried day by day and Asif Zardari is leading this mission to demolish the courts.

Again, far from following in the footsteps of his predecessors, Asif Zardari has not made any move to sack the Chief Justice or to ‘demolish the courts’. This hasn’t stopped certain voices in the media from incorrectly predicting an executive-judiciary death match every few months, but neither have these media predictions managed to drive a wedge into the executive-judiciary relationship.

6. His dealings with the establishment are reduced to blackmailing and threats of using the Sindh Card.

The same government that has extended appointments for both COAS and DG ISI is blackmailing the establishment? Actually, this government seems to have one of the healthier relationships with the establishment. The last time we had democratically elected governments under Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto (PPP) and Mian Nawaz Sharif (PML-N), both were overthrown by the establishment.

7. His relations with the media are rancorous and based on the policy of buying or bullying.

Shaheen Sehbai has some cheek to write this. Shaheen Sehbai himself has spent the entire duration of the Zardari government pining for the president’s failure and spreading the most ridiculous of rumours about the president. Also, let us recall the false accusations that have come from the media against the government since the past three years. Clearly there is some tension between the government and the media. This is natural. But suggesting that Zardari is the one doing bullying is a bit much.

8. His attempts to survive and avoid his own accountability have just succeeded to the point of delaying the inevitable.

The fact is that Asif Zardari has spent over a decade in prison and no court has convicted him of anything. The fact is also that Swiss prosecutor Daniel Zappelli stated that “he had no evidence to bring Zardari…to trial”.

9. His tall claims of bringing billions of dollars and generating local and foreign investment have evaporated into colourless smoke.

Exports exceeded $2 billion last month and net foreign investment rose 27 percent to $1.23 billion in the first eight months of 2010/11 fiscal year. China signed $30 billion in deals just a few months ago. Economists agree that the economy is improving, though slowly. Shaheen Sehbai is simply wrong on the facts.

10. His favours to his cronies have brought him troubles, infamy and at the end humiliation. But the irony is that these cronies will not stand by him. They will be the first to run, leaving him in the dock.

This is not even a point about the past few years, rather it seems that Shaheen Sehbai cannot help himself but must include some negative prediction in his writings.

This 10-point list of Shaheen Sehbai is not ‘analysis’ it is political attacks only. And these attacks are not even based in reality, but it Shaheen Sehbai’s own willful ignoring of facts. Just because you label something ‘analysis’ does not make it so. This column could have been used to provide analysis of some of the serious issues facing the nation and made some recommendations for how the government and opposition leaders can work together to pass solutions for the good of the country. Instead, readers of The News were presented with yet another political attack consisting of misleading accusations devoid of context and reason.

Tags: economics, fact checking, historical context, Jang Group, misleading, political attacks, Predictions, Shaheen Sehbai, The News, Zardari
Posted in Jang, The News | 19 Comments »

Ayesha: Javed Chaudhry’s Blatant Distortion of Facts

Monday, February 7th, 2011

Excellent fact checking by Ayesha! Cross-posted from her blog Sharp Perceptions.

The reading of Javed Chaudhry’s op-ed ‘Beech Ka Rasta’ (The Middle Way), printed in the February 4^th Urdu newspaper Daily Express, made me realize that the media in general and the Urdu press in particular is so much bent on molding the public opinion that it don’t hesitate to resort to any unethical means including the misrepresentation of facts to achieve its hideous aims.

The Lahore shooting cannot be justified but the way the media is playing out the entire episode is repulsive. In his op-ed Javed Chaudhry vehemently builds up the case against Raymond Davis by quoting certain past diplomatic criminal instances. He begins by writing about the 1984 incident of Libyan embassy in London. In that case, one of the Libyan embassy officials was involved in the killing of a British female police officer. The accuracy of those facts can’t be contradicted as it is known when the British demanded the handing over of the official, Libya refused and this ultimately led to the severing of the diplomatic relations between the two countries. No one from the Libyan embassy was ever prosecuted.

The Case of Georgia’s Diplomat Gueorgui Makharadze

Next, Javed Chaudhry writes about one of the widely quoted diplomatic crimes committed by the foreign diplomat in Washington DC.

Javed Chaudhry’s version of facts:

On January 4^th 1997, Georgia’s Second-in-Command diplomat killed a 16-year-old girl during driving, while the other four people sustain injuries. Washington police arrested the diplomat, Georgian president requested the diplomatic immunity from the President Clinton but the president refused the request.

The facts that world knows:

This case involved the Republic of Georgia’s Second-in-Command diplomat, Gueorgui Makharadze, killing a sixteen-year-old girl and injuring four others in a car crash. In the aftermath of an accident, the US asked the Georgian government to waive the diplomatic immunity which the Georgia refused initially and Makharadze was ordered to return home. A week or so later, the Georgian President waived the immunity and allowed Makharadze to be prosecuted.

There had been unconfirmed reports of Senator Judd Gregg, threatening to revoke the aid payments to Georgia if it didn’t waive the immunity. That was a mere threat, suppose if there was any truth to this report of threat even then the US would have not been able to prosecute Makharadze unless and until his immunity had been waived by the Georgia. In other words, Georgia would have ignored the threat and had recalled Makharadze. Chaudhry is totally wrong to say in his op-ed that Georgian President claimed immunity for Makharadze but the President Clinton refused.

There is no truth to Chaudhry’s claim either that Makharadze was arrested. The investigators didn’t conduct the blood alcohol test after the crash on Makharadze since he was identified as a diplomat. Makharadze was imprisoned to 7-21 years only after he pleaded guilty to one account of involuntary manslaughter and four accounts of aggravated assault. However, after three years Makharadze was transferred from the US to Georgia under the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Treaty. Makharadze served two more years in prison in Georgia before he was released on parole.

The Case of Loren Wille

Javed Chaudhry’s version of facts:

Chaudhry continues distortion of facts and says that as retaliation in 1999 when an American ‘diplomat’, Loren Wille, got involved in a car crash killing a translator Georgia refused to accept his immunity and sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

The facts that world knows:

First of all 54-year-old, Loren Wille was not a ‘diplomat’ as Chaudhry claims. He was instead a Catholic Relief Services worker. Yes, he was only a social worker. Second, he never ran over the translator as mentioned by Chaudhry. The translator, a woman called Manana Tsomashvili, was in fact traveling in Loren’s car and the accident occurred due to bad weather. The prosecutors failed to prove over-speeding besides, the passenger didn’t buckle up either despite Loren’s insistence. Chaudhry says, the US President claimed diplomatic immunity for Loren. What diplomatic immunity when Loren had nothing to do with diplomatic mission at all. Loren was released after five months.

Chaudhry so blindly copy and pasted material that he failed to figure out whether the slain translator was a man or a woman; whether Loren was a diplomat or his case got America’s attention only because he was a US citizen. Under the doctrine of State Responsibility it is common for states to get in touch with their citizens abroad when they get into legal trouble.

The claim that Georgia retaliated by imprisoning an American citizen is a misconception. There was a clarification regarding it in the New York Times which says:

‘The State Department says it has never maintained that the jailing of the American, Loren Wille, was a retaliation for that of a Georgian diplomat, Gueorgui Makharadze, who killed a teenager in Washington in 1997 in a drunken-driving accident.’

The Case of Munir Akram

Javed Chaudhry’s version of facts:

Lastly, Chaudhry discusses the case of Pakistan’s ambassador to UN, Munir Akram saying that he was arrested by the police. Pakistan invoked diplomatic immunity but the US refused to accept it.

The facts that world knows:

In 2003, Akram’s girl friend, Marijana Mihic called up 911 after a brawl with Akram. The police arrived but upon discovering that Akram was protected by diplomatic immunity, returned.

In the wake of misdemeanor charges against Akram, the US asked Pakistan to waive Akram’s immunity. Pakistan didn’t waive immunity instead Akram was recalled. There was no arrest made as Chaudhry falsely claims in his op-ed.

Instead of playing to the gallery, I hope the next time when Chaudhry makes such claims; he’ll bother to do a little bit of research rather than copy and pasting (or translating) erroneous reports from different news sources.

Click to Read

Tags: Ayesha, blog, Daily Express, diplomatic immunity, fact checking, incorrect information, Javed Chaudhry, misleading, Sharp Perceptions
Posted in Blogs, Daily Express | 2 Comments »

Raymond Davis Case Is Sub Judice, Not Sub Media

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011

There is nothing positive about a tragedy such as occurred last week when an American Consulate employee shot two men and a third died in a vehicular accident involving another American Consulate employee. Unfortunately, some in the media have taken the opportunity of this tragedy to promote confusion, conspiracy theories, and political agendas instead of presenting the facts. In some instances, there are even suggestions that the media is covering up some facts that are deemed inconvenient to a specific political agenda.

Kamran Shafi succinctly describes the various and contradictory ways the Raymond Davis case has been presented in the media:

He is alleged to be, variously, a spy, a Blackwater operative, a security guard and a US diplomat. There are as many stories about the man in our press as there are reporters in the newspapers, not one of them leading the reader to any conclusion.

In just one day we are regaled by differing accounts in different newspapers: one saying David had overstayed his visa by two years, another telling us his visa was valid until 2012; one saying he was not a diplomat, yet another telling us that he was an ‘official’, and so on and so forth. I have been following this case since the day of the shooting, have read every word written about it, and have to say that I am most confused. Nothing makes sense at all — a lot of which has to do with the conspiracy theorists and the and their spin quacks putting a spin on any aspect they can get their hands on.

In what is already a case filled with questions, media coverage is actually adding to the confusion rather than cutting through it. What is worst, Kamran notes that one eye witness account from the scene has disappeared from reporting.

What I myself saw on the very day of the shooting, about two hours after the event, was the interview of a young man off the street, conducted by a loud and vociferous channel. When asked what he had seen the man said: “pistol” (“The two motorcyclists drew their pistols to rob the foreigner [using the near-pejorative term , or Whitey] who shot them dead”). This was repeated twice in a period of 30 or so minutes and then taken off air. This is what I saw and heard myself. It is pertinent to note that that young man has not been seen, nor heard from, again. Neither has any newspaper quoted what he said on record.

Could it be that media is self-censoring this eye witness account because it is inconvenient to a specific political agenda?

Thankfully, one journalist is standing out in the crowd – Najam Sethi. As Cafe Pyala notes, Sethi “began his new programme Aapas Ki Baat with the warning that he wanted to put emotionalism aside and analyse the incident only in terms of the facts“. This was indeed a breath of fresh air.

Not only did Sethi cite the actual clauses of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic immunity (which Pakistan has ratified) that have been furiously talked about but never actually specifically referenced, but also put into context the whole issue in light of contemporary history and geopolitical realities. Now, others may question his interpretations of the Vienna Convention or the heretofore unknown ‘facts’ he presented as definite realities (we have no way of determining their veracity but he did stake his reputation on their authenticity), but I hope such challenges, if they do come, will be based on proof rather than vague emotionalism.

Cafe Pyala provides as comparison the way the issue was handled by Kamran Khan and his guest Shireen Mazari who trots out the old conspiracy theory that Ambassador Husain Haqqani is issuing visas to ‘suspicious foreigners’ in effort to somehow connect him to the Raymond Davis case. But as Dawn reports today, Raymond Davis’s visa was not issued by the Washington Embassy.

Diplomatic sources in Islamabad said that Raymond Davis had first received a three-month diplomatic visa on a diplomatic passport on request of the US State Department in September 2009. That is the only visa issued to him by the Pakistan embassy in Washington.

On that occasion, the State Department had said Davis would be visiting Pakistan for a short term as a technical adviser. Subsequently, Davis received extensions to his visa in Islamabad or elsewhere.

His presence in Pakistan after the expiry of his first visa in December 2009 was neither known to nor authorised by the Pakistan embassy in Washington or the Foreign Office.

Why Shireen Mazari brings up Husain Haqqani in a discussion of the Raymond Davis case is a question that should be asked. It is already established that the Embassy in Washington did not issue the visas, so why is it entering the debate? It appears that this is another example of media personalities using tragic events to promote a particular political agenda rather than simply providing and commenting on the facts.

Stories like the Raymond Davis case are delicate diplomatic matters between states, and it is imperative that the people have the facts straight so that they understand why government officials take whatever actions they deem necessary. It is also important that the facts are presented objectively so that the officials responsible for making decisions at such a highly diplomatic level are not confused or misled in their own right.

The Raymond Davis case is more than simply a diplomatic mess, though – it is a question of specific facts and laws. In other words, it is a legal case. There has been much complaining in the media about US officials trying to influence the government one way or the other. These journalists should take their own advice. Presently the matter is sub judice and not sub media.

Tags: Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Saath, Aapas Ki Baat, bias, Cafe Pyala, fact checking, Geo TV, Kamran Khan, Kamran Shafi, Najam Sethi, Raymond Davis, Shireen Mazari
Posted in Geo TV | 6 Comments »

The Nation Repeats Incorrect Data on Drone Attacks

Monday, November 22nd, 2010

The Nation today includes an editorial, “Say firm NO to drones” that repeats incorrect data on the number of deaths of innocents due to drones attacks. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that such incorrect data has been published by The Nation which raises the question of whether the newspaper is intentionally misleading the people.

According to the editorial,

The drones have already wrought havoc in the country, killing nearly 2000 innocent men, women and children, and spreading insecurity nationwide, while managing to take out only 30-odd suspected Al-Qaeda operatives.

The authors of this editorial do not reveal what source of information they have taken these numbers, and based on the publicly available data it appears that they have simply made it up from thin air. Possibly, though, they have taken their data from the website Pakistan Body Count by Dr. Zeeshan Usmani. However, this Pakistan Body Count data was recently debunked by independent researchers.

Research by Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood was published by Daily Times in October and is also available at the website http://dronedata.wordpress.com.

The first problem is that Dr Usmani has only two entities in his data, i.e. al Qaeda and civilians. Where do the Taliban fit in, precisely the Afghan Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Islam (LI)? Where does targeting monsters like Baitullah Mehsud and Qari Hussain Mehsud fit in this scenario? There is no justification for including the TTP, LI or any other militant groups in the same category as civilians. Such gimmicks are only being used to mislead the whole world and any such defence of the flawed data is misleading and unacceptable. We cannot claim whether the data is manipulated and purposely flawed for ideological reasons. What we can assert is that this alone leaves a serious flaw in his data collection and since the government of Pakistan officially declares the TTP, LI and associated groups as terrorists and has been pursuing an active military campaign against them, including their deaths amongst civilians is a serious distortion of the truth, erroneous and contrary to acceptable logic. Their deaths are and should be included as a part of the accuracy of drone strikes.

Mr Saeed and Mr Masood go on to reveal several inaccuracies in Dr Usmani’s data which makes his entire project unreliable. And these are not the only independent researchers that have debunked these statistics. Researchers at the New America Foundation have compiled data based on news reports and other verifiable research. The following is data from Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2010

	Deaths (low)	Deaths (high)
2010*	514	841
2009	413	709
2008	263	296
2004-2007	86	109
Total	1,276	1,955

*Through November 21, 2010

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2010

	Deaths (low)	Deaths (high)
2010*	488	781
2009	293	405
2008	106	134
2004-2007	78	100
Total	965	1,420

*Through November 21, 2010

The Nation also recited in their editorial the idea that drone attacks are responsible for suicide bombings. This defies common sense. Actually, Saeed and Masood eloquently explain why such ideas are nonsense on their website:

There lies no factuality in the rhetoric that strives to create a cause and effect relationship between drone attacks and suicide bombing. These are shallow assertions with hollow foundations and no proof to back them up. They can, they are and will be used as a motivating factor, but they are just one amongst the hundreds of motivating factors used by militants. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any suicide bomber has been linked to or a potential bomber that has been apprehended had any acquaintance that died in a drone attack. We challenge the other side to bring forward any news report, intelligence report or a case report that states that the person caught or who carried out the bombing had any relative that died in a drone attack and he was avenging his family members. Most of the times, this assertion is made without any evidence. One of the cited examples is of Faisal Shahzad but that it is unbelievable since his life story as is tells how he was led to the TTP. Baituallah Mehsud once claimed that a suicide attack was in revenge for a particular drone strike but it is unbelievable that he and the group of his monsters wouldn’t have carried it anyway.

The prime reason militants fight and suicide bombers exist is the world view of clash of civilizations, an ideological assertion of one’s one faith over the other’s and the view all military operations conducted by our forces are being conducted on the “behest of the US”, where they view death for their “greater cause” as the ultimate achievement and where life itself remains just a step towards a better eternal life they imagine. They view the state’s involvement in the war on terror, including the Operations in Wana, Tirah, Orakzai, Mohmand, Bajaur, South Warizistan, Operation Silence and Swat as only for “pleasing the US”, as guided by infidels. The drone attacks are an additional factor but in no way the prime motivating factor. The toxic religious dogmas of declaring everybody not cooperating with you as Kafir and liable to death is a major factor, not drones.

Obviously, none of this justifies the use of drone attacks in Pakistan or anywhere else. The debate about whether or not drone attacks are a good policy for Pakistan should be discussed openly and transparently, and each individual is entitled to his own opinion. But nobody, including The Nation, is entitled to his own facts. Using misleading and inaccurate data only undermines an argument. In a debate as serious as the issue of drone attacks, only honest facts should be considered. For a newspaper to knowingly continue using inaccurate data is dishonest and unprofessional.

Tags: Awais Masood, data, Dr Zeeshan Usmani, Drone Data, drones, fact checking, New America Foundation, Pakistan Body Count, Shahid Saeed, The Nation
Posted in The Nation | No Comments »

The News Report on Constitution Contains Factual Error

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

A front page report in The News today by Ahmad Noorani contains a factual error about how constitutional amendments are treated in other countries.

The article claims that:

In different countries with developed political systems, including US and India, apex courts have struck down constitutional amendments.

This is not true. No constitutional amendment has ever been struck down by a US court. Actually, that would not be possible as in US law the written constitution is considered the supreme law of the land.

Tags: Ahmad Noorani, Constitution, fact checking, incorrect information, Jang Group, supreme court, The News
Posted in Jang, The News | 6 Comments »

Ridding Ourselves Of Shireen Mazari's Mistakes

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

In an opinion column published in today’s The Nation, “Ridding ourselves of the US“, Shireen Mazari makes several incorrect claims about incidents and statistics in the war against militants. While Shireen Mazari is certainly entitled to her own opinion about the war, she is not entitled to her own facts.

Shireen Mazari claims that drone attacks have killed more civilians than militants. According to Shireen Mazari’s column,

…we are unable to deal with our terrorism threat internally because we are following US diktat and using a military-centric policy which is simply creating more space for militants within the country. The drone attacks, killing more civilians than militants, are one glaring case in point.

Mazari provides no research to back up her claim, so it is not known why she says this. But Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation (NAF) shows that more militants have been killed by drone attacks than civilians. Furthermore, the NAF research is transparent as to its sources and analysis:

The research on these pages, which we have created in a good faith effort to be as transparent as possible with our sources and analysis and will be updated regularly, draws only on accounts from reliable media organizations with deep reporting capabilities in Pakistan, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks—the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC—and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan—the Daily Times, Dawn, and the News—as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network.

Here are the estimated death counts:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2010

	Deaths (low)	Deaths (high)
2010*	409	685
2009	413	709
2008	263	296
2004-2007	86	109
Total	1,171	1,799

*Through October 4, 2010

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2010

	Deaths (low)	Deaths (high)
2010*	383	625
2009	293	405
2008	106	134
2004-2007	78	100
Total	860	1,264

*Through October 4, 2010

Estimated Militant Leader Deaths from US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010

2010*	10
2009	10
2008	11
2004-2007	3
Total	32

*Through October 4, 2010. Included in estimated militants and estimated totals, above.

Later, in the same paragraph, Mazari claims that “there are the NATO incursions into our territory and targeting of even our military personnel”. While there was the well-reported NATO incursion into our territory, the claim of “targeting” is misleading.

An investigation of the incident has found that Pakistani soldiers fired warning shots at the helicopters, which returned fire. The US and NATO have apologized for the incident and pledged to work more closely with the Pakistani military and government to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

Shireen Mazari’s account could lead readers to believe that the US was intentionally and aggressively attacking Pakistani soldiers, which would be an act of war. This doesn’t make any sense. If the US military wanted to go to war with Pakistan, why would it provide so much support and supplies to the Pakistani military? And why would the US apologize and pledge to work more closely in coordination with the Pakistani military?

Mazari goes on to repeat the discredited conspiracy theory that the US is planning to steal our nuclear arsenal. Her evidence is a statement by an American conservative historian Arthur Herman. But Arthur Herman is not a member of the US government or military and would have no access to such sensitive information. He is simply describing a hypothetical ‘worst-case scenario’ based on no evidence.

Actually, the article that Mazari is referring to is an opinion column in an American newspaper New York Post which has been criticised by the Columbia Journalism Review who said, “The New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem.” According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the New York Post was rated the least-credible news outlet in New York. The Wikipedia entry on New York Post includes a long list of controversies surrounding the newspaper.

Shireen Mazari then goes on to repeat another discredited conspiracy theory saying that Visas are being granted “with no proper scrutiny and with all normal procedures being abandoned”. Mazari provides no evidence for this claim, which would be a quite serious breach of protocol. Notably, Shireen Mazari does not accuse anyone by name of committing this act, possibly because she knows that it would be defamatory for her to do so. Instead, she merely states that it is being done which could possibly result in readers mistakenly believing that she has some evidence to back her claim.

Shireen Mazari has every right to believe that the US is the root of all of the country’s problems, but she must make this claim with facts and not inventions and conspiracy theories. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but facts are facts. Making statements to support a particular political agenda even when the facts are the opposite is not journalism, it is merely propaganda. Please, Shireen Mazari, stick to the facts.

Tags: accusations, American visas, Conspiracy Theories, drones, fact checking, militants, military, NATO, New York Post, nuclear weapons, Shireen Mazari, The Nation, USA
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Posts Tagged ‘fact checking’

Year

Economic Aid, US$(2006) M

Military Aid, US$(2006) M

Per Capita Aid, US$(2006)

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2010

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2010

Tags

Archives