Posts Tagged ‘flood’

« Older Entries

Would Ansar Abbasi drown the nation to spite Zardari?

Friday, September 16th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)As floods continue to devastate the lives of countless people, we knew it was only a matter of time before someone decided to use the disaster to score political points. During last year’s floods, it was a popular media line to claim that flood relief would have been greater if only the world did not believe the government was so corrupt. Even then, no evidence was presented to support this claim, rather it was only stated so often that it was assumed to be true. This year, Ansar Abbasi is too impatient to wait for any final numbers, instead declaring that the president has damaged fundraising efforts as they are only beginning.

Writing for The News (Jang Group), Abbasi claims that “the regime’s image and perception of being one of the most corrupt governments in the world, is likely to scare away international donors and world capitals from paying cash and offering the assistance that Pakistan requires for the devastating floods that have hit Sindh”. His evidence? He doesn’t have any. It is yet another prediction only.

In echoes of the way he exploited flood victims last year to score political points against the president, Ansar Abbasi predicts that government funds will not raise substantial funds to help flood affectees. Since none of the banks would respond to Abbasi’s questions of how much has been raised since only two days, the Jang Group political operative reporter turns to his famous anonymous sources who assure him that the government’s reputation will damage relief efforts.

Meanwhile, in the real world, China has answered President Zardari’s call for assistance by announcing $4.7 million in relief to flood victims. Iran is donating $100 million to help flood affectees, and the United States has already sent on Monday food and medical aid targeted at 350,000 people.

At the very least, Abbasi’s article is a heartless exploitation of a national tragedy to promote a political agenda. At worst, articles such as this can become self-fulfilling prophecies, turning away donors because they are told by reporters like Abbasi that they should not bother donating to relief efforts. Instead of exploiting a national tragedy to score cheap political points, would it not be better for Ansar Abbasi and Jang Group to use their media resources to help raise awareness and relief funds to help restore the lives and livelihoods of flood victims? Or does their hatred for Asif Zardari run so deep that they would drown the nation to spite him?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in The News | 2 Comments »

Newspaper Accepts Paid Advertisements From Banned Groups

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

Daily Nawa-i-WaqtBanned group Jamaat ud Dawa has paid newspapers for advertising space – and the newspapers accepted the offer. This raises further questions around the topic of media priorities that we began discussing last week.

Daily Nawa-i-waqt ran a large paid advertisement signed by Hafiz Saeed for Jamaat ud Dawa that says,

Responsible people and members of JuD, help the flood victims on a preferential basis.

While the advertisement appears to be asking people to give money to help flood victims, it is actually promoting the banned organization. It does this in two ways:

First, the advertisement makes a direct connection between the victims of the flood and the relief efforts of JuD despite the fact that JuD has provided only a marginal amount of support for flood victims, and that ignores the broader mission of the organization which is to spread an extremist version of Islam.

Second, the advertisement suggests that the best way to help flood victims is to give financial contributions to JuD rather than to government efforts or apolitical NGOs operating on the ground. This, despite the fact that such an act is illegal as JuD is a banned organization whose accounts have been frozen, despite their continuing to operate openly. Furthermore, the fact that JuD’s accounts have been frozen raises the question of how the advertisement was paid for – did Nawa-i-Waqt accept cash, or was the advertisement provided ‘pro bono’ or complimentary?

Whatever the situation, it is worth questioning what it means about the priorities of newspapers like Nawa-i-Waqt who will accept advertising from banned organizations.

According to Gillian Dyer, advertising has a direct influence on the editorial environment of a newspaper. (Advertising as communication, Volume 1982, Part 2, p.67)

Advertisers will look for the right editorial environment as well as the right readers when they buy space. From this we might conclude that any criticism of an advertiser’s business activities will be avoided in the editorial sections of newspapers.

A 2008 paper by Kelly E. Campbell titled, Advertiser Influence on News Media: A Literature Review concludes that there editors and journalists are aware of this pressure.

Clearly, editors and journalists perceive there to be advertiser pressure. Given the
amount of research that has examined advertiser influence from the news organization’s
perspective, it would be interesting to examine how advertisers themselves perceive their
role in influencing editorial content.

Gillian Dyer’s book concludes that,

Advertisers play a major part in shaping society’s values, habits and direction. They are also partly responsible for influencing the character and development of the media system…Newspapers and magazines are increasingly forced into creating the right ‘editorial environment’ for advertisers, and in addition we can see a growing polarization between popular and quality newspapers.

With this in mind, we must ask what the act of accepting advertising by a banned organization says about the priorities and editorial stance of Nawa-i-Waqt. If the newspaper accepted payment for the advertisement, how has that affected their stance on organizations operating illegally in the country? If they provided the advertisement without charge, are they then demonstrating their support for the illegal organization?

Already some reporters have pointed to news media providing PR for banned groups. Is this yet another example? And what does that tell us about what the agenda of these newspapers?

Research shows that advertising has an influence on reporting and editorial positions. Typically, this may be a subtle effect such as not wanting to write too much about a corporate scandal if the company is a large advertiser. When it comes to banned organization like JuD, though, real questions emerge about what the newspaper’s priorities are and whether the advertising accepted is having some influence on the editorial positions and reporting in the newspaper.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Daily Nawa-i-Waqt | 2 Comments »

Are Some Journalists Providing PR For Banned Groups?

Friday, September 3rd, 2010

Are some journalists, either unwittingly or for pay, providing PR for banned militant groups? That is a question raised by Gulmina Bilal Ahmad in today’s Daily Times, and one that bears close examination.

Gulmina takes to task reporter Yousaf Ali from The News for an article he wrote last week claiming that “Islamic charities most effective in relief activities”.

If I were associated with an ‘Islamic’ charity, I would file a suit against the reporter because he goes on to mention organisations that are old wines in new bottles. In other words, banned militant organisations operating under new names. There are a number of Islamic charities that are doing excellent work and do not use militant ways and means. They are funded not by mafias, crime and drug money as the militant organisations are, and have transparent, audited accounts.

The reporter is supposed to report, not give an opinion. Opinions are reserved for the op-ed pages. However, in the said news story, in the very title, the reporter has given his considered opinion. Throughout the four-column story, he fails to establish what is the basis of his sweeping conclusion displayed prominently in the heading.

Clearly, there is a problem raised by the fact that the author makes a bold claim that is not supported by the facts presented in his reporting. The reporter may believe that his claim is true – in fact, the claim could be true – but without providing evidence to support the claim, the reporter is wrong in making it.

But even the reporters claims are questionable. Yousaf Ali writes that,

Cooked food has been distributed among 0.25 million so far, while 23,046 packages were distributed among 161,322 families, the handout stated.

But according to Daily Mail News, the US has sent over 77,000 food packets for flood victims.

Talking to a privet television channel, the NDMA chairman said that they had demanded 380,000 food packets from the US for the flood stricken people in the country. He said the US sent a first batch of 77,000 food packets through C-130 plane which had been dispatched to affected areas.

Nadeem Ahmad said that another 43,000 boxes were expected to reach soon. “The US has assured of more cooperation to ease the miseries of people,” he said. Meanwhile, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson announced that the US government is continuing to send assistance for flood relief efforts in Pakistan. “The United States supports Pakistan’s emergency relief efforts on behalf of people affected by recent monsoon floods,” she said.

Surely Mr Ali knows that 77,000 is more than 23,046. So why does he ignore such facts in his article?

Gulima suspects a bit of spot-fixing going on at Jang Group’s English newspaper:

The news story further goes on to declare that the “most effective among the Islamic charities” is “the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation which is linked with the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD)”. The reporter clearly is aware of the way the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation is linked with the JuD. Is the reporter not aware then that the JuD is a banned organisation? As if the heading of the news story was not enough, the reporter, to really imprint it in the reader’s mind, further states, “much discussed in the international media, the Falah-e-Insaniat is another major contributor in the relief activities”.

Since, in this space, I am clearly asked to give my opinion, I will venture to state that it seems to be a paid, placed piece to do some damage control and spin some ‘feel good’ stories about the Falah-e-Insaniat, given the fact that “much has been written in the international media” about it.

Banned organizations are well known to change their names in order to avoid being closed down. Despite this, they are well known. They are also being praised by some in the media – as evidenced by Yousaf Ali’s column as well as articles in The Nation, and Dawn.

And this is not an issue that appears only in English media, of course.

Leading English newspapers do not have the monopoly over promoting irresponsible reporting nor is the militant media confined only to English. Just this week, an Urdu paper prominently displayed a statement of Hafiz Saeed, head of JuD, claiming that “there is no al Qaeda”. If there is no al Qaeda, then how is it that there is a group that has, to date, claimed responsibility for global terrorism attacks? Another question that begs to be answered is what is the basis for this claim of Mr Hafiz Saeed?

Just yesterday, Urdu newspaper Daily Khabrian included an article claiming that “foreign hands” were involved in the Lahore attacks. The evidence for this conspiracy? A statement from Rana Munir of Pakistan Muslim Rajput Federation.

The reporter for Daily Khabrian did not feel it necessary to ask how Rana Munir knew of such a conspiracy, and the newspaper’s editors did not (as evidenced by the publication of the article) feel it necessary to ask why such a statement by Rana Munir was significant enough to be a priority for publication. All of this despite the fact that banned group Lashker-e-Jhangvi claiming responsibility for the attacks.

These articles raise important questions: How is it that banned groups are getting a disproportionate amount of positive press coverage for the relief work that they are doing? Why do media outlets continue to publish conspiracy theories absolving banned groups from responsibility for attacks – even after the groups admit responsibility? And why do major news outlets like The News (Jang), The Nation, and Dawn consider it a priority to publish articles praising the work of banned groups over others?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Khabrian, Daily Times, Dawn, Jang, The News | 4 Comments »

Disaster Relief, Then and Now

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Ahmad Noorani, journalist or political operative?Ahmad Noorani writes for The News today a curious article about flood donations received from the international community. The thesis of Mr Noorani’s column appears to be that the present government is not as effective as the Musharraf regime in 2005. Despite the author’s intentions, though, his presentation of facts to back his claim are questionable at best. Often they are simply incorrect.

According to Noorani, “the total present pledges so far stand at only $777 million and the actual money received so far is only $82 million”. This is false.

According to data compiled by The Guardian, committed funding (funds that have been received) stood at $687,228,789 on 26 August. And additional $324,309,146 in uncommitted pledges (funds that have been promised, but not yet delivered) is outstanding. That means that the total present pledges can be no less than $1 Billion.

The largest donor is the United States, which has given $155,930,000 and pledged an additional $50,000,000. The next two largest donors are Saudi Arabia ($74,448,904) and United Kingdom ($64,765,001). In addition to monetary donations, many countries have provided “in kind” donations of foods and transportation, such as over 30 helicopters that are being provided by the US.

According to Noorani,

“A spokesman for the Economic Affairs Division confirmed to The News that by the weekend the total aid received in cash stood at $82 million while relief goods worth $60 million had also arrived, making the total foreign aid received at $142 million.”

It is not clear from Mr Noorani’s column what account the representative from EAD confirmed, but the claim that “the total foreign aid received” was not more than $142 million is not possibly correct.

It is also of concern that Mr Noorani compares international response to the 2005 earthquake to the response to the 2010 floods without considering the very different contexts of these two disasters. In fact, there are several important differences between the two events that analysts believe to be responsible for the difference in international aid.

The death toll in the 2005 earthquake was over 73,000. The latest reports put the number of deaths from flooding at around 1,600. While the number of deaths attributed to the floods is expected to grow, it is a slower killer than the earthquake, potentially making it seem less urgent to many international donors. According to one NGO, disasters that are more quickly destructive raise more relief money.

World Vision typically raises 10 to 15 times more from donors responding to a hurricane or earthquake as opposed to a flood, said Randy Strash, World Vision’s strategy director for emergency response.

There are other obvious reasons as well: The economy in 2005 was much stronger than the economy in 2007, making many donors feel that they can give more of their personal funds to help others. And, while the worst crisis in recent history, the flooding comes only a few months after the earthquakes in Haiti resulting in what many are calling “donor fatigue”.

None of these points are addressed in Mr Noorani’s column.

It is also curious that, when describing donations, Mr Noorani switches between currencies without providing any constant by which to compare. After some basic conversions using the website XE.com, it appears that some of Mr Noorani’s data points may be misleading.

For example, according to Mr Noorani, the total demands of provincial governments amount to over Rs.1 Trillion, or $11.8 Billions in US dollars. While no one suggests that the amounts currently raised for relief and reconstruction are anywhere near adequate, none of the recent crises saw such a large amount of donations.

The most recent crisis before the floods, the earthquake in Haiti, has received a pledge from the international community for $5.3 Billions over the next two years. This is less than the $7.5 Billion pledged by the USA alone last fall even before the floods devastated the country. Furthermore, the pledge did not come until April, four months after the disaster. While everyone will hopefully do more to help the flood victims, saying that fundraising is a failure if it does not achieve such levels as Mr Noorani suggests does not provide a realistic metric for evaluation.

Given the introduction and conclusion so the column, the author’s intent seems to be to suggest that the present government is not as effective as the Musharraf regime. What the author actually does, however, is make false comparisons and ignore important qualitative and quantitative data that explain differences in the response to the 2005 and 2010 disasters. While we hope that Mr Musharraf is able to raise some funds to help the country, it is important that media reports of donations be accurate and impartial so as to encourage everyone to give generously. Misleading reports such as the one filed by Mr Noorani do not help.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | No Comments »

Generals Are Government Officials

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Farrukh Saleem’s article in Monday’s The News makes a fundamental error in creating the illusion that the military and the government are two different things. In fact, the military is part of the government, and Mr Saleem’s column features almost no actual reporting but rather makes a particular political argument.

Mr Saleem’s column cites troubling statistics from the flood, “One out of every eight Pakistanis is at risk of severe diarrhoea, asthmatic attacks, dysentery, meningitis, hepatitis, skin diseases or a whole host of food and waterborne diseases”, and then accuses everyone in the country not presently wearing khaki of “playing politics” with the disaster, mostly without citing any actual events.

For example, the author states that “in Punjab, PPP and PML-N are playing their own politics”. But the author fails to tell readers what this has to do with the flood response or anything else. PPP and PML-N being rival political parties, one is reasonable to assume that they will be engaging in politics. Birds sing, political parties play at politics.

More curious, however, are Mr Saleem’s statements with regard to the military. His concluding paragraph reads:

On a much broader canvass, generals of Pak Army are winning ‘hearts and minds’ and thus capturing more and more of the Pakistani political space—all at the cost of the political class. Pak Air Force has diverted 5 C-130Bs and 7 C-130Es, its tactical transport aircraft, for picking and delivering flood relief to wherever it’s needed the most. Pak Navy’s boats are speeding through floodwaters delivering food and saving survivors still floating just above the water level. Right is winning by doing while the left talks. Generals are also winning by doing while politicians talk. Would the khakis take over? Answer: They did that several months ago.

There are two major problems with this conclusion. The first, and most obvious, is that it takes a clear editorial stance, and therefore does not appropriately belong as a news report.

Second, Mr Saleem makes several claims that bear scrutiny.

1. “…generals of Pak Army are winning ‘hearts and minds’ and thus capturing more and more of the Pakistani political space—all at the cost of the political class”.

Politics is not a zero-sum game in which positive feelings about the military necessarily mean negative feelings about politicians and vice-versa. Furthermore, Mr Saleem in no way demonstrates that the military is “capturing more of the political space”. This smacks of wishful journalism more than actual reporting.

2. “Right is winning by doing while the left talks.”

This statement attributes to the military a specific political ideology that is not necessarily true. This may be partly wishful journalism, but it also falsely equates the military’s role in the government with “right-wing” politics. Consider the example of “doing” cited by the author:

Pak Air Force has diverted 5 C-130Bs and 7 C-130Es, its tactical transport aircraft, for picking and delivering flood relief to wherever it’s needed the most. Pak Navy’s boats are speeding through floodwaters delivering food and saving survivors still floating just above the water level.

This is an entirely apolitical exercise in which the military is simply doing its job. During the Soviet era, Russian journalists could very well have written of their own military exercises as “the left is doing”. The truth is, though, it is simply “doing”.

3. “Would the khakis take over? Answer: They did that several months ago.:

This is so blatantly editorializing that it is shocking that the editors allowed it to be published as a ‘top story’ instead of an opinion column where it belongs. Moreover, Mr Saleem at no point explains what he means by “taking over”. Clearly, the nation is still in the control of the elected government – the same elected government that recently extended the appointment of COAS Gen. Kayani and the same elected government that funds the very military exercises that Mr Saleem praises as “doing”. In fact, you cannot have one without the other.

And this is the most important point of all – the khakis are able to do their jobs because of the politicians in the same way that the politicians are able to do their jobs because of the people. There has been no coup – soft or otherwise – and the military and politicians are working together to address the flood crisis. Certainly one can make the argument that the politicians are taking more of the blame than the military, but this is the nature of politics. To reprise the analogy above, birds sing and people blame politicians.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 10 Comments »

Good Advice

Saturday, August 21st, 2010

Naeem TahirNaeem Tahir offers some excellent advice for TV anchors in his column for Daily Times today.

I think what needs to be done is a careful presentation of the facts in a balanced way. Stop being so aggressive and interrupting everyone on the show. When you shout and speak more than the guest, you are projecting your prejudices and blocking the other point of view. If you believe that someone is hiding or misrepresenting the facts, then your calm and pointed questions will indeed expose him or her and the viewers will understand. Your aggression puts the viewer off. An anchor’s calm creates the benchmark for the tone of discussion. Please realise that viewers have already been educated, thanks to your efforts. Now they expect more. They look for an analysis of the situation. They want a dispassionate, thought provoking appraisal and a way forward. They expect public opinion to be motivated for short-term and long-term solutions. One anchor interviewed a Sindh ‘nationalist’ leader and probed his reservations about the present scheme of water management. Some positive thinking emerged. This was an example. While the nation has experienced this colossal natural tragedy and is prepared to avoid a recurrence, we need to focus on acceptable planning. If the civil government fails to rehabilitate, reconstruct and plan for the future, the media must take it to task.

Anchors have the power of communication beyond the reach of anyone else. It is the nature of your job that it is burdened with social responsibility. If you appreciate the good work of the armed forces, highlighting it is the right thing to do, but also encourage those who are sincerely mobilising. Build role models. Look at the causes and hold responsible those who have neglected the proper need for water management. Focus on developing a consensus on future strategy. Of course, expose corruption, mismanagement, apathy and incompetence. But be a role model yourself — of character, knowledge, investigation and decency.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Ahmed Quraishi and Flood Contributions

Friday, August 20th, 2010

Ahmed QuraishiAhmed Quraishi’s latest blog post for Express Tribune (why are they giving this discredited conspiracy theorist a platform?) is either a c-grade comedy routine or further evidence that Ahmed Quraishi is willing to ignore facts when they are inconvenient to his political agenda.

Ahmed Quraishi, by his own admission, is a political consultant who is “not a journalist anymore” and supports the jihadis. In short, he is a propagandist. So perhaps it should be no surprise that his blog post today accuses Pakistan’s “rich political elite” of “refusing to budge” and donate to flood relief, except that this claim is so easily demonstrated to be false, we wonder why he even bothered to write it.

According to Ahmed Quraishi,

The Pakistan Army donated one day’s salary of its soldiers, who mostly come from poor backfgrounds, for the relief effort. No politician is yet to take a similar step.

Only problem – that is false. Actually, it was widely reported earlier this month that parliamentarians and cabinet members have donated one-month salary to relief efforts, and 17-Grade government officials will donate one-day salary. Is it too much to ask that Ahmed Qurashi at least read the newspaper before he writes for one?

Ahmed admits in his post that President Zardari has personally donated Rs.6 Millions and the Sharif family has donated Rs.10 Millions to relief funds. His complaint there is both the old “do more” line with the added insult of insinuating corruption by saying that “no one knows how this amount will be spent”.

Ahmed then goes on to condemn MNAs and MPAs both because they have not “been seen in the affected areas helping people or distributing aid”, and for being “shameless politicians …quick to jump in front of visiting TV crews”. Typical Ahmed Quraishi – you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t also!

Ahmed Quraishi’s column is embarrassing for the author as well as the Express Tribune that agreed to publish it. It is based on easily disproven misinformation and scandalous insults backed by no evidence whatsoever.

This leaves only one question. How much, pray tell, has Ahmed Quraishi done to help?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Express Tribune | No Comments »

Raza Rumi: Media Exploiting Flood Tragedy

Friday, August 20th, 2010

Raza RumiRaza Rumi, consulting editor at the Friday Times, points out troubling examples of media exploiting the floods to promote a political agenda in a column for today’s Express Tribune.

Flood relief is being used by some as an opportunity to orchestrate political upheaval. Sections of the media are drumming up the partisan politics of a dangerous kind by involving the thorny issue of civil-military relations and the trite-but- failed recipe that the country should revert to authoritarianism whenever a crisis erupts.

Some TV anchors have been overtly suggesting that the military is saving the country at this juncture when the “venal” politicians are staging VVIP visits and not giving any relief. In one TV show, an estranged senator of the ruling party called for martial law. There is now a clear effort to create a duality — that of the military versus the civilian government…

While there is certainly a place for differing opinions, it is disappointing that some elements in the media are using a tragedy as a means to promote a particular political agenda rather than informing the people.

If political rivals can understand the need for cooperation and honest information, certainly the media can do the same.

Please click here to read the entire article.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Express Tribune | 3 Comments »

'Trust Deficit' a Self Fulfilling Prophecy?

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

Pakistan is suffering from the worst disaster in recent history, said UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon as he witnessed the devastation himself. Still, many commentators have noticed that except for the US and UK, most nations have not offered much in the way of humanitarian relief. A popular notion in the media has blamed this on a ‘trust deficit’ where donor nations do not ‘trust’ the government to use the money wisely. The question should be asked, though, how much of this ‘trust deficit’ is based on reality, and how much is a media creation.

Yesterday’s edition of Tonight with Najam Sethi perpetuated this narrative that there is a ‘trust deficit’ that is keeping people from donating to help flood victims as the donors believe the government is corrupt.

Another example is found in yesterday’s Daily Times article by Muhammad Akram which claims that aid money from Tehran is not appearing because of suspicions that the 2005 earthquake relief funds were misused.

But as we previously demonstrated, the story which has been repeated that the government has ‘misused’ some funds from the 2005 earthquakes is problematic and unreliable. The fact is, there is no evidence for the author’s claims.

First, Mr Nelson’s claim is based on statements by “senior Pakistani officials”. As if taking a cue from our own media, Mr Nelson does not reveal who these supposed officials are – not even what office they allegedly hold.

Second, nowhere in Mr Nelson’s article is there any evidence presented for misuse of funds. What the reporter writes is that some anonymous “officials” (and we’ve seen how reliable anonymous officials can be) have told him that their office suffered budget cuts.

But even Mr Nelson’s own article contradicts this fact when the only named official, Finance Secretary Salman Siddique explained that the issue is not foreign aid money being diverted, but that ERRA had requested extra funds that were not available due to the country’s fiscal deficit. As for foreign aid funds, “No cuts were imposed last year,” the Finance Secretary stated.

That there may be a ‘trust deficit’ it is entirely possible, it must be admitted. According to a report in the Express Tribune today, Elizabeth Byrs, spokeswoman of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said that “we note often an image deficit with regards to Pakistan”.

One must ask where this ‘trust deficit’ comes from, though – especially as it pertains to the present government, which is in power only since the 2008 elections.

Actually, one must put some responsibility on the media, which publishes all manner of rumours and political talking points without recognizing that this is picked up by the foreign media and spread across the world. Take for example the British newspaper quoted above, Telegraph, which published a story earlier this month with the sensational title: “Asif Ali Zardari: life and style of Pakistan’s Mr 10 Per Cent”.

This article is filled with sentences carefully qualified with phrases like “He has been accused of” and “He is also alleged to” and “He is said to”. What the article fails to include is any evidence of any actual crimes. The only thing known for certain by the article is the Asif Ali Zardari was imprisoned for over eight years, yet convicted of nothing.

So who is accusing, alleging, and saying things that create a situation in which, despite the lack of any convictions, a UN spokesperson felt the need to say that there is a ‘trust deficit’? Again, too much of these rumours and political attacks are being perpetuated by our own media.

Perhaps a reporter genuinely believes a rumour, even if he has no evidence to back it up. Perhaps he or his boss have a personal hatred for someone. Perhaps they are supporting another political party. Perhaps they are only trying to publish sensational stories that increase advertising revenue. Whatever the reason, it is still irresponsible and unethical to publish rumours and political attacks. What is worse is that the effects of such practices are longer reaching than the reporter may know.

That Pakistan is suffering cannot be denied. It is no mere rumour that we are experiencing the worst disaster in recent history. No nation – no matter how wealthy, no matter how powerful – would be able to provide all of the essential resources for humanitarian relief and reconstruction if a fifth of their country were under water. Our very survival depends on the trust between nations, and we cannot afford for irresponsibility in the government – or the media – to threaten that trust.

Trustworthy government matters. So also trustworthy media matters.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Foreign Media | No Comments »

Serious Problems with Misused Aid Funds Report

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

Saturday’s edition of The Nation included an article that claims that President Zardari has been misusing foreign aid from the 2005 Earthquake. The story has now been picked up by Express Tribune, Dawn, and others. But where did this story come from, and is it reliable?

New Delshi based British reporter Dean Nelson

New Delhi based British reporter Dean Nelson

The story originated with Dean Nelson, the Telegraph‘s South Asia Editor based in New Delhi, when he wrote for the British newspaper on Friday that Zardari ‘misused’ over £300 million in foreign aid for victims of the 2005 earthquake.

The first observation that must be made is that the Telegraph‘s headline is so misleading that one must wonder if the newspaper is being deliberately untruthful for the sake of sensationalism. The idea that Asif Ali Zardari misused any earthquake relief funds is supported by absolutely nothing in Dean Nelson’s article.

Actually, what Dean Nelson writes is problematic on its own right.

First, Mr Nelson’s claim is based on statements by “senior Pakistani officials”. As if taking a cue from our own media, Mr Nelson does not reveal who these supposed officials are – not even what office they allegedly hold.

Second, nowhere in Mr Nelson’s article is there any evidence presented for misuse of funds. What the reporter writes is that some anonymous “officials” (and we’ve seen how reliable anonymous officials can be) have told him that their office suffered budget cuts.

But even Mr Nelson’s own article contradicts this fact when the only named official, Finance Secretary Salman Siddique explained that the issue is not foreign aid money being diverted, but that ERRA had requested extra funds that were not available due to the country’s fiscal deficit. As for foreign aid funds, “No cuts were imposed last year,” the Finance Secretary stated.

Mr Dean Nelson, who goes by the name, ‘DelhiDean’ on Twitter, is a curious fellow. His recent Twitter feed takes swipes at Pakistani politicians, saying Salmaan Taseer is “sucking up” and calling Zardari “toast”. Reading his off-the-cuff statements and the sensational headline that is not supported by his reporting, one one cannot help but think that Mr Dean Nelson has a political angle.

In fact, reading past articles by Mr Dean Nelson leaves one with the distinct impression that he cannot write objectively about Pakistan – certainly not about Zardari. Mr Nelson’s article of 5 August is titled, “Bilawal Bhutto Zardari: Born to rule Pakistan, but destined to fail” that repeats a string of anti-PPP talking points including the old story that Zardari “purged” Benazir supporters from the party leadership. Much like his Pakistani colleague Shaheen Sehbai, Mr Dean Nelson seems to have traded his press pass for a political badge and a crystal ball.

DelhiDean, as he calls himself, has a much different attitude towards India, though, writing that

To succeed, Britain will need to be reminded how much we already owe India, the part it played in making us what we are, and why the “shared history” we have is much more equally shared than those who obsess about immigration realise.

It is sad to see a reporter of Dean Nelson’s stature resort to blatantly political posturing in a nation which he does not live and has no connection. While he writes that the UK ‘owes’ India, he discourages people from helping flood victims in Pakistan because of a personal dislike of the nation’s president. He let his own political feelings cloud his judgment, and he called attention to unsubstantiated rumours with sensational headlines to ensure that he got more attention than those who are suffering.

But there is one thing more sad than this, which is that our own media has picked up this story and repeated it without asking the obvious questions. Who are these “officials” that claimed funds have not been released? Where are these funds that were supposedly misused? And why is a British reporter based in New Delhi writing sensational political articles to discourage humanitarian relief in Pakistan?

That’s the real story.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Foreign Media | 5 Comments »

« Older Entries