When The News (Jang Group) published an editorial on 6th January questioning Husain Haqqani for claiming that he was concerned about his security without providing some concrete proof of threats, we noted that creating this arbitrary standard of proof of threats was insulting to the courageous men and women of the press who every day put their lives at risk to investigate and report news that is uncomfortable for certain powerful quarters, especially when their own newspapers had carried reports terming him as a traitor.
Imagine our disappointment, then, when we opened today’s edition of The News only to find another editorial, this time giving utmost sympathy to the claims of Mansoor Ijaz about his own security concerns in what appears to be a blatant double-standard.
This is what The News said about Husain Haqqani:
There has been no fulminating cleric calling for Haqqani’s demise, nor protests or rallies against his alleged treachery. Today Haqqani remains in the PM house, and one might reasonably wonder why there and not some other place – his own home for instance, suitably guarded against intrusion or attack. But that is another unknown, alongside all the other unknowns of this curious affair. We wish no ill to Mr Haqqani, but might attach greater credence to his claims of insecurity were he able to support them with something a little less ephemeral than euphemistic references to ‘powerful quarters’. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?
This is what The News said about Mansoor Ijaz:
Can anyone be blamed, then, for accusing the government of trying to intimidate Ijaz into staying away from Pakistan and standing in the way of the memo investigation reaching its logical end? It boggles the mind why the government would want to lose its already tenuous moral ground by shirking from its primary responsibility of witness protection. If the judicial commission fails to complete its work, the assumption of Husain Haqqani’s guilt and the complicity of top government leaders will be recorded in historical memory. An easier way out has already been suggested by Haqqani’s lawyers when they asked the commission to arrange testimony of their witnesses through video conferences. If this can be done for one side, why not for the other? The government must exhibit that it is committed to protecting Ijaz for the sake of the truth, and make every effort to get him to come to Pakistan or get his testimony for both the judicial and parliamentary commissions. On his part, Ijaz also needs to exhibit more faith in the judicial process to which he says he is ready to surrender the truth.
According to The News, Husain Haqqani is crying crocodile tears while he is placed on the ECL and sitting behind armed guards at PM’s house, but Mansoor Ijaz has an understandable complaint while he enjoys the comfort of his home in South France and is able to travel freely. We are not questioning whether Mansoor Ijaz has received any threats, but why are his claims more believable to The News than Husain Haqqani? Is it because The News wants to create different impressions about the two people? Or is The News simply unaware of their obvious double-standard?
This is the worst sort of double-standard because it so obviously takes sides in a case that is presently sub judice. Rather than acting like the media team for one side or the other, Jang Group would be appreciated to inform readers without bias. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?
In an editorial published on Friday, The News (Jang Group) belittles Husain Haqqani’s concerns for his safety as there have “been no fulminating clerics calling for Haqqani’s demise, nor protests or rallies against his alleged treachery”. As journalists, we find it particularly troubling that The News would require such a burden of proof of threats to ones security.
For Jang Group to suggest that fatwas and street rallies are required prerequisites for one’s health and safety to be in grave danger in this country is insulting to the brave men and women of the Pakistani press who every day live in fear of those we are reduced to referring to as ‘powerful quarters’ lest they find us in disfavour. How many times has an editor requested of a reporter to remove any names and references, knowing all too well the chilling crackle on a phone call, the ringing of a doorbell at 4am, or the Corolla that becomes increasingly familiar on one’s regular route?
Perhaps there has been no street protest against Husain Haqqani, but what about when Jang Group itself publishes articles terming him a traitor? Or when Jang Group publishes articles by mysterious authors that term Blackberry data as “the hammer that nails the coffin shut of those who stand accused of committing such heinous crimes against the state”. What about the production and distribution of videos like this one by “security consultant and defence analyst” Zaid Hamid.
Being on the bad side of powerful quarters is not a safe place to be. Something we as journalists know perfectly well. The issue of the memo is presently sub judice as the Supreme Court has initiated a commission to separate truth from rumours. In the meantime, responsible media groups should not engage in publishing articles terming those involved as ‘traitors’ who have committed ‘heinous crimes against the state’. They should also refrain from making light of the very serious issue of security and safety for individuals who are accused of such acts without ever having been even charged with such crimes, much less convicted. The consequences, we know, can be severe. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?
This has been a bad year for Muhammad Saleh Zaafir. The ‘Editor Special Reporting’ of Jang Group has been publishing one article after another of especially poor quality.
In January, Muhammad Saleh Zaafir wrote a bizarre conspiracy theory suggesting that President Zardari held a ‘mysterious meeting’ with President Obama, despite the fact that details of the meeting were available on the same day. Actually, the meeting was so not mysterious that photographers were even present.
A few months later, the same Jang Group reporter was exposed when he claimed to have received detailed information from ‘highly placed defence sources’ that turned out to be nothing but a cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.
Today, Muhammad Saleh Zaafir is back armed not with conspiracy theories or plagiarism, but drawing room gossip. Don’t take our word for it, this is how Mr Saleh Zaafir describes it himself!
This was gossip in the Kenyan reception held on Monday evening.
The gossip he ‘reports’ is that Husain Haqqani “tried to escape” but was prevented by the PM. The former Ambassador responded on Twitter noting that “First they said I will not come 2 Pakistan. Now they say I am in some hurry 2 leave. Wrong both times ”.
It is important to note that Muhammad Saleh Zaafir has a long history of inventing and reporting false information. In fact, he was warned by the Supreme Court against this habit and made to publicly apologise in 2007.
Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, who is the reporter of the said news items, when confronted with the same, frankly and honestly conceded that he had made no effort to verify the veracity of the allegations levelled in the said news items before publishing the same nor did he have any proof in support of the contents thereof. He, however, added at the very outset that he had utmost regards and respect for not only the said hon’ble judges of this Court but for the entire judiciary; that he did not have even an iota of doubt about their integrity and character and that reporting the said news items was a grave mistake on his part.
Muhammad Saleh Zaafir needs to understand that ‘Special Reporting’ does not mean parroting drawing room gossips and cutting-and-pasting from websites, but actually taking the time to do some basic background research and fact-checking before filing an article.
The latest version of the media’s ‘memogate’ parlour game has turned from who knew what and when about the infamous memo to who knew what and when about the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May. Mansoor Ijaz invented this new version of the game by first alleging that Husain Haqqani and Asif Zardari secretly knew about the raid before it happened. He provides no evidence, of course, and his claim flies in the face of all logic and reason, but since when have logic and reason been required rules for our media parlour games? In fact, already the field has expanded to speculation that UK High Commissioner Wajid Hasan also knows something he’s not telling, including a front page article in The News that asks, “Will Wajid Hasan be the next memogate victim?” But why limit the field to only PPP officials? Surely there are plenty of people who can be brought to dock on the same quality of speculation and innuendo.
Let’s begin with Ahmed Quraishi. On 6th May, Ahmed Quraishi was the guest on Voice of Russia‘s radio programme. During the interview he said that,
“At some level, maybe not the entire government, but at some level Pakistan definitely was on board with the United States before the operation was carried out and some of the logistics that were involved in that operation do indicate that it would not have been possible to carry out the operation in its entirety without a major, a good level of cooperation on the Pakistani side”.
Quraishi goes on to say that the Abbottabad operation “of course also vindicates the US intelligence community [and] the US military in Afghanistan”. Interesting.
Then on 10th May, Ahmed Quraishi further wrote that the operation that killed Osama bin Laden was a joint Pakistan-US victory. Here is how Ahmed Quraishi described the scene:
“Crucial and critical intelligence from Pakistan and the United States succeeding in pinpointing the location of al-Qaeda terror chief. ISI gave decisive leads on the trusted courier of bin Laden. The CIA and the US military put together a plan to take him out. By virtue of the more advanced American surveillance technology, Washington filled in the gaps and sealed bin Laden’s fate.”
Ahmed Quraishi then goes on to criticise the military for not explaining their larger role in the operation.
“Instead of ‘admitting’ failure, it was better for the army chief to object to CIA hijacking a joint victory and turning it into a one-sided victory and a one-sided attack on our military and ISI. And we could have certainly done without our foreign secretary quoting US national security adviser to confirm to our media that we did scramble some fighter jets in the end. The weak media management capabilities of our civilian and military bureaucracies are breathtaking.”
Neither is Ahmed Quraishi the only one who was making such statements. Let us take a moment to revisit the front page of The Nation on 3rd May, just after the raid:
The Nation front page of 3rd May 2011
The front page article by Sikander Shaheen quotes “top level official sources” saying that “200 Pakistan Army men provided ground support” for the operation while “four helicopters of the Pakistan Army hovered over the fortress-like hideout of al-Qaeda chief at Thanda Choh”. Shaheen goes on to quote “military sources” that “US dignitaries thanked the military leadership of Pakistan on intelligence sharing and the successful operation”.
It seems that perhaps not only Ahmed Quraishi but Sikander Shaheen, military and intelligence leadership, 200 jawans and four helicopter pilots should be under suspicion.
Let us be clear: We have not seen any evidence that Ahmed Quraishi, Sikander Shaheen, Wajid Hasan, Husain Haqqani, Asif Zardari…or anyone else had any advance knowledge or was privy to any secret information about the raid. During the aftermath of the raid, there was great confusion and many people were making guesses about what happened. Because of this, it is easy to take even the words of a democrat like Wajid Hasan or a hyper-nationalist like Quraishi and twist them to create suspicion. But that is not journalism.
The White House has categorically denied Mansoor Ijaz’s claims that anyone knew about the Abbottabad operation, and headlines speculating about whether one or another government official may have had secret knowledge of the American operation are completely irresponsible. Rather than carrying out witch hunts against government officials based on speculation and innuendo, perhaps it would be better if journalists thought about who was feeding them false information following the raid and who is feeding them information now.
Appearing on NDTV yesterday to explain his view to Barhka Dutt, Mansoor Ijaz’s answers actually raised more questions about his allegations in the ‘memogate’ controversy.
Mr Ijaz begins by saying that the international media should be asking “what the government is trying to cover up”, which is a strange way to begin the interview – we know what Mr Ijaz claims that government is trying to “cover up” because Mansoor Ijaz is the one who made the allegations to begin with. From there, the interview only got more bizarre.
Talking to Barkha Dutt, Mansoor Ijaz claims that he was approached about the memo because his anti-ISI beliefs made him “a plausibly deniable channel…and I agreed,” said Ijaz. “I knew that if something went wrong, there would be a need for plausible deniability.” Barkha picks up on this logical disconnect, and presses him on it. If he understood and agreed that this was a confidential process and that he would be denied if word got out, why did he reveal the story in a newspaper op-ed, and why does he act surprised when it is denied?
According to Mansoor Ijaz, he publicly revealed his alleged role in the ‘memogate’ affair because it added authenticity to his op-ed for The Financial Times. This raises another obvious question: If Mansoor Ijaz is as credible and trusted among American officials as he claims, why would he need to include some anecdote about his involvement with Pakistani officials in order to grant authenticity?
But that’s not the only strange thing about his new explanation. Mansoor Ijaz wrote an almost identical op-ed on 2nd June that also terms the ISI as “the enemy” and alleges a secret ‘S-Wing’ that is responsible for breeding terrorism – but he did not then feel the need to include any stories about secret memos.
Here is what Mansoor Ijaz wrote about the ISI on 2nd June:
The enemy is the ISI—it runs Pakistan from the shadows like a puppet master. The ISI is a danger to civilized societies everywhere, because it nurtures and breeds hatred among Pakistan’s Islamist masses, and then uses their thirst for jihad as a foreign policy sledge hammer against Pakistan’s neighbors and allies, often for no purpose besides just creating chaos.
And here is what he wrote about the ISI on 10th October:
The enemy is a state organ that breeds hatred among Pakistan’s Islamist masses and then uses their thirst for jihad against Pakistan’s neighbours and allies to sate its hunger for power. Taking steps to reduce its influence over Pakistan’s state affairs is a critical measure of the world’s willingness to stop the terror masters at their very roots.
Here is what Mansoor Ijaz wrote about the alleged ‘S-Wing’ on 2nd June:
The finger of responsibility in these recent events often points to a shadowy outfit of the ISI dubbed the S-Wing. A notorious group of operatives, the S-Wing is made up of active ISI officers, recent retirees, and plain-clothes civilians with highly specialized training—all dedicated to protecting and preserving Pakistan’s territorial integrity using any method, at any cost, with no regard for collateral damage. As black-ops units go, it is about as thuggish and ruthless as is possible, without being a criminal organization.
That is why the S-Wing should be declared a sponsor of terrorism under the “Foreign Governmental Organizations” designation by the U.S. State Department. It no longer matters whether the ISI is willfully blind, or explicitly complicit, in the murderous plots attributed to the S-Wing, which the ISI routinely denies any knowledge of or responsibility for. S-Wing must be stopped dead in its tracks before immeasurable harm comes from the missionary zeal of its agents, no matter how misguided their mission may be.
And here is what he wrote about the alleged ‘S-Wing’ on 10th October:
Questions about the ISI’s role in Pakistan have intensified in recent months. The finger of responsibility in many otherwise inexplicable attacks has often pointed to a shadowy outfit of ISI dubbed “S-Wing”, which is said to be dedicated to promoting the dubious agenda of a narrow group of nationalists who believe only they can protect Pakistan’s territorial integrity.
The time has come for the state department to declare the S-Wing a sponsor of terrorism under the designation of “foreign governmental organisations”. Plans by the Obama administration to blacklist the Haqqani network are toothless and will have no material impact on the group’s military support and intelligence logistics; it is S-Wing that allegedly provides all of this in the first place. It no longer matters whether ISI is wilfully blind, complicit or incompetent in the attacks its S-Wing is carrying out. S-Wing must be stopped.
Actually, the point of both pieces is the same – to declare the ISI and its alleged ‘S-Wing’ unit as the world’s terrorists. The only real difference is that in October, Ijaz added the dramatic story of the secret memo. This raises the question of what changed between 2nd June and 10th October that Mansoor Ijaz felt he needed to add an anecdotal story to back up his claims?
Meanwhile, it should also be noted that during the same timeline that Mansoor Ijaz claims he was working with Husain Haqqani to deliver the memo to American officials, Husain Haqqani was very publicly defending Pakistan and the ISI.
“President Obama has answered the question about Pakistan’s role. It wouldn’t have been possible to get Bin Laden without Pakistan’s help. People are piling on this one, but the fact is, it is very plausible for someone to live undetected for long periods of time.”
“What I find incredulous is the notion that somehow, just because there is a private support network in Pakistan, the state, the government and the military of Pakistan shouldn’t be believed.”
On 4th May, Husain Haqqani spoke offered a strong defence of Pakistan’s security services when speaking to Barkha Dutt on NDTV.
And on 8 May, Husain Haqqani appeared on ABC News where he stated that:
If any member of the Pakistani government, the Pakistani military, or the Pakistani intelligence service knew where Osama bin Laden was, we would have taken action. Osama bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan was not to Pakistan’s advantage… As the national security adviser said, a lot more people have been arrested in Pakistan, including Al Qaida people, than in any other country. So Pakistan did not have a policy of protecting these people.
This raises yet another question: If Mansoor Ijaz really was working with Husain Haqqani, his partner in the conspiracy was undermining the credibility of the scheme day by day. How could American officials take seriously the offers made in Mansoor Ijaz’s memo while the Pakistani envoy was in the media defending the very group that Mansoor Ijaz was terming as terrorists?
Here is what we can confirm so far. Mansoor Ijaz is an “ultra-wealthy” and politically connected American businessman who believes that Pakistan’s intelligence agency is made up of terrorists and enemies, and he wants the American military to strike against them. We know that in May he delivered a memo to some American officials, and that the Americans “did not find it at all credible and took no note of it.” In June he wrote an op-ed making his allegations against the ISI public, but it seemed to get little attention. In October, he wrote another op-ed making the same allegations, only this time he added a sensational story about a conspiracy within the Pakistani government, and suddenly his name became front-page news. We also know that several weeks ago he held a secret meeting with DG ISI to discuss his evidence against the civilian officials.
The rest of the story remains pure speculation. Did Mansoor Ijaz and Husain Haqqani talk via email and BBM? Perhaps, but it is also likely that Mansoor Ijaz is not the only wealthy Pakistani-American in the Ambassador’s contacts. It is the job of a diplomat to cultivate relationships with influential and well-connected people. Did President Zardari authorize the memo or its contents? Actually, there has been nothing to suggest that he knew anything about it. And why, if Mansoor Ijaz believes the ISI are terrorists, is he working closely with the ISI to make his case?
Husain Haqqani has requested a full inquiry to clear his name, and has offered to turn over his Blackberry and his computer for a forensic investigation. Hopefully we will have more facts soon. In the meantime, media interviews and talk shows are only fueling speculation and creating more questions than answers.
آج کل کے تمام تر ٹی وی کےپروگرامز کو دیکھنے کے بعد یہ اندازہ ھوا کہ ھمارا میڈیا انصاف کے اصولوں سے ناواقف ھے۔ کسی بھی ایک موضوع یا شخص کو ھدف بنا کر اپنی تمام توانائیاں صرف کر دیتے ھیں۔ کچھ اپنے اداروں کے مقاصد حاصل کرنے کی کوشش کرتے ھیں اور کچھ اپنے آقاؤں کو خوش کرنے کی۔ نتیجہ یہ کہ قارئین تزبزب کا شکار رھتے ھیں۔
اب حال ھی میں میموگیٹ سکینڈل کو ھی لے لیں۔ ھر چینل نے بنا کسی تحقیق و تصدیق کے اپنا اپنا اظہار خیال شروع کر دیا۔ اس کے علاوہ اپوزیشن پارٹی کو تو موقع ملنا چاہیے۔ نوٹ کرنے والی بات یہ ھے کہ زیادہ تر کیا سارے ھی چینلز نے پاکستانی سفیر حسین حقانی کا موقف لینے کے بجائے مشکوک کردار کے مالک منصور اعجاز جو کہ ایک امریکی شھریت رکھتے ھیں اور جنہوں نے کئی بار پاکستان اور اسکی افواج کے خلاف منفی خیالات کا اظہار اور منفی مضامین چھاپے ھیں سے رجوع کرنا زیادہ مناسب سمجھا۔
یہاں پر یہ بات قابل ذکر ھے کہ حامد میر سب سے پہلے اینکر تھے جنہوں نے حسین حقانی سے رابطہ کیا اور ان کا موقف اپنے پروگرام میں پیش کیا۔ اس پروگرام کی کلپ نیچے ملاحظہ کری
اس کے بعد امریکہ میں موجود پاکستانی سفیر حسین حقانی نے دیگر پروگرامز میں اپنے حوالے سے اٹھائے گئے سوالات کا جواب دیا۔ حیران کن بات یہ ھے کہ اس انٹرویو سے قبل اور اس کے بعد بھی منصور اعجاز مختلف چینلز پر اپنا مقدمہ پیش کرتے رھے اور مزید حیران کن بات یہ ھے کہ ایک امریکن سٹیزن سے رابطہ کرنا زیادہ آسان ھے جو کہ یورپ منتقل ھو چکے ھیں اور ایک پاکستانی سفیر سے زیادہ مشکل جو کہ واشنگٹن میں پاکستانی سفارتخانے میں پائے جاتے ھیں۔ تعجب خیز بات یہ بھی ھے کہ ہر ٹی وی چینلز مختلف قیاس آرائیوں پر مبنی خبریں پیش کرتے رھے مثلا اےآرواے نے کہا کہ پاکستانی سفیر اپنی ڈی سی کی رہائش گاہ سے کہیں اور منتقل ھو چکے ھیں۔ دنیا نے کہا کہ ان کا استعفی صدر کو موصول ھو چکا ھے جبکہ موصوف ایمبیسیڈر نے ابھی تک استعفی دیا ھی نہیں۔ خواجہ آصف صاحب نے امریکی شہریت رکھنے کا الزام حسین حقانی پر لگایا کیا ان کے پاس ایک عرب روپے ھیں کیونکہ شاید وہ یہ بھول گئے کہ اسی بات پر نوائے وقت نے حال ھی میں پاکستانی سفیر سے معافی مانگی تاکے انہیں ایک عرب روپے کا ہرجانا نا دینا پڑے۔
پاکستانی میڈیا کو ذمہ داری کا ثبوت دیتے ھوئے حقائق پر مبنی تحقیق کے بعد ناظرین کے سامنے صحیح صورت حال کو پیش کرنا چاھئے اور من گھرٹ قیاس آرائیوں سے پرہیز کرنا چاھئے۔
It has been one year since the media caused a national crisis by inaccurately reporting that the government was plotting to withdraw notification to reinstate the judges sacked by Musharraf. Unfortunately, it seems that journalists and TV anchors did not learn from this ‘moment of shame’ and are once again causing alarm by rushing to report unsubstantiated rumour without conducting the proper background checks. We cannot even call out one or another media group as the sad truth is that so many were guilty that the entire profession has been stained by the event.
We are referring, of course, to reports that created a stir on Wednesday night when media groups rushed to report the resignation of Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani. As the evening progressed, the reports escalated. Not only had the Ambassador resigned, but he had already moved out of the official residence. Then we were told that not only had he resigned and moved out of the official residence, but he was not returning to Pakistan. As it grew later there were even reports that Haqqani had applied for asylum in the US! The media frenzy had reached a full peak.
Of course, not one single one of these reports was true. It was all lies and fabrications invented by reporters and their sources and given the green light by unquestioning editors and producers.
Following the media’s false reporting of a conspiracy against the judiciary last year, Farrukh Khan Pitafi wrote the following:
In the golden days of journalism, we were taught not to carry any report unless there was prima facie evidence or at least three separate sources available. In the case of a breaking story or report of critical importance, this rule was relaxed to either two independent sources or word from the horse’s — in this case the prime minister’s or the law minister’s — mouth. As evident however, none of these precautions were taken, nor was any patience shown for such details to emerge. Innocent until proven guilty is the universal principle in case of unsubstantiated allegations. However, in this particular case it was deemed fit to consider the government guilty until proven innocent.
Unable or unwilling to find anyone at the Embassy in Washington or the presidency to confirm the rumours, our media not only ran with the story, they ran riot with it. Were the false reports necessary?
By 1:30am, Dr Firduas Awan was available to give a statement that the government had received a letter from Ambassador Haqqani offering his tender resignation by saying that he did not want to be “a distraction from the major challenges facing our country and our government”, but that no decision had been made to replace anyone. It was less than 24 hours later that Geo was able to contact Ambassador Haqqani by telephone to get his statement on the air.
Imagine if the news channels had simply taken the time to check not with their ‘reliable sources’ who every time prove embarrassingly unreliable, but with the actual people involved in the story. It would have prevented confusion, misinformation, and the continued humiliation of the media as incompetent and untrustworthy.
As the dust begins to settle, it is worth once again revisiting the recommendations of Farrukh Khan Pitafi.
The best practice would be to ask the concerned reporters or the channel managements to produce the evidence. It is important not to confuse a source with evidence. Even when we have sources we are not supposed to air an item without our own satisfaction. And in any case, no source will ever accept that it had generated such information in the absence of recorded evidence. If media outlets do not produce evidence they should be fined and asked to ground the reporter for a bit. This is about the only civilised way.
Now let us focus on the source of the problem in the heart of darkness. Apart from the culture of cynicism that has mushroomed around the current government and for which the government’s poor media policy is to be blamed, the institution of a professional editor is almost extinct in this country. In the presence of owner-editors the assurance of content quality and adherence to media ethics becomes impossible. Our profession has become highly complacent and in a conflict between the business owners and a professional editor, most journalists wish to stand with the former. Had there been professional editors in place, even if unverified information was produced, it would not have made it to the screen or print. Also the professional editor, given the damage caused, would have sacked someone.
Of course, there is the issue of talk show hosts-anchorpersons and their reckless attitude. It must be recognised that since each anchor-host is responsible for the content of his program, he/she is usually expected to act as an editor for the content. But remember in the heat of live programming there always is the chance of some inappropriate behaviour. A professional editor as the media’s conscience should always be there to remind the anchor and to issue the corrigendum. Yet these are mad times and even at stations with elaborate infrastructure, a tendency of getting carried away has been witnessed.
Getting carried away has become not only a tendency, but an addiction. It is time to break the habit.
مبشر لقمان صاحب کے کل رات کے پروگرام کو دیکھنے کے باد اس بات کا انداذہ ھوتا ھے کہ شاید لقمان صاحب پروگرام سے پھلے اپنا ھوم ورک کرنا بھول گئے۔ لقمان صاحب نے پھر وھی سات ھزار ویزاز والا سوال کیا جس کا جواب کئ بار دیا جا چکا ھے۔ اس کے الاوہ لقمان صاحب کی بات چیت سے کچھ یوں لگ رھا تھا جیسے وہ کسی وجھ کے تحت جان بوجھ کر پرانی خبروں پر چٹ پٹا مصالحہ لگا کر حاظرین کو پیش کر رھے ھیں۔
سب سے پھلے تو اس بات کی وضاحت کر دی جائے کہ نجم سیٹھی صاحب نے اپنے پروگرام “آپس کی بات“ میں امریکی ویزاز کے حوالے سے تمام سوالات کا بخوبی جواب دیا تھا اور سب تحفظات کو دور کر دیا تھا- اسی پروگرام کی ایک کلپ ملاحظہ فرمایں
دوم، پاکستان میڈیا واچ نے بھی اسی اشو کے حوالے سے ایک طویل مضمون چھاپا تھا جس میں باقاعدہ اعدادوشمار پیش کیے گئے۔اور اس بات کی کافی گھری وضاحت کی گئ کے کوئ بھی ویزا اسلام آباد سے اجازت کے بغیر نھیں دیا گیا۔واشنگٹن ڈی سی میں موجود پاکستانی ایمبسی کے فراھم کردہ حقائق ان تمام غلط فھمیوں کو بہت پھلے ھی دور کر چکے ھیں جن کا تذکرہ لقمان صاحب کر رھے ھیں۔ اسی پریس کانفرنس کی ایک کلپ ایک بار پھر ملاحظہ فرمایں
پروگرام کے آخر میں مبشر لقمان صاحب امریکہ میں موجود پاکستانی سفیر حسین حقانی پر یہ بھی بلا ثبوت الزام لگاتے ھیں کہ وہ مستقل طور پر امریکہ میں رھائش پزیر ھیں اور پاکستان کے “دشمن“ملک یعنی امریکہ کا ساتھ دے رھے ھیں۔ شاید لقمان صاحب کو دوشت اور دشمن میں اب بھی فرق نظر نھیں آتا۔
دراصل اگر بات کی تہ تک جایا جاے تو اس بات کا پتا چلتا ھے کے دنیا ٹی وی کی ایک اور مشھور اینکر مھر بخاری بھی اسی طرح کی غلط فھمیوں کو سنسنی خیز خبروں کا زوپ دے کر اپنے پروگرام کی ریٹنگز بڑھاتی ھیں۔ ضیا احمد صاحب اپنے ایک مضمون میں میں یھان تک لکھتے ھیں کے پنجاب گورنر سلمان تاثیر کا خون ان صاحبہ کے سر پر ھے۔ مھر بخاری جن کو اپنی اسی رپورٹنگ کی وجہ سے سمئا ٹی وی سے فارغ کر دیا گیا تھا آج دنیا ٹی وی پر اوربھی بھاری تنخواہ وصول کر رھی ھیں۔
اگر ان تمام باتوں پر غور کیا جائے تو ھمیں دنیا ٹی وی کی رپورٹنگ میں ایک کافی بڑا نقص نظر آتا ھے اور وہ یے ھے کہ دنیا ٹی وی چینل صرف اپنی ریٹنگز کی خاطر عوام کے جزبات سے کھیل رھا ھے اور بلا ثبوت لوگوں پر الزام تراشی میں مصروف ھے۔
Two items must be noted about the episode of Khari Baat of 4 July. First is that Mubashir Lucman repeats the old debunked visa conspiracy theory. Actually this claim that there are 7,000 Raymond Davis’s running around Pakistan is not only disproven but quite ridiculous also.
In February, Ambassador Husain Haqqani held a press conference where he opened the books for journalists to inspect and revealed that actually there were no increases in the number of visas granted to American officials, even providing clear data to prove the case once and for all.
This conspiracy theory has been trotted out since being disproven whenever convenient, but no evidence has ever been provided that counters the data provided by the Embassy in Washington. On Aapas Ki Baat, Najam Sethi explained why this claim is nothing but misinformation.
So why does Mubashir Lucman try to bring up this nonsense? Unfortunately, it appears that it may have been more than an innocent mistake. At the close of the program, Lucman accuses Ambassador Haqqani of being an “agent” without any supporting evidence. Such allegations are not “news” or “analysis”, they are simply personal attacks that could be considered libelous. Such behaviour is both inflammatory and unprofessional in a journalistic context.
Neither is this the first time that Mubashir has stooped to inflammatory statements on his show. His coverage of the Mukhtar Mai case even drove one fellow journalist to write an open letter to Mubashir Lucman that termed his show “appalling” and “a vicious attack” on women’s rights that “feed the vicious cycle of prejudice against rape victims, making the fight for justice harder”.
Unfortunately, this type of behaviour is not isolated to one anchor on Dunya TV, but could be seen as part of a larger pattern.
It should be noted here that following the murder of Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer, Meher Bokhari came under severe criticism from fellow journalists for her sensational and inflammatory treatment of Gov Taseer leading up to his death. Some wrote openly saying that Meher Bokhari has blood on her hands and Bokhari was summarily sacked by Samaa TV owner Zafar Siddiqui who was upset that his channel had broadcast such a show.
They say that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, and it was not long after being sacked by Samaa TV that Dunya TV came calling and offered even larger jahez for the tainted bride’s hand. This blog wrote at the time that such an event would send a negative signal to media.
If Meher Bokhari gets a raise following a large PEMRA fine, TV anchors will see her as an example of how to advance their careers: pander to the extremist gallery and exploit religious sentiments while shouting your way to the top. Media chiefs likewise will see that the government’s regulatory body is toothless and will ignore warnings and fines as they attempt to boost ratings by outdoing each other with more and more outrageous programming.
Sadly, this appears to be coming true as a disturbing pattern is emerging at Dunya TV. The channel appears to be rewarding anchors who make inflammatory and sensational statements, whipping up public sentiments based on emotion and not facts.
Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani was not ‘shell-shocked’, as reported in a newspaper report, when a poll he took during a lecture in Islamabad last week reflected anti-American sentiment among the audience, a statement posted on Pakistan Media Watch, a website devoted to fact-checking, said.
The website also placed a video of the ambassador’s exchange with students of National Defence University (NDU) in support of its assertion, saying the May 21 report in The Nation mischaracterised his speech about foreign policy and Pak-US relations.
“Nowhere in the video does one see a ‘shell-shocked’ or ‘speechless’ Ambassador,” the statement said, referring to the newspaper report. “Also, video clearly shows that the exchange was part of a broader, friendly discussion with NDU students about how foreign policy and specifically Pak-US relations should be considered with logic and reason and not emotions driving the debate.”
This is a good example for other media groups to follow. It is not unheard of that a news source will give incorrect information either intentionally or unintentionally and the reporter may be none the wiser. Even the great journalist make mistakes sometimes or are misled themselves. It is a sign of the greatest journalistic professionalism to admit those mistakes and offer corrections so that the readers will get the correct information. The Nation deserves recognition for issuing a correction. We hope other media groups will follow this example.
When The News (Jang Group) published an editorial on 6th January questioning Husain Haqqani for claiming that he was concerned about his security without providing some concrete proof of threats, we noted that creating this arbitrary standard of proof of threats was insulting to the courageous men and women of the press who every day put their lives at risk to investigate and report news that is uncomfortable for certain powerful quarters, especially when their own newspapers had carried reports terming him as a traitor.
”.
