Posts Tagged ‘Iftikhar Chaudhry’

Kamran Khan’s Contempt For Objectivity

Friday, April 27th, 2012

Geo TV‘s Kamran Khan could not have expected what happened when he invited Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira as his guest on Wednesday to discuss the possible outcomes of contempt charges against the Prime Minister.

For our dear readers who do not understand Urdu, please allow me to offer an explanation. This clip begins with Kamran Khan asking the Information Minister for his views on whether the Supreme Court would acquit the Prime Minister. But Minister Kaira had something he wanted to say first.

My views later, but let’s first discuss the initial 18 minutes of your programme. The way you conducted your show – aiming at PM’s sons, family, his character – you have already declared him a convict, and are asking me this question after giving your opinion.

You are giving your opinion first and then asking me about my views, knowing that it’s not the anchor’s right to give his or her opinion first. Your right is asking questions. You already created a mindset in your audience – a biased mindset, that is – before even asking me my views.

You also showed a few clips from Chief Justice speeches in the beginning that were “assumptive”. – “If”, “In-case”, “this could happen”, “about to be give verdict” etc. You didn’t say anything, and yet you said a lot of things. In all your conversation, you kept the thrust on showing that he is a sinner and verdict has already been declared against him. Is this all not an influence on the court that is going to decide tomorrow? Is this not an attempt to bias the court?

The way you talked about my PM, I listened with a lot of patience. I listened to you for 18 mins defaming my party leader and the PM and I didn’t say a word so please let me speak. PM is appearing in front of the court tomorrow and you lay special emphasis on this when you said that “this has become a habit of the PM” and that “I will not accept this decision” even though the PM never once said this. I am completely negating your statement and saying that PM never said anything like that. He has always said, “I respect the court”. His lawyer inside the court mentioned that whatever you decide here will be implemented upon to the fullest.

The way you thrust forward your views is similar to bending facts and distorting them. You build up your opinion in front of viewers and this is a very unacceptable. We go and fight our cases in the courts; we don’t fight with the courts.

Kaira’s complaint about Kamran Khan’s behaviour may seem like the frustrations of a PPP Minister, but they might also be familiar to another high profile figure who is anything but a jiyala. Five years ago, Kamran Khan was playing the same role of media creating a biased mindset in the audience only this time his target was not the PM, but Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry himself.

We have noted several times the importance of media acting responsibly and not attempting to influence the outcome of a case or to create a biased mindset in the public before the Court has made its decisions. Opposition supporters may be enjoying the media’s keeping the PM in their sights today, but the PPP won’t be the party in power forever. And when the tables turn, well, just ask the Chief Justice…

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Geo TV | No Comments »

Wikileaks selectively quoted for political attack in The News

Friday, May 27th, 2011

wikileaksAn article in The News today which claims that Wikileaks proves that Nawaz stood tall and delivered in the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry while tarring PPP with a black brush. The author, Anusha Rehman Khan, is of course a PML-N MNA, so her words must be read with the understanding that she is writing not as an objective journalist but as a politician who wants to be seen supporting her party. But even articles supporting one’s own political party should be based in facts. Unfortuantely, a review of Wikileaks cables shows that MNA Anusha Khan’s piece appears to selectively quote certain facts while ignoring others that are inconvenient to her argument.

Most of the piece is a list of accusations against PPP completely unrelated to the article’s main thesis which is the claim that the Sharifs held “unfaltering conviction” and “stood tall and delivered” on a commitment to see the Chief Justice restored.

The premise of the article is based on a Wikileaks cable dated 31 January 2008 that MNA Anusha Khan says proves that the Sharifs were standing strongly behind the restoration of the Chief Justice:

According to yet another leaked US embassy cable, the then US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, called on Nawaz Sharif on January 31, 2008 and “strongly opposed the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry”. But the Sharifs stuck to their principled stance and “insisted that without restoring the chief justice, there was no point to filling other slots on the bench.

Here is what the cable actually says:

5. (C) Nawaz expected both PPP and PML-N would do well at the polls if the elections were free and fair; he dismissed the Pakistan Muslim League party, saying that Pervaiz Elahi would get few, if any votes. Claiming he had no vendetta against President Musharraf, Nawaz said the PML-N had also reached out to the Pakistan Muslim League and they in turn had contacted PML-N (Ref A). (Note: He then launched into a long description of his mistreatment after Musharraf overthrew Nawaz in 1999). The PML-N’s goal in government would be to reinstate the deposed judiciary and restore the law and order situation. Without restoring the judiciary, Nawaz argued, you cannot restore law and order and rule of law.

6. (C) Ambassador said we continued to support an independent judiciary and wanted to work with the new government on this issue. It was simply too difficult to tackle before elections. We believed there should be a way to restore some of the deposed judges, but not the former Chief Justice. Nawaz insisted that without restoring the Chief Justice, there was no point to filling other slots on the bench. Ambassador disagreed, noting that many of the provincial judges could be restored for the benefit of Pakistan’s judiciary.

It is clear from this cable that the Sharifs believed that restoration of Chief Justice was important to the perception of an independent judiciary. But is this the whole story? Actually, another Wikileaks cable dated 14 March 2009  tells a completely different story.

4. (S) On the issue of former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Shahbaz claimed that the PML-N was open to negotiation, provided that Chaudhry was symbolically restored as Chief Justice of Pakistan. Shahbaz stressed that his party could not afford the political humiliation of abandoning what had become a long-standing principle in favor of Chaudhry’s restoration. At the same time, Shahbaz claimed to understand that Chaudhry was a problematic jurist, whose powers would need to be carefully curtailed. Shahbaz underscored that the Sharifs were prepared to adopt any safeguards that President Zardari desired prior to Chaudhry’s restoration, including curtailment of his powers to create judicial benches, removal of his suo moto jurisdiction, and/or establishment of a constitutional court as a check on the Supreme Court. Shahbaz also stated that following the restoration, the PML-N was prepared to end the issue and remove Chaudhry once and for all by adopting legislation proposed in the Charter of Democracy that would ban all judges who had taken an oath under a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) from serving.

To borrow MNA Anusha Khan’s own words, “only cynics who have become embalmed in their own cynicism and detached from all norms of reality” will ignore the fact that politicians make back room deals, and that long marches and street-level political dramas are not always what they seem. While the Wikileaks cables do show that the Sharifs insisted on the reinstatement of the Chief Justice in January 2009, a year later their demands had changed and the “unfaltering conviction” had transformed into a request for “face saving” as “the PML-N was prepared to end the issue and remove Chaudhry once and for all”.

The problem with selectively quoting documents like Wikileaks is that they are openly available for the public to fact check. It is natural that Anusha Khan wished to paint her party leader in a flattering light, but it is the responsibility of The News to fact check the pieces before they are published. Perhaps if The News would have upheld this responsibility, they would have saved everyone some embarrassment.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The News | 5 Comments »

The News (Jang) Uses Double-Standard for PPP, PML-N

Sunday, July 11th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)The News has had a difficult time lately with its star journalists using double standards for politicians that they like and don’t like. Mostly this has been making excuses for PML-N and giving no mercy to PPP. This would be fine if it was only on the opinion page, but rather it has been more and more affecting the entire newspaper. The latest example exposes a bias across the entire news team.

PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif is given front-page coverage for speaking out against the PA resolution against media,when it is his party that is responsible for the measure. Shahbaz Sharif (PML-N) also receives prominent coverage for speaking out against the same resolution despite his party being the source. Meanwhile, PPP MNA Sherry Rehman is only covered briefly inside the newspaper for her statements against the resolution.

But it is not simply this giving more coverage to one political party taking a popular position (in effect an attempt to convey that the other party is not speaking out), there is a distinct double-standard at work if you look at how the newspaper treats PML-N and PPP.

The coverage of PML-N leaders speaking out against the resolution that their own members passed is meant to demonstrate this this was the action of some rogue MPAs who were not following the party line. In fact, The News takes this PML-N talking point at face value in their editorial today.

PML-N leader has called for the expulsion of the mover of the resolution, member of his own party and has accused him of trying to cover up his crime of faking his degree. Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif has said that he ‘cherishes the free media as much as he likes an independent judiciary in the country.’ A belated damage control effort within PML-N appears to be underway.

Obviously, it is possible for some MPAs to act out of turn and The News is perfectly happy to give the benefit of doubt to Nawaz and Shahbaz.

But when it comes to PPP, the standard is different. Instead of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, The News takes the position of ‘assumed guilty’! In an adjacent editorial about a leaked letter that is allegedly by NAB Prosecutor General Irfan Qadir questioning the reinstatement of CJ Iftikhar Chaudhry, The News lays the blame firmly on the PPP.

If they were not the views of the government of Mr Gilani, then whose views were they and what was afoot with Mr Qadir seemingly playing a lone game? NAB is under the control of the Law Ministry which itself is piloted by Law Minister Babar Awan. Presumably the Law Ministry is accountable to somebody at a higher level and who else would that be but the prime minister – unless ministers have been given a freehand? Babar Awan increasingly seems to be a law unto himself.

…

So where does this leave Mr Gilani and his statement that Mr Qadir’s views were not those of his government? They might not be the views of his government, but again, his might not be the only government operational today; which might also explain why the law minister is able to act as he pleases – above or below the law.

Do you see what they have done? Nawaz and Shahbaz are praised for speaking out against out-of-line party members, but PM Gilani is insinuated to be a liar and the government is to be held accountable for any misplaced comma of a PPP member. This is a double standard so obvious that it is hard not to think that The News is acting not as journalism but as propaganda to promote one political party over another.

That is not all. Other so-called ‘journalists’ for The News continue to use innuendo to smear politicians they don’t like (PPP only).

Tariq Butt begins his column about the selection of a new NAB chief by insinuating that PM Gilani is trying to appoint a ‘crony’.

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani is incapacitated under the case law and statute to appoint a crony as the chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) because he has to convince two other key consultees about the credentials of such a nominee before notifying his selection, legal experts say.

The remainder of the article discusses the legal process and requirements for appointing chairman of the NAB. There is no presentation of any evidence that Gilani or anyone in government is trying to appoint anyone but the best, most qualified person. Instead, Tariq Butt simply assumes this is the case and smears the PM by implying as much.

The pro-PML-N bias of The News is easily proven today. Obviously, editorial pages are for opinions and the authors can take whatever position they choose. But when the opinions of the reporters and editors are so obviously using double standards and those double standards begin to color the entire reporting – that is not journalism but is political propaganda.

Perhaps Jang Group needs to update the name of its English-language newspaper from The News International to The News (PML-N). Then the readers would at least know what to expect. Better, though, would be for Jang to require some objectivity and fact-based reporting so that The News can be useful to the entire nation, and not only one political party.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 4 Comments »

Who is Shaheen Sehbai working for?

Monday, May 10th, 2010

Shaheen SehbaiGen. Musharraf

Shaheen Sehbai is back with more of his psychic magic in The News. Today he uses his psychic powers to read the mind of, as usual, President Zardari who he says is ‘on a warpath‘ against, well, everyone. But today’s column takes a new, and troubling direction. While the silliness and contradictions that we have come to expect from Shaheen Sehbai are ever present, there is a dark lining to this new column that suggests something very sinister in the works.

Sehbai begins his column by claiming that President Zardari ‘and his closest minions’ are planning an offensive against the military the same way they are waging a war on “the Supreme Court, parliament, its own coalition partners, the opposition, the media and its own government, even the party and its prime minister.”

Allow me to explain just how devious Zardari is. He has masterminded a war on the Supreme Court by reinstating Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry; on the parliament by signing 18th Amendment to return more power to it; on coalition partners by 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? As for attacking the PM, handing over powers to him is a strange method of attack.

Actually, it was only a few weeks ago that this same author Shaheen Sehbai wrote that Zardari was all but finished, and that he was struggling to stay in office.

His presidential powers are gone, despite the best delaying tactics that he could deploy. His strategies have failed miserably, examples being not restoring the judges, toppling the Sharif brothers in the Punjab, resisting the nullification of the NRO, getting money from the so-called Friends of Pakistan, appointing his own judges, taking over the ISI, dictating the India and Afghan policy, running the day-to-day government, buying over the media and finally keeping the PPP under his thumb.

So, which is it Mr. Sehbai? Has Zardari gone on a warpath against everyone, or is he a failed President who has given away his powers?

Of course, the truth does not matter to Shaheen Sehbai. This is all a set up, of course, to allow him to publish a new set of rumours. This time, he starts by saying that the President is going to try to cut the powers of Gen. Kayani. Sehbai’s evidence is that “There have been whispers in power corridors for several weeks…” That’s right. Sehbai claims that there is a rumour. He names no sources, of course; presents no evidence, but only claims that he has heard a rumour. Then Shaheen Sehbai does something truly surprising.

Sehbai admits that he is making it up.

Surprisingly, all efforts of this writer, and my team in Islamabad, to get to know the factual position about these structural changes in the armed forces have come to a naught so far.

What?!? Let’s read that one more time…

Surprisingly, all efforts of this writer, and my team in Islamabad, to get to know the factual position about these structural changes in the armed forces have come to a naught so far.

That’s right. Sehbai says himself that he has no factual evidence for anything he is writing. It has been already shown that Sehbai does not have connections in the armed forces, so why should we be surprised that he has no facts? But I must admit that I am a bit surprised that Sehbai has decided to admit that he is just making the whole thing up.

Of course, this does not stop him from continuing with this web of conspiracies and rumours.

Actually, when Shaheen Sehbai does reveal some of the sources of these rumours, they are quite troubling. “Circles close to General Musharraf in London and Washington are already telling everyone…” Wait just one minute. Is Shaheen Sehbai truly writing that his sources for inside information are “Circles close to General Musharraf in London and Washington”?

These are the “whispers in power corridors” that Shaheen Sehbai has been listening to? Not only are these not people in power, these are people who have a very clear agenda against Pakistan. Musharraf is being investigated in connection with the murder of Benazir Bhutto – and Shaheen Sehbai thinks that his advisors in Washington and London are a good source of inside information about the government? This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

In fact, Shaheen Sehbai’s entire column appears to be simply repeating rumours started by Musharraf’s advisors overseas. Shaheen Sehbai writes:

This is quoted by the Musharraf people as one more reason for the growing belligerence of PPP against Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who it is said, may be turned into a Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, if he tried to press too hard on the Swiss cases.

We are supposed to believe Musharraf’s foreign advisors about any issues related to Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry? Rubbish.

Shaheen Sehbai really becomes quite cheeky though when he says that officials in the Law Ministry “have opted to go home as they know that these political gamblers will be the first to fly away leaving them in the lurch.”

Remember, all of what he is telling is rumour coming from “Circles close to General Musharraf in London and Washington”. Tell me again who will be the first to fly away?

But knowing that Shaheen Sehbai is only repeating talking points from Musharraf’s Washington and London advisors helps make some sense out of his article. It has been well established by other commentators that Shaheen Sehbai has a history of trying to set different actors against each other. Actually, this is his modus operandi.

Let’s take a moment to go back and examine his present column knowing this:

First, he tries to set government against military.
Then, he tries to set government against judiciary.
Next, he tries to incite MQM against PPP.
Not content to be finished there, Sehbai writes some slander about PM Gilani and tries to create suspicion between the PM and FM Qureshi.

This is what causes me great concern. Shaheen Sehbai has resorted to publishing rumours he has been told by Musharraf’s foreign advisors, and slandering officials in the military, parliament, and the government. He is clearly trying to incite suspicion and doubt between government officials. Normally, I might think he is just trying to get headlines. But the fact that he admits all of his evidence comes from rumours told to him by Musharraf’s Washington and London advisors makes me fear there is something more sinister going on.

Could it be that Shaheen Sehbai is acting as a political operative, not a journalist? If so, what is his political objective? Is he actually trying to pave the path for Musharraf to return to power?

Given all this, a question arises: Why is The News allowing its pages to be used for political propaganda?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The News | 13 Comments »

Lighting a tinderbox

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

By all accounts, the political situation in the country is tense. The Nation has called the situation ‘a veritable tinderbox.’ Unfortunately, the same newspaper appears to be determined to ignite the same tinderbox, despite the risk to the country.

Mian Nawaz Sharif putting the brakes on the constitutional reforms package along with Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry pressing ahead on cases that have been revived following the NRO nullification has set many people on edge. It is a time when the importance of a fair and dependable media becomes obvious – people need to have the facts before them so that they can evaluate events and make informed judgments.

Rather than providing facts about developments in energy policy, economics, politics, and security – The Nation is publishing editorials designed to increase resentment and fear among the people. Consider the following lines from The Nation:

The only sections of society that seem to be blissfully ignorant of this fast approaching frightening phenomenon are, however, the ruling classes and the rich people.

…an overall moral degradation whose most glaring manifestation is the rampant greed to make illegal gains at the cost of the poor…

…the rulers keep devising ways to skilfully avoid paying taxes, but making sure to levy more and more taxes on the public…

To demonstrate how the rulers are complicit with the rich to exploit the common citizen, the government has let the ordinance of the Competition Commission of Pakistan lapse to give a free rein to the monopolist-industrialists to fix prices and apply a further squeeze on the common man’s dying resources.

This reads more like a paranoid political manifesto than a proper editorial in a respectable newspaper. What possible use is this sort of writing other than to whip up anti-government hysteria?

Today, another newspaper, Dawn reported that Moody’s Investor Service has said that the constant challenge to the the government’s authority and legitimacy is harming the national economy and preventing an increase in foreign direct investment – something The Nation has previously reported is key to economic growth.

In times of distress, people look to the media for facts and information. They read editorials to receive some helpful analysis of the facts by learned people so that they can understand what is going on and make informed opinions of their own about their society. In a proper democracy, a free and fair media is the foundation of a successful government. The Nation seems to be more intent on scoring cheap political points than proper reporting, though, and they are playing a dangerous game throwing matches at a tinderbox.

There is one shining light of hope in The Nation‘s editorial. The writers predict that things may come to an explosion in a day that “would not be too far off.” Considering The Nation‘s record of successful predictions, that day may never come.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 1 Comment »

Making Constitutional Reform Personal

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Constitution of PakistanThe latest reports on proposed constitutional changes have brought many examples of a common problem in reporting, particularly about political issues -  making reforms personal.  This is done when reporters or editors suggest in their reports that particular constitutional reforms are aimed at a person rather than an office. In the current discussion, it is not uncommon to read that a particular reform is aimed at ‘clipping Zardari’s powers’, even though the reforms have nothing to do with Zardari, except that he happens to be President at this time. Furthermore, many of the constitutional reforms currently being discussed are actually part of a package of reforms that Zardari campaigned on, so how can they be targeting him personally?

Sunday’s article in The News by Rauf Klasra is an excellent example of this type of poor reporting. Klasra writes,

President Asif Ali Zardari’s sweeping powers to impose emergency in the country will be clipped in the upcoming constitutional amendment package…

…

Likewise, President Asif Ali Zardari’s powers are proposed to be transferred to the judicial commission and parliamentary committee of both the houses of parliament.

The powers described here do not belong to Zardari. They belong to the President. This is an important point to consider. If another person becomes President after the next elections, Zardari would not keep any Presidential powers. The powers belong to the office, not the person.

Consider the way that Rauf Klasra describes other proposed constitutional changes:

…the upcoming constitutional amendment package, which also envisages absolute powers to the Parliamentary Commission to reject, with two-thirds vote majority, any proposed judge of the Supreme Court/high court referred to it by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Notice that Klasra does not write, “referred to it by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan headed by Iftikhar Chaudhry.” This is because Iftikhar Chaudhry happens to be serving as Chief Justice, but he will not always be such. Actually, the office is not the man. So changes to the powers of the office are neither an affront nor a reward to the man.

The Nation also fails to properly report the reforms, also suggesting that the reforms are targeting an individual. In an unsigned report, The Nation writes that,

President Asif Zardari will lose prerogatives under the proposals, which are designed to guarantee the sovereignty of parliament and devolve power to provincial governments in a country plagued by regional insurgencies against the overbearing federal government.

This turgid sentence obviously more rightly belongs on the editorial page than in a news report, but notice that the sentence begins by stating that “President Asif Zardari will lose prerogatives.” Actually, Zardari will not lose any prerogatives, the office of President will return powers that had been previously seized by previous undemocratic governments.

This brings us to the next important point. The tone of many articles, not limited to the two quoted above, suggests that parliament is somehow punishing Zardari with the package of constitutional changes. Actually, Zardari had previously campaigned on returning powers that Generals Ziaul Haq and Musharraf had claimed for themselves.

Even the anti-Zardari newspaper The Nation admits in its editorial that “When [the constitutional reform package] is tabled before and passed by parliament, it will have restored the balance of powers between the president and prime minister…”

The Nation‘s editorial goes on to complain that Zardari is including reforms beyond undoing the changes, but they still admit that “This is not to deny that here is a need for some basic constitutional amendments beyond the dictatorial tamperings…”

When reporting on constitutional reforms, journalists need to take a non-political perspective. The changes have long been discussed and are no surprise. Likewise, they are changes to specific offices not specific individuals. To say that “Zardari is having his wings clipped” is incorrect and misleading to the public.

Please save the opinions for the editorial page and only report the facts.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in The Nation, The News | 1 Comment »