Posts Tagged ‘Jang Group’

« Older Entries

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, Urdu | 1 Comment »

Media Priorities

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

Today we began what we believe will be an interesting experiment in observing media priorities. We started by looking at what different newspapers found to be worthy of front page coverage and also the topics of each paper’s editorials. The results might surprise you…but probably not.

Yesterday, Pakistan suffered a serious attack in which at least 33 people have been killed and hundreds more wounded. The attacks targeted a Shi’a procession in Lahore. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claimed responsibility for the attack almost immediately.

With this recent tragedy still fresh in the nation’s consciousness, we wanted to know what the media companies thought was important today? First, let’s take a look at the front pages of several newspapers:

Dawn Front Page 2 Sept 2010 The News Front Page, 2 September 2010 The Nation Front Page, 2 Sept 2010
Judging by column space, the most important story seems to be what a good deal you will get from the media companies’ advertisers. Okay, yes, newspapers do require advertising to keep subscription fees low. But it is worth noting still that The Nation has more advertising than actual reporting on the front page, though Dawn and The News are not far behind.

What’s more interesting, though, is what each newspaper thinks is most important to report on the front page. The Nation has a few stories about the attacks in Lahore, but devotes at least as much space to stories about Supreme Court’s hearings on the 18th Amendment, US-Pakistan strategic talks, NAB, and inflation.

Dawn devotes the majority of its print space to coverage of the terror attack in Lahore, with the next biggest stories being flooding and the Sialkot lynching.

The News devotes about equal space to the Lahore attacks as they do advertising, but the majority of column space is for stories about floods and politics.

Editorial Pages

Editorial pages are where the official position of a publication is printed. The following topics appeared today.

The News

  • Sialkot Murders
  • 18th Amendment and appointment of judges
  • School reading curriculums

Dawn

  • Taxes
  • Criticism of US treatment of military officers
  • Objectives resolution

The Nation

  • Criticism of US treatment of military officers
  • Oil prices
  • Criticism of government handling floods

It’s interesting, I think, that none of these three major newspapers had any editorial condemning the Lahore attacks. Surely they will make some statement at some point, but why was it not a priority? That’s not to say that school reading curriculum and oil prices are not important, but why did the news organizations decide those were more important than making a statement on the killings?

American intellectual Noam Chomsky has spoken for decades about what he calls “manufacturing consent”. He describes the way that major media organizations decide what is worthy of discussion, and that this has an influence on the way that society evolves.

It’s basically an institutional analysis of the major media, what we call a propaganda model. We’re talking primarily about the national media, those media that sort of set a general agenda that others more or less adhere to, to the extent that they even pay much attention to national or international affairs.

Now the elite media are sort of the agenda-setting media. That means The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major television channels, and so on. They set the general framework. Local media more or less adapt to their structure.

And they do this in all sorts of ways: by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society.

Mr Chomsky was, of course, writing about the media in his own country, but the same theory pertains to our media as well. This is not a judgment against the media, but it is something to be aware of. Not only does the content of reporting shape the way people perceive certain issues, but the decision about what is newsworthy is a very powerful part of media. Thus, you should ask yourself – are the media’s priorities my priorities? Or are they different?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn, The Nation, The News | 2 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 »

Tariq Butt and Ansar Abbasi play Prosecutor and Judge Against PML-N

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)In today’s issue of The News the grand inquisitor of media Ansar Abbasi plays judge and jury against PML-N following a FIR accusing certain persons of trying to rig by-polls in NA-100. His verdict is based on a prosecution delivered by his colleague, Tariq Butt.

At issue are allegations of poll-rigging in the NA-110 Gujranwala by elections.

Yesterday, Tariq Butt reported on alleged incidents at the poll based on sources at the scene including police. While his report is largely a simple re-telling of the story as reported by sources, the article carries the sensational headline: “Inside story of how a poll was rigged, and saved”. This headline accepts that there was some misdeed – poll rigging – without allowing the proper course of justice to take place. A more appropriate headline would be “Allegations of poll rigging” or “Accusations of poll rigging mar by elections in NA-110″.

Despite a lack of proof or allowing the proper process of justice to take place, self-appointed judge and jury Ansar Abbasi accepts the prosecutorial headline of Tariq Butt’s column and declares a verdict as the ECP has asked to lodge a FIR.

FIR stands for “First Information Report” and is a report prepared by police when they receive information about an alleged incident. It is, as the title of the report says, first information only. It is not a conviction nor is it any proof of misdeeds.

But the way Ansar Abbasi reports the situation, a reader is likely to come away accepting that the accused are guilty and already convicted.

To the great embarrassment of the PML-N, the Election Commission of Pakistan has asked the Punjab election commissioner to lodge an FIR with the police against the persons who tried to rig the by-polls in NA-100, Gujranwala.

Vindicating the role played by the recently removed Regional Police Officer (RPO) Zulfikar Cheema, who faced the wrath of the N-League for not allowing rigging in the by-polls won by the PPP, the ECP has decided to proceed against those who had kidnapped the presiding officers or tried to tamper with the election results.

While it would be appropriate to report that allegations have been made and that the ECP is pursuing an investigation, the presumption of guilt on the part of PML-N is inappropriate. Both the headline of Tariq Butt’s column yesterday and the content of Ansar Abbasi’s column today cross the line between reporting facts and making presumptions of guilt or innocence. Reporting is the proper role of media, determining guilt is the proper role of courts. Mr Tariq Butt and Mr Ansar Abbasi should restrain themselves for making such presumptions and stick to reporting facts only.

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

Nadeem Paracha on Media Reaction to Shoe Incident and Aftermath

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

Nadeem Paracha, writing for Dawn Blog today, analyses the media reaction to the ’shoe incident’ and the resulting protests by political activists against the media. One can’t help but come away thinking of an old song lyric.

There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong

The attacks were a highly undemocratic act and supposedly coming from members and supporters of the country’s largest political party made it even worse. However, if everything about this condemnable act was undemocratic, one must also ask exactly how democratic and wise were the following acts that the same media group has been embroiled in?

How wise and democratic was the role of one of its religious talk-show hosts who blatantly instigated violence against a minority sect in Lahore in 2008?

How wise and democratic is the fact that one of its many anchors was accused by the son of a slain former ISI man who was kidnapped by a group of extremists and allegedly killed on the suggestion of the anchor? The anchor has pleaded that he was not involved and the voice on a taped conversation between an extremist and him was not his. How far has the channel gone to fully investigate the issue – even though personally, I am a fan of his and would be most happy if he proves his innocence once and for all.

How wise and democratic was the way one of its former talk-show hosts – with an obsessive habit of making outlandish predictions about the downfall of the current government – ridiculed the Sindhi folk culture on the occasion of the Sindh government’s ‘Sindhi cap day’ early last year?

The list can go on. I am part of the media myself, but refuse to toe the line many of my contemporaries at the protest rally were toeing. But what was this line?

Briefly put it goes something like this: Sensationalising (on air) an event that sees a man throwing a shoe at the president is freedom of expression; but getting the same treatment from those incensed by the nature of reporting that the event got on your channel is an attack on this freedom?

Same way, suggesting that the president’s tour of Britain amounted to him ignoring the floods but forgetting about the floods yourself at the wake of the shoe-throwing incident was OK? The channel did begin to obsess about the ‘issue’ like an excited group of high school pranksters. ‘What floods, where? Get me that shoe story, now!’

The above are just questions that I aired during my meeting with some contemporaries of mine at the rally.

I fully appreciate that some of them are taking their status of being the society’s watchdogs very seriously. But many of them know as much as I do, that within our community of crusading, pen-pushing do-gooders can be found a number of characters who are as lecherous, fraudulent and arrogant as those individuals each one of us loves to bring down for being corrupt and deceiving.

What’s more, recently the local electronic media has grown another edgy tentacle. That of constant self glorification, self-righteousness and peachiness, all queerly entangled with a huge persecution complex.

Exactly when or who gave us (the media), the mandate (and the audacity) to become judge, jury and executioners?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Censorship, Ethics | No Comments »

‘Shoe Incident’ a Real News Story? Or Political Theatre?

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Shoe throwing gained global prominence as a protest tactic in 2008 when Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zeidi threw his shoes at the then-President of the US, George Bush. Since then, it has been a popular form of protest for many different nations. The same tactic has been used against Chinese premier Wen Jiabao in 2009, and throwing shoes at politicians has become practically a sport in India.

The strange part of this latest shoe throwing story is that the public rally was filmed and broadcast on television – and nobody saw any show throwing.

Anti-government commentators promise that video evidence will appear soon, but still no one has seen it. In the meantime, news media has been reporting the incident and airing interviews with the alleged shoe-thrower, substituting rumour and conjecture for actual evidence of the act.

Even the alleged-shoe thrower’s story is a curious claim. According to The News report,

Sardar Mohammed Shamim Khan, 57, said Asif Ali Zardari’s speech had incensed him so much that he spontaneously decided to unlace his size 10 leather shoes and hurl them at the bewildered Pakistani leader.

There are several problems with this man’s story that any junior reporter should be able to pick up on. First is the shoe size. Perhaps it is mere coincidence that Mr Shamim Khan reports that he threw a “size 10 leather shoe”, which is the exact same description of what was thrown at Mr Bush two years ago.

But Mr Shamim Khan’s claim that his action was “spontaneous” is even less reliable when it is learned, as reported by The News, that Mr Shamim Khan “managed to sneak into the invite-only political rally”. Was this really a spontaneous act? Or a carefully planned bit of political theatre?

There are several signs that perhaps it was the latter.

The day after the alleged incident, The Nation reported, an Internet game appeared encouraging people to throw the shoe at the president. What The Nation failed to ask, though, is how this game was created and distributed so quickly after the incident unless it was prepared before the incident even happened? And if the game was already in the works, how could Mr Shamim Khan’s act really have been spontaneous?

That’s not the only troubling aspect of this entire episode. Writing for the popular blog All Things Pakistan, Adil Najam reports that almost immediately after the alleged incident, someone began circulating fake photographs of the incident on media email lists.

And now there is the fiasco about the shoe hurling. It is still not clear what really happened. But the fuss created around it is huge. As is the embarrassment: not just for Mr. Zardari, but for Pakistan itself. If ever there was need for proof that we are all purveyors of tamashbeen politics, this is it. Within hours of the news a clearly fake ‘picture’ was being touted by a supposed ‘journalist’ on a media email list. Indeed, the supposed photo of Mr. Zardari being hit by a shoe was so clearly and nauseatingly a fake that one had to wonder about the deprivation of the mind which would even offer it in this age of the magic of Photoshop.

Adil goes on to offer a scathing criticism of Pakistan’s media which has been all too quick to report rumours and unsubstantiated claims around the alleged shoe throwing without doing the slightest bit of actual research.

But at some point one also starts getting tired of the relentless badgering by some in the mainstream media. Government actions, such as the reported closure of GEO and ARY in certain areas, are to be condemned and condemned unequivocally. But those in the mainstream media need to realize that even as they create public opinion, the media is itself being judged by public opinion. The line between news and entertainment has long been erased as has been the line between fact and opinion. Now we find ourselves trespassing into the realm of slander.

As one of the institutional that many Pakistanis – including this Pakistani – has been proud of in recent years, this slide is disturbing to watch. Vigilance and transparency for those in power – as for example on the fake degrees issue – is the media’s duty. But ultimately the media will be judged – within Pakistan and abroad – for its sense of balance and fairplay. A sense of media integrity is a precious commodity for any society. A society as precarious as Pakistan’s can ill-afford the embarrassment of that integrity being questioned.

As for shoe-hurling as a means of political commentary, there are still too many things that we do not know about the incident (including the government insisting that it never even happened).

If there are still so many unanswered questions, another question must be asked – Who is behind this, and what are their motives? In fact, certain media companies have been quick to re-frame the story from one of political protest to one of tension between “the media” and the government, with “the media” being the victim.

The News, which has been severely criticised for anti-government political bias, wrote 25 percent of its “Top Stories” accusing the government of targeting Jang Group and Geo (The News is part of this same Jang media empire) – the same as about the floods which have affected millions of citizens.

In effect, Jang Group appears to be using the claim of alleged “shoe throwing” as a means to create the perception of a more general “media vs. government” tension. This has resulted in the Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting, Syed Sumsam Ali Bukhari, issuing a statement assuring everyone that the government will not impose curbs on the media.

The reaction from certain sections of the media is both disappointing and deeply troubling. Whether or not someone threw a shoe at the president should be easily confirmed or denied. If the media cannot provide actual evidence beyond the claims of political operatives, it should not report the incident as having actually happened. What is more disturbing, though, is that these same news organizations continue to fail to provide answers to obvious questions about Mr Shamim Khan’s claims and the timing of things like an Internet game and doctored photos that appear to be pre-planned before the supposed “spontaneous” incident occurred, and instead have begun attempting to create the perception of government crackdown on media freedoms, despite lack of evidence for such a claim.

Whatever happened – if anything – should be investigated and reported by the news media. But journalists and media organizations should not be involved in creating or advancing political theatre.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Geo TV, Jang, The News | 12 Comments »

Media Double Game Against Bilawal?

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Last night Bilawal Bhutto Zardari released a statement about his immediate future. In short, he says, “I am currently looking into the possibility of studying law” and will not be jumping into politics as widely reported. According to his statement, Bilawal felt compelled to act out, “to counter some inaccurate information that has recently been reported”. While there was certainly much media attention to the alleged speech planned for Saturday, what is more telling is the way Bilawal’s future and his more immediate decision to open a donation center for flood victims has been treated in the news media.

On Thursday, Dawn reported that “Speech by Bilawal fuels talk of political career”.

But now he has finished his history degree at Christ Church, seen as one of the most aristocratic of Oxford’s colleges, speculation is growing about what steps he will now take towards his political destiny.

Bhutto, who is already chairman of the PPP, is expected to speak before several thousand of its supporters at an event in Birmingham, central England, alongside his father who is visiting Britain.

It was not so far fetched for media to report that Bilawal would be at the rally scheduled for Saturday since Waheed Rasab, the PPP’s coordinator in Britain, told reporters as much. But the truth is, this was mostly speculation.

As a result, Dawn reported today about Bilawal’s statment.

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on Thursday spoke for the first time in many months, only to categorically deny the prevalent impression created by a section of the media that he was to launch his political career over the weekend by attending a public meeting in Birmingham.

One has to wonder, with all the speculation about whether Bilawal will make a speech and enter politics, all the party coordinators and “anonymous sources” who were telling what was going to happen – why did no journalist actually bother to ask Bilawal what he thinks?

More disturbing, though, is that even Bilawal’s statement has not stopped certain media companies from continuing political attacks in their reporting.

The Nation’s report on the statement includes the following conclusion:

The sources said that PPP took decision not to launch political career of Bilawal Bhutto Zaradri due to severe criticism launched by the media and politicians that in tough circumstance, President Zardari has left for UK to launch political career of his son.

Nowhere in the article does it reveal who these “sources” are, or what their evidence is for this claim, of course. This seems like a pretty transparent attempt for the media to take the credit for something that Bilawal is doing. So, when Bilawal does something they don’t like, it is his fault. When he does something they do like, The Nation claims credit.

The News, however, is even worse. On 1 August, the newspaper wrote that Bilawal “would do well by stepping in to cancel the ceremony and instead setting about to prove himself a worthy leader through more solid action rather than flamboyant gestures.”

Upon the release of Bilawal’s statement, however, The News quickly changed its tune. This morning’s newspaper is actually critical of Bilawal’s move.

Chairman of the PPP Bilawal Bhutto Zardari dramatically declared last night that he would not address the Birmingham rally on Saturday, August 07, putting cold water on the plans that he would be launched as the party chief and adding a new sense of drama to the countrywide campaign against President Zardari.

In a dramatic climbdown, the 21-year-old son of Benazir said that he would continue with his studies and wanted to stay away from the media. The move comes as a humiliation to the party mandarins who were preparing for weeks for his grand entry into politics.

It is worth noting here that The News may have slipped in admitting that there is a “campaign against President Zardari”. Of course, this should not be a surprise to readers of The News, which has a sordid history recently of publishing unsubstantiated political attacks.

But it is especially important to note that the political bias of The News is clearly evident in their inability to give proper recognition to Bilawal even when he does something that the very newspaper says it hopes for! Rather than praising Bilawal for canceling his appearance and setting up a donation point for flood victims, The News calls the move “a humiliation”. This is a double game against Bilawal – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

To their credit, Dawn, Daily Times and Express Tribune reported the development without infusing an opinion into their reporting. This shows that there are some journalists content to simply report the facts, and this should be encouraged.

Still, we must look at this episode as a part of the ongoing problem with media speculation, wishful journalism, substituting opinions for facts, and playing political double games. Bilawal aside, we all deserve better.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Times, Dawn, Express Tribune, Jang, The Nation, The News | 14 Comments »

The News Peddles Conspiracies, Political Attacks (Part II)

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)Akhtar Nawaz pens a tirade of smears and attacks, backed by no facts or evidence but only political anger about the issue of degree accreditation. While his colleague Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat peddles conspiracy theories, Nawaz simply spills venom on the page.

This is the introduction to Akhtar Nawaz’s column in The News of yesterday:

Our haves have no parallels in the entire world as far as breaking the rules, twisting the law and making the hay while the sun is shining. Corruption is loved to the hilt, deceit, fraud and unlimited greed is the hallmark.

They can indulge in any forgery if that facilitates their “ever malicious intents” and in this art, the more powerful, resourceful and influential one is, better is the track record of defiance of both God and man made laws.

Such writing appeared not in the opinion section, where even then a proper editor would probably blush before allowing such hateful attacks, but as a national news story. Can someone at Jang comment that they actually believe this is proper news reporting?

The column does not become a factual news report at any point. There is no new information (or factual information of any sort) offered to the readers.

Rather, the author Mr Akhtar Nawaz attempts to incite class resentment by making the argument that it is the poor who suffer while the privileged are exempted.

Strict application of law is not exclusive to the armed forces only; it is equally applicable to all poor and have-nots of the country.

All laws are for them to observe, it is only the privileged class of leaders who are exempted. The poor masses of this Islamic Republic are required to go by the law, coerced by the government machinery, plundered by the leaders, harassed by the influential and there is no one to listen to their cries.

With a complete lack of shame, Mr Akhtar Nawaz then proceeds to exploit the sensitivities of the masses by referencing the very sad incident of Yasin who was said to have committed suicide due to his dire condition and the victims of Data Darbar terrorist attack.

They may commit suicides, may die through hunger or disgrace, who cares? Mullah trained death squads kill them in dozens in the Masjids, Khanqahs, on the roads and public places. So-called services, the police, revenue, justice and other government departments annihilate them day in and day out. Isn’t it ironical that the government servants pay more taxes than the richest of the rich of this country and in certain cases monthly income tax of a grade 17 government employee is more than the yearly return of big ones? Why and for how long this will go on? Aren’t we heading towards a bloody revolution? Do we really understand that the day the poor will rise there shall be no hiding place for anyone? Jeddah, Dubai, London, Madrid and North America may be places too far; instead trash containers may be the real destiny for many. Shouldn’t we change for better; for us, the country and the nation?

This is not a news report, it is a political screed. It is a tract written with the single intention to raise the blood pressure of the masses and incite some political outrage.

The News should be ashamed of this blatant attempt to manipulate the sensitivities of the people and to to exploit the suffering of victims. This is a new low, even for Jang Group’s increasingly poor reputation.

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

The News Peddles Conspiracies, Political Attacks (Part I)

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)The News today is peddling conspiracy theories and political attack in the place of actual news reporting. This has been an ongoing problem with Jang Group’s English newspaper, and the quality of reporting appears to be getting worse.

Today’s edition contains two columns that stand out as such poor quality that they do not even qualify as legitimate journalism.

The first story, “Visas for Americans”, claims there is some conspiracy behind visas granted by the Embassy in Washington, DC. In addition to providing no evidence for his claims, reporter Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat combines this conspiracy theory with baseless political attacks on government officials.

Abdul’s report begins with unsubstantiated claims about the Ambassador to America issuing hundreds of visas “without scrutiny”.

Now Ambassador Hussain Haqqani has been authorised to issue visas to Americans, diplomats or whosoever comes in their guise, for one year without scrutiny. Earlier, Haqqani, who does not represent Pakistan’s Foreign Service, used to grant three-month visas in consultation with the Foreign Office.

Reports say that Haqqani is now facilitating some 652 Americans to come to Pakistan. Most of them, one figure suggests around 400, could be US security personnel. On the other hand, it has been reported the US has granted only 35 visas to Pakistani diplomats.

But notice that this information is based on undocumented “reports”. Reports by who? This reporter then goes on to say that “one figure suggests” many of the visas are for security personnel. “One figure suggests” means that the reporter does not know. He neither provides the source of his figure for fact-checking, nor does he even consider it reliable enough to stand behind it.

But the column gets worse as it goes on. Rather than writing a factual report, Abdul simply makes some dire predictions based on no provided evidence.

The development has serious dimensions and could have grave consequences for Pakistan’s national security.First, the visas have been given on express authority of the president, while ignoring both the Foreign Office and relevant security apparatus. It is not known how many of the 652 Americans comprise CIA personnel, representatives of infamous XE or Blackwater, those covertly representing Mossad or other US agencies involved in espionage.

When Abdul writes that “it is not known how many of the 652 Americans comprise CIA personnel…” he is saying that he has no idea. Actually, the number could be zero. The reporter is attempting only to raise suspicion and ill feelings by making such a statement.

Second, the decision will create a gulf between the Foreign Office and the PPP-led government, which has been ignoring professional advice and implementing decisions that sometimes are not in the national interest. Third, the PPP government has totally ignored the fact that Pakistan does not need such a large number of American diplomats and other personnel.

Here, Abdul pretends that he has some knowledge of professional advice, the national interest, and what is the proper number of diplomats. One would think that given such expertise, he would find himself in government and writing sub-standard newspaper articles.

The reporter goes on to accuse Pakistan’s envoy in Washington of being “in such a hurry to gran visas to US nationals”, but he provides no evidence that this claim is even true. Does Abdul have some intimate acquaintance with the Ambassador to USA that would give him such knowledge? Or is he only making such an accusation with no basis in fact?

At the end of the column, the reporter even goes so far as to boldly state a recommended policy position:

“It is apparent that unilateral steps by the government to grant visas to American nationals or others should be stopped as it could have an impact on Pakistan’s national security.”

This is a blatant opinion and not a news report. That The News continues to publish such columns outside the proper opinion section demonstrates either a lack of attention to journalistic ethics, or a blatant disregard for professional standards.

to be continued…

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

« Older Entries