Posts Tagged ‘Lack of Evidence’

'Trust Deficit' a Self Fulfilling Prophecy?

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trustworthy government matters. So also trustworthy media matters.

Serious Problems with Misused Aid Funds Report

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

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

New Delshi based British reporter Dean Nelson

New Delhi based British reporter Dean Nelson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s the real story.

'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.

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.

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…

Express Tribune Joining Conspiracy Brigade?

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

The Express Tribune logoA disappointing move by Express Tribune which has been a relatively good source of unbiased information since its recent launch. Today the new blog on the news website includes a conspiracy column by discredited conspiracy theorist Ahmed Quraishi.

Quraishi’s post is a perfect example of his style of disinformation and sleight-of-hand propaganda. He begins with a claim that America has orchestrated attacks against Pakistan since 2006. Really? What attacks has America orchestrated against Pakistan in last five years? Where are his proofs? This is quite a revelation, so shouldn’t he spend the article talking about his evidence for such? Actually, he has none, so he quickly changes the subject to Wikileaks.

But even about Wikileaks, which is the subject of the remainder of the column, Ahmed Quraishi is not honest with his readers.

According to Ahmed Quraishi, the information about ISI in the Wikileaks documents is proof of a secret US government and military operation to smear Pakistan.

But according to British reporter Declan Welsh – who Ahmed Quraishi himself refers to as a trustworthy authority on the issue – this information about ISI came not from USA and its CIA intelligence service, but from Afghanistan’s own spy agency, NDS, and that American officials consider the reports to be “useless”.

But despite the startling allegations the files yield little convincing evidence behind Afghan accusations that the ISI is the hidden hand behind the Taliban.

Much of the intelligence is unverifiable, inconsistent or obviously fabricated, and the most shocking allegations, such as the Karzai plot, are sourced to the National Directorate of Security (NDS), Afghanistan’s premier spy agency, which has a history of hostility towards the ISI.

“The vast majority of this is useless,” a retired US officer with long experience in the region told the Guardian.”There’s an Afghan prejudice that wants to see an ISI agent under every rock.”

When Ahmed Quraishi quotes Delcan Walsh’s article, he does not mention this important section because it completely undermines Quraishi’s claim that everything is a secret conspiracy by the Americans.

In fact, even when Ahmed Quraishi does quote from Declan Walsh’s article, he does not include the full paragraph and misrepresents the author’s statement.

Ahmed Quraishi quotes Declan Walsh in this paragraph:

British journalist, Declan Walsh, noticed the anti-Pakistan streak in way the Obama administration handled the leaks. “In issuing such a strongly worded statement with implicit criticism of the ISI,” Mr. Walsh wrote in The Guardian, “the White House may be trying to keep ahead of a tide of US opinion that is hostile towards Pakistan.”

But let us look at the full statement from Mr Walsh’s article:

The ISI has rejected suggestions that it is playing a “double game”, pointing to the arrest of the deputy Taliban commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, in Karachi last February as proof of its good intent. In issuing such a strongly worded statement with implicit criticism of the ISI, the White House may be trying to keep ahead of a tide of US opinion that is hostile towards Pakistan. But the Obama administration has little choice but to stick with its Pakistani allies, whose co-operation they need in hunting al-Qaida fugitives along the Afghan border. The ISI and the CIA are co-operating closely on drone strikes that have hit 47 targets and killed up to 440 people this year.

The war logs are likely to stoke passions in Pakistan where the rightwing press has long accused the US of seeking an excuse to invade and seize the country’s nuclear weapons.

Not only does Mr Walsh state that America is sticking by Pakistan as an ally, but he even predicts that media types like Ahmed Quraishi will exploit the Wikileaks to fuel their conspiracy theories.

Ahmed Quraishi ends his post complaining about the poor quality of information in the leaked documents, but what he fails to inform his readers of is that this has been explained to anyone who has paid attention to the issue from the very beginning – the documents that were leaked are field reports or “raw intelligence” that has not been accepted by the American government or military. According to New York Times newspaper,

Much of the information — raw intelligence and threat assessments gathered from the field in Afghanistan— cannot be verified and likely comes from sources aligned with Afghan intelligence, which considers Pakistan an enemy, and paid informants. Some describe plots for attacks that do not appear to have taken place.

At the end, Ahmed Quraishi’s “two important questions” are easily dismissed: The only propaganda campaign and faulty intelligence appears in Ahmed Quraishi’s conspiracy theory.

That a discredited propagandist like Ahmed Quraishi would try to pull the wool over the eyes of readers with such a column is not surprising. Actually, it is even expected by the very journalist that Quraishi quotes. What is disappointing is that a respectable publication like Express Tribune would give a platform for such nonsense to be spread. We expect better.

The Lessons of Airblue Tragedy Reporting

Saturday, July 31st, 2010

In the aftermath of an unspeakable tragedy, there have been countless columns written deploring the awful state of media and news reporting in the country. Intelligent and civilized people have spoken clearly and eloquently about the irresponsible and unethical treatment of the tragedy by major news corporations. The best memorial to the tragic loss from the Airblue crash would be a lesson taken to heart by media corporations and a permanent improvement to reporting standards.

Saleha Riaz writes in Express Tribune:

The government and the owners and managers of media groups (including the one this newspaper belongs to) need to come up with a policy on media ethics. Attempts to do so are usually taken by the media as a curb on its freedom. But would it rather have complete freedom to do whatever it wants to the point that the government ends up thinking that such freedom is too much and then the plug is pulled — as Musharraf did when he was power, or would it rather adhere to some kind of standard? The Five Rupees blog asks a question that needs to be answered in light of the crash: do we “prefer a free and irresponsible media over a sedate but muzzled media?” If it is the media that has gotten us used to sensationalist journalism, the media alone can rectify this. But it has to be a unified decision, just one or two channels changing their ways won’t help.

The blog post that Ms Saleha Riaz refers to is this one by the blogger Ahsan Butt. In it, he very correctly writes,

Nonetheless, this episode, amongst others, has really made me think. It goes without saying that on balance, I’d prefer a free and irresponsible media over a sedate but muzzled media. But that’s a false dichotomy. I’d really like to hear from various Pakistani journalists — I know some of you read this blog — and see what you think can be done.

The most obviously unfortunate thing is that when a channel does behave relatively responsibly and calmly, it gets absolutely no ratings. Remember good old Dawn News? Okay, the English language thing didn’t help, and neither did the Shah Mahmood Qureshi-wannabe accents, but I would also say that they weren’t nearly sensationalistic and loud enough for the Pakistani palate. Ultimately, we as consumers bear as much of the blame.

The outrage when such a tragedy is treated so glibly by our media is indeed warranted. But when will we see the same level of outrage about the poor quality reporting on politics, current events, and society? Is this not just as much outrageous? Just as much an affront to our national sensibilities?

Interestingly, the same blogger noticed that media coverage of KP floods was much different from that of Airblue. Still, these are both horrific tragedies with an obvious human element to them. So why the difference? Mr Butt suggests that it is a class bias.

Getting to the point of the post, I would argue that class really matters here. The type of person who is likely to die in an Air Blue flight, socio-economically speaking, is very different from the type of person who loses their family in flooding in KP. I’m sorry, but that’s just the truth, and anyone pretending otherwise is just being silly.

I would further submit that that distinction matters when deciding upon the coverage given to this. Ask yourselves this: do you really think Dawn would’ve buried this story that low down if the floods took place in Karachi in Gulshan or Nazimabad, or God forbid, Defence or Clifton or KDA? (assumie that Karachi had a river running through it). For the types of people who read (and work for) English newspapers, a plane crash simply resonates more than a flood in a relatively sparely populated province, and that seriously affects how the balance is struck between the two tragedies in terms of coverage. Mind you, I’m not arguing it’s a conscious decision — I’m just saying that the ability to feel empathy for a certain type of victim really matters, even if it’s under the surface of our cognitive faculties.

This is the same type of bias that results in “reporting” rumours and innuendos and accepting as “truth” that Zardari or Nawaz or any person is corrupt or terrible without having any proofs or evidence to back it up. How often do I hear people tell me that they just know that this person or that person is corrupt? They don’t have any way of knowing if such is true, but their biases take over their reason.

This same problem is more apparent to us with tragedies like Airblue or KP floods. But let us not lose the lesson of these tragedies for journalism. Reporters, editors, and publishers must take responsibility to act ethically and not report what is not evidence based facts. And when evaluating what is important, they must also evaluate their own class and provincial  biases to determine if it is their own prejudice influencing the reporting.

Does Murtaza Ali Shah Read Minds?

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Does Murtaza Ali Shah read minds? One thinks he must based on his article in today’s The News. In his reporting about Bilawal Bhutto to be named Chairman of PPP, Murtaza states that “Bilawal Bhutto, who is more interested in Facebook and hip-hop music than Pakistani politics, is being coached about Pakistani politics”. But does this obviously biased insult have any evidence to support it? Or is Murtaza simply slandering someone who he does not support politically?

Actually, there is much evidence that Bilawal Bhutto has much interest and knowledge of Pakistani politics. A simple search of Google revealed a number of public political speeches made by Bilawal such as this:

Additionally, there are reports from years ago in which Bilawal states that “politics is in my blood”.

Obviously, having been reading at Oxford for the past years, Bilawal Bhutto does not have the practical experience of a more seasoned politician. This is not anything surprising as all politicians must start somewhere. But while it is reasonable to state a person’s experience, it is not appropriate to make a claim such as that the person is “more interested in Facebook and hip-hop music than Pakistani politics” unless you have actual evidence.

Murtaza Ali Shah presents no evidence to support his claim and, actually, there is much evidence that contradicts it.

Tariq Butt crosses the line

Sunday, July 25th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)Yesterday’s issue of The News included a column by Tariq Butt that crossed the line between questionable judgment and irresponsible journalism. The column in question, “The demolition squad gets another ‘educated’ Awan”, is a vicious political hit piece and nothing more.

From the very introduction of the column, it is clear that the author has no intention of presenting a factual report, but is only filing a vicious attack.

Sardar Assef Ahmed Ali has found a role model, not someone to be proud of though, in the fake degree holder Babar Awan. Both are now the assigned demolition squad leaders to crush national institutions. One did the NAB, the other is after HEC.

Both these state organizations are designed to catch the thieves, fraudsters and cheats which for obvious reasons the present PPP government does not like or cannot afford. The demolition squad got its assignment directly from President Asif Ali Zardari to put these organisations to bed as they have become the main hurdle in the way of implementation of the government’s agenda of protecting the corrupt and the immoral.

It is not necessary to reproduce any more of the column. Suffice it to say that the entire piece is filled with accusations, conspiracies, rumours, and innuendo. What is entirely missing are facts, evidence, and reason.

Over the past week, The News has published contradictory conspiracy theories, multiple opinion columns as news reports, and even a vicious political attack that belongs in gutter politics, not on the pages of a respectable newspaper. As such, we have great concern about whether there are any professionals in charge at The News.

We hope that Mir Rahman, as Editor-in-Chief, has the decency to discipline his employees and requires Tariq Butt to either show solid evidence backing his claims or, if he cannot do such a thing, a public apology and retraction. The legitimacy of his newspaper as a source of “News” is quickly coming into question.

Tariq Butt's latest column – Is this reporting?

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

The News today features a top story by Tariq Butt that hardly qualifies as serious journalism. The article, “Fortress NAB shuts all doors and windows” is nothing but a polemic intended to smear NAB officials and is supported by no facts or evidence other than the supposed statements of a nameless “ex-official”.

Tariq Butt’s rhetoric is over-the-top, and betrays an obvious bias against the NAB officials. The author begins his article by describing top NAB officials as “handpicked loyalists of the ruling party” and claims that the agency has “shut itself into a cocoon, with all doors and windows closed to keep a lid on its actions and secret plans”.

The reporter then acts shocked when the agency’s acting chairman and prosecutor general do not take his calls on their personal mobile phones. It is interesting to note that harassing individuals on their personal mobile phones is on the same day condemned by another journalist, Mr Kamran Shafi, who complains of this behavior by members of the intelligence agencies. Have Jang reporters begun acting like rogue intelligence agents?

Tariq Butt’s claims are supposedly backed by the statements of yet another one of Jang’s super secret and anonymous “ex-officials” who, of course, no longer works for the agency that he is supposedly giving confidential information about.

This anonymous source, if he even exists, supposedly told Tariq Butt that “all the officers and staffers, who were still with the NAB, were under strict surveillance by an intelligence agency on the orders of the government to know who tries to leak out any information about whatever was being planned inside the NAB.”

But Tariq Butt admits that his alleged source does not even work for NAB, so how would this person be privy to such information? In fact, he wouldn’t.

But Mr Butt does not let that stop him from making the most hysterical and slanderous accusations. He concludes his article by accusing that NAB “is now engaged in devising ways and means to serve a particular set of corrupt people”. For all the complaints about MNAs allegedly lying about their degrees, I wonder when Jang will begin to hold their own employees accountable for the scandalous behaviour that appears on the front page of their own newspaper.