Posts Tagged ‘Lahore High Court’

The News: Zardari Should Be More Like Dictators

Friday, May 13th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)The News (Jang Group) reports today that democratically elected President Asif Zardari should follow the examples of military dictators across the world. In a bizarre page 5 article, Jang Group reporter Sabir Shah writes that following the LHC verdict barring him from conducting political activities while in office, President Zardari “should seek inspiration” from the following “world statesmen”.

Jang Group's Great Advice

Mauritanian President-elect Gen. Mohamed Abdel Aziz. A career soldier and high-ranking officer, he was a leading figure in the August 2005 coup that deposed President Maaouya Ould Sid’Ahmed Taya, and in August 2008 he led another coup, that toppled President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi. This is who The News believes our president should look to?

Ahmadou Ahidjo, the former President of Cameroon, is another bizarre mentor to suggest for a democratic leader.

In November 1982, he resigned the presidency and handed over power to his Prime Minister and longtime associate, Paul Biya, but remained as head of the country’s single political party.

Soon, a power struggle broke out, and Mr. Ahidjo was accused of plotting against the Government. He went into exile in August 1983. In early 1984 he was sentenced to death in absentia by a Cameroon court. The sentence was later commuted to an indefinite term of detention. Mr. Ahidjo never returned to his native country.

Sabir Shah even suggests that Zardari study Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak!

On February 5, 2011, the then incumbent Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, had resigned as head of ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) against the backdrop of violent ant-government protests throughout the country, but it was too late by then.

Does Sabir Shah honestly expect us to believe that if Honsi Mubarak had resigned as head of his political party earlier, Egyptians would not have wanted to replace him?

Of all the political leaders in the world to follow the example of, why is the reporter from Jang Group suggesting that Zardari take inspiration from dictators? Here are some other world leaders that Zardari could take inspiration from who are not dictators:

Angela Merkel is the democratically elected Chancellor of Germany. Nicolas Sarkozy is the President of France. Juan Manuel Santos is the democratically elected President of Colombia. Argentina’s democratically elected President is Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Are these not leaders who are better sources of inspiration than dictators?

Of course, it should be noted that all of these democratically elected heads of state across the world are also leaders of their political parties. But I suppose that inconvenient fact would undermine someone’s political agenda.

LHC Assassination Conspiracy Theory Threatens Jang Group's Believability

Monday, September 20th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)The News (Jang) finds itself in a rather embarrassing situation today as the Supreme Court has issued a public statement that an article in Sunday’s newspaper is misleading and requested Jang to publish a correction “prominently, preferably at the same spot on the front pages of the two newspapers in order to set the record straight.”

“It is clarified that the above-mentioned caption is misleading in so far as it gives the impression that the judges of the Superior Courts have direct clear threats from administrative officials, which is not the true reflection of the issue discussed in the above mentioned meeting nor the press release issued in this regard refers to any such threats. In fact, the meeting discussed the security related situation in view of the purported information ‘emanating from administrative authorities’ in relation to the alleged plot to target the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Lahore High Court as mentioned in the report of the Special Branch of the Government of Punjab.

“Unfortunately, your above-mentioned captions portray the totally different message as if the Hon’ble judges of Superior Courts are being threatened by the administrative officials, which is not the case. It is expected that an appropriate clarification may please be published prominently, preferably at the same spot on the front pages of the two newspapers in order to set the record straight.”

The Supreme Court should be commended for pointing out the misleading nature of this headline, possibly chosen for its sensationalism.

It should also be noted that the truth of the underlying story – that there is a plot to assassinate the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court – is questionable in its own right.

Ansar AbbasiThe article which originated this claim, “Plot to kill Justice Sharif unearthed,” was written by Jang reporter Ansar Abbasi on 11 September and contains several items which call into question the claim’s legitimacy.

First, according to Abbasi,

The report titled “PLAN TO ELIMINATE A VALUE TARGET” was recently submitted to the Chief Minister Punjab Shahbaz Sharif as “Most Immediate” and “For the CM’s eyes only”.

If a high-level intelligence report labeled as “For the CM’s eyes only” has fallen into the hands of Mr Ansar Abbasi, a skeptical reader must ask himself what the purpose of this leak could possibly be. Sending a “Most Immediate” and top secret intelligence report to a newspaper reporter would be a serious breach of security.

Furthermore, though Mr Abbasi claims that

The report also contains the names of the hired assassins but this information is being withheld by The News on the request of the source, who insisted that the disclosure of their names would make it hard for the provincial government to get hold of them.

This claim is difficult to believe. After all, regardless of whether or not the names of the individuals are reported, surely the alleged assassins know who they are and, seeing that their plan was published in the newspaper, would immediately destroy all evidence and probably flee the country.

Of course, this basic common sense did not stand in the way of a good story for Ansar Abbasi especially as it of course concludes by accusing an unnamed federal minister of participation in the plot as a means to advance PPP power.

But even this claim undermines this conspiracy theory. If Ansar Abbasi or anyone else has evidence that a federal minister is plotting the assassination of the LHC Chief Justice, should not that evidence be made public immediately so that the individual can be removed from position of power?

Of course this has not happened, rather Ansar Abbasi and his fellow “reporters” at Jang continue to concoct the most outrageous tales with none of the characters – either good or bad – named. It is simply rumour and innuendo hiding behind the crass exploitation of journalistic privilege.

Ansar Abbasi and Jang Group were handed a ‘black eye’ over the week end when it was reported that Special Branch has denied the legitimacy of the report completely.

Former chief of the Special Branch of Punjab Police, Col (retd) Ehsanul Haq, finally broke his silence on Friday and said that neither he nor his subordinates had authored a report about a plot to assassinate Lahore High Court Chief Justice Khwaja Mohammad Sharif.

“I have nothing to do with this report. The report that appeared in a local newspaper is not that of the special branch. My department did not issue any such report,” Col Ehsan said while talking to Dawn.

This did not stop Jang from continuing to peddle the conspiracy theory, however. Instead, they changed the byline from Ansar Abbasi to Sohail Khan and published the article titled, “CJs express concern over judges security; threats from administration

Finally, even the Supreme Court has seen that Jang Group has gone too far by making patently false accusations and requested them to immediately and prominently admit their fault.

Despite Ansar Abbasi’s insistence that he received the report from a reliable (anonymous) source, why did he not verify the authenticity of the report with the Special Branch before he wrote his article? Why did he not consider the very common sense questions that are mentioned above and call into question the validity of the report? Was it because the story fit a particular political agenda that he, or his employers at Jang Group are trying to promote?

If Col Ehsan from Special Branch is correct in his claims that he is being pressured by political operatives in Punjab to produce a report that accuses PPP officials, is this not the actual news story?

[Col Ehsan], however, appeared to be under immense pressure because sources say that the Punjab government wants him to give a statement of its liking.

The “so-called” special branch report which does not even have the signature of any official or seal claims that three PPP personalities – a federal minister, a federal government’s nominee in Punjab and a PPP Punjab office-bearer – has planned to assassinate Justice Khwaja Sharif.

Why has this angle been ignored by Jang reporters? As in the past, we are forced to ask whether Jang has stopped being a legitimate news source, choosing instead to work in political propaganda.

This story is more important than simply one misleading headline. It raises serious questions about the believability of all news items reported by Jang Group’s media companies, particularly by reporters such as Ansar Abbasi who have a long history of reporting questionable material with a specific political bias. The proper response for Jang Group is not to simply issue a headline clarification and continue to operate in the same manner.

Jang should immediately begin a public, internal investigation into this case to determine if its star reporter Ansar Abbasi took proper journalistic steps to verify the authenticity of his story, or whether he has acted outside his role as a journalist and begun performing the work of political propaganda. Until answers are provided for why this continues to be a problem at Jang, the validity of Jang’s reporting must be viewed with extreme skepticism.

Why Internet Censorship Should Worry Media

Friday, May 21st, 2010

CensorshipThe judiciary’s move to unilaterally block access to certain websites is a concern for Pakistan’s freedom of the press. While I do not condone blasphemy or intentionally provocative messages, the ability of a court to issue a blanket order of censorship to an entire media outlet is cause for worry.

This blog has been from its start dedicated to correcting misinformation in the media. Some of this misinformation is the result of laziness on the part of journalists who are too comfortable in their own lives to do the hard work of research that goes into proper reporting. Other misinformation appears to be more likely the work of political operatives who are trying to use the media for their own ends.

I and my fellow bloggers on Pakistan Media Watch will continue to write posts that point out the mistakes of journalists and news organizations because we believe in the old saying that “the best antidote is sunshine.” Information and education are the building blocks of a free democracy. Exposing misinformation and political propaganda is the best way to counter its effectiveness.

While we are regular critics of journalists like Shireen Mazari, Ansar Abbasi, Shaheen Sehbai, etc. etc. we do not call for them to be censored. Actually, we believe that poor reporting only serves to undermine those responsible when it is corrected publicly. Of course, they are free to say what they want, even if it is nonsense.

The ongoing Internet censorship by the courts is worrisome because it is a good example of a ‘slippery slope’ of censorship. First, the court ordered that Facebook be blocked until the end of the month because of a stupid page on the website. Then, YouTube was blocked for having offensive content. Next, Wikipedia was blocked for the same reason. Today, Dawn reports that access to these websites may not be temporary after all.

Pakistan acknowledged the ”suffering” caused by its bans on Facebook and YouTube, but said it would only consider restoring the websites if they take down pages considered offensive to Islam, the information technology ministry said Friday.

So, who will be next? And who will be the judge of what is ‘offensive to Islam’?

From the moment that it is decided to be okay to block access to one website for being offensive, where do you draw the line? Certainly there are some Jamaatis who will say that Nadeem Paracha is offensive to them. There are plenty of liberals who find Ahmed Quraishi quite offensive as well.

The truth is, such an unchecked power of censorship is too easily open to abuse. Today we may be blocking access to some cartoons under the justification of anti-blasphemy laws. But tomorrow it might be a newspaper or TV station that is banned for the same justification.

Freedom of the media is a vital part of our democracy. That means even allowing the media the freedom to be wrong. The alternative may sound good at first, but it always ends up the same – and that is no freedom at all.