Posts Tagged ‘misleading’

« Older Entries

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 »

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Foreign Media | 5 Comments »

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Express Tribune | 1 Comment »

Minorities and Media Bias

Sunday, July 25th, 2010

Mainstream media sources often overlook or fail to accurately report incidents of discrimination and violence against minorities. Following the recent incident of two brothers being murdered after accusations of blasphemy, The News covered the situation in a way that misled readers and could potentially incite continued violence against minorities. The Pakistan Christian Post featured the following analysis of media bias in coverage of the incident.

The mainstream electronic and print media shown biases and failed to cover the incidents in a way that could show Christians as victims and help common masses to understand that innocents have been killed. It did not speak about the hearing in the court in which the police informed that no evidences were found against the two brothers. There were no witnesses in the case or any other evidence which could prove they were guilty. If these could have been shown that they have been falsely accused, masses would have sympathies and condemn the extremists. The media created more miseries and misunderstandings about the Christians.

Even the Christian business places in Warispura areas have been badly damaged that had been established in years by the poor Christians. The loss of business and injuries to Christians by the Muslim attackers has also not been covered even. The loss of Christians business is estimated in millions of US $s.

Take the example of July 20, 2010’s The News International one of the largest English Newspaper of Pakistan and considered the most Liberal news group. They covered the story on the second page of the News with the title; “Attackers killed 2 “Blasphemers” in police custody” The group forgot it has to be decided by the court weather they were blasphemers or not. The next day July 21, 2010, the same correspondent asked a question from Akram Gill, Member National Assembly for minorities in a press conference, “why both the brothers had been distributing the handwritten papers at bus stand? He reported, the MNA had no answer for that question. Again the reporter misled the readers despite knowing the fact that there has been no witness stating they have distributed even the complainant denied it.

The headline of The News International was enough to make Muslims understand that the murdered brothers were blasphemers and make understand that Christians commit blasphemy. The Urdu language press which is largely read in the country is even worst. They published stories that could trigger violence. However, “Express Tribune” and “DAWN” English papers done a good job for balanced coverage. Dawn reported, Muhammad Khuram Shahzad the complainant and who got the brothers arrested belongs to an organization called Tehirk-i-Hurmat-i- Rasool, (“Organization for the Honor of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH”) This group runs by a UN and Pakistan banned armed fighters outlawed organization called “Lashkar-e-Taiba”.

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

Ahmad Noorani Mischaracterizes Zardari Statements, Contradicts Own Newspaper

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
Ahmad Noorani, journalist or political operative?

Ahmad Noorani, journalist or political operative?

Ahmad Noorani writes a ‘top story’ in The News today that is an example of yellow journalism at its worst. The article, “President confuses PPP Jialas and the nation“, is a political ‘hit job’ and not a serious piece of journalism. Moreover, the author’s argument contradicts recent reports found in his own newspaper.

Ahmed claims that the president does not want to locate and try the killers of Benazir Bhutto. This is a blatant mischaracterization of the president’s remarks in an effort to score political points.

Despite making this claim about the president’s statements, Noorani does not actually provide quotes that back up his claims. Perhaps that is because the actual statements of the president are not as Ahmad Noorani tries to twist them.

Actually, the president has repeatedly said the same thing – that his government will not practise revenge, but will respect the due process of proper law and order. This is even reported in The News on 22 April 2010:

“We do not believe in the politics of revenge. The law will take its own course and the people who are responsible for the martyrdom of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto will be brought to justice, not to revenge,” the president said while addressing PPP workers, members of the bar and the People’s Lawyer Forum from Bahawalpur, Multan and DG Khan divisions here at the Ashraf Sugar Mills.

This is clearly a call for a proper investigation and trial of the killers of Benazir Bhutto, not, as Ahmad Noorani falsely characterizes it, a call to abandon the investigation. Or does Ahmad Noorani believe that there should be simply a revenge killing of some scapegoat with no due process?

Because President Zardari’s statements about the ongoing investigation and forthcoming trials for Benazir Bhutto’s murderers have been quite clear, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that Ahmad Noorani is not engaging in journalism, but is using his position at The News to engage in a political ‘character assassination’ of the president.

It turns out, Mr Noorani, a protege of long-time Zardari critic Mr Ansar Abbasi, is no stranger to political hit jobs. According to research conducted by blogger Mohtasib, in April 2000,

In April 2000, Bahawalpur’s Civil Lines Police registered a case against AhmedNoorani for violating section 144 CrPC, which was imposed to refrain miscreants from provoking sectarian sentiments in the area known as a hotbed of sectarian militancy.Noorani had plastered the walls of Islamia University of Bahawalpur with posters carrying objectionable slogans against some sects (see the police report).

Nor is this the first time that Ahmad Noorani has used his position at The News to write some political propaganda under the cover of journalism. Mr Yousuf Nazar wrote about Ahmad Noorani’s misleading reporting about the 18th Amendment in April of this year.

This raises the question of whether or not Ahmad Noorani is a reporter or a political operative. Judging by this article, the answer does not look good.

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

Grading Shireen Mazari’s Faisal Shahzad Conspiracy

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Shireen Mazari Gets Failing GradeShireen Mazari has written the master piece of conspiracy literature about the Faisal Shahzad case. I am grateful for her putting it all in order so that it can be so easily refuted. Writing for The Nation on Monday, Mazari manages to get everything wrong, right from the beginning. Let’s grade her answers in order and show her mistakes so that maybe she will learn for the future.

1. Hillary Clinton threatened Pakistan

Hillary Clinton has once again come into her own true self and issued a direct threat to Pakistan of “severe consequences” if the ‘terror attack’ of Time Square New York City had been successful and found to have definitively originated in Pakistan.

FALSE
As proven yesterday, Hillary Clinton did not issue any threat to Pakistan. This is a lie. Here is what Hillary Clinton actually said:

“I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking. They have done a very significant move toward going after the terrorists within their own country.”

2. US government and media are ignoring facts

Why are the US government and media paying no heed to Shahzad’s alleged connection to the Yemeni cleric and to the Taliban’s clear denial of any link to Shahzad?

FALSE
A simple Google News search shows hundreds of articles about Faisal Shahzad and Anwar al-Awlaki and also hundreds more about Taliban denying a link to Faisal Shahzad. Does Shireen Mazari not have any Internet access? Officials from the US government first said they did not believe there was any link. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano called him a ‘lone wolf.’

3. Ambassador to Washington was silent

Why did our Ambassador to Washington maintain a strange silence in the immediate aftermath instead of seeking access to Faisal Shahzad, given that despite being a US citizen his Pakistani links were being played up?

FALSE
Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani was on CNN News to discuss the incident. Also he was in all of the newspapers with some statements. Does Shireen Mazari not read the news herself?

4. Foreign Minister Qureshi must have known Faisal Shahzad to make a statement about the cause

More important, how did he know the cause unless he had met Shahzad, knew him earlier or had been told by him that this was the reason behind his alleged action?

FALSE
Foreign Minister Qureshi was was speaking to CBS News soon after Faisal Shahzad was captured. His statement about the atttempt being a response to drone attacks was obviously his preliminary evaluation of the situation. Also, why is it so unbelievable that the attack would be a response to drones? Aren’t drone attacks what Shireen Mazari and The Nation have been upset about for years? A government official does not have to know a miscreant in order to have an opinion.

4. Interior Minister Malik assumed Faisal Shahzad was guilty

Interior Minister also made a similar statement as if Shahzad had been found guilty already.

FALSE
Interior Minister Rehman Malik was only repeating the facts as he heard them – as was everyone. Also, Faisal Shahzad admitted his guilt. Why is is that Shireen Mazari believes confessed terrorists to be innocent, but presumes government officials to be guilty?

5. Faisal Shahzad’s father was arrested, showing that this government is as bad as Musharraf.

Why should the father of Shahzad have been arrested? Apparently it was given out that his arrest was to facilitate the FBI team but is it the job of the government to aid and abet the US or to protect its own citizens? It would appear the answer is the former for this government, in which case there is little difference in how this democratic government is treating its citizens and how Musharraf treated Pakistanis.

FALSE
This is just silly. First of all, Faisal Shahzad’s father was not arrested.

The interrogators questioned Bahar Ul Haq in the northwestern Pakistan city of Peshawar. The retired senior Pakistani air force officer is the father of Shahzad.

Ul Haq — who lives in the Peshawar suburb of Hayatabad — was neither detained nor arrested, the source said.

Second, how can Shireen Mazari compare treatment of citizens under the present government to Musharraf? That is so ridiculous that it does not deserve a response.

6. Civil and military leadership are allowing US to threaten Pakistan

What is truly disturbing though is the civil and military leadership’s silence on questioning US intent. Why are we allowing the US to threaten us while we continue to entertain their civil, military and intelligence teams/delegations? Why are we not insisting on out investigation team being in Washington if the US can send an FBI team to Pakistan?

FALSE
This is not only silly, it is offensive. Shireen Mazari may make her money by spreading rumour and conspiracy theories, but civil and military leaders have real jobs and real responsibilities. Also, why would we send a an investigation to Washington? The attack was in New York and Faisal said he was trained in Pakistan. Only Shireen Mazari would want to send investigators to a city where nothing happened.

7. Military is cowardly for not starting war with America

In the aftermath of the Clinton threat, at the very least shouldn’t the Pakistan government suspend cooperation with the US, at least temporarily? Should our ambassador not convey our displeasure at this overt threat? Stoppage of NATO supplies and the downing of a drone will send a clearer message than any apologetic mumblings from the leadership. Finally, is our military prepared to compromise our defence and security, target more Pakistani civilians, simply to do the US bidding and commence a premature and hasty North Waziristan operation?

FALSE
This is not just silly. It is insulting and dangerous. Our soldiers are every day fighting and dying to protect the freedom of Shireen Mazari to go around head uncovered and making all sorts of false conspiracies (see above). Now she has the audacity to call them cowards? Already we have shown that there was no ‘overt threat’ made against Pakistan. It is not my place here to comment on whether drone attacks are wise or not, but certainly it seems that shooting one down would make matters much worse. Why does Shireen Mazari trying to create more violence? Perhaps Shireen Mazari should let Gen. Kayani and the military leadership do their own jobs.

Shireen Mazari concludes here column with a ‘hodge-podge’ of conspiracy theories. Apparently we will see US troops invade Pakistan to destabilize the government and steal Paksitan’s nukes while the ‘US/IMF’World Bank’ works to destroy Pakistan. All of this she provides no evidence for, of course. She just says it as if wishing would make it come true. And how sad that someone like Shireen Mazari would only wish the worst for her country.

Debunking Shireen Mazari’s crazy conspiracy theories was not difficult. It only took a few minutes of Google searches and remembering articles that I’ve read in the newspapers or programmes I’ve seen on TV recently.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Conspiracy Theories, The Nation | 8 Comments »

What did Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder really say?

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder

Yesterday, The Nation suggested the entire Faisal Shahzad case is a ’set up’ to trap Pakistan, and that we may be facing an ‘imminent attack’ by the Americans. The evidence they present are some statements by American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and American Attorney General Eric Holder. Both statements, which were made during TV interviews, have been used by commentators to suggest that there are threats from the US against Pakistan. The Nation, unsurprisingly, is the most hysterical. But what did these American officials actually say?

Here is what The Nation wrote in its editorial published yesterday, “US attack imminent?”

FIRST it was Hillary Clinton issuing a threat to Pakistan; this has been followed by an even more ominous threat to Pakistan from the US Attorney General Eric Holder. He stated that if Pakistan failed to “take appropriate action” against the Taliban, the US will. If the message is still unclear to anyone in Pakistan, this latest threat should leave absolutely no room for any doubt that the US now intends to target Pakistan far beyond the FATA region and certainly with more than just drones.

This is a serious claim! The Nation is accusing the American Secretary of State and Attorney General of threatening Pakistan with attack. Is this true?

Let’s look first at the entire conversation between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the interviewer on the CBS News programme ‘60 Minutes’:

“With the bomb in Times Square, I wonder what your message is to the Pakistani government?” Pelley asked.

“It’s very clear. This is a threat that we share, we have a common enemy. There is no time to waste in going after that common enemy as hard and fast as we can and we cannot tolerate having people encouraged, directed, trained and sent from Pakistan to attack us,” she replied.

This is important. Hillary Clinton recognized that the TTP is a common enemy of Pakistan and US. She is not saying that there is some tension between the two states, she is saying that we must work together.

Actually, Hillary Clinton gave some praise to Pakistan for its efforts.

“But we’re not getting that cooperation,” Pelley remarked.

“Well, we are,” Clinton replied.

“The question is why is this administration not pressuring Pakistan to give up Osama bin Laden [or] his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri…,” Pelley asked.

“I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking. They have done a very significant move toward going after the terrorists within their own country,” Clinton replied.

This is far different from how the interview is being presented, isn’t it? Hillary Clinton actually seems very full of praise for Pakistan.

But let’s get to the moment of truth and read the full quote about ’severe consequences’:

“Even in light of the Times Square bomber, you are comfortable with the cooperation you are getting from the Pakistani government?” Pelley asked.

“Well, now, I didn’t say that. I’ve said we’ve gotten more cooperation and it’s been a real sea change in the commitment we’ve seen from the Pakistani government. We want more; we expect more. We’ve made it very clear that, if, heaven forbid, that an attack like this, if we can trace back to Pakistan, were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences,” Clinton said.

Asked what she meant exactly, Clinton said, “I think I’ll let that speak for itself.”

This is very different from how the statement has been presented – especially by The Nation. Actually, Hillary Clinton again gives a lot of praise. As for her words that have so upset The Nation, she never says anything about an attack on Pakistan by the Americans. Taking her whole statement in context, surely it seems more likely that the threat is against Taliban and its sympathizers. Perhaps this is what makes The Nation so worried?

As for Mr. Eric Holder’s statement, let us look at his actual words in full context. Asked about Hillary Clinton’s statement, Mr. Holder replied:

Well, in connectino with the Shahzad investigation, they have been, I think, extremely aggressive. They’ve been cooperative with us. And I think we have been satisfied with the work that they have done. We want to make sure that that kind of cooperation continues. To the extent that it does not, we will, as Secretary Clinton indicated, take the appropriate steps. But as of now, with regard to Shahzad, I think we’re satisfied with the level of cooperation we have received.

This should be shocking to anyone who has not read the full statement before. The Nation and any other journalist who is only taking three words from a statement an misrepresenting them is misleading his readers very badly. This is unprofessional and unethical and should be severely reprimanded.

Contrary to the claims of these journalists, Mr. Eric Holder actually praised Pakistan’s efforts. Actually, if you watch the remainder of the interview, he says

The vast majority of people who go to Pakistan and come from Pakistan to the United States are well-intentioned; they have relatives; they have cultural ties to both countries.

Let’s also look at what other American officials are saying. Richard Holbrooke – who is a close confidant of Hillary Clinton – assured that there will be no move to block economic or military aid

The assurance came from Mrs Clinton’s close confidant, US Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. Her remarks in no way indicated any impact on the flow of US economic or military aid to Pakistan, he told a briefing in Washington.

“As for Secretary Clinton’s interview on (CBS channel’s) 60 Minutes (programme), I think that perhaps it was not fully understood for what she was saying by some people who didn’t see the full text or didn’t appreciate what she was saying,” he said.

American Defense Secretary Robert Gates has praised our military and said that “Pakistanis are in the driver’s seat.”

Obviously, there are some media personalities who are sympathetic to the Taliban and are trying to make some problems between Pakistan and the US by the devious practice of misquoting and misrepresenting the words of officials. The Nation in particular has been absolutely irresponsible and unprofessional by mischaracterizing statements in attempt to scare the people and make some false claims of threats.

Far from putting pressure or making any threats against Pakistan, both Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder praised both the Pakistani military also and also the Pakistani government and also the Pakistani people! The way that The Nation presents their statements is dishonest. The editors should be ashamed of themselves.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Nation | 2 Comments »

Merey Mutabiq Using Misleading Edits?

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Editing Merey MutabiqThe following paragraph comes from Kamran Shafi’s column in today’s Dawn:

I made the mistake of my life when I appeared, against better counsel, on Dr Shahid Masood’s Meray Mutabiq which was recorded and then edited. And by golly was it edited! Suffice it to say that I was shocked out of my wits, and greatly saddened, at the show as aired.

This is most interesting. Is Dr. Shahid Masood using editing to mislead his viewers and misrepresent his guests? This is always a danger with TV, and it’s hard to know what is real and what has been edited, especially with the advanced technology in today’s software. It would be interesting to know more about the situation here, and to get a glimpse “behind the curtain” at these TV programmes.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Merey Mutabiq | 2 Comments »

Media’s Latest Conspiracy Theory

Monday, April 26th, 2010

Asif EzdiThe latest conspiracy theory to circulate in the media is that, by signing the 18th Amendment, Zardari has managed to gain power. Yes, this is the same media who only weeks ago predicted that Zardari would not sign the bill because it stripped his powers. Now that their predictions have (once again) proved wrong, the media has been scrambling to find some new conspiracy tale to fill their pages.

Asif Ezdi explains this latest conspiracy in his column for The News, “Little to Celebrate.” One suspects that, since the media only celebrates failure, the passage of the 18th Amendment would definitely give them little reason for happiness.

Here is the conspiracy in Ezdi’s own words,

Besides, the new Article 63-A on defection virtually empowers the head of the majority party or coalition of parties to dictate who the prime minister will be. Since political parties are no longer obliged under the Constitution to hold intra-party elections, the current practice of hereditary leadership in the parties has now received constitutional blessing.

It is not inconceivable that the law requiring elections in the parties may be held by a pliant judiciary to be unconstitutional after the deletion of Clause 4 of Article 17. The way has thus been cleared for the seamless succession of the next generation of the Zardari-Bhutto clan, the Sharif family and the other illustrious dynasties which dominate Pakistan’s political arena.

A party head, moreover, does not have to meet the qualifications for holding elective office laid down in the Constitution. He could, in theory, even be a non-citizen or someone less than 25 years old, such as Bilawal. More important, he could even be a person who has been convicted of treason or other serious offence such as graft or money-laundering. That means that even if Zardari is found guilty of corruption, which few doubt would happen if the cover of constitutional immunity is taken away, he could still continue as party head and, in that capacity, dictate the choice of the country’s prime minister, if his party has majority support. The period of disqualification on conviction has in any case been reduced under the 18th Amendment from lifelong to five years.

First, let us examine several words and phrases that Ezdi uses in his explanation. These are,

  1. virtually empowers
  2. It is not inconceivable that
  3. may be held
  4. in theory

All of these words and phrases amount to the same thing. They are a way for an author to say something that is so completely unlikely that it is truly a waste of the readers time, while still pretending that he is making some sense.

Ezdi words can also easily support this sentence: “In theory, it is not inconceivable that President Zardari has superpowers that may be held to virtually empower him to fly.” Ezdi could write this, but who would honestly believe that President Zardari can fly?

Let us look at what Ezdi wrote with the same critical eye. Does he honestly expect us to believe that it would ever happen that a political party run by a 15-year-old Indian money-laundering traitor would place as Prime Minister the head of Israel’s Likud party and the nation would be forced to accept it? Because that scenario fits perfectly with Ezdi’s conspiracy.

Of course, this is too ridiculous to even believe, so Ezdi uses a rhetorical trick by mentioning Zardari, Bilawal, and Nawaz Sharif (just to keep things fair across party lines, I suppose).

But let’s examine what the constitution actually says. This is Article 63A in its entirety:

63A. Disqualification on grounds of defection, etc.
(1) If a member of a Parliamentary Party composed of a single political party in a House-
(a) resigns from membership of his political party or joins another Parliamentary Party; or
(b) votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, in relations to-
(i) election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or
(ii) a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or
(iii) a Money Bill;
he may be declared in writing by the Head of the Parliamentary Party to have defected from the political party, and the Head of the Parliamentary Party may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer, and shall similarly forward a copy thereof to the member concerned:

Provided that before making the declaration, the Head of the Parliamentary Party shall provide such member with an opportunity to show cause as to why such declaration may not be made against him.

(2) A member of a House shall be deemed to be a member of a Parliamentary Party if he having been elected as a candidate or nominee of a political party which constitutes the Parliamentary Party in the House or, having been elected otherwise than as a candidate or nominee of a political party, has become a member of such Parliamentary Party after such election by means of a declaration in writing.
(3) Upon receipt of the declaration under clause (1), the Presiding Officer of the House shall within two days refer the declaration to the Chief Election Commissioner who shall lay the declaration before the Election Commission for its decision thereon confirming the declaration or otherwise within thirty days of its receipt by the Chief Election Commissioner.
(4) Where the Election Commission confirms the declaration, the member referred to in clause (1) shall cease to be a member of the House and his seat shall become vacant.
(5) Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Election Commission may within thirty days, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court which shall decide the matter within three months from the date of the filing of the appeal.
(6) Nothing contained in this Article shall apply to the Chairman or Speaker of a House.
(7) For the purpose of this Article-
(a) “House” means the National Assembly or the Senate in relation to the Federation and a Provincial Assembly in relation to the Province, as the case may be.
(b) “Presiding Officer” means the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chairman of the Senate or the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, as the case may be.

Obviously, the article that Ezdi refers to says nothing about allowing the head of the majority party or coalition of parties “to dictate who the prime minister will be.” Ezdi’s assertion otherwise is fundamentally not true. How he can say this is beyond my understanding.

What the article does say is that if a member of a political party stops supporting his party, he does not own his seat. He was elected by the people based on his party affiliation, and if he misled the people, he should not be able to keep his seat in parliament as he is not representing the people but only himself. You can agree or disagree with this, but please be honest about it.

Asif Ezdi, a former member of the foreign service, should know better than to mislead people with twisted facts, misleading rhetoric, and patently unrealistic hypothetical scenarios. He should know better than to call the people of his country “losers”, too. Asif Ezdi does not have to like democracy, the 18th Amendment, Asif Zardari or Nawaz Sharif. But, please sir, do not make up stories and spread unsubstantiated fears that mislead the people.

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

Ansar Abbasi Misleads Public On 18th Amendment

Saturday, April 24th, 2010

The following is a guest post submitted by dear reader Sibtain Naqvi who took some time out of studying for his exams to respond to misleading statements in The News. Please, if you would like to submit a post for publication, or if you see a particularly misleading article in the media, send us an email at pakistanmediawatch@gmail.com

Since the inception of the 18th Amendment, The News has been constantly attacking the newly minted legislation. Being a major publication, it is the paper’s duty to pinpoint the flaws of the legislation and enlighten the public of discrepancies they may find. However, the two main articles that have been published only look to manipulate the public’s perception of the legislation by creating bogus facts or twisting the clauses to misrepresent what has been passed.

In the first article published by The News “PM to stay a puppet”?, Ansar Abbasi suggests that Prime Minister Gilani will still remain a dummy premier, even though he would have amassed all the constitutional powers granted to him. Although the 18th Amendment is a long piece of legislation the important migration of powers from the President to the Prime Minister should not go unnoticed. The President no longer has the authority to dissolve the Parliament or appoint the head of the military. These two powers, previously belonging to President Zardari did not sit well with the “independent” media. From the second Mr. Zardari took his Presidential oath, media personalities constantly lambasted him for retaining such powers. After passing on this authority to the Prime Minister, Ansar Abbasi seems to be dumbfounded.

The author backs up his argument by stating “After the insertion of the 18th Amendment…the PPP-head he can remove the prime minister, get unseated any number of ministers or the members belonging to his party”. He further articulates “there is no more room left for any member to vote according to his or her conscience except at the risk of getting unseated”. Now, to a layperson, such bold statements would truly make our members of government look like lame ducks.

It is the basic art of writing that when one makes an assertion he backs it up with a source. In the 627 word article “PM to stay a puppet”, Ansar Abbasi has not once given a reference from the 18th Amendment. After all, he is making such sweeping statements that the party head can get his politicians removed, I am sure there would be a clause somewhere in the text of the 18th Amendment. Being an amateur journalist, I took the liberty of reading the Constitution of Pakistan and the new legislation.

Article 63A. Disqualification on grounds of defection etc, (1)“If a member of a Parliament Party composed of a single political party in a House

(a) resigns from membership of his political party or joins another Parliamentary Party,

(b) votes or abstains from voting in the House contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, in relation to

i. election of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister; or
ii. a vote of confidence or a vote of no-confidence; or
iii. a Money Bill or a Constitution (Amendment) Bill
he may be declared in writing by the Party Head to have defected from the political party, and the Party Head may forward a copy of the declaration to the Presiding Officer.

The “a Constitution (Amendment) Bill” is the only addition to this article in the 18th Amendment. Therefore, in no way have the political Party Head’s received greater power under the new law. If Ansar Abbasi believes that this is the case, I would request him to show me the article or clause by which he made this assumption.

I was going to take the higher route and let this particular Mr. Ansar Abbasi make himself look like a fool, but when he wrote another article today “Convicts can grab top political posts” it was difficult for me to let this article slide. Being fair to the author, this time around he did manage to give a reference to a particular clause in the 18th Amendment from which he drew his assumption. In “Convicts can grab top political posts”, Ansar Abbasi states “The 18th Amendment inserted a new Article 63 (1) (j). This is not true as such clause was already present in the Constitution. Furthermore, clause (j) as quoted by the author is incorrect, it is actually clause (g) to which he should be referring to.

Ansar Abbasi is trying to make the case that due to the addition of the statement “unless a period of five years has elapsed since his release” to Article 63 (1) (g)(h)(i), all convicts will now automatically become office bearers. I would like to reiterate that in order to become any “public –official” one needs to win an election. The power of the vote lies with the people and if the electorate is content on handing a public office to a convict, than that is the democracy. Furthermore, an elected convict could still be challenged under “Article 62 (1) (d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions” and Article 62 (1) (f) he is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate, honest and amen, and there being no declaration to the contrary by a court of law”. There are still laws protecting irrational characters from being elected to office. The electorate is a strong minded body and I would ask Ansar Abbasi not to under-estimate the power of the vote.

The purpose of my writing this article is to identify the incorrect and misleading manner by which our reporters have started to pen their assumptions. It is unprofessional and irresponsible for journalists such as Ansar Abbasi to mislead the public by misinforming them of the facts. I should have been studying for my exams instead of writing this article. But since what was written in the newspaper was so outrageous and deceiving, I am going to be getting an earful from my parents about procrastinating on my academics. Thanks a lot The News!

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

« Older Entries