Posts Tagged ‘Nadeem Paracha’

« Older Entries

PEMRA should not confuse satire with defamation

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

PEMRAChasing the coat tails of public outcry over Maya Khan’s infamous show, PEMRA has finally taken notice of undesirable media practices. According to a report in The News (Jang Group), PEMRA has stated that it intends to curb not only programmes that invade personal privacy, but satire also.

The authority also reiterated its resolve to curb the derogatory and defamatory satirical programmes aired by many channels in the guise of parody that are inadvertently being used for demeaning and defaming dignitaries.

Defamation is defined under Article 3 of the Defamation Ordinance 2002 requires that “a false statement or representation”. The reason for defamation laws, which are common throughout the world, is to prevent the spread of malicious and vindictive lies to damage someone’s reputation.

Satire is something very different. Satire is the use of irony, sarcasm, and humour to highlight folly with the intention of making an editorial point. It is an ancient art form practiced all over the world, often to point out the mistakes and misbehaviour of elite and powerful figures in society. Satire is inherently promoting a particular opinion or perspective, and is usually considered a specially protected form of free speech.

Examples of satire include many of Nadeem Paracha’s columns for Dawn, Beygairat Brigade song ‘Aalu Anday’

and Aaj TV‘s 4 Man Show

These programmes are not presenting false representations to defame or demean anyone. They are merely using humour to highlight the eccentricities and particularities of prominent issues and persons in society. Just because someone is a dignitary or has achieved a high reputation, it does not mean that they are flawless. Actually, many argue that the more influence a person or institution has, the more important it is to scrutinise them so that they live up to the expectations that society places on them.

PEMRA does not need to curb satirical programmes, which are part and parcel of a healthy debate and discussion in society. Rather, the regulatory agency needs to curb the false and defamatory information that is all too common in news reports. Rather than crack down on satire, PEMRA should issue guidelines about biased reporting and publishing opinions and viewpoints outside the clearly labeled spaces for such views so that readers and viewers clearly know when they are being presented with facts and when they are being presented with someone’s personal opinion.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in PEMRA, Satire | 1 Comment »

Media Reactions to Osama bin Laden Death – I

Monday, May 2nd, 2011

So much nonsense spilling out of the TV right now. While we try to make sense of it all, Nadeem Paracha has written a good first reaction to the media first reaction.

As CNN and BBC were showing thousands of Americans gathering outside the White House, cheering the news, the sounds and sights coming from Pakistani channels are at best bizarre.

As news anchors shoot away reading the fast unfolding news, they seem unsure whether to describe Osama’s reported death as ‘wo marey ja chukey hein’ or ‘mara ja chukka hai’, – both mean ‘Osama has been killed’, but the first sentence uses words like ‘chukey hein’ that in Urdu and Hindi is used to give respect to someone older.

It should also be noted here that in discussing the event, Hamid Mir on GEO TV referred to Osama bin Laden as ‘Shaheed’ also which is a term of respect for a martyr.

So, as Pakistani newscasters (especially on the ever-animated hyperbolic private channels), continue to zigzag between ‘chuka’ and ‘chukey,’ it was only a matter of time before we began seeing what is called the ghairatbrigade, or the pride brigade take their seats in front of the camera.

Pakistan’s private TV channels are brimming with the most gung-ho characters of this brigade – talk show hosts with an addiction for anything conspiratorial and rhetorical, and never far from using sheer jingoism to give weight to the shenanigans of the Pakistani right-wing, especially regarding the rightists’ blinding hatred for the US, the West, India and Pakistani politicians.

So until the writing of this piece, and merely an hour after the news about Osama’s death poured in, the usual suspects in this respect are up and running questioning the validity of the report.

The two star anchors of big media houses started behaving as if their jobs are now on the line since Osama is dead and America seems to have won at least this aspect of its war against al Qaeda. Then one after the other they started breaking with a photo which was published on the internet sometime in 2009.

The cynical display is quite pathetic, almost akin to the shock the loud mouthpieces of the agitated right-wing exhibited when Raymond Davis made a smooth exit from Pakistan, on the behest of Pakistan’s security agencies that, ironically, were alleged to have been propping up a number of media men and politicians such as Imran Khan to pump up anti-Americanism in Pakistan.

Respected journalists and analysts like Najam Sethi, Ayesha Siddiuqa, Hasan Askari and Farrukh Saleem are right to suggest that large sections of the country’s intelligence agencies are using certain media personnel and politicians to drown America’s concerns about Pakistan protecting certain al Qaeda members and those belonging to militant Islamist outfits that America says the Pakistani establishment considers to be ‘friendly.’

Nevertheless, whereas the largely knee-jerk and quasi-reactionary narrative peddled in the name of ghairat in the media and from the mouths of some politicians and TV anchors is now sounding as empty as empty can be, the government and the military-establishment will have to think on its feet.

With Osama’s dramatic demise, the Pakistani establishment cannot hide anymore behind the padding its clumsy doings in the war against terrorists was being provided to them by sympathetic media men.

They have to answer one very simple question: In spite of the Americans claiming that Osama was hiding somewhere in Pakistan, why did the Pakistani military, who too has lost numerous soldiers in its war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, continued to deny it?

What’s more, in a frenzy to impress their masters in certain sections of Pakistan’s security apparatus, these media men and politicians were not even immune to unleash rhetoric that can leave Pakistan and its people not only isolated, but suffering from collective bouts of paranoia, delusion and xenophobia.

Here we would add that since the writing of this piece, Ansar Abbasi has gone on TV and defended Osama bin Laden saying “we only believe Osama was a terrorist because America told us so”.

Whereas now it is becoming more than clear that Pakistani security agencies and the Pakistani government did have an inkling at least as to what the Americans were planning to do, instead of asking the question ‘what Osama was doing hiding in a compound situated in an area where there is sufficient presence of the Pakistan army and ISI,’ these TV men were quick to suggest that the man killed may not be Osama.

In fact, one of them confidently announced that according his sources (that’s a nice way of putting it), the man killed was not Osama. But lo and behold! Only an hour after curious claim came the report that the Americans have released the pictures of the dead body and face of Osama.

As I go on monitoring the media, the atrocious narrative questioning the validity of the news championed by these talk show hosts-turned-anchors-turned-presenters had fallen on its face and gradually replaced by a line that suggests that the Pakistan military (not the government) should also be given credit for this prize catch. That is when the race to publish the image started.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Dawn, Jang | 10 Comments »

Nadeem F. Paracha: The fantastical world of advertising

Friday, January 21st, 2011

What would life be like if it resembled any of the numerous TV commercials that are forced down our already choked throats?

For starters, all the women in the family would remain (dressed to the nines, of course) in a kitchen, preparing all kinds of food with a favourite cooking oil which they see as the real source behind their husbands’ and in-laws’ approval and love.

Oil. YUM!Each time the in-laws crack open their wide, greedy smiles after tasting the food, and the hubby shows more interest in her cooking skills than in any other of her equally good talents, she will point to the cooking oil ka dabba and pat it proudly – as if it contained some kind of a magic potion that helps keep her family eating and smiling, eating and smiling, eating and smiling all day long …

Her entire life would comprise of a vicious circle where all she does is get decked up, go into the kitchen and prepare food, with the cooking oil right there besides her of course. When in reality the damn oil ka dabba should have been swung unabashedly at the heads of the grinning in-laws and the stupid hubby!

By the way, if the lady also has kids (wonder when or how that happened with the amount of cooking), then most probably she will also be (literally) singing praises for a milk brand that she sees as giving her children brilliant, encyclopaedic intelligence and all sorts of powers which may include x-ray vision, gravity defying flight, and the ability to climb and jump over tall buildings like Spiderman.

But no matter what, the lady of the house remains glued to the kitchen while the in-laws remain stuck to the dining table, asking for more and more with not even a rudimentary burp distracting their enormous appetites.

In this fantastical world there are also women who are forever seen hovering around washing machines, constantly doing mad experiments with two different types of washing powders.

At times they almost push their kids to the brink of hysteria just so the poor kids can play in a puddle of filthy mud and get their clothes dirty, enough for the ladies to effectively conduct experiments with the detergents to see which one cleans the best.

It seems that from all the mad washing powder experiments, a Frankenstein-like dhobi smelling of assorted detergents will appear and take care of their washing needs! Ah, the wonders of corporate science.

Alas, as we move beyond the women stuck forever in the kitchen or the mad women playing with washing powder brands, we are introduced to the women (again, all decked up, of course) doing a crisscross between the Macarena and assorted filmi twists in front of deep freezers and refrigerators.

As if disillusioned by human beings, they have decided to fall head-over-heels over chunks of smooth metal and plastic, and sing cheesy odes to them just because they either make great cubes of ice or can safely store a month’s supply of bukra eid gosht! Remember the in-laws, mate? Always hungry.

As we leave the (demented) ladies of this fantastical world to their appliances, we come across the men of this world. The sort who actually love cars, bikes and mobile phone more than their mothers and wives!

It also seems they are capable of selling their grandparents to get their hands on the most recent mobile phone model just so they can listen to the latest R&B ditty as a ring-tone. It is kind of fascinating watching all these macho metrosexuals swinging to music.

Their girlfriends/fiancées are wasting their time with these guys unless of course, they are smart enough to get their men’s instant attention by:

(a) Applying tons and tons of magical fairness creams on their faces (because otherwise, they are destined to die as rotting, dark spinsters) or,
(b) They are always ready to break into a Bollywood style group dance with the guy at the drop of a hat!

Obviously, these men are never expected to bring home some hard-earned money to put food on the table, but hey, who cares about real world stuff when you can move like Hrithik Roshan tripping on nitrous oxide!

But there are some “sober” men in this fantastic world as well. The really hung-up ones who are always in designer suits, always “on the go,” either making animated presentations in boardrooms or flying first class, and to whom a wife is nothing more than a husky voice on an expensive mobile phone. He also sees more children as cabbies on a golf course than he sees his own kids at home.

My question again, exactly when do these men and women get the time or chance to have kids? But then in this fantastical world, children it seems, are actually custom-made in some Chinese factory in the Xinjiang province.

Anyway, one must remember, that these men must also be seen on a golf course even if they do not know how to play the game. All they have to do is just stand on the course, swinging away in spite of the fact that they are probably scoring more mosquito kills with their expensive irons than birdies.  In the real world such men can easily be mistaken for inanimate coffee tables but in this one, they are kings, baby.

As we move on, we come across groups of teenagers who think that acting stupid and silly is akin to being “khool.” We also see grown-up men and women actually drooling, with eyes popping out as if suffering from a sudden attack of epilepsy as they hear about the lakhs and lakhs of rupees that they can win by simply collecting coupons in tea or detergent packs.

We see the same kind of people, now with their eyes directed towards the heavens and the archetypal bright, milky-white Islamic crescent forming over their heads when told that getting a certain mobile phone connection can land them in Mecca for a quick round of Umra – and that too with a wonderful Islamic kind of guy who in all probability is nothing more than an imposter. But hey, who is thinking?

And now, if I do not get out of this freaky world, I am sure to end up landing in some cuckoo institution comparing washing powders with the demented detergent ladies.  Out I go …

This post was published on Dawn’s blog on 20 January 2011. Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blogs | 2 Comments »

Conspiracies, Media and a Willing Public

Saturday, December 11th, 2010

I’m glad that the discussion of these fake Wikileaks cables has not ended with the apology of some newspapers. I’m truly disappointed – no, I am truly depressed – that even after the story is admitted to be fake, some newspapers and TV networks continue to peddle the story. If it is unknown to be a forgery, the story is a mistake. Once it is known, it is simply lies. So, why do these lies continue? Unfortunately, the answer is too complex for some simple conspiracy theory. But reading several writers today, you can begin to piece together the answer.

Nadeem F. Paracha calls them ‘The liars collective’, a media that is used by agency men to protect the vested interests of an establishment whose irrelevance threatens its very existence.

Each time any of these institutions is rocked by a scandal or an exposé, certain newspapers and TV channels suddenly start teeming with loud deniers who would go to absurd lengths to divert the public’s attention towards something more ‘substantial’, such as of course, the ‘record-breaking corruption’ of this government, the fantastic job the free judiciary is doing, or how India remains the greatest threat to Pakistan. Or some feel-good lectures by a crank or two, usually crammed with airy myths presented as historical facts, are unleashed.

This has happened so many times that one wonders whether what many journalists and politicians on the other side of the ideological fence say, is true. Whether most of the media personnel we see on our TV screens or read about in the newspaper, who are always so passionately waving the flag of Pakistan and spouting contempt against corruption (especially when a narrative by the establishment comes under stress), may very well be the proverbial ‘agency men?’

NFP, as usual, is on to something. In fact, his thesis is at least partially confirmed by one of these ‘agency men’ himself, Ahmed Quraishi, who admits using media to spread propaganda, even when it is not true.

Just like the Guardian and NYT, the Pakistani media retains the right to manipulate and highlight WikiLeaks documents that serve our interest. This could involve some exaggeration in some parts of the media. But not everything is ‘incorrect’, as the Guardian claimed.

The Pakistani story shifts the focus to India, and shows we too can use WikiLeaks for propaganda like everyone else. The Guardian and the other two journals have been doing the same for the past two weeks. I am not saying Pakistan did use WikiLeaks for propaganda but it certainly can, like everyone else.

This is not journalism, but psychological warfare by manipulating an unsuspecting public. It is not right for the CIA, and it is not right for RAW…and regardless of Ahmed Quraishi’s perverted justification – it is not right for him and the ISI to do either.

But even this is only part of the story. Unfortunately, things are not so simple. There is also the news agencies who have a perverse incentive to publish the craziest headlines without checking their facts. Cafe Pyala describes this situation in their post today:

The defence that “if anyone goes on Goggle [sic] and writes: Wikileaks Leaks About India, Israel and Afghanisan” one would be able to get the same news we got” would be uproariously funny were it not simultaneously so appalling. That’s your defence Online??? So tomorrow, if you go on the net and search for “Conspiracy Theories About Moon Landing Being Fake”, you would pass that along to news organizations as valid news? Second point: why exactly then do news organizations need you? I mean all they need to do to get their ‘news’ is Google (or Goggle, if that’s your thing), right?

Of course none of this takes away from the news organizations’ own responsibilities to verify stories they take on. Are we to gather from this that the news sense of the staff at these papers and channels has deteriorated to such an extent that NONE of them saw anything remotely strange about the story?

There are a lot of news researchers, producers, and editors out there who are not on the payroll of any intelligence agency. But they have their own vested interest, which is the public which consumes the news – us. As Nadir Hassan makes quite clear today, we also share responsibility for all this mess.

The media was only the vehicle for delivering the WikiLeaks-that-weren’t. The ultimate responsibility lies with us, the consumers. That the news stories based on the falsified cables were believed by so many people shows that they only told us what we so desperately want to be true. For a story to pass muster, it must ring true. And a heady brew of inflammatory textbooks, government sabre-rattling, media sensationalism and, it must be admitted, our own prejudice, have convinced a large percentage of the population that a hidden Hindu hand must be behind every local problem. Any media organisation which claimed, for example, that the slippery Swiss were behind the Baloch separatists, would be laughed into bankruptcy. Since we have so successfully demonised India, for many its involvement doesn’t so much as merit an arched eyebrow.

Since self-congratulation is easier than reflection, there will also be a lot of chatter in the coming days about the burgeoning photosphere. True, the fraudulent cables were first exposed as such by blogs and Twitter users. Inevitably, this will be used as proof that the Pakistani population is too sophisticated to fall for such hoaxes. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking a few liberal journalists are representative of a country that is all too willing to believe the worst about its neighbour.

Fake stories are not published because of one sinister villain sitting in some hideout like in the movies. If it were so simple, we could simply find him and throw him behind bars. Problem solved. Unfortunately, there are complex reasons and complex motives behind media propaganda and lies. The good news is, there is a solution – it just takes a little bit of work. Just as word-of-mouth and ‘word-of-Twitter’ can be used to spread misinformation, it can also be used to expose it. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Therefore, let the sun shine on these cockroaches and we will watch them scurry away.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Satire: Nadeem Paracha's Latest Media Dictionary

Monday, October 18th, 2010

Nadeem ParachaNadeem Paracha has been compiling a new “devil’s dictionary” to help people understand the often bizarre ramblings of the media. His latest installment, Talking Knees, offers a much needed bit of levity into what can otherwise get to be a disheartening discussion of the media’s farcical failings.

Want to be a successful TV anchor and talk show host in Bakistan? The following is what you need to know …

(more…)

Tags: , ,
Posted in Satire | 3 Comments »

Nadeem Paracha and Self-Censorship

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

Nadeem Paracha’s latest column for Dawn, “Free Limits”, takes a controversial position around the issue of freedom of the speech and the media. While I don’t agree with all of his points, the article does make an important observation about the complex relationship between mass media, audience, and politics. But most importantly, it gives the opportunity to discuss the importance of free speech as the best way to ensure responsible speech.

I’m a little bit uncomfortable with Nadeem’s statement that perhaps the media needs to show ‘self-censorship’. Whether censorship is dictated by a government bureaucrat, a military officer, a party official, or an editor, it is still illegitimate. No one person, party, or group should stop someone from publishing or saying something in order to promote or hide a specific agenda. Perhaps Mr Nadeem Paracha had a different meaning for “self-censorship”, but I wanted to make this point for the sake of argument.

Obviously, editors are responsible for reviewing articles to determine that there is a line between opinion/editorial content and factual reports. And editors can make decisions about when a story is ready to report. Too often, in the age of electronic media, there is a failure on both counts – editors allowing all sorts of biased and inflammatory remarks to boost advertising sales and instant reporting of rumours even before the facts are determined in order to have the “breaking” story that improves ratings.

If media reports are hyperventilating partisan talking points or outlandish conspiracy theories, the media outlet that presents them ultimately discredits itself. Yes, it may see advertising revenues or ratings increase in the short term, but in the long term it will see itself wither away. It is like a candle that burns on both ends. It shines brightly for a moment, but then it consumes itself.

Nadeem gets to this point, too, in his conclusion. Those media voices that cry foul while they themselves are guilty are not respected enough to be taken seriously. They may have a legitimate complaint, but nobody wants to listen as it becomes their “just desserts”.

Till then, I am afraid, all those hysterical spiels by populist media outfits about free speech just do not hold much credence in my eyes; though I would not condone the banning of any channel.

And this is also what sets Nadeem Paracha apart from many others: “I would not condone the banning of any channel”. To this, I think that the answer to Nadeem Paracha’s question as to “how suitable or justified are we to wave the free speech flag?” is: Quite justified. Individuals may be upset about a particular story or the way it is reported, but that does not give license to threaten a journalist, destroy newspapers, or shut down TV broadcasts. Two wrongs do not make it right.

The best – in fact the only – antidote to media bias, conspiracy theories, and propaganda is for reasonable, rational people to publicly correct this misinformation. When media make false or biased claims, they are doing so with the expectation that they will not be caught out. Once they are exposed, they will face a choice: correct their practices to conform with responsible standards, or be discredited and fade away.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Censorship | No Comments »

Nadeem Paracha on Media Reaction to Shoe Incident and Aftermath

Thursday, August 12th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facilitating Fascism

Monday, June 7th, 2010

Reading Nadeem Paracha’s column yesterday, I was immediately reminded of a video clip from Shahid Masood’s TV programme that was recently posted on the blog Let Us Build Pakistan. The clip features a conversation between Shahid Masood and Zakir Naik, and purports, in Zakir’s way, to “prove scientifically” that non-Muslims should not be allowed to openly practise their religions in Islamic countries but the Muslims should be going into non-Muslim countries to promote Islam. What was most interesting about this clip was Shahid Masood’s reaction to Zakir Naik’s statements: nothing.

Here is the clip from Shahid Masood’s conversation with Zakir Naik:

Of course, this is not the first time that Shahid Masood has invited controversial figures to his show. Not long ago he got “both sides” from Hamid Gul and Bharat Verma on his show, Merey Mutabiq.

But does an argument between Hamid Gul and Bharat Verma really represent “both sides” of anything? These are both quite extreme voices in their respective countries. Neither represents a large segment of the population, so what Shahid Masood has done, really, is create a Circus of Extremism. This might make for entertaining TV, but what does it mean for the country?

With this question in mind, let’s read an excerpt from Nadeem Paracha:

Many Pakistanis routinely continue to deny the fact that the monsters behind all ‘faithful’ barbarism cutting this country into bits are the mutant products of what our own state and society have been up to in the past 30 years or so. For years a convoluted narrative has been circulated by the state, the clerics, schools and now the electronic media: Pakistan was made in the name of Islam (read, a theocratic state).

Thus, only Muslims (mainly orthodox Sunnis, shall we say?) have the right to rule, run and benefit from this country. ‘Minority’ religions and ‘heretical’ sects living as Pakistani citizens are not to be trusted. They need to be constitutionally, socially and culturally isolated. Parliamentary democracy can’t be trusted either. It unleashes ethnic forces, ‘corruption’ and undermines the role of the military and that of Islam in the state’s make-up. It threatens the ‘unity’ of the country — a unity based on an unrealistically homogeneous understanding of Islam (mainly concocted by the state and its right-wing allies). Most of our political, economic and social ills are due to the diabolical conspiracies hatched by our many enemies (especially India, Israel and the West).

The bad news is that such beliefs are symptomatic of a society that has started to respond enthusiastically to the major symptoms of fascist thought. Symptoms such as a xenophobic exhibition of nationalism; disdain for recognition of human rights; identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause; supremacy of the military (might); obsession with national security; intertwining of religion and government; disdain for intellectual thought and the arts, and an obsession with crime and punishment.

Have not many Pakistanis willingly allowed themselves to be captured in all the macho and paranoid trappings of the mentioned symptoms? Does this not point at a country ripening and readying itself for an all-round fascist scenario?

Certainly there will  be some who say that Shahid Masood does the right thing by not injecting himself into the discussions as much and being combative. But the question must be asked what the influence is when Shahid Masood chooses to give airtime to guests who represent extremist ideologies.

Nadeem Paracha makes an excellent point:

We call ourselves ‘moderate Muslims’, and yet applaud or quietly tolerate the hate-spewing claptrap that pours out from our mosques and TV screens. We cheer about the fact that Pakistan is one of the very few democratic Muslim countries with a constitution, and yet we will not speak a word about clauses and sections in the same constitution that have triggered violence and repression against women and sanctioned a religious apartheid that only allows an orthodox, pious Muslim democratic rights to rule the country or run in an election.

Does it matter whether or not Shahid Masood himself says that non-Muslims should be forced to practise their religion in hiding? Or is it enough that he provides a platform for these views to be spoken? Are we really going to find a path to peace from a discussion between Hamid Gul and Bharat Verma? Or is that discussion set up for failure?

One does not have to be an extremist to be a facilitator of extremism. Our media is free to choose what guests will appear and what messages will be aired to the mass audience. With this freedom comes some responsibility, though. As Nadeem Paracha correctly says,

We do not debate. We react and then huddle up behind our flimsy and lopsided historical and national narratives about what being a Pakistani and Muslim is all about, cursing the world for our ills, looking out for infidels and heretics among us, or for scapegoats in the shape of media-constructed punching bags.

It’s time for the media to end this Circus of Extremism, and to use its incredible ability to promote a message of rational discussion. That doesn’t mean it has to take one side or another, but it needs to be factual and it needs to be fair. Right now, its failing at both.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Merey Mutabiq | 4 Comments »

The Secret Lives of Pakistan's Journalists

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

The Hamid Mir conspiracy case has raised an important issue that deserves some real discussion. The issue is the secret associations that exist within the brotherhood of journalists in Pakistan.

Certainly all people have opinions about important issues, and journalists – by the nature of their work – talk to people involved in all sorts of political activity both good and bad. But Pakistan has a set of groups within the journalist community that have either intentionally or unwittingly been part of political activity.

Ayesha Siddiqa made this point a few days ago, and today Nadeem Paracha continues the examination of the problem on Dawn Blog in a must-read post:

(more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Dawn | 4 Comments »

NFP: ‘Concerned’ journalism

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

Nadeem Paracha spent some time actually talking to people outside the drawing rooms of the nation’s elite, and discovered something quite interesting – there is a huge disconnect between the ‘concerns’ of the media elites and the actual concerns of real Pakistanis.

Last week I visited one of Karachi’s sprawling (and impoverished) areas. I went there at the invitation of an old college friend who still lives there. Both of us were members of a progressive student organisation in college in the late 1980s.

I took this opportunity to talk to some folks of the locality. Almost all of them were from working class backgrounds. They whined and complained about the usual stuff: price hikes, lack of jobs, unemployment, crime, terrorism. But out of about ten men whom I managed to speak to, none had anything to say about either President Asif Ali Zaradri, or (thus) what the media claims to be Pakistan’s gravest issue: ‘corruption.’

No doubt Mr Zaradri is a controversial figure, but then, which prominent politician or for that matter, general wasn’t or isn’t? His misfortune lies in the way he was targeted by the media when he first arrived in parliament as a minister in his wife’s first government (1988-90).

An entire generation of military men and politicians had greedily harvested unprecedented rewards during the Zia dictatorship. It was a time when the US and Saudi Arabia were lavishly dishing out dollars as direct and indirect aid to keep Zia’s military regime (and cronies) afloat. This had an impact on the overall psyche of society as well. Exhibitionistic Islamic ritualism and lingo conveniently co-existed with overpowering greed and a get-rich-quick attitude.

This is the kind of Pakistan that Benazir’s first government inherited. Being an astute pragmatist, she understood well the kind of cynicism and materialism that had begun to dot Pakistani politics. There is now no secret about the fact that a humongous amount of rupees was being showered by the remnants of the Zia era (in the intelligence agencies) against her government.

For example, in 1989, industrial tycoons (in league with some leading media bosses and opposition politicians), who still hadn’t forgiven her father for his (albeit disastrous) ‘socialist economic policies’ in the 1970s, began running a paid campaign against the ‘corruption’ of her government and especially that of her husband. For weeks the country’s mainstream newspapers were dotted with glossy quarter-page ads against the ‘misdeeds’ of the first couple. Then, at the behest of certain intelligence agencies, the opposition parties moved a no-confidence motion against the prime minister.

Tons of money exchanged hands in the process, as the opposition tried to buy out the ruling members of parliament and the government retaliated by putting in money and resources to keep them on its side. Money spoke. In fact it screamed. Its exuberant and clandestine flaunting became the only valid option for politicians to take part and survive in politics. For this every prominent politician is guilty; just like the military men, the bureaucrats and the civilian faces of the Zia dictatorship who first introduced this trend to the game.

Thus, though it won’t be an overstatement to suggest that almost every prominent politician, military man and industrialist (ever since the 1980s) has, in one way or the other, been involved in what we generally perceive to be corruption, it is Asif Ali Zardari who has been bestowed the honour of becoming the punching bag of the nation in this respect. It was media that created this, and it is media (especially electronic) that has taken up the glorious task of turning Zardari into a punching bag once again.

But if volumes can be written on the corruption of our politicians, then one can easily scribble a vibrant comic book highlighting the shadowy and questionable ways of some of the media bosses and their talk show anchorpersons whom we see every day contemplating the date of Zardari’s fall.

At times such talk shows start sounding like televised sessions of a dedicated whiners’ club, foaming and dining on the latest slice of conspiratorial pizza coming out from the rumour oven in Islamabad. I won’t be surprised if one of these people begin to ramble about the presence of flying saucers over the President House, operated by evil aliens disguised as Swiss bankers!

But, alas. Against all odds and rumours, Zardari has actually got his name highlighted on the more luminous sides of the country’s political history, thanks to his role in the passage of the 18th Amendment and in the running of an unprecedented coalition government (of former adversaries).Something no government ever since Z A Bhutto’s demise could do (or perhaps even imagine doing) has been done by a regime whose main architect is a man most detested by the media.

But then what to say of an electronic media some of whose channels, for example, decided to place the cosmetic Shoaib-Sania saga at the top of their main 9:00pm news bulletins on the day the 18th Amendment was passed by the National Assembly and a terrible suicide bomb attack that ripped across a crowded area in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

So much for ‘concerned’ journalism.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

« Older Entries