Yesterday’s issue of The News included a column by Tariq Butt that crossed the line between questionable judgment and irresponsible journalism. The column in question, “The demolition squad gets another ‘educated’ Awan”, is a vicious political hit piece and nothing more.
From the very introduction of the column, it is clear that the author has no intention of presenting a factual report, but is only filing a vicious attack.
Sardar Assef Ahmed Ali has found a role model, not someone to be proud of though, in the fake degree holder Babar Awan. Both are now the assigned demolition squad leaders to crush national institutions. One did the NAB, the other is after HEC.
Both these state organizations are designed to catch the thieves, fraudsters and cheats which for obvious reasons the present PPP government does not like or cannot afford. The demolition squad got its assignment directly from President Asif Ali Zardari to put these organisations to bed as they have become the main hurdle in the way of implementation of the government’s agenda of protecting the corrupt and the immoral.
It is not necessary to reproduce any more of the column. Suffice it to say that the entire piece is filled with accusations, conspiracies, rumours, and innuendo. What is entirely missing are facts, evidence, and reason.
Over the past week, The News has published contradictory conspiracy theories, multiple opinion columns as news reports, and even a vicious political attack that belongs in gutter politics, not on the pages of a respectable newspaper. As such, we have great concern about whether there are any professionals in charge at The News.
We hope that Mir Rahman, as Editor-in-Chief, has the decency to discipline his employees and requires Tariq Butt to either show solid evidence backing his claims or, if he cannot do such a thing, a public apology and retraction. The legitimacy of his newspaper as a source of “News” is quickly coming into question.
The News continues to mistake blatant opinion columns for actual news, and publishes them as top stories in the newspaper.
Today’s issue includes two stories about the second tenure as COAS granted to Gen. Ashraf Kayani by PM Gilani that offer no factual news reporting, but instead are opinion columns opposing Gen. Kayani’s continued service as head of the military.
In a dramatic late night announcement by the prime minister on July 22, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani was given an extension as COAS for three years from the date his present term expires on November 29, 2010. By some coincidence in my article last Thursday, I had said: “A new COAS of the Pakistan Army must be promoted. It would be severely disappointing if Kayani accepted the offer of extension being dangled in front of him. He hasan image that would suffer for posterity. If he cannot be C-in-C, Kayani should refuse an extension in the Waheed Kakar tradition”.
In essence, Ikram Sehgal is even admitting that he is not a news reporter, but is actually a serial opinion columnist. This is fine, and he is certainly entitled to his opinions, but his columns should be moved to the Opinion page and not published as legitimate news stories.
The same problem is found with Ansar Abbasi. His column today is another opinion piece that opposes a new tenure for Gen. Kayani. In fact, Ansar Abbasi’s column does not even pretend to be a factual report, but includes his opinion in the very title of the column: “Was this extension really needed? Probably not.”
Ansar Abbasi goes on to repeat the same opinion voiced by Ikram Sehgal in his column – that Gen. Kayani should refuse to accept a new tenure and simply retire.
Kayani did perform extremely well as the Army chief, he remained apolitical, did not allow the military to intervene in politics, generally believed to have fought well against terrorism, ensured free and fair February 2008 elections and played his role quite sensibly during tense moments but still giving him an extension should have been avoided. It is yet to be seen if Kayani would accept the offer and continue till November 2013. It would, however, be good for the institution of Army if he does not.
The government must be feeling a sense of relief calculating that in the last two years General Kayani has kept the army away from politics, as much as he could, had not interfered even when there was a lot of noise against corruption, highhandedness and defiance to the superior judiciary and had ìtoleratedî the shortcomings or inadequacies of the elected government, deliberately looking away in the national interest.
Again, this is not news reporting but Shaheen Sehbai taking the opportunity to air his opinion against the elected government.
Shaheen Sehbai, Ikram Sehgal and Ansar Abbasi all wrote opinion columns opposing a new tenure as COAS for Gen. Kayani. They did not write news reports. These pieces do not belong as ‘top stories’ but would be appropriate on the opinion page. If The News is concerned that there are too many opinions to fit only the opinion page and thus they need to fill the rest of the newspaper with them, perhaps they need to change their name from The News to The Opinion.
Last week The News published a column titled, “US asked to stand by forces of law in Pakistan” that calls on the US to oppose the present government. Aside from the obvious problem of publishing an obvious opinion piece as “news,” the article raises several questions about whether The News is acting as a political propaganda machine.
The article is based primarily on another article written in an American newspaper called, The Hill. This appears to be a political newspaper for the US Congress. The article, published originally on 28 May, was written by one Mr Thomas Houlahan who says he is,
a former member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. He served as an election monitor during the 2008 elections in Pakistan
After looking into Mr Houlahan a little bit, though, it seems that perhaps there is more to this story than is being reported.
Many commentators seem to believe that the only reason Pakistan has not developed into a smoothly running democracy is that the Pakistani army is constantly involving itself in politics.
I think those commentators have gotten it pretty much backward. It is clear to me that the Pakistani army ends up involved in politics because Pakistan lacks some of the key prerequisites for the smooth functioning of a democracy.
He went on to say that Musharraf was ‘clearly entitled to run’ and that, by sacking the judges, he saved Pakistan:
The recent state of emergency stemmed from an attempt by the Supreme Court to expand its power.
There was already tension with the judiciary over what the government felt was excessive use of its right to take up issues on its own initiative, known as “suo-motu jurisdiction.” Issues like road traffic, prices, environmental problems, and appointment and transfers of senior officials were increasingly becoming court matters. In addition, government and civil service officials were being called to court with increasing regularity and dressed down by judges.
Musharraf felt that the judiciary’s activity rose to the level of interference with the conduct of government.
It has also been reported that two Supreme Court justices warned Musharraf that the court was preparing to rule him ineligible for election as president.
Such a ruling would have gone against not only any reasonable interpretation of the constitution, but an April 13, 2005 ruling by the Supreme Court on the very same issues.
It may not look good for a serving army general to run for president of a country, but under the constitution of Pakistan, Musharraf was clearly entitled to run.
…
Musharraf’s declaration of emergency may have served his own interests, but it may have also forestalled what would have been a dictionary-definition constitutional crisis.
In fact, while issuing praise for Pervez Musharraf and military rule, Mr Houlahan has some very bitter words to say about Pakistan’s political parties.
The PPP is essentially the fiefdom of Benazir Bhutto, its self-described “chairperson for life.” Before her, it was the fiefdom of her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was executed after having been convicted of authorizing the murder of a political opponent.
The PML(N) is the fiefdom of Nawaz Sharif. In fact, the parenthetical “N” in the organization’s name stands for Nawaz.
Because these parties stress loyalty to the leader over honesty and competence, all four administrations of Bhutto and Sharif ended early due to corruption and mismanagement on a massive scale.
On March 11, I received an e-mail from a Thomas Houlahan who, apart from mentioning that he was the Director of the Military Assessment Program, Center for Security and Science, Washington DC, also drew my attention to his report on the judicial crisis in Pakistan.While my detailed assessment of his report (along with the download link and the tricky quotes from the author) will be shortly available on my website (www.pitafi.com), I must submit that upon reading its 47 pages I was seriously dismayed. Despite the fact that the author displayed considerable knowledge of the Pakistani history, he was quite consciously distorting facts and making some glaring omissions that suited his thesis perfectly. They say an analyst should never start researching with preconceived notions in mind. In this case, however, the analyst had entered the fray with a clear view to vindicating President Musharraf’s stance on the judiciary.
In 2008, the same Mr Thomas Houlahan was on PTV talking with Ahmed Quraishi and saying that the justices removed by Pervez Musharraf should not be reinstated. See the video below:
Thomas Houlahan and Ahmed Quraishi
Actually, Mr Thomas Houlahan is a regular guest of Ahmed Quraishi and has appeared on his shows more than once.
Mr Thomas Houlahan also works for the American Think Tank “Center for Security and Science” which is directed by Mr Stephen R Bowers who is a professor of government at Liberty University – a school that claims to be “the largest and fastest growing Christian Evangelical university in the world.” This school’s website says that:
Everything we do is designed to develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge and skills essential to impact tomorrow’s world.
Just as invitees were jelling in Islamabad, an American appeared unannounced on the scene as “group leader.” Short, fat, bald and given to un-ironic remarks like “listen, I’m from New Hampshire, we invented democracy,” Thomas Houlahan presented himself as almost a parody of the obnoxious American abroad. He’d show up at group meetings dressed in college sweats with his gut hanging out while loudly pronouncing on the Pakistani constitution.“Ya know Fox, CNN, the networks….I’m their go-to guy on Pakistan, there’s nothing I don’t know about what happens here.” Describing himself as a ‘distinguished constitutional scholar,’ he claimed to represent a Washington think-tank, the Center for Science and Security. That he was also ex-US military deeply concerned about the Dutch delegates, representing a peace group. He liked to name-drop, notably General Rashid Qureshi, Musharraf’s senior aide and a man much hated by Pakistanis. When we made a courtesy call on the president, Houlahan took with him his copy of Musharraf’s autobiography while nodding sagely at the strongman’s every remark. I told my colleagues of suspicions I’d picked up from diplomats that CMD was close to Mohammed Ali Durrani, a former information minister and a tight palace ally.
Two days out from the poll, we ousted a very agitated Houlahan in a coup. Munir apologized to the rest of us, claiming he had no idea what this guy was like. Then we tore up the CMD observer procedures and made our own, following EU guidelines. The group would have no official leader. But that didn’t stop Houlahan from spouting his pro-government line to the local press as our ‘leader.’ The rest of us were compelled to make our own media statements stressing our strict neutrality, dissociating ourselves from him and from CMD’s affiliations. Then we headed to the provinces to observe voting.
Obviously this all points to a political operation and not some independent analysis by Mr Houlahan. So why did The News take his words and republish them without doing any independent research? It took me only a few moments using Google to find all of this information. Surely with all their resources, the people at Jang could find even more.
It seems that nobody at The News bothered to check out this Mr Thomas Houlahan or investigate why he would be writing such things. Instead, they saw an opportunity to make a political hit. But that’s not reporting. That’s a political campaign.
Of course, all of this raises again the ridiculousness of a conspiracy theory being peddled by Ansar Abbasi and The News a few weeks ago. If you remember, at the the time Ansar Abbasi was trying to tell that the US media is being controlled by some secret forces in Pakistan’s Embassy in Washington. So again, I ask, was this article by Mr Thomas Houlahan a plant by the Embassy? Or does The News only believe conspiracies about stories that it doesn’t like? Why is one article a plant, and another worthy of front page publication?
Of course, when a newspaper will publish obviously fake stories without doing even a minute’s basic fact-checking, what do you expect?
Ansar Abbasi cannot seem to stop play acting as a Supreme Court Advocate. One can imagine him walking around his house in a black robe and wig taking suo moto notice of kabobs. Today, though, he has taken up his mighty pen to duel with Kamal Azfar, who is a real Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court.
Actually, the Court is very well staffed with Advocates who can argue for the government also and argue against the government’s positions also. It does not need Mr Ansar Abbasi to make any case before it. After reading his column today, it is rather obvious why this is the case.
Abbasi tries to find some contradiction in the statements of Kamal Azfar and the Asif Ali Zardari. What he finds, though, is only proof that he should leave the law to real lawyers and go back to doing his own job which is journalism.
Ansar Abbasi’s claim is that by saying that the Swiss case “was closed on merit after the Swiss prosecutor general examined and analysed the evidence on record,” Kamal Azfar has contradicted the president. First, let’s look at Kamal’s statement.
Swiss judicial authorities said on Tuesday they had closed a money-laundering case against Pakistani presidential candidate Asif Ali Zardari and released $60 million frozen in Swiss accounts over the past decade.
Daniel Zappelli, Geneva’s chief prosecutor, said that he had no evidence to bring Zardari, 55, the widower of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, to trial.
Ansar Abbasi says that Kamal Azfar’s statement is contradicted by previous statements by Asif Ali Zardari. For these, he points to a February 2008 petition filed before the Sindh High Court.
Contrary to Kamal Azfar’s claim, Asif Ali Zardari’s February 2008 petition filed before the SHC had stated that after the issuance of the NRO, the government of Pakistan continued to pursue the corruption cases against him both in Switzerland and in Britain.
Abbasi’s problem, here, seems to be one of reading comprehension. The petition filed before the SHC does not refer to open cases in Switzerland, but to the insistence of elements in Pakistan to continue pursuing cases that had been closed by the Swiss.
This appears to be the same problem with the current insistence by some that the government open cases in Switzerland again, despite the fact that the Swiss continue to insist that they will not open them.
Therefore, the contradiction is not between Kamal Azfar and Asif Ali Zardari, but between Ansar Abbasi and the reality of the legal situation being debated.
The other question that seems to be asked at least once a week is why Ansar Abbasi’s opinions are published as news and not opinions, which they most certainly are. Whether the government is correct in its arguments is a decision for the courts and the parliament.
This is important for more reasons that basic journalistic ethics, though. In complex legal cases like the one discussed in this column, the people look to media for some explanation of the facts. By reading about what each side presents, each person can form his or her own opinion on the matter. By confusing the difference between fact and opinion, Ansar Abbasi runs the serious risk of having an improper influence on the outcome of a legal question that goes far beyond any person’s personal feelings about the president.
Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter, but please let’s leave the legal debate to the Advocates before the court. Ansar Abbasi should be doing his job of reporting, not trying to do someone elses job as Advocate. And The News should publish opinions clearly labeled as such so that readers are not misled into thinking that Ansar Abbasi’s opinions are actual facts.
Today’s issue of The News includes a very good editorial praising the gathering of editors and senior journalists in Karachi under the Aman ki Asha initiative, and pointing out the important role that media can play in countering misinformation and fostering cooperation and progress.
The editors of The News make an excellent point:
Once people ‘meet’ each other, through the print and electronic media, they may find the sentiments held are not quite so hostile after all. Like people everywhere, Indians and Pakistanis essentially seek an improvement in their own lives and a better future for their children. The media can perform an important service by encouraging the cooperation that can help achieve this.
But let’s take the logic of this statement and extend it – or, rather, bring it back home. Too much of the reporting and “news analysis” that is being published, especially by The News itself, violates the core principles that the editorial claims it is promoting in its Aman ki Asha initiative.
There is a lot of suspicion between people over borders due to misinformation that is used strategically to promote particular ideologies. This is called propaganda. But propaganda does not only occur over geographic borders, it also occurs over political borders, which causes suspicion, distrust, and negative outcomes within our own country.
The people who control Jang may have a particular political agenda, but that should not influence the reporting in their newspaper. Certainly it is appropriate for them to publish whatever opinions they please on the Opinion page and to take whatever position they choose in their editorials. This is the appropriate place for opinion and commentary.
Unfortunately we have seen a growing trend whereby The News blurs the lines between reporting and opinion. This is also a form of propaganda. Rather than performing “an important service by encouraging the cooperation that can help achieve” a stronger and more prosperous Pakistan, too often The News is creating an atmosphere that stifles cooperation and progress.
Take, for example, the recent “news analysis” by Ansar Abbasi. Also, today’s issue of The News includes a column by Farrukh Saleem that is nothing more than a rebuttal to the argument that judges are displaying ‘judicial activism.’ None of this is news reporting, it is opinion. So why does it not appear on the opinion page?
It is good that The News understands the importance of proper and truthful reporting across borders, and the beneficial role that media can perform with honest and proper reporting. But they must also practice this principle in their own home and not be hypocrites when it comes to reporting across political borders within our own country.
Poor Mr. Ansar Abbasi – he does not know how to quit while he is ahead. After his very poor showing on Friday, Mr. Abbasi has decided to have another go at writing his “news analysis” about the NRO. The column, “After Sindh card, Zardari uses Benazir,” is Ansar’s attempt at playing judge against President Zardari. Of course, he did not do his homework and is therefore out “LBW” – Learn Before Writing!
Today’s column by Ansar Abbasi is, once again, published as “news analysis.” Even though it is a rather incendiary opinion piece, The News (Jang) has not seen fit to put it properly on the opinion page. This is an unfortunate habit of the The News as it is quite misleading to readers.
But perhaps more unfortunate is the fact that Mr. Ansar Abbasi continues to believe that insulting rants are a proper substitute for research and reason.
Take, for example, his suggestion that, “Legally and constitutionally speaking, there is no way out for the government but to implement the Supreme Court’s order in letter and spirit. But practically if the government does this, it would mean political death of the PPP’s co-chairman against whom the corruption cases are too serious.”
Actually, this is not quite true. The constitution states in Article 248 that certain officials may not be tried while they are in office. Any cases against them will have to be heard once their term is complete.
248. Protection to President, Governor, Minister, etc.
(1) The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not he answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federation or a Province.
(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.
(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor shall issue from any court during his term of office.
(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in respect of anything done by or not done by him in his personal capacity whether before or after he enters upon his office unless, at least sixty days before the proceedings are instituted, notice in writing has been delivered to him, or sent to him in the manner prescribed by law, stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom the proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which the party claims.
[Geneva prosecutor Daniel Zappelli] said he can’t reopen the case against Zardari, who was elected president in 2008 after years of battling corruption allegations, because he enjoys “absolute immunity” as a head of state.
“We could go further only if the competent authorities in Pakistan decide to lift the immunity of the head of state, which I do not know whether it is possible according to their constitution,” said Zappelli, speaking in English. “If not, we can’t. Absolutely not. Period.”
Ansar Abbasi then goes on to peddle outrageous rumours including that a major political party was planning to attack the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
After the NRO decision, the unnerved PPP was alleged to be even planning physical attacks on the Chief Justice of Pakistan to embarrass Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Money was also reportedly distributed amongst some student leaders of the PSF to organise demonstrations against the judiciary.
If this is true, it is a serious charge that should be taken up with the proper authorities immediately. I ask that Ansar Abbasi immediately file a grievance and reveal his evidence. Otherwise, what are we to think except that he has made the whole thing up?
Also, wasn’t it only three days earlier that this same Ansar Abbasi was condemning a foreign newspaper for quoting an unnamed source? But notice that now Abbasi does not even pretend to have heard his rumour from some “anonymous source.” Rather, he simply says it is “alleged.” Alleged by whom? Surely Ansar Abbasi does not want to be a hypocrite. Please, sir, tell us who your source is for these serious accusations.
Ansar Abbasi’s entire column is actually a poor attempt for him to play judge, jury, and executioner of Asif Zardari. Abbasi says the Supreme Court “is serious to ensure a fair trial of past corruption cases.” Perhaps they are, but Ansar Abbasi sees no need for a fair trial. Instead, he says “Allowing a fair trial to prove his innocence would be a risky gamble that everyone in the party knows is bound to be lost…”
What is the point of bothering with a trial, when Ansar Abbasi has already judged the outcome? This blog takes no position on the issue of Asif Zardari’s guilt or innocence. There is very important legal discussion about Presidential immunity, and even if the President did not enjoy this immunity, surely the courts are the proper place to hold a trial, not the last issue of The News. Perhaps Mr. Abbasi is challenging Shahid Masood to be “Chief Justice of the Media”?
Ansar Abbasi: Challenging Shahid Massod to be Chief Justice of Media?
Ansar closes his opinion by saying that, “Instead of being befooled by political slogans, the people of Pakistan deserve to know if there is any truth in the NAB’s claim…” Perhaps Mr. Abbasi would do us all the favour of ceasing his foolish political sloganeering, then, so that proper journalists can do their work. At the very least, sir, we beg of you…Learn Before Writing!
Today’s The Nation includes a report by an anonymous person known only as “Special Correspondent” on American President Barack Obama’s speech to the American Congress last night which chastises him for not mentioning Pakistan specifically enough. While it is true that Pakistan was not mentioned by name in the speech, the article is clearly meant to suggest a snub against Pakistan and thus belongs more appropriately on the Opinion page of the newspaper. Moreover, the suggestion that a lack of a specific mention of Pakistan in a speech by the American President to the American Congress is a snub is really quite silly.
The Nation’s anonymous reporter begins the article by criticizing Obama for not speaking enough about Pakistan and India-Pakistan relations.
Declaring that the United States has strengthened partnerships with its anti-terrorism allies, President Barack Obama on Wednesday cited his adminitration’s effective fight against al-Qaeda militants but said nothing specific about close ally Pakistan.
Although Obama took note of partnerships in Asia, his first State of the Union address made no mention of Pakistan, a US ally in the war on terror. There was also no reference to India-Pakistan relations and their impact on regional stability. The contentious Middle East conflict was another
major ommission in the speech.
It is true that Mr. Obama’s speech did not mention Pakistan by name, but it also does not mention any other nations that are currently fighting against terrorists. Mr. Obama did mention partnerships broadly, but does not single out any specific nations. For example, he said:
We’ve prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.
Actually, the reason that Mr. Obama did not mention Pakistan or India-Pakistan relations in his speech was not a snub against Pakistan but because his speech was mostly about US affairs only. In fact, the anonymous reporter for The Nation even admits this in his report:
Obama’s address focused largely on economic recovery initiatives that his administration is pursuing…
Additionally, while Mr. Obama did talk briefly about foreign policy challenges, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he did so from an American perspective for his American audience. He did not mention any of the other countries with troops in those wars, not only Pakistan. The anonymous reporter from The Nation does not mention that Mr. Obama also does not specifically mention other nations that are fighting against terrorism, including:
United Kingdom
France
Canada
Italy
Netherlands
Poland
Australia
Spain
Romania
Turkey
Czech Republic
Denmark
Belgium
Norway
Bulgaria
Sweden
Hungary
New Zealand
Croatia
Even though they were not mentioned, none of the media in other countries are writing anonymous opinion articles suggesting they were snubbed and trying to pass them off as ‘news’.
The Nation has a well-documented anti-American position with regards to foreign policy. Obviously, they have the right to this position and it is their right to continue to publish anti-American Editorials and Opinion columns. But such political positions belong on the Opinion page, not in the sections for actual news reporting. The column in The Nation is clearly meant to raise anger among those people known as the Ghairat Brigade. The fact that the report is sourced to an anonymous “Special Correspondent” makes it even worse than misleading, though, it’s simply unprofessional.
Why is Shahid Masood pretending he is Chief Justice?
Why is Shahid Masood pretending he is Chief Justice? As a TV talk show host, Masood could be facilitating discussions about the topic of the day in a way that brings new and enlightening information to the people. Instead, he is constantly thrusting his opinion over others, and treating his own opinion as fact. Take as a perfect example his latest episode in which he makes grand speeches about the NRO.
From the moment of President Zardari’s election, Shahid Masood has said that Zardari should not be President, and that it is only a matter of time before the army will force him out. Much of Masood’s
Frustrated by his inability to read the star charts, Masood appears to have become determined to create an environment where instead his wishes come true. His latest episode of Merey Mutabiq shows Masood pretending to be Chief Justice, and expecting the incumbents to come to Masood and present a case for him to judge, even while he makes such simple mistakes as to forget that NRO was promulgated on Oct 5, 2007, and Benazir did not ask for any relief during her life.
This is a major problem with these TV talk show hosts. They fancy themselves high-minded intellectuals who sit in judgment of everyone else. Actually, there is already a Supreme Court, and it is not found on Geo TV.
Yesterday’s issue of The News included a column by Tariq Butt that crossed the line between questionable judgment and irresponsible journalism. The column in question, “The demolition squad gets another ‘educated’ Awan”, is a vicious political hit piece and nothing more.
