An article appearing on the front page of The News (Jang Group) asks, ‘Is PM Gilani using Pasha’s extension as a bargaining tool?’ The piece, which is not published on the Opinion pages but rather the front page and is not even in any way labeled as opinion, viewpoint, or commentary suggests that the PM is using the possibility of another extension for DG ISI Lt Gen Shuja Pasha as a bargaining chit in the memogate case. Abbasi, however, presents no evidence for this suggestion. Rather, the article is based in his own personal speculation.
That Ansar Abbasi’s article is speculation and not evidence-based is admitted by Abbasi’s own words:
Talking to media persons on his return from Davos after attending the World Economic Forum Conference, the prime minister is reported to have said, “Any decision about the extension of DG ISI would be taken at an appropriate time.”
There is no explanation as to why did the prime minister say this but given the track record of the rulers and their style of soiled politicking, Gillani may use the extension card as a lever to get Pasha softened on memo issue.
In other words, “There is no explanation as to why did the prime minister say this but” I am going to invent an explanation anyway.
Ansar Abbasi is, of course, entitled to his own speculation and whatever conspiracy theories are born in his head. And if Jang Group believes Ansar Abbasi’s fantasies and conspiracy theories are worth publishing, they have every right to do so. But such inventions are not reporting, they are opinions and should be properly published on the pages clearly marked as containing opinions so that readers are not intentionally or unintentionally misled into thinking that Ansar Abbasi’s speculation is something other than what it is.
Reporting on Imran Khan’s rally has taken many forms. From the varying estimates of the crowd’s numbers which easily give away a journalist’s political leanings, to the thinly-veiled giddiness of Hamid Mir, to The Nation‘s tasking Imran with “declaring his own assets first”, many of the media reactions to Imran Khan’s rally on Sunday were to be expected. One piece, though, stands out for mention.
In Monday’s issue of The News (Jang Group), an article appeared with the title, ‘Imran Khan has the calculus’. The piece paints Imran as a ‘statesman’ with ‘a wise head on his shoulders’ and describes him as ‘exposing the President and his team’. In fact, the piece was a laudatory hymn to Imran’s speech the day before. All of this would be expected on the Opinion page, but this piece, once again, appeared on page 5 as ‘National News’. True, the piece was labeled as ‘News Analysis’, but here is where things take a turn for the strange – this ‘analysis’ was credited to ‘our correspondent’.
Who was this ‘correspondent’ that wrote such a glowing praise of Imran’s appearance? Readers are not let to know. This appears to be an additional step of The News that not only moves opinion pieces into the news sections, but now even leaves them unsigned so that readers cannot even judge the credibility of the author. How are we to know if this piece was written by a staff reporter, a political scientist, or a PTI media advisor? Was this a legitimate ‘news analysis’ by a neutral analyst, or a press release from PTI’s Punjab office?
There is nothing wrong with providing analysis to help readers get a broad view of current events. But this is what opinion pages are for. Presently, The News has two pages that are correctly labeled as ‘Opinion’, but apparently it is not enough since we have seen blatant opinions bearing the labels ‘commentary’ and ‘analysis’ creeping into the regular news sections. Now, Jang Group editors are not even bothering to give the name of the author. Recently, we saw similar bias in The News for Islami Jamiat Talaba (JIT). If The News is willing to print paeans to whatever party is presently holding events, one might ask if The News is a newspaper of professional journalism or a newspaper for rent.
Front page headlines are a first impression of the news of the day. Newspapers consider them carefully because it is well known that the front page headline will colour the way we see the world events. Look at the front page of The News today. The headline reads, “Obama asks Pak Army to do more”.
Here’s the first paragraph of the article, which sets the tone for the story:
As a new US policy review on Thursday found al-Qaeda in Pakistan weaker than ever, US President Barack Obama, acknowledged progress, though slow, in defeating al-Qaeda and Taliban in the border region of Afghanistan. However, he asked Pakistan, without mincing words, to do more militarily in the tribal areas.
Between this and the menacing photograph used (a photo that is not even from the speech) clearly leaves the public with the impression that an angry Barack Obama is bullying Pakistan’s military.
And The News is not the only media group to define Obama’s speech in this way. Actually Dawn‘s front page article is quite similar, even going so far as to define the American president’s speech as “adopting a classic carrot-and-stick combination”.
Actually, Obama never uses the words ‘do more’ which raises the question is it a mantra for American officials, or for a political group that wants the public to believe that US is bullying Pakistan.
And no carrots and sticks were discussed either. In fact, reading the transcript of Obama’s speech gives a much different perspective than either headline. Here is what American President Barack Obama actually said about Pakistan:
Finally, we will continue to focus on our relationship with Pakistan. Increasingly, the Pakistani government recognizes that terrorist networks in its border regions are a threat to all our countries, especially Pakistan. We’ve welcomed major Pakistani offensives in the tribal regions. We will continue to help strengthen Pakistanis’ capacity to root out terrorists. Nevertheless, progress has not come fast enough. So we will continue to insist to Pakistani leaders that terrorist safe havens within their borders must be dealt with.
At the same time, we need to support the economic and political development that is critical to Pakistan’s future. As part of our strategic dialogue with Pakistan, we will work to deepen trust and cooperation. We’ll speed up our investment in civilian institutions and projects that improve the lives of Pakistanis. We’ll intensify our efforts to encourage closer cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
And, next year, I look forward to an exchange of visits, including my visit to Pakistan, because the United States is committed to an enduring partnership that helps deliver improved security, development, and justice for the Pakistani people.
This is a far different person speaking than the angry bully that is portrayed on the front page of The News. Actually, the rest of Sami Abraham’s article portrays a very different event, one much more like the impression one gets from reading the actual transcripts. President Obama even said that he is looking forward to visiting Pakistan and is committed to improved security and justice for the Pakistani people. So why the portrait of a bully Obama?
The fake WikiLeaks cables give the first public hint about how opinion is being shaped in this country right now. Unpatriotic, secular, godless liberals may sniff about such naked manipulation, but the smart money is on a population raised on a diet of conspiracy and paranoia swallowing it as yet more evidence of external plots against the country.
It is no secret that a particular political constituency considers “do more” to be the greatest insult of all time. And it is also no secret that this is a very vocal group who would like to see the Army disengage from cooperation with the Americans. But these are political opinions and belong on the opinion page, not front page headlines. Mischaracterizing the speech of a foreign leader on the front page headline is beneath the professionalism of our media.
It is also possible that these newspapers know that such headlines will simply sell better. Certainly the political tendencies of Dawn‘s editors are not the same as The Nation (which, it should be recognized, had the most objective headline of the three!). But it is much more profitable to have a dramatic front page story than a report that relations are respectful and improving. Whether headlines are being written to promote a political agenda or to simply sell more newspapers, however, the results are the same.
Many people don’t read past the headlines of a newspaper. It is the first thing that jumps at you when walk by a newspaper stand, and thus it is the image the sticks in your memory. Even if you read the entire article, your first impression will still be coloured by the headline and opening paragraph that characterizes the story. So first impressions are lasting – but what if they are wrong? In the case of media impressions, the result is we are left with a lastingly misinformed public.
Farrukh Saleem’s article in Monday’s The News makes a fundamental error in creating the illusion that the military and the government are two different things. In fact, the military is part of the government, and Mr Saleem’s column features almost no actual reporting but rather makes a particular political argument.
Mr Saleem’s column cites troubling statistics from the flood, “One out of every eight Pakistanis is at risk of severe diarrhoea, asthmatic attacks, dysentery, meningitis, hepatitis, skin diseases or a whole host of food and waterborne diseases”, and then accuses everyone in the country not presently wearing khaki of “playing politics” with the disaster, mostly without citing any actual events.
For example, the author states that “in Punjab, PPP and PML-N are playing their own politics”. But the author fails to tell readers what this has to do with the flood response or anything else. PPP and PML-N being rival political parties, one is reasonable to assume that they will be engaging in politics. Birds sing, political parties play at politics.
More curious, however, are Mr Saleem’s statements with regard to the military. His concluding paragraph reads:
On a much broader canvass, generals of Pak Army are winning ‘hearts and minds’ and thus capturing more and more of the Pakistani political space—all at the cost of the political class. Pak Air Force has diverted 5 C-130Bs and 7 C-130Es, its tactical transport aircraft, for picking and delivering flood relief to wherever it’s needed the most. Pak Navy’s boats are speeding through floodwaters delivering food and saving survivors still floating just above the water level. Right is winning by doing while the left talks. Generals are also winning by doing while politicians talk. Would the khakis take over? Answer: They did that several months ago.
There are two major problems with this conclusion. The first, and most obvious, is that it takes a clear editorial stance, and therefore does not appropriately belong as a news report.
Second, Mr Saleem makes several claims that bear scrutiny.
1. “…generals of Pak Army are winning ‘hearts and minds’ and thus capturing more and more of the Pakistani political space—all at the cost of the political class”.
Politics is not a zero-sum game in which positive feelings about the military necessarily mean negative feelings about politicians and vice-versa. Furthermore, Mr Saleem in no way demonstrates that the military is “capturing more of the political space”. This smacks of wishful journalism more than actual reporting.
2. “Right is winning by doing while the left talks.”
This statement attributes to the military a specific political ideology that is not necessarily true. This may be partly wishful journalism, but it also falsely equates the military’s role in the government with “right-wing” politics. Consider the example of “doing” cited by the author:
Pak Air Force has diverted 5 C-130Bs and 7 C-130Es, its tactical transport aircraft, for picking and delivering flood relief to wherever it’s needed the most. Pak Navy’s boats are speeding through floodwaters delivering food and saving survivors still floating just above the water level.
This is an entirely apolitical exercise in which the military is simply doing its job. During the Soviet era, Russian journalists could very well have written of their own military exercises as “the left is doing”. The truth is, though, it is simply “doing”.
3. “Would the khakis take over? Answer: They did that several months ago.:
This is so blatantly editorializing that it is shocking that the editors allowed it to be published as a ‘top story’ instead of an opinion column where it belongs. Moreover, Mr Saleem at no point explains what he means by “taking over”. Clearly, the nation is still in the control of the elected government – the same elected government that recently extended the appointment of COAS Gen. Kayani and the same elected government that funds the very military exercises that Mr Saleem praises as “doing”. In fact, you cannot have one without the other.
And this is the most important point of all – the khakis are able to do their jobs because of the politicians in the same way that the politicians are able to do their jobs because of the people. There has been no coup – soft or otherwise – and the military and politicians are working together to address the flood crisis. Certainly one can make the argument that the politicians are taking more of the blame than the military, but this is the nature of politics. To reprise the analogy above, birds sing and people blame politicians.
This is the introduction to Akhtar Nawaz’s column in The News of yesterday:
Our haves have no parallels in the entire world as far as breaking the rules, twisting the law and making the hay while the sun is shining. Corruption is loved to the hilt, deceit, fraud and unlimited greed is the hallmark.
They can indulge in any forgery if that facilitates their “ever malicious intents” and in this art, the more powerful, resourceful and influential one is, better is the track record of defiance of both God and man made laws.
Such writing appeared not in the opinion section, where even then a proper editor would probably blush before allowing such hateful attacks, but as a national news story. Can someone at Jang comment that they actually believe this is proper news reporting?
The column does not become a factual news report at any point. There is no new information (or factual information of any sort) offered to the readers.
Rather, the author Mr Akhtar Nawaz attempts to incite class resentment by making the argument that it is the poor who suffer while the privileged are exempted.
Strict application of law is not exclusive to the armed forces only; it is equally applicable to all poor and have-nots of the country.
All laws are for them to observe, it is only the privileged class of leaders who are exempted. The poor masses of this Islamic Republic are required to go by the law, coerced by the government machinery, plundered by the leaders, harassed by the influential and there is no one to listen to their cries.
With a complete lack of shame, Mr Akhtar Nawaz then proceeds to exploit the sensitivities of the masses by referencing the very sad incident of Yasin who was said to have committed suicide due to his dire condition and the victims of Data Darbar terrorist attack.
They may commit suicides, may die through hunger or disgrace, who cares? Mullah trained death squads kill them in dozens in the Masjids, Khanqahs, on the roads and public places. So-called services, the police, revenue, justice and other government departments annihilate them day in and day out. Isn’t it ironical that the government servants pay more taxes than the richest of the rich of this country and in certain cases monthly income tax of a grade 17 government employee is more than the yearly return of big ones? Why and for how long this will go on? Aren’t we heading towards a bloody revolution? Do we really understand that the day the poor will rise there shall be no hiding place for anyone? Jeddah, Dubai, London, Madrid and North America may be places too far; instead trash containers may be the real destiny for many. Shouldn’t we change for better; for us, the country and the nation?
This is not a news report, it is a political screed. It is a tract written with the single intention to raise the blood pressure of the masses and incite some political outrage.
The News should be ashamed of this blatant attempt to manipulate the sensitivities of the people and to to exploit the suffering of victims. This is a new low, even for Jang Group’s increasingly poor reputation.
The News today is peddling conspiracy theories and political attack in the place of actual news reporting. This has been an ongoing problem with Jang Group’s English newspaper, and the quality of reporting appears to be getting worse.
Today’s edition contains two columns that stand out as such poor quality that they do not even qualify as legitimate journalism.
The first story, “Visas for Americans”, claims there is some conspiracy behind visas granted by the Embassy in Washington, DC. In addition to providing no evidence for his claims, reporter Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat combines this conspiracy theory with baseless political attacks on government officials.
Abdul’s report begins with unsubstantiated claims about the Ambassador to America issuing hundreds of visas “without scrutiny”.
Now Ambassador Hussain Haqqani has been authorised to issue visas to Americans, diplomats or whosoever comes in their guise, for one year without scrutiny. Earlier, Haqqani, who does not represent Pakistan’s Foreign Service, used to grant three-month visas in consultation with the Foreign Office.
Reports say that Haqqani is now facilitating some 652 Americans to come to Pakistan. Most of them, one figure suggests around 400, could be US security personnel. On the other hand, it has been reported the US has granted only 35 visas to Pakistani diplomats.
But notice that this information is based on undocumented “reports”. Reports by who? This reporter then goes on to say that “one figure suggests” many of the visas are for security personnel. “One figure suggests” means that the reporter does not know. He neither provides the source of his figure for fact-checking, nor does he even consider it reliable enough to stand behind it.
But the column gets worse as it goes on. Rather than writing a factual report, Abdul simply makes some dire predictions based on no provided evidence.
The development has serious dimensions and could have grave consequences for Pakistan’s national security.First, the visas have been given on express authority of the president, while ignoring both the Foreign Office and relevant security apparatus. It is not known how many of the 652 Americans comprise CIA personnel, representatives of infamous XE or Blackwater, those covertly representing Mossad or other US agencies involved in espionage.
When Abdul writes that “it is not known how many of the 652 Americans comprise CIA personnel…” he is saying that he has no idea. Actually, the number could be zero. The reporter is attempting only to raise suspicion and ill feelings by making such a statement.
Second, the decision will create a gulf between the Foreign Office and the PPP-led government, which has been ignoring professional advice and implementing decisions that sometimes are not in the national interest. Third, the PPP government has totally ignored the fact that Pakistan does not need such a large number of American diplomats and other personnel.
Here, Abdul pretends that he has some knowledge of professional advice, the national interest, and what is the proper number of diplomats. One would think that given such expertise, he would find himself in government and writing sub-standard newspaper articles.
The reporter goes on to accuse Pakistan’s envoy in Washington of being “in such a hurry to gran visas to US nationals”, but he provides no evidence that this claim is even true. Does Abdul have some intimate acquaintance with the Ambassador to USA that would give him such knowledge? Or is he only making such an accusation with no basis in fact?
At the end of the column, the reporter even goes so far as to boldly state a recommended policy position:
“It is apparent that unilateral steps by the government to grant visas to American nationals or others should be stopped as it could have an impact on Pakistan’s national security.”
This is a blatant opinion and not a news report. That The News continues to publish such columns outside the proper opinion section demonstrates either a lack of attention to journalistic ethics, or a blatant disregard for professional standards.
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.
An article appearing on the front page of The News (Jang Group) asks, ‘Is PM Gilani using Pasha’s extension as a bargaining tool?’ The piece, which is not published on the Opinion pages but rather the front page and is not even in any way labeled as opinion, viewpoint, or commentary suggests that the PM is using the possibility of another extension for DG ISI Lt Gen Shuja Pasha as a bargaining chit in the memogate case. Abbasi, however, presents no evidence for this suggestion. Rather, the article is based in his own personal speculation.
