Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Media, Rumours and ‘Public Importance’

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Media manipulation

A report in The News today serves as an excellent example of how the media’s power to shape the way we perceive events can be used to serve a political agenda. According to reporter Sohail Khan, former Senator Azam Swati (PTI) through his counsel Tariq Asad has petitioned the Supreme Court to place the name of President Asif Zardari on the Exit Control List. Why? Because an article in The New York Times said that Zardari could be planning to leave the country after 27th December. Swati’s counsel argued that this raised a question of public importance per Article 184(3).

A few things should be noted here. First is the New York Times article which serves as the basis of Swati’s petition. Here is the part that Swati quotes:

Some Pakistani and Western officials said last week that if Mr. Zardari returned, it could be only for a cameo appearance before Dec. 27, the fourth anniversary of the death of Ms. Bhutto, the two-time former prime minister, in a gun and bomb attack in the city of Rawalpindi, near Islamabad.

After that, Mr. Zardari would probably leave for a long — perhaps permanent — convalescence in London or Dubai, the officials said.

Who are these “Pakistani and Western officials”? Nobody knows. Are they opposition party members or some other kind of agents? Do they have any way of knowing the president’s plans, or is this pure speculation based on thin air and wishful thinking?

Additionally, the same New York Times article also says that “General Kayani told the United States ambassador at the time, Anne W. Patterson, that he “might, however reluctantly,” pressure Mr. Zardari to resign and presumably leave Pakistan”. Would this not result in a question of public importance per Article 184(3) also? Why does Swati selectively quote The New York Times article? Is it because he is using the media to report the facts or to promote a political agenda?

Actually, Azam Swati is not the only one who selectively quotes from the foreign media. In his own petition to the Supreme Court, Swati notes that “the news of NYT has been reported by all the newspapers of Pakistan”, giving it extra importance. But these reports also selectively quote the original article.

The Nation reported the Times story with the headline, ‘Zardaris return cameo appearance’, as if it were a statement of fact and not a speculation attributed to unknown people. And in its report, The Nation conveniently left out the part where Ambassador Patterson claims that Gen Kayani told her he was contemplating a coup.

The News included even less in its report, saying the Times “quoted some Pakistani and Western officials”, but failing to note that nobody knows who these “officials” are. The News even went further and removed every part of the original New York Times story about the military threatening the civilian government and making it seem like the president was thinking of running from the country.

Dawn pared the original report down to little more than just a headline, but at did note the Times’ claim that the Supreme Court was being “pushed by the Army” to investigate the president.

This was reported the same way in Urdu papers also. Jang carried the story as a brief news piece suggesting there was reason to believe the president might leave. Nawa-i-Waqt carried the brief version of the story as well, and Express even added a little touch of its own by reporting that “according to New York Times report, 27 pakistani officials and western ‘diplomats’ have said that his return is temporary” – none of which actually appears in the New York Times story.

In other words, there is a petition before the Supreme Court that is based on media reports that selectively summarise a foreign media report that paraphrases the speculation of unidentified people. As a result, the people’s perception of events may have been manipulated, and what they believe is reality may actually be a carefully designed version of reality that better serves a political end. Ironically, the foreign media group at the foundation of this case is one that is routinely criticised for “publishing anti-Pakistani reports” that are “planted to derail a country like Pakistan” when the claims it reports are viewed less favourably.

The public interest is not defined by political ends, but by knowing the truth. This is a shared responsibility of both media and judiciary. If one fails, it can cause the other to fail also. Reporting rumours and innuendo is not journalism, and legal decisions based on such rumours and innuendo is not justice. If the media fails to do its job responsibly, it can have disastrous consequences.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Daily Nawa-i-Waqt, Dawn, Ethics, Foreign Media, Jang, The Nation, The News | No Comments »

Media’s ‘Myopic Zeal’ and Political Bias

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

The political bias of certain journalists is well documented. Nor is this a problem unique to Pakistan Nobody questions the conservative leaning of FOX News (USA), the liberal leaning of The Guardian (UK), or the establishment credentials of The Nation (Pak). When one looks to these media groups, the perspective that will be used is already well known. But unlike most other countries, Pakistan’s media is infested with political operatives who work under the cover of journalism. While such blatant propaganda operations may exist on the fringes of the international media, they are routinely found in the heart of our own mainstream press. This raises the question of whether Pakistan’s media can truly be fair and neutral while it lacks basic ethical guidelines around political propaganda.

In America, TV anchor Keith Olbermann was suspended and ultimately fired by MSNBC News after it was revealed that he was giving large financial donations to political candidates in direct contradiction to ethics rules.

“Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest,” the NBC News policy reads. “Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions. You should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain prior approval of, the president of NBC News or his designee.”

Another prominent American TV network, CBS News, fired four employees including eminent anchor Dan Rather after it was discovered that they had run a false story attacking George W. Bush.

The action was prompted by the report of an independent panel that concluded that CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the piece. The panel also said CBS News had compounded that failure with a “rigid and blind” defense of the 60 Minutes Wednesday report.

Asked to resign were Senior Vice President Betsy West, who supervised CBS News primetime programs; 60 Minutes Wednesday Executive Producer Josh Howard; and Howard’s deputy, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy. The producer of the piece, Mary Mapes, was terminated.

“We deeply regret the disservice this flawed 60 Minutes Wednesday report did to the American public, which has a right to count on CBS News for fairness and accuracy,” said CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves.

The panel said a “myopic zeal” to be the first news organization to broadcast a groundbreaking story about Mr. Bush’s National Guard service was a key factor in explaining why CBS News had produced a story that was neither fair nor accurate and did not meet the organization’s internal standards.

Obviously American media – home of FOX News – is no group of angels, and political bias exists there as well. But where in our own media can we point to high profile journalists and anchors being held to account for their political bias and inaccuracies?

The Nation is often blatantly partisan, on Sunday offering unqualified faith in PML(N).

One is certain that the Punjab government that is led by Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, will do everything under the law to arrest the culprits.

Syed Ali Raza Abidi may masquerade as a journalist, but his true profession as political operative is quite obvious to anyone who cares to look. He maintains a profile on the website www.allaboutmqm.org, and photos of him as an MQM activist are spread across the internet. Yet when publishing his writing, Express Tribune describes him only as, “A businessman who writes on politics and civic issues”. Aaj TV describes him as “A businessman and a young politician.” Abidi’s MQM activism is never mentioned in his by line, yet the writing of this ‘businessman’ follows a trend that is invariably pro-MQM and anti-government.

When MQM introduces a de-weaponization bill, Syed Abidi is there to support it in the media. This same ‘businessman’ also offers backhanded praise to the PM for ‘bailing out a failing government’ while saying that “Hopefully the MQM and PML-N have reminded you of what your priorities should have been in the first place”.

Syed Ali Raza Abidi MQM operative

Of course, Abidi is not alone and today’s examples are not the first people to use the profession of journalism as a path to Islamabad. Let us not forget that PML(N) MNA Ayaz Amir and PPP MNA Sherry Rehman were also journalists prior to their careers in politics. Nor is this to say that journalists must be devoid of personal political beliefs, nor does it mean that journalists should never change careers to politics. Actually both Ayaz Amir and Sherry Rehman were excellent journalists and also excellent MNAs. But if a journalist decides to change careers and go into politics, it should be a mystery to the public which party they will choose, so well hidden were there own political beliefs from their reporting.

Some of this problem is likely the result of the growing number of newspapers and TV channels that require more and more content to attract their audience and advertisers. Pakistan does not have enough trained and qualified journalists to fill the necessary positions. As a result, anyone who can write well and produce content for these groups is accepted. Becoming an ‘analyst’ is even easier. There one often simply needs a phone.

One part of the solution is for media groups to adopt corrective systems that ensure accuracy and accountability. Zohra Yusuf, Creative Director, Spectrum Y&R, makes an excellent suggestion in a piece for Aurora Magazine.

The answer to instilling responsibility in the media does not lie in any form of government control or oversight. The days of censorship should be firmly behind us. There are many workable and proven structures and systems of media monitoring and complaints commission available. It is the will that is needed and the consensus among media organisations not only to acknowledge the issue of accountability but to work towards setting in place corrective systems. The Express Tribune has done well to announce the appointment of Justice (Retired) Farkruddin G. Ebrahim as an ombudsman for the newspaper. In fact, it published all his contact details as well, encouraging readers to send their complaints to him. However, a solo effort by a small newspaper will have little impact unless major news organisations make a similar joint commitment.

By developing internal systems to hold journalists accountable for the accuracy of reports, media groups would ensure their own independence and freedom as well as their long-term business model. The more newspapers and channels enter the media space, being the first with ‘breaking news’ is already having diminishing returns. People see a report early, but they don’t believe it. That creates an opportunity for media groups to compete for the title of ‘most accurate’.

But ombudsmans and internal controls must also deal with certain questions of journalistic ethics such as what it means to be a reporter and what it means to be a political operative. Pakistan has no shortage of drawing room politicians. What we are desperate for are qualified journalists.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Aaj TV, Express Tribune, The Nation | 3 Comments »

Ansar Abbasi vs. Ansar Abbasi on 18th Amendment

Saturday, October 23rd, 2010

Ansar AbbasiThere is a famous saying that no man has a good enough memory to be a perfect liar. Ansar Abbasi could never be a good liar because his memory is so short that he cannot remember even what he has claimed the day before. Within the past two days, Abbasi’s statements in his columns about the SC verdict on 18th Amendment come into direct contradiction.

Yesterday, in a bit of irony that did not go unnoticed by many, Ansar Abbasi claimed that the government was unhappy with the SC verdict because they were hoping to cause a conflict between the government and judiciary.

The otherwise aggressive Presidency, whose men unleashed unending scathing attacks on the judiciary following the apex court’s NRO decision, has gone on the backfoot as the Supreme Court’s latest decision has won more sympathisers for the judiciary, even within the government and in the Presidency.

According to a credible source, a president’s top aide and federal minister, whose advice really matters a lot in the Presidency’s decisions, did not show any appreciation after getting the details of the interim order. The source said that the minister wore a sullen face as soon as he got to know as to what the apex court had ruled.

The source said that the negative reaction of such grim faces was expected to be reflected discreetly through the media. “Some panic phone calls have already been made to certain friends in the media to encourage media persons to pick up holes in the judgment,” the source said.

In only 24 hours, Ansar Abbasi must have forgotten his talking points, though, because his column for today makes the opposite claim.

Sardar Latif Khosa, a former cabinet member and one of the legal aides of the president, has already welcomed the SC decision, terming it as well considered and well thought-out. He added that the SC order suggested the best way to deal with the issues that were brought before the judiciary. Yet another presidential aide and President Zardari’s political aide Faisal Raza Abidi had also termed the SC order as “excellent” and “judicious”.

Generally, the PPP legislators and even the government representatives are excited about the decision as it has successfully averted the much-feared confrontation between the judiciary and parliament.

So how does such an experienced journalist as Ansar Abbasi make such an error? Actually, he gives himself away today. Here is what Ansar Abbasi explains:

There are fears amidst political and journalistic circles that the Presidency and its top legal mind and Law Minister Babar Awan have some reservations about the Supreme Court’s interim order because of which they are not coming up with their response.

It is alleged that some of the presidential aides are instead encouraging their friends in the media to pick up holes in the SC’s interim order and raise the question if it interferes in the legislature’s domain.

Whether he intended to or not, Ansar Abbasi has exposed himself and too many of his media colleagues, though they may be unnamed here. There is no evidence that the government is trying to cause a conflict with the judiciary, and there is no evidence that the government or the President himself is unhappy with the verdict. Actually, this is all only the gossip among political and media elites.

Recent events have already suggested that there are some media elements fueling the executive-judiciary tensions. Ansar Abbasi has just given more evidence. It is time for the media to stop playing games and reporting their office gossips. Please, stick to the facts.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 2 Comments »

Generals Are Government Officials

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

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.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 10 Comments »

The Lessons of Airblue Tragedy Reporting

Saturday, July 31st, 2010

In the aftermath of an unspeakable tragedy, there have been countless columns written deploring the awful state of media and news reporting in the country. Intelligent and civilized people have spoken clearly and eloquently about the irresponsible and unethical treatment of the tragedy by major news corporations. The best memorial to the tragic loss from the Airblue crash would be a lesson taken to heart by media corporations and a permanent improvement to reporting standards.

Saleha Riaz writes in Express Tribune:

The government and the owners and managers of media groups (including the one this newspaper belongs to) need to come up with a policy on media ethics. Attempts to do so are usually taken by the media as a curb on its freedom. But would it rather have complete freedom to do whatever it wants to the point that the government ends up thinking that such freedom is too much and then the plug is pulled — as Musharraf did when he was power, or would it rather adhere to some kind of standard? The Five Rupees blog asks a question that needs to be answered in light of the crash: do we “prefer a free and irresponsible media over a sedate but muzzled media?” If it is the media that has gotten us used to sensationalist journalism, the media alone can rectify this. But it has to be a unified decision, just one or two channels changing their ways won’t help.

The blog post that Ms Saleha Riaz refers to is this one by the blogger Ahsan Butt. In it, he very correctly writes,

Nonetheless, this episode, amongst others, has really made me think. It goes without saying that on balance, I’d prefer a free and irresponsible media over a sedate but muzzled media. But that’s a false dichotomy. I’d really like to hear from various Pakistani journalists — I know some of you read this blog — and see what you think can be done.

The most obviously unfortunate thing is that when a channel does behave relatively responsibly and calmly, it gets absolutely no ratings. Remember good old Dawn News? Okay, the English language thing didn’t help, and neither did the Shah Mahmood Qureshi-wannabe accents, but I would also say that they weren’t nearly sensationalistic and loud enough for the Pakistani palate. Ultimately, we as consumers bear as much of the blame.

The outrage when such a tragedy is treated so glibly by our media is indeed warranted. But when will we see the same level of outrage about the poor quality reporting on politics, current events, and society? Is this not just as much outrageous? Just as much an affront to our national sensibilities?

Interestingly, the same blogger noticed that media coverage of KP floods was much different from that of Airblue. Still, these are both horrific tragedies with an obvious human element to them. So why the difference? Mr Butt suggests that it is a class bias.

Getting to the point of the post, I would argue that class really matters here. The type of person who is likely to die in an Air Blue flight, socio-economically speaking, is very different from the type of person who loses their family in flooding in KP. I’m sorry, but that’s just the truth, and anyone pretending otherwise is just being silly.

I would further submit that that distinction matters when deciding upon the coverage given to this. Ask yourselves this: do you really think Dawn would’ve buried this story that low down if the floods took place in Karachi in Gulshan or Nazimabad, or God forbid, Defence or Clifton or KDA? (assumie that Karachi had a river running through it). For the types of people who read (and work for) English newspapers, a plane crash simply resonates more than a flood in a relatively sparely populated province, and that seriously affects how the balance is struck between the two tragedies in terms of coverage. Mind you, I’m not arguing it’s a conscious decision — I’m just saying that the ability to feel empathy for a certain type of victim really matters, even if it’s under the surface of our cognitive faculties.

This is the same type of bias that results in “reporting” rumours and innuendos and accepting as “truth” that Zardari or Nawaz or any person is corrupt or terrible without having any proofs or evidence to back it up. How often do I hear people tell me that they just know that this person or that person is corrupt? They don’t have any way of knowing if such is true, but their biases take over their reason.

This same problem is more apparent to us with tragedies like Airblue or KP floods. But let us not lose the lesson of these tragedies for journalism. Reporters, editors, and publishers must take responsibility to act ethically and not report what is not evidence based facts. And when evaluating what is important, they must also evaluate their own class and provincial  biases to determine if it is their own prejudice influencing the reporting.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Is Ghazi Salahuddin's Analysis Fair or Factual?

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

Ghazi SalahuddinGhazi Salahuddin caught my attention this morning with his column for The News, “Under Zia’s Shadow”. In this piece, Salahuddin makes the claim that the legacy of Zia-ul-Haq continues to shape Pakistani policy, especially in the struggle against religious militancy. This is an interesting, if not wholly original discussion though certainly one that is necessary. But halfway through his column the author begins to make curious statements about the present coalition government and its supposed unwillingness to take on the Zia legacy and change the path of the nation. I tell you this surprised me.Ghazi Salahuddin known as an intellectual, but is he being intellectually honest?

My eyebrows shot up in surprise when I read the following:

I have alluded to the responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the military to deal with the legacy of Zia. But we now have civilian and professedly democratic rulers. What is their responsibility and how are they discharging it? Irrespective of the limits of the power they possess, they have obviously not taken any concrete steps to revise the policies that are rooted in Zia’s attempts to Islamise our polity.

After all, we should remember Zia not just for his religious fervour and how he invested it in his support for the Afghan jihad. He was the one who committed the judicial murder of the founder of the Pakistan People’s Party. Incidentally it is not only the execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto that the present rulers have to avenge, not in any literal sense but metaphorically. There is the more recent and still bleeding wound that the terrorists, Zia’s disciples in some ways, inflicted in December 2007.

Does this not mean that the first task of the present government, led by the PPP, is to mobilise the liberal and democratic forces in this country to change its ideological sense of direction? Democracy is the best revenge, they proclaim, invoking the political wisdom of Benazir Bhutto. However, they have not done much in this direction in more than two years that they have been at the helm of affairs.

It is truly unfortunate that in spite of their coalition with the Awami National Party, itself wedded to the legacy of Bacha Khan, and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, a seemingly secular outfit, no decisive steps have been taken to reverse the tide that was raised by Zia’s Islamisation. Indeed, the 18th Amendment did not dare to tackle laws introduced by Zia, including the Blasphemy Law.

I must say that I find it incredible that Ghazi Salahuddin can suggest with a straight face that parliament has “not done much in this direction in more than two years that they have been at the helm of affairs”.

Any evaluation must be made with some measurement of comparison. An elephant may be giant to a man, but compared to a planet it is quite small. When Ghazi Salahuddin says that the present government has “not done much” to address the Islamisation of Zia, who is he comparing to? Is he comparing to Musharraf who made deals with MMA to pass the 17th Amendment and consolidate power for himself? Or is he comparing to Nawaz Sharif who presented the Shariat Bill to the National Assembly? Yes, Musharraf was finally convinced to ban some militant groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, but wasn’t he also using these same militants during Kargil conflict and in Kashmir? Nawaz Sharif has also lately been making some statements against militants, but the better comparison is really with his time in power, not in opposition. That is not to discount Nawaz’s recent statements, but we must compare ‘apple to apple’ – surely an intellectual like Ghazi Salahuddin would agree.

So now let us look at the facts of the last two years. I will not say that there is not more to be done, but to suggest that the present government is doing nothing against Islamisation and militancy is absurd.

18th Amendment may not have perfected the Constitution, but it was certainly an important work of legislation and much needed. Also, the fact that it was passed unanimously across the parties must be respected. Surely Ghazi Salahuddin believes that building consensus and returning powers is a positive move.

Protection Against Harassment of Women in the Workplace Bill was a historic piece of legislation to protect the women’s rights. Does Ghazi Salahuddin not place importance on women’s rights and empowerment?

President Zardari signs women protection bill

President Zardari signs women protection bill

Actually, the American website Foreign Policy includes a recent post by the academic C. Christine Fair that argues against the inclusion of Pakistan on a list of ‘failed states’ and says the present government is making important progress against militancy. Have we now entered some bizarre world where the Americans are more willing to recognize our progress while our own intellectuals beat a drum of ‘do more’?

Ghaza Salahuddin perhaps reveals the true source of his anger at the end of the column when it comes to the issue of ‘fake degees’. This seems to be a pain to all of our public intellectuals, perhaps because they are so proud of their own degrees that they do not want any challenge to their own elitism. But Ghaza Salahuddin forgets the facts when he writes incorrectly:

But lying on record is a crime that any politician in a genuine democracy must pay with public disgrace and a prison sentence.

Perhaps Ghaza Salahuddin has not heard of a man named William Jefferson Clinton who was President of the United States of America and found to have lied under oath? Bill Clinton was not removed from office and did not face any prison sentence. In fact, he was allowed to continue being president and finish his elected term.

Ghazi Salahuddin is a respected public intellectual and writer, so it is important that when he is given a public platform such as the column of a newspaper that he is both fair and factual. He does not have to present any particular view but his own, but he should have intellectual honesty when he makes his arguments. Today’s column, unfortunately, fails both the fair and the factual test. We hope he does better in the future.

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