The petitioner submitted that as per a report of the Transparency International the laptop scheme launched by Shahbaz Sharif would cause a loss of Rs1.70 billion to the national exchequer.
However there is no such report of Transparency International about the laptop scheme. So what is the petitioner actually referring to? It appears that the petition may actually be based on anonymous claims in a media report.
We noted last week that the alleged TIP report is actually nothing but the statement of TIP Advisor Adil Gilani that he had read something in the media, and that the way the media transformed the headlines to imply that Transparency International Pakistan had done some actual research beyond buying a copy of Daily Times amounted to something like allegation laundering.
The effect of media being used to launder rumours are on full display with this new petition before LHC. Why did the petitioner mention Transparency International and not the original report by Adnan Adil which makes no mention of Transparency International or any other credible source? Would the Court be so moved by a petition that said, ‘anonymous claims in a news report’? Or will the Court be misled to believe that the Transparency International Pakistan advisor Adil Gilani has done anything but tell journalists that he read a newspaper story?
Laundering allegations is unprofessional because it can mislead the people into believing that rumours are facts. When the people being misled are judges, though, this raises the question of whether the courts are being manipulated by someone with an agenda. That’s not journalism, it’s propaganda.
Spats between politicians are a regular occurrence – Altaf and Nawaz’s verbal back and forths are the stuff of legend. This can be somewhat expected between politicians as they are competing for votes and attention from many of the same constituencies. Though journalists are also competitive, this is usually carried out on the merits of reporting and commentary and not in petty insults and accusations. Usually, though not always. In the past week, actually, we have seen a growing number of attacks aimed at one particular journalist, Najam Sethi. But rather than being part of a personal feud, it appears that these attacks may be part of a coordinated campaign.
On Monday, Mubashir Luqman discussed the supposed American threat of attack on his show Khari Baat. At the end of the programme, though, surrounded by his invited guests Maleeha Lodhi and Hamid Gul, Luqman lashes out at Najam Sethi (forward to 8:51).
This seemed to be a strange turn for the conversation to take, but what was even more strange was when Luqman went out of his way to attack Najam Sethi on PTV’s Morning Show.
As you can see, Noor becomes visibly uncomfortable with Luqman’s unprompted attack on Najam Sethi. Some might think that Luqman’s strange behaviour was the result of a personal feud between the two men, but then our attention was pointed to another article attacking Mr Sethi which appeared on a website ‘Views Times‘.
Like Mubashir Luqman’s attacks, the article accuses Mr Sethi as a tool of American policy. Only, this piece goes even further and makes the bizarre claim that Najam Sethi is advising the American government.
The Americans were left with no choice–they halted the 800 million in aid to the Pakistani military. They were banking on the advice given to them by Mr. Njam Sethi and gang.
Though he is an internationally renowned and award-winning journalist, it’s rather far fetched to claim the American government was taking policy dictation from Najam Sethi.
In stark contrast to Najam Sethi’s career, his attackers are mostly non-entities from an exposed propaganda ring. The website, Views Times is one of several fake news sites associated with propagandists like Ahmed Quraishi and Major Raja Mujtaba.
Actually, a Google search for a random line in the piece on Views Times found 49 results – all fake news sites like ‘Times of Bombay’ and ‘Times of Kabul’ and ‘Karachi Telegraph’. Oh, and the incredibly well funded PKKH, a project of Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, and Hamid Gul.
Like too many of our fellow journalists, Najam Sethi has already suffered for giving voice to views that were unpopular in some quarters. He was ‘preventatively detained’ by Gen Zia, and later imprisoned by the government of Nawaz Sharif for exposing corruption. Of course he was accused then with the all-too-familiar charge of ‘treason’.
For his unwillingness to cower in the face of intimidation, Najam Sethi has received the Journalism Under Threat award from Amnesty International and the International Press Freedom award from Committee to Protect Journalists.
Whoever is behind this campaign to attack Najam Sethi, the question that must be asked is whether Pakistan’s media is truly ‘free’ so long as journalists are smeared, threatened, or worse when they report views that some do not like.
An article by Issam Ahmed for The Christian Science Monitor yesterday rocked the journalism community as the reporter discussed payments made to two Pakistani journalists from an American nonprofit that receives funding from the US State Department. Two reactions dominated discussion – those on the right saw an American propaganda machine unmasked and those on the left asked why the same scrutiny is not given to the funding behind pro-jihadi propaganda that is prevalent in Pakistan. However there is another point which we hope Mr Ahmed’s piece will open to discussion: The culture of ‘lifafa journalism’ that has taken root in Pakistani media.
According to Issam Ahmed’s investigative reporting, two Pakistani media groups have reporters on staff that received payments from an American media nonprofit, but did not disclose this fact.
Neither of the two media organizations, Express News and Dunya News, discloses that their reporters are paid by the nonprofit America Abroad Media (AAM) on their websites or in the reports filed by their correspondents. Though the journalists have worked under the auspices of AAM since February, AAM only made their links to the news organizations known on their website Wednesday, after being contacted by the Monitor.
First it should be noted that sensational claims being spread that Pakistani journalists or media groups are on secret US government payroll are not supported by Mr Ahmed’s report. The nonprofit America Abroad Media (AAM) reported that it has paid the journalists has done many programmes that are meant to introduce American audiences to issues in Pakistan. Actually, a few months ago AAM produced a 5 part series about the growing role of Islamic charities in the world and even reported a piece about Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s flood relief work that many would consider sympathetic to the group. If this is an American propaganda machine, it is certainly a strange one.
Second, it should also be noted that Issam Ahmed actually did report on extremism in Pakistani media. His piece of 23rd June 2010, ‘What’s on Pakistan TV talk shows? Extremists.’ takes a very critical look at Pakistan’s own version of sensational “FOX News” style reporting.
While [Zaid] Hamid generally reserves his venom for what he perceives as Pakistan’s external enemies, others, like televangelist Amir Liaquat Hussain openly call for violence against Pakistan’s minorities. In a show recorded in 2008, the Karachi based religious-scholar, who held the post of minister of state for religious affairs in the Musharraf regime, said it was incumbent on all true-believers to kill Ahmadis.
Within two days, a prominent Ahmadi doctor and an Ahmadi rice trader were shot dead in Sindh province.
Though Hussain’s membership in the secular MQM political party was terminated, no further action was taken against him or his channel, Geo, owned by Pakistan’s largest media group.
So it is that AAM is not a conspiracy by the US government and Issam Ahmed has reported on extremist media. Rather than let this be another headline used to score cheap political points, let us turn to the more pressing issue which is that a culture of ‘lifafa journalism’ that has taken root in the media.
That many journalists are on payrolls other than from the media groups they are supposed to work for is an open secret, if anyone even bothers to pretend it is any type of secret anymore. In his book, Web of Censorship the respected journalist and leader of of the freedom of press movement in the 1990s, Zamir Niazi, noted that since the Ayub Khan regime agencies began recruiting and paying journalists to promote an establishment line. Is this practice a thing of the past? Consider that after PNS Mehran attack in May, ISPR held a private ‘briefing’ with 20 journalists, many whose names you will easily recognise.
Raheem Ullah Yousafzai
Mujeeb Ur Rehman Shami
Haroon Ur Raheed (columnist)
Talat Hussain
Zahid Hussain (Wall Street Journal)
Ijaz Haider
Moeed Peerzada
Qatreena Hussain
Mehar Bokhari
Sana Bucha
Hamid Mir
Javed Ch.
Saleem Safi
Arshad Sarif
Kashif Abbasi
Ibsaar Aalam
Mubashir Luqman
Nadeem Malik
Rana Mubashir
Haroon ur Rasheed (BBC)
Two of the journalists that attended the briefing by DG ISI even work for foreign media groups Wall Street Journal and BBC.
And it’s not just agencies that are known for recruiting journalists. Politicians have even taken the practice to a new level. Dawn News recently reported that one politician could not find envelopes large enough, so he opened an entire store for journalists only that treats reporters to VIP protocols.
NGOs and private companies, too, are known to provide envelopes to journalists who are invited to cover their latest products and developments. One journalist recently wrote that some small payment has come to be expected by many journalists.
While it’s unfortunate that this culture exists in our profession, what’s even more disgraceful, I feel, is that many among us actually demand it. It seems as though these journalists hang a price tag, and not a press card, around their necks. Like good moneychangers, they offer competitive rates in exchange for writing one sided reports.
Meanwhile, journalists continue to battle media owners in court over wage schemes that have been fixed since 1996. Even these wages are not always paid on time. In the approach of the Eid holiday, Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) issued an ultimatum to media owners demanding payment of salaries owed since 4 or 6 months.
Two things need to happen. First, media owners need to pay employees fair wages for their work. This will help to prevent the lure of the ever present envelope by making journalists financially secure.
The second thing is improved transparency. It is not uncommon for journalists to take freelance work or to receive some benefit such as a trip to a conference or a fellowship at a think tank. This additional income should not be considered as suspect as long as it is declared openly. In the present case reported in Issam Ahmed’s article, it seems that the entire problem could have been avoided if the media groups had disclosed the agreements and payments from AAM openly.
We should not accept ‘Everyone is doing it’ as an excuse. We should hear it as a call for reform.
Today we received a response from The Nation regarding our post of 1st September, ‘The Nation Still Publishing Taliban Propaganda‘. We appreciate the quick response from The Nation which clarifies that these articles were a result of the website being hacked. We believe the response from The Nation deserves special mention here because following our post they took the time to review the copies of the print edition to ensure that this propaganda was not being published in the print editions of Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore each, and they are also taking measures to prevent hackers from accessing their website in the future which displays an excellent level of professionalism that is rare.
It should also be noted that this is not the first time that The Nation has corrected an error after it was brought to their attention. On 16th August we noticed an incorrect photo being attached to an article on the website, and it was quickly corrected after the mistake was brought to their attention. As we said at the time, “mistakes happen”. This is understandable. Unfortunately, we are also living in a time when some groups will use illegal methods such as hacking websites in order to spread propaganda. As is clarified in the response from The Nation, this was the case with the articles by Zabihullah Mehsud which were not approved by The Nation and they are taking action to correct this.
No media group is 100 per cent perfect or accurate all the time. The most trustworthy ones, though, are the ones that are willing to admit and learn from their mistakes. By not only correcting the issue, but honestly and transparently investigating and offering a public clarification, The Nation deserves to be commended for setting an excellent example to all media groups.
Dear Pak Media Watch
Thank you and Mr Rumi and Ms Isfahani [Editors Note: Raza Rumi and Farahnaz Ispahani are not members of the PMW team, but we thank them for helping bring this matter to attention.] for bringing this post to my attention. I have gone through this PMW comment, as well as the previous one mentioned in the introduction, which I was not aware of at the time that it was published, roughly a year ago. Having looked into the matter, I am in a position to reply and address the concerns raised.
To begin, there are most certainly items posted with the byline “Zabihullah Mehsud” on our website. The last one is dated 28 August, 2011. Having carefully gone through all three (KHI, ISB and LHE) editions of The Nation’s print edition on the 27th, 28th and 29th of August, 2011 neither that news nor that byline has been published on our pages, nor would we normally have carried it in the manner it was displayed on the website. After checking the source of the news uploaded, it is with regret that we confirm that our website has been hacked and due to the gaps in our security this post and others like it, carrying the “Zabihullah Mehsud” byline, have not been identified or caught by our anti-hacking software. We apologise for this unfortunate incident and for the matter displayed and the inconvenience caused to our readers. The process of upgrading our site has begun; an emergency session was called at the head office of The Nation with our website managers and an advanced security system for nation.com.pk is being put into development immediately. The news items linked in the PMW post along with all others archived with the same byline are being removed as I write this.
As you said in your post of September 2010, “…it would not be unusual for a reporter to quote a Taliban spokesman,…” as is the practice in The Nation, Reuters, Telegraph, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and AFP, among others – all of whom regularly reference the Taliban spokesman (Zabihullah Mehsud) in their reports. The parts added directly from the Taliban website, which do not appear in our print edition, are also extensions of the hacking problem, that this PMW post has helped identify.
In response to your question regarding The Nation’s thoughts on “…the suicide bombing outside a Quetta mosque that killed at least 11 people on Wednesday…” please refer to our editorial, to be published tomorrow (3 September, 2011), which I hope will satisfy your curiosity. It may interest you to know that regarding the hacking of our site, we will also be carrying an editorial in The Nation to be published on the 4th of September, 2011.
One year ago, this blog revealed that The Nation was publishing Taliban PR as news articles. Since that time, The Nation continues to publish Taliban propaganda including 61 pieces signed by Zabihullah Mujahid who is the official spokesman for Taliban. This propaganda includes pieces which term suicide bombings as “martyrdom attack” and term the Afghanistan government as “Kabul stooge regime”.
It should be asked if The Nation believes that the suicide bombing outside a Quetta mosque that killed at least 11 people on Wednesday was also ‘martyrdom attack’.
When we first reported this practice by The Nation of acting as a Taliban mouthpiece, we wrote the following:
Reporting about important issues such as militancy, terrorism, war and security is a key role of the media. Doing this without direction from the government so that the reports are objective and unbiased is vital to a free media. But turning over use of media resources to the official spokespeople for any organization – especially a terrorist organization banned by the United Nations – is not free, objective, or unbiased. It is the opposite, which is called simply propaganda. We encourage The Nation to end this practice immediately.
Today, one year later, we repeat this call for The Nation to publish objective reporting of facts, not Taliban propaganda.
An editorial in The Nation on Friday claims that the main problem of Pakistan is drones. This may seem like an unremarkable story since it is not the first time that The Nation has taken such a position on drone strikes. But this time the editorial gives away a bit more than the editors may have realised.
It should first be noted that The Nation editorial had the unfortunate timing of being published on a day when Karachi was in flames not from any American drones, but because some people were being Pathan or Mohajir in the wrong place and wrong time. But this was not the only problem with the claim of drones as Pakistan’s ‘main problem’.
According to The Nation, “the casualties of innocent tribesmen that these pilot-less planes cause tend to radicalise the affected population and add to the strength of militants as well as to Pakistan’s difficulties in subduing them”. This is a typical response that is heard widely – drones are creating terrorists and suicide bombers. But this claim ignores two important facts.
First is the rising number of terrorists and suicide bombers who are children kidnapped and brainwashed by Taliban at training centers.
Second is that if the death of innocent tribesmen is turning their families into militants, why this only happens after drone attacks and not after militant attacks on mosques and bazaars and other places? If the death of a loved one turns people into terrorists, there should be many more anti-jihadi terrorists than pro-jihadi terrorists.
The ‘main problem’ with The Nation‘s editorial, though, is that it makes the argument that drones are responsible for producing terrorists, and then says that Pakistan will get drones from China and use them ourselves.
The only choice left with us is to tell the US in clear terms that it should not exacerbate the situation by continuing with the policy of drones and let us handle the problem ourselves like we have overcome it in Swat. Obviously, the Americans are unwilling to supply us the drones, but we have a far better option. The Chinese would and, as in the past, be ready to give us technology as well.
And so The Nation lets the cat out of the bag. Despite its constant writing that drones cause more civilian casualties, that drones are creating terrorists, that drones are illegal and immoral – the truth is that The Nation likes drones.
Actually, this makes sense. Surely The Nation was aware of Maj Gen Ghayur Mehmood’s briefing this year where he stated that “majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements”. And accepting that The Nation are patriots who want to see terrorist elements driven from their country, it would only be natural to want to use technology that is effective.
It is also natural for The Nation being patriots to want the technology for Pakistan military and not to have American or other foreign troops carrying out such missions within Pakistan’s borders.
So here is the problem: Why not just say this?
What we are seeing is a ‘main problem’ with not just The Nation but too much of Pakistani media. In an attempt to be clever, it makes incorrect and misleading statements to raise the emotions of the awam as part of a strategy to force some other group (the Americans, usually) to do what we want.
Professional propagandists might think that they are clever and doing a service to their country, but what kind of patriot lies to his own people? More importantly, despite telling these half-cocked stories about drones since the past few years, it is no more likely that the Americans will transfer the technology to us. This oh-so-clever scheme doesn’t work.
Media should not be in the business of propaganda or clever schemes. Media should be in the business of reporting facts. Media groups, anchors, and journalists are entitled to their own opinions, but these too should be based in facts, not clever misinformation.
Ultimately, truth is more persuasive than fiction. Media’s constant peddling of conspiracy theories and misinformation undermines not only its own credibility, but maligns the character of the nation in the eyes of the world. Why would the Americans or any other country trust us with advanced technology when they look at our media and see a culture of bald faced liars? If The Nation and other media groups want to do what is in the best interests of Pakistan, they will clean up their act and set an example of honest reporting.
An article in The News today which claims that Wikileaks proves that Nawaz stood tall and delivered in the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry while tarring PPP with a black brush. The author, Anusha Rehman Khan, is of course a PML-N MNA, so her words must be read with the understanding that she is writing not as an objective journalist but as a politician who wants to be seen supporting her party. But even articles supporting one’s own political party should be based in facts. Unfortuantely, a review of Wikileaks cables shows that MNA Anusha Khan’s piece appears to selectively quote certain facts while ignoring others that are inconvenient to her argument.
Most of the piece is a list of accusations against PPP completely unrelated to the article’s main thesis which is the claim that the Sharifs held “unfaltering conviction” and “stood tall and delivered” on a commitment to see the Chief Justice restored.
The premise of the article is based on a Wikileaks cable dated 31 January 2008 that MNA Anusha Khan says proves that the Sharifs were standing strongly behind the restoration of the Chief Justice:
According to yet another leaked US embassy cable, the then US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, called on Nawaz Sharif on January 31, 2008 and “strongly opposed the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry”. But the Sharifs stuck to their principled stance and “insisted that without restoring the chief justice, there was no point to filling other slots on the bench.
5. (C) Nawaz expected both PPP and PML-N would do well at the polls if the elections were free and fair; he dismissed the Pakistan Muslim League party, saying that Pervaiz Elahi would get few, if any votes. Claiming he had no vendetta against President Musharraf, Nawaz said the PML-N had also reached out to the Pakistan Muslim League and they in turn had contacted PML-N (Ref A). (Note: He then launched into a long description of his mistreatment after Musharraf overthrew Nawaz in 1999). The PML-N’s goal in government would be to reinstate the deposed judiciary and restore the law and order situation. Without restoring the judiciary, Nawaz argued, you cannot restore law and order and rule of law.
6. (C) Ambassador said we continued to support an independent judiciary and wanted to work with the new government on this issue. It was simply too difficult to tackle before elections. We believed there should be a way to restore some of the deposed judges, but not the former Chief Justice. Nawaz insisted that without restoring the Chief Justice, there was no point to filling other slots on the bench. Ambassador disagreed, noting that many of the provincial judges could be restored for the benefit of Pakistan’s judiciary.
It is clear from this cable that the Sharifs believed that restoration of Chief Justice was important to the perception of an independent judiciary. But is this the whole story? Actually, another Wikileaks cable dated 14 March 2009 tells a completely different story.
4. (S) On the issue of former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Shahbaz claimed that the PML-N was open to negotiation, provided that Chaudhry was symbolically restored as Chief Justice of Pakistan. Shahbaz stressed that his party could not afford the political humiliation of abandoning what had become a long-standing principle in favor of Chaudhry’s restoration. At the same time, Shahbaz claimed to understand that Chaudhry was a problematic jurist, whose powers would need to be carefully curtailed. Shahbaz underscored that the Sharifs were prepared to adopt any safeguards that President Zardari desired prior to Chaudhry’s restoration, including curtailment of his powers to create judicial benches, removal of his suo moto jurisdiction, and/or establishment of a constitutional court as a check on the Supreme Court. Shahbaz also stated that following the restoration, the PML-N was prepared to end the issue and remove Chaudhry once and for all by adopting legislation proposed in the Charter of Democracy that would ban all judges who had taken an oath under a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) from serving.
To borrow MNA Anusha Khan’s own words, “only cynics who have become embalmed in their own cynicism and detached from all norms of reality” will ignore the fact that politicians make back room deals, and that long marches and street-level political dramas are not always what they seem. While the Wikileaks cables do show that the Sharifs insisted on the reinstatement of the Chief Justice in January 2009, a year later their demands had changed and the “unfaltering conviction” had transformed into a request for “face saving” as “the PML-N was prepared to end the issue and remove Chaudhry once and for all”.
The problem with selectively quoting documents like Wikileaks is that they are openly available for the public to fact check. It is natural that Anusha Khan wished to paint her party leader in a flattering light, but it is the responsibility of The News to fact check the pieces before they are published. Perhaps if The News would have upheld this responsibility, they would have saved everyone some embarrassment.
Ansar Abbasi, the Jang Group ‘Investigative Editor’ whose sources were termed ‘incorrigable liars’ by Chief Justice Lahore High Court last year, was featured on the front page of The News complaining that elements within the military establishment have been feeding distorted information to the media. Ironically, Ansar Abbasi concludes his complaining about “unnamed sources” by quoting his own unnamed source who claims some unnamed “ministers and ambassadors” as not satisfied with an opposition resolution.
In addition to Ansar Abbasi conveniently quoting his own unnamed sources, the same issue of The News also includes a news report by Dr Raja Muhammad Khan of National Defence University Islamabad. This is the same Dr Raja Muhammad Khan whose name has previously appeared in connection to a propaganda ring connected to retired ISI officials and Ahmed Quraishi.
Now Dr Raja M Khan is published by The Newsspreading conspiracy theories including that Osama bin Laden was not killed.
But this is also a fact that, the US authorities have failed so far in giving the solid and logical proof of the OBL’s death. The authorities have yet not released any video or the photographs of the operation, making the event as totally incredulous. Some analysts believe that OBL died long-ago in Afghanistan.
Just how distorted is this information? Even al Qaeda has confirmed that Osama bin Laden was killed. And this is not the only transparently silly conspiracy theory in Raja M Khan’s article. Also he says that the raid in Abbottabad was nothing but an American topi drama.
This raid in fact was a staged managed drama aiming either to; bring political victory for the re-electioneering of Obama or else to; pave the way for the US future military actions against Pakistan and to have an access to our strategic arsenals.
Actually Obama’s rating in the US has not been helped by the Osama raid. Even if Obama had intended the raid to help his re-election, why would he do it over a year before the elections? Wouldn’t it make more sense to announce the death of Osama just before the election? This conspiracy which is also being peddled by such persons as Hamid Gul and Aslam Beg simply defies all logic.
John Kerry and Mike Mullen have been tasked to secure more good news out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to keep up the momentum going into the Iowa Caucuses and then into the presidential election scheduled for 6 November 2012.
It is also clear that drones have claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent people – and only a few militants.
Actually, the openly available data from Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation with all sources presented for review shows that the vast majority of deaths from drone strikes are militants – not innocents.
Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many, but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.
“Yes there are a few civilian casualties in such precision strikes, but a majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements.”
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that The News has presented misleading and distorted information about drone strikes. The fact that The News continues to publish misleading and distorted information about drone strikes calls into question their intentions whether to inform or mislead readers to promote a political agenda.
What is the intention of these stage managed conspiracy dramas we will not speculate about here. But we will laugh a bit at the obvious ridiculousness of The News running front page articles crying about distorted information while filling their paper with the same.
The following thought provoking column by Yawar Abbas raises several excellent points for examination. The piece was originally published in Daily Times on 24 March 2011 and is re-posted here for your consideration.
The assassination of Salmaan Taseer at the hands of a religious zealot threw open the debate over the media’s role in encouraging extremist tendencies amongst the people of Pakistan. The proposition that the media is fanning extremist propensities may be somewhat overstated but is, at the same time, not completely unfounded.
During the last decade, Pakistan’s media has contributed positively to the cause of democracy in the country and also played an active role in the restoration of the judges through round the clock coverage of the famous Lawyers’ Movement. Nonetheless, serious doubts and conflicting views regarding the media’s role in the country have also accompanied these wide-scale developments.
Some of these views rise from concerns that the media is strictly averse to the idea of even the most modest regulation by the government and that it refuses to abide by a unanimously agreed code of conduct or ethics. The media groups in the country have grown into big mafias; they own print as well as electronic media — a situation that is almost unprecedented anywhere in the world. Critics also maintain that the Pakistani media is creating an environment of despair and hopelessness by presenting a very bleak picture of the country. This constant fear mongering and pessimistic outlook on such a broad scale can have its own psychological ramifications for Pakistani society in the future.
The most serious allegation levelled against the Pakistani media is that it is very cautious in reporting about the violence caused by religious extremists. TV channels are dominated by far-rightists and hardcore conservatives. There are very few left-wing journalists. Terrorists are called “militants” or, at the most, “miscreants”. This nomenclature is chosen very carefully. So far, the media has not been able to come up with a well-defined campaign against the terrorists’ extremist propaganda, except for a few occasional songs or advertisements. The media, at the very least, has a very high tolerance for accommodating extremist ideas in its mainstream reporting. A plausible reason put forth for the media’s sympathetic and sometimes apologetic tone towards terrorists is the lack of protection given to journalists and reporters by the government against such extremists. Nonetheless, at this critical time, maintaining such an indifferent posture is suicidal.
The propaganda put forth by extremists has undoubtedly been more effective than that of the government. Pakistan’s war effort has greatly suffered due to the lukewarm response of the country’s media. The media, it appears, is only obsessed with reporting about the death toll of drone strikes and army operations debating whether it is ‘our’ war or ‘their’ war. Blowing trivial issues out of proportion and ignoring issues of vital importance cannot be disguised under the garb of ‘neutrality’ — this is nothing but dishonesty. Sensationalising news, broadcasting hate speeches, inciting anger by inviting religious bigots on talk shows, re-telecasting events that are of a sensitive nature and may give rise to public unrest and a general feeling of helplessness, distorting somebody’s statement by quoting him/her out of context, allowing extremist figures to indoctrinate viewers by glorifying terrorists as jihadis, giving more airtime to apologists and sympathisers of militants and very little time to their critics and exposing audiences to the fanatical views propagated by semi-educated anchor-persons and politicians is by any standard yellow journalism and is reflective of an irresponsible media.
The masses, already susceptible to extremist ideas due to their exposure to fanatical preaching prevalent in society, are easily influenced by such radicalised media items. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that the same are gradually encouraged to take the law into their hands, without any regard for the sanctity of the rule of law and the system of justice. There is no doubt that such uninformed decisions emanate from the doctrine of ignorance being fed by such shortsighted political and religious ‘analysts’.
A possible solution to the problem is the development of a clear-cut position by key media players on extremism and terrorism. In this sense a well thought out counter-propaganda policy is much needed. The need of the hour is zero tolerance for extremism. Pakistan is at a crossroads in its history and the media has a crucial role to play in its future. One can only hope that it will play its part responsibly.
The nation’s propaganda rings are relentless. Even after having been exposed for their true nature by multiple independent outlets, the perpetrators of these conspiracy theories continue unashamed with their media manipulations. The most recent example is especially amusing as it manages to include nearly every possible conspiracy theory rolled into one. As per usual, it is traced back to the same sources with the same ties to retired military and intelligence officers of the Ghairat Brigade.
The questionable newspaper The Daily Mail published a piece by who else but another retired military officer turned ‘analyst’ being paid by unknown sources. Brig (R) Asif Haroon Raja’s column titled CIA, the mother hen includes something for all conspiracy lovers – American duplicity, Indian sabotage, Blackwater/Xe, Kerry-Lugar Bill, and visas handed out like candy to countless American agents.
As usual, there is no evidence presented for any of the non sense, and hardly even any creativity in the imagination of the author. Rather it is just more ‘transparently silly’ exaggerations of previously disproven fictions. For example, the author digs up the corpse of the visa conspiracy and says “It is not known as to how many out of 11567 visas issued by Haqqani are CIA, Mosad and RAW agents under the garb of diplomats.” This is a laughable attempt to terrorize the reader by misrepresenting the actual facts. In order to find 11567 visas, you would have to add up all the visas for years. Many of these would be for the same people – government officials who visit for one or two days only – who return multiple times each year. Perhaps the better question is how many retired military officers are being paid to write conspiracy theories by intelligence agencies?
It should come as no surprise to learn that this article can once again be traced back to the propaganda ring of the ‘virtual Think Tank’ named ‘Opinion Maker’ which has ties to Gen Aslam Beg and Hamid Gul.
