Posts Tagged ‘Responsibility’

What do McDonalds, Tata Group, and Osama have in common?

Friday, May 6th, 2011

Express Tribune LogoYesterday we wrote about the two-faced reporting on Osama bin Laden coming from Jang Group‘s newspapers. But Jang Group is not the only media group that has been promoting one perspective in its English language media while projecting a sympathetic or pro-jihadi message in its Urdu publications.

On 4 May, Express Tribune published opinion pieces about Osama bin Laden by Pervez Hoodbhoy and Fasi Zaka.

Here’s what Fasi Zaka says about media treatment of Osama’s death:

I just don’t understand how our TV anchors are glib enough to justify calling Osama bin Laden a shaheed. The man had no regard for life, especially Muslim life. He engineered attacks on the West, so they would retaliate and kill Muslims en masse in their vengeance upon selected countries. Every Muslim was a pawn to his mad dreams.

Sadly, Fasi Zaka may want to talk to his own employer.

Daily ExpressAppearing on the same day in the group’s Urdu language newspaper Daily Express there appeared a piece by Abdul Qadir Hasan titled, “Shaheed Osama Kay Baad” – “After Shaheed Osama” – in which the author terms Osama as “the greatest martyr of the present age”. (Full English translation below)

Abdul Qadir Hasan – After Shaheed Osama article from Daily Express

Back in the English language Express Tribune, for the rest of the world to read, Pervez Hoodbhoy hopes that bin Laden’s death will end any double games of telling the world that we are fighting terrorism while secretly supporting it.

Bin Laden’s death should be regarded as a transformational moment by Pakistan and its military. It is time to dispense with the Musharraf-era cat and mouse games. We must repudiate the current policy of verbally condemning jihadism — and actually fighting it in some places — but secretly supporting it in other places. Until the establishment firmly resolves that it shall not support armed and violent non-state actors of any persuasion — including the Lashkar-e-Taiba — Pakistan will remain in interminable conflict both with itself and with the world.

While in Urdu, for the awam to read, Abdul Qadir Hasan hopes there are “many amongst us willing to be Osama”.

Khuda karay humara emaan salamat rahay aur Osama jaisay sanihay ko fatah-e-azeem kehna wala koi hum mei say na ho, Osama ban nay walay bohat hon.

Daily Express and Express Tribune are both owned by Lakson Group which owns and operates several other companies in Pakistan including McDonalds and Tetley (a Tata Group company).

Lakson Group Companies

 

This list suggests that the owners of Daily Express are probably not Osama sympathising jihadis. Osama earned his money the old fashioned way – he got a check from daddy. Lakson Group seems to be following the modern model of investing in popular brands to make their money. Why else would they operate 22 McDonalds restaurants in Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, Hyderabad and Faisalabad? And McDonalds – an iconic American brand – is not the only international brand sold by Lakson Group. Actually they also have joint ventures with Titan watch and Tetley Tea (owned by Tata Group).

So here we have a Pakistani company that makes millions selling American and Indian brands…but also selling the al Qaeda brand? One explanation is that it all comes down to money. Daily Express presents a jihadi perspective in the Urdu newspaper because the parent company knows that the liberals like Pervez Hoodbhoy and Fasi Zaka are not going to sell newspapers to people who buy Daily Express. Their English language readers want to read these authors, but their customers who prefer Urdu take their tea a little more bitter.

Abdul Qadir Hasan may believe that Osama bin Laden is a shaheed and an inspiration for young Pakistanis to follow. But by paying him money to say this, and publishing these opinions for the masses to read, Lakson Group is also supporting the al Qaeda point of view. On the Lakson Group website, the company brags that Daily Express has a 24 per cent Market Share in Circulation. Therefore, this pro-al Qaeda viewpoint is being circulated to millions of people. From the regular subscriber to the chaiwalla who picks up the newspaper his customer left behind.

The question that must be asked is whether Lakson Group is aware that their Urdu language newspaper is being used to promote extremist ideology among the masses. If so, do they promote this point of view out of a cynical love of money? Or is it out of an ideological sympathy for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda also?

More likely, Lakson Group is unaware that their company Daily Express is praising Osama bin Laden and promoting pro-al Qaeda views. They should be informed immediately so that they can decide if they want to continue paying for this.

A free media allows Lakson Group to choose to pay for and publish extremist and pro-militant views. But a free media does not REQUIRE Lakson Group to do this. It’s time for companies funding pro-jihadi authors to take responsibility for their products.

Below is the article published in Lakson Group‘s newspaper, Daily Express

After Shaheed Osama
by Abdul Qadir Hasan

Abdul Qadir HasanThis Saudi national who, after sacrificing billions of rupees, his family and children and entrusting his life to Allah, stepped into the field of Jihad and reached his goal on the land of pure. Without doubt, he is the greatest martyr of the present age but the Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has called this great tragedy as a victory of someone else. Everybody received whatever he was destined for. Someone embraced martyrdom and the other flattered the killers and imperialists.

The newspapers of Pakistan are rife with the news of the tragic incident which took place on the Pakistani soil. The news is conflicting but the air will clear gradually. Americans have told that since no Muslim country was ready to accept the dead body of Osama, therefore, it was shrouded and deposited in the sea. One of our poets had said “it would have been better to have drowned after dying so that no bier was taken out and no tomb was built”. What Ghalib said did not happen to him but Osama was lucky to receive the kind of burial the poet had desired. It has been told that the imperialist killers placed the dead body of Osama on a plank and entrusted it to the sea waves. Someone had appropriately said “I am a river and will descend into the ocean”. A news item says that he has been buried in an island but one of the many news headlines circulating tells that the Americans wanted Osama not to find a tomb so that it does not become a world center of anti-imperialists and Islamic activists. This is why he has not been given an earthly burial. A glance over the world map would reveal that the Muslim world stretches from one end of the world to the other. In this land of millions of acres, a man could not find two yards of space who sacrificed everything for the sake of Islam and showed the world that those who would lovingly die for Islam are still alive. Never mind if Osama did not receive a grave his death and his memories will always remain shining. His death has been made disputed. For some he is “deceased”, for some “killed” and for some “died” but the time to come will bear a testimony to the fact as to who died and who was martyred. Ahmed bin Humbal fell from the stripes he received but did not compromise on a polemical issue and stood his ground. He said that his funeral procession will testify to the truthfulness of his standpoint. On the day of his funeral there was no one left to say prayers in the mosques of Baghdad. All the prayers were said in the funeral compound. This was a testimony to the truth.

Osama is a target of the anti-Muslim super power these days but he represents a weak and fading super power. He boldly stood against the anti-Islam western imperialism led by America. He became a symbol of Islamic resistance. This innocent man the love and glow of whose eyes will attract you was suffering from kidney disease for years. First he was cured in the Pakistani mountains but now for sometime he was comfortably staying near Abbotabad. He had declared sometime that he will never give himself up alive in the hands of his enemies and, in his ill health, he went down fighting because he had decided long ago to fight and die while fighting. He invested his unlimited wealth and high modern education in the way of God. How fortunate was he that the Providence accepted his sacrifice. Today he is not a prisoner but Shaheed Osama bin Laden. He will remain alive in the Muslim memory with this appellation.
It is a great success for America. Its thunder will further increase and the Muslims will live a life of fearfulness. They have neither the wealth of Osama nor the army of devotees. They do not have the faith which bursts into flames. I do not know who will take his place. He has become a legend. Look at the history there have been greater people than Osama and the Muslims could not find their replacement. Only their living example remained and Osama was a part of it. Who knows we remain without another Osama. May our faith remain strong and no one should arise from us to call this incident a “great victory” but there should emerge more people to become Osama.

The Power of Words

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

Very interesting comment on the power of words and the importance in choosing our words carefully as journalists. The author reminds us that we have through our words the ability to shape public opinion and heavily influence the path of the nation. This is a great power but also a great responsibility and we should take this responsibility seriously. The following article is by American Lieutenant Commander Tammy Swofford and was published in Daily Times.

Tammy SwoffordThe Ameri-Pak situation appears at an all-time low. Headlines across the globe trumpet the same news, whether the Daily Times of Pakistan or The New York Times of April 12, which sported the headline, ‘Pakistan tells US it must sharply cut CIA activities.’

The lead sentence for the article also bears mention: “The demand that the US scale back its presence is a sign of the near collapse of cooperation between the two testy allies after the arrest of a CIA security officer in Pakistan.”

All acknowledge the existence of a complex problem. All involved understand that blame, while never being coequal in status, must still be shouldered with equal responsibility if solutions are to be negotiated. But what complicates things immensely are the journalism drones. We are a pompous lot, those of us who serve up opinions from our desks, whilst sipping our tea and gazing out the window. Our thoughts take quick flight with the least whiff of a stink. Journalists love a ready-made story and this current drama presents multiple angles of presentation. Because this current stench betwixt and between our nations is likely to continue in unabated manner for months to come, it is good to remember a few basic rules of professional journalism.

Words have power. Each word is like a bullet with velocity and impact. The word ‘murder’ takes on a different meaning when presented as a ‘heinous murder’. The same is true for the word ‘rape’ if presented as ‘brutal rape’. But we cannot forget that words also have the power to heal, mend, lift and restore. This is also the task of a journalist, one that requires greater writing skill.

Articles written for news organisations must be read by the author twice, and in view of two different audiences: the reasonable man and the unreasonable man. It is after reading the piece for the latter audience that necessary corrections and adjustments to text are made. This is the careful copy-edit that looks into the soul of the writer to assure that integrity prevails and human bias and sentimentality do not overshadow otherwise excellent thoughts. The writer who consistently invalidates their craft by seeking to chamber a bullet with excessive passion must be held accountable. They must not easily escape the impact of their words.

Truth should never be obscured from the reader. The truth currently lies bare between our nations, and it is the function of a free press. But there is a greater truth, which must be understood when writing on a level that addresses difficulties between sovereign powers. What cannot be immediately changed must be walked through with endurance and resolve. Nations are bound by treaties and policy and complexities that the average citizen can scarcely grasp. Nations can find themselves within a foreign policy wasteland, which necessitates sustaining a status quo to avoid a greater political instability. So words must be chosen with special care when tackling policy issues in the print media.

The best of journalists are able to speak the truth in a manner that strengthens the weak, anchors the thought and brings comfort and hope to the reader. It is the art of gracious words, a somewhat lost art in the world of print journalism. I am always optimistic. The best writers are out there. They will rise to the top of their game — with the right choice of words.

Media Hostility – Entertainment or Incitement?

Saturday, January 29th, 2011

Learning from TV

The past two days we have looked at two subjects that might seem unrelated, but actually have quite a bit in common: Meher Bokhari’s treatment of Salmaan Taseer and the theory of ‘Amusing ourselves to death’. These two seemingly unrelated items are connected by the common bond of entertainment and influence. A question must asked – when does media hostility transform from entertainment to incitement?

Omar Waraich mentions the role of a hyper-sensationalist media in an article for The Independent, noting specifically Meher Bokhari’s open hostility to Governor Taseer and her discussion of his murder.

Meher BokhariMany blame Pakistan’s sensationalist news channels for blurring the distinction and whipping up hostility towards Taseer. Chief among the accused is Meher Bokhari, a voluble political talk-show host famed for her high-decibel interrogation style. In December, she interviewed Taseer. Even by Bokhari’s standards, the hostility was striking.

“It’s said that you’re doing this for point scoring,” she asked. Minutes later, she flourishes a fatwa denouncing Taseer, deferentially quoting from it. The day of Taseer’s funeral, Bokhari opened her show by comparing Qadri to a Muslim “hero” from the 1920s, who killed a Hindu man for publishing a blasphemous book.

Bokhari denies any wrongdoing, and insists she was presenting facts. Taseer’s family feel otherwise. The first show, says daughter Shehrbano Taseer, was “plain incitement to murder”. The second, she says, was a “senseless condonation” of it. Bokhari again is no fundamentalist. She doesn’t cover her hair, dresses in western clothing and has vociferously denounced the Taliban.

So what does this mean when a journalist who is clearly not a fundamentalist plays one on TV? Is it possible that projecting extreme views and playing a hostile character on news programmes can actually make someone kill? For most people, the answer is no. We can turn off the television if we don’t like the content, and even if we do we’re more likely to be misinformed than influenced to take a violent action. But that does not mean that media has no effect on our society, especially when the same message is being broadcast from multiple channels.

Dr Matt J Duffy is an Assistant Professor of Journalism at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi. Writing for MidEastPosts.com, he examines the role of ‘cultivation theory’ in his article ‘Pakistan Media Mainstreaming Extremism’. The professor’s interested was piqued by the difference between the public reaction to Governor Taseer’s assassination in Pakistan and the reaction to the attempted assassination of a US Congresswoman by Americans.

The reaction differs dramatically from the recent assassination attempt in the United States in which a gunman tried to kill a congresswoman and succeeded in murdering six others. Despite what some call a “hate-filled” sphere of public discourse, everyone in the United States widely denounced the gunman’s actions.

In the US media, the discussion quickly turned to the role of ‘toxic political tone’ inciting the gunman to go on a shooting rampage. In Pakistan, however, we did not see reflection on political hate speech rather we saw the talk shows asking if the gunman was a ‘hero’.

After the assassination, a popular talk show host, Meher Bokhari, nodded in agreement with a guest who explained that the bodyguard acted justly given the slain governor’s views. And other talk show hosts, such as Hamid Mir and Javed Chaudhry, said that Taseer brought his death upon himself.

Dr Matt explains a phenomenon communications researchers have termed ‘mainstreaming’ – constant exposure to television messages creating a common set of views on issues. This is an amoral phenomenon; it can result in good outcomes or bad outcomes depending on the messages. American media has used the effect to reduce intolerance and racism.

The effect can lead to positive developments for a society. Since the 1970s, the mass media in the United States have peppered their news media and programming with subtle messages of tolerance, particularly of other races. At the same time, polls have shown a steady decline in racist beliefs and opposition to interracial marriage. The results of the 2008 elections were rather stunning as well.

But the opposite effect is also possible, and the constant stream of vicious hostility has an effect on our society. Meher Bokhari may dress in western clothes and condemn the Taliban in English-language newspapers, but when people watch her on TV, they are being sent a very different message.

In Pakistan, the cultivation effect appears to be leading to a reality that is damaging its society. The nation is suffering from the “mainstreaming” of extremist messages. But, the media are not merely reflecting these extremist beliefs. They are helping to make these beliefs acceptable – homogenizing them for the masses.

It may be entertaining to watch people yell and insult each other over inanities. But when the line begins to blur between yelling on TV and yelling in the streets, entertainment turns quickly to incitement. We each make our own decisions in life, but these decisions are influenced by those we look to for information and guidance: parents, teachers, friends…and now TV. Perhaps Meher Bokhari did not look into Qadri’s eyes and tell him to kill Salmaan Taseer, but she didn’t have to. The message was already clear.

Watching horror movies also can be harmless entertainment, but when we find ourselves turning into monsters, maybe we should consider changing the channel.

Meher Bokhari and the Future of Pakistani Media

Tuesday, January 25th, 2011

Meher Bokhari

Meher Bokhari’s story should be a permanent fixture in journalism school as a warning to those future media stars who might be tempted to sacrifice all consideration of ethics, responsibility, and the safety of others for a boost in ratings and personal careers. The final chapter in Bokhari’s story has not been written, though, and how it plays out could have lasting effects on the media industry.

Meher Bokhari has found drawn a bit of attention to herself, though probably not for reasons she had dreamed. The Samaa TV talk show host raised eyebrows during her interview with Salmaan Taseer last November during which she fought with the Governor, accusing him of undermining justice and fanning the flames of religious hatred by questioning the blasphemy laws. Meher even read a fatwa against the Governor on the air.

Two months later, Governor Taseer was shot to death by one of his guards in Islamabad who claims he committed the act because of the Governor’s criticism of the blasphemy laws. Bokhari infamously followed the Governor’s murder with a programme on 5 January that asked if the confessed gunman Mumtaz Qadri is hero or terrorist.

It should be noted that this was not the first time that Meher Bokhari had projected extremist views, rather she regularly hosted guests including Muhammad Ahmed Ludhianvi who is a leader of banned terrorist organization Sipah-e-Sahaba.

On 11 January, PEMRA imposed a fine of Rs.1 Million on Samaa TV for projecting terrorists. One week later, Meher Bokhari was conspicuously missing from the set of last night’s News Beat, Farieha Idrees appearing in her place. This did not go unnoticed by media watchers, and some are saying that News Beat host has been sacked by Samaa TV, though we have not been able to obtain official confirmation at this time. There are also rumours that Bokhari has been offered a show at Express along with an increase in pay, but again these remain only rumours.

Rumours notwithstanding, what eventually happens with Meher Bokhari is of interest, however, as it will send two important signals to Pakistan’s media groups: The most important being whether PEMRA is a watch dog with no teeth, but also whether the media chiefs are willing to reward a TV anchor who exploits religion to boost ratings. Depending on the signal sent, we could see significant changes in the way media approaches sensitive topics.

If Meher Bokhari gets a raise following a large PEMRA fine, TV anchors will see her as an example of how to advance their careers: pander to the extremist gallery and exploit religious sentiments while shouting your way to the top. Media chiefs likewise will see that the government’s regulatory body is toothless and will ignore warnings and fines as they attempt to boost ratings by outdoing each other with more and more outrageous programming.

On the other hand, Meher Bokhari could serve as a warning for up and coming journalists and producers who learn that there are red lines that are not crossed in civilized discourse. Any temptation towards fatwa baiting would have to be weighed against losing one’s job and reputation in the industry and we might even see the public discourse come to settle at a more moderate level.

As Meher Bokhari’s story continues to be revealed, its final chapter will tell much about the future of Pakistani media.

The media’s role in Taseer’s murder

Thursday, January 6th, 2011

Samad Khurram’s latest column for Express Tribune explains why the out of control media shares some responsibility for the death of Salmaan Taseer, and why it is so imperative that we get it under control before it destroys us all.

Samad KhurramIt is quite likely that the tragic murder of Salmaan Taseer, much like the other violence around the blasphemy law, was the act of a lone wolf with acquiescence from co-workers. The security guard who shot the governor was not funded by a terrorist organisation or a political group; rather his motivations stemmed from a misguided conviction, a culmination of anger and hate and a clouded moral compass. Unfortunately the killer is not alone. He has millions of sympathisers, thousands of whom have expressed support through fan pages, tribute videos and SMSs.

This murder is a hate crime and nothing else. Let’s not grace attention to frivolous arguments which we would like to hear. The injustices in society, poverty, corruption and the lack of concern for the ‘awam’ by politicians had little to do with this act. What must be realised is that the public-servant-turned-killer hated the victim so much that he emptied over two dozen bullets into the governor. The smug smile on his face and his statements suggest that he firmly believes what he had done was right.

How did we get into such a situation? This hate has a long-term ingredient and an immediate cause. Intolerance has bred into our society for decades. One could point to reports such as the A H Nayyar Report which revealed that our curriculum promotes intolerance, or to the incompetence of our institutions which are unable to punish vigilantes or which prosecutes those who incite others to violence.

However the instant trigger must be kept in mind as well, which in this case is the information and views that the guard received. He was made to believe that Taseer was a blasphemer and that it was his duty to kill him. In reality Taseer did not say anything about the Holy Prophet (pbuh). The duty to award and execute punishments rests solely with the state. This is the reason Islam asks for four witnesses, for a competent qazi and the right of the defendant to argue his case.

The perception of the above false reality was the outcome of large sections of the media which acted irresponsibly. Many stories which do not merit to be consider news are played on the screens because they can be sensationalised. Over the past three odd years prime-time slots have been hijacked by political talk shows, hosts of which are constantly trying to make the politicians fight with each other and make fools of themselves. Through these Jerry Springer shows and Fox News-style reporting, the media has successfully created the perception that politicians are malicious, immoral and irreligious.

In their earnest to make a fool out Taseer, a particular talk show host on Samaa TV constantly traded accusations with him that put him on the defensive and gave the impression that he (Taseer) was somehow not being honest about his views on the blasphemy law. Add to this his press briefing with Aasia Bibi in jail and the common perception that he, a politician would never speak the truth, was reinforced. Soon, the average Pakistani must have begun thinking that Taseer was being defensive because he supported those who committed blasphemy. Sections of the media went a step further. They actively gave airtime to people who accused him of committing and this only confirmed the suspicion their irresponsibility had planted in the first place.

The madness doesn’t stop here. Disproportionate coverage was given to clerics who declared it an obligation on Muslims to kill blasphemers and offered cash rewards. Instead of being impartial, and arguably for the sake of improving ratings in cut-throat competition, many journalists very visibly sided with these extremists. Eventually someone who had access to Taseer pulled the trigger.

Sadly, this won’t end here. The media will continue to irresponsibly televise violence and continue to project the narrative that politicians are the reason why the country is a mess. If drastic measures aren’t taken by responsible citizens and the government to rectify this trend and a clear sense of right and wrong isn’t established things will get worse.

Samad Khurram graduated from Harvard University in 2009 and is now working as a freelance development consultant. This column was published in The Express Tribune, January 6th, 2011.

The Lowest Depths of Media Irresponsibility

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

I planned to write about a couple of items that have been in the news lately that I thought warranted addressing. For example, the article of 20 December, ‘Nawaz to support PPP in Centre, claims Shujaat’ which included the description of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif as “the so-called opposition leader”. It is unclear if this was a quote of PML-Q President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, but the way it is presented in the article makes it seem as though it was the opinion of the reporter criticising Nawaz Sharif for cooperating with the government.

However, such items – while important – pale in comparison to the disastrous media circus that has been unleashed today surrounding an alleged gang rape of a young woman and the beating of her friend. The treatment of this case in the media has been deplorable, and while it is certainly indefensible to politicise reporting, the defamation and endangering of a young woman is the height of journalistic irresponsibility.
(more…)

Nadeem Paracha and Self-Censorship

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The News, Ansar Abbasi Exploit Flood Victims

Monday, August 2nd, 2010

Ansar AbbasiIn a disappointing and callous move today, The News and its star “reporter” Ansar Abbasi use the suffering of KP flood victims to make a bizarre political attack. In yet another example of using its newspaper as a political organization, The News has published as a ‘top story’ an unsubstantiated opinion column – this time with little regard to the suffering of flood victims.

The article in discussion calls the government’s reaction to the flood “perfect demonstration of apathy” and criticises government ministers for carrying out government business.

While President Asif Ali Zardari flew off to his foreign visit to France and Britain despite this massive destruction and cries of millions at home and in spite of the British Prime Minister David Cameron’s anti-Pakistan utterances in India, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his cabinet have been busy in their usual routine chores that include party meetings and addressing election rallies.

Ansar Abbasi does not, of course, explain what he would expect the president or his ministers to do  should they cancel all government business, though. Does he expect them to go to KP to volunteer as relief workers? Of course not.

Actually, the government must continue its business so that the nation may continue. Perhaps it is a sad truth, but everything cannot come to a stand still when there is a disaster. In fact, the real problem for politicians is that there is a public relations dilemma. Politicians often do some meaningless acts to get positive media coverage, even if those acts are only symbolic. This is why politicians are always at popular events. It is just for show.

Ansar Abbasi’s column is part of the problem. If politicians do not do some symbolic gesture, they risk being criticised by media commentators. But the truth is, Ansar Abbasi gives away his true intentions when he mentions UK PM David Cameron. What does the UK PM have to do with KP flooding? Nothing. It is just another way to smear the president who Ansar Abbasi does not like.

Ansar Abbasi then goes on to criticise the government officials for being too slow set up a fund for victims.

However, late in the evening, the announcement for the creation of the fund for flood victims and the areas hit by it came from the federal government . There has been, however, no justification why the federal government and the prime minister woke so late to hear the cries of millions of flood-affected people.

But Ansar Abbasi fails to report that not only has there been a fund set up, but according to report in Daily Times,

“members of the federal cabinet will donate their one-month salary, while officers in BPS-17 and above will donate one-day salary to the fund.”

It will be interesting to know if Ansar Abbasi will donate his one-month salary to victims, and how quickly he has promised to do so.

At the end of his column it is clear that Ansar Abbasi has written an opinion column that attempts to smear the president, PM, and government ministers based on no actual wrong doing, but only because he had the opportunity to exploit the painful feelings in the nation during a devastating emergency.

It is bad enough that Ansar Abbasi is so callous to exploit the suffering of flood victims, but it is worst that The News – a professional media corporation – approved the publication of this piece as a top news story and not even on the opinion page. In the aftermath of the Airblue tragedy, has The News learned nothing?

Aliya Anjum: An unfettered media

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

In her Daily Times column today, Aliya Anjum continues the public outcry for a responsible and constructive media that provides something of value for the people and not just cynical politics to increase advertising revenue. Will the media barons hear this plea?

n the Hollywood flick ‘Spiderman’, the protagonist receives an advice from his uncle: “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Press Freedom Index (PFI) of 2009 prepared by Reporters without Borders has ranked Denmark at the top spot, which is not surprising given the international outrage that followed its sacrilegious cartoons. The freedom of the media is a double-edged sword and it is rarely allowed to be wielded freely. It may be noted that the world’s ‘greatest’ democracy, the US, barely makes it to the 20th position in the PFI. Even the US does not let its media go unchecked. Those who view the US from a superficial pop culture perspective cite caricatures of President Bush appearing in the print media and hail the freedom of speech. However, foreign policy is a restricted area for the media of the world’s sole superpower, which claims to champion the cause of freedom of speech. The war in Afghanistan is covered with major censorship. Dead bodies are never shown on television and casualties, rarely discussed, are under-reported. The same US media has zero tolerance for even the slightest criticism of Israel. The infamous Turkish Flotilla attack and its resulting remark cost 89-year-old Helen Thomas her job at the White House — a job she held for half a century. The free media of the US is, therefore, largely a myth. It is free as long as inane issues such as the private lives of celebrities are discussed, but it is hardly free when the interests of the establishment are threatened.
(more…)

Publishing Media Critiques No Substitute for Actual Responsibility

Monday, July 19th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)The News yesterday published an excellent article by Raza Rumi that continues the criticism of media irresponsibility that Ayaz Amir wrote about last week. It is important to note that both of these critiques were published by The News, which is regularly criticised by this blog for publishing irresponsible and unethical articles, often political propaganda thinly disguised as ‘News Analysis’. But publishing periodic media critiques is no substitute for actual responsibility.

Despite publishing the moderate and reasoned columns by Raza Rumi and Ayaz Amir, The News continues to publish unsupported rumour and political ‘hit pieces’ by some of its employees.

Last Friday, The News published a column by Ansar Abbasi that implies that the investigation of corruption of Farooq Leghari is being carried out as revenge by Zardari. The author excuses his unsupported accusations by framing them as questions, a popular propaganda trick.

Is this not what Asif Ali Zardari used to complain when he was on the receiving end? When he got acquitted in one case, another was ready. Is he taking revenge for what happened to him?

Nowhere does Ansar Abbasi explain why the president of the nation would be spending his time orchestrating a petty scheme to try corruption cases against somebody’s brother, nor does he provide any evidence for this being the case. Rather, he merely asks a question, “Could it be so…?” and plants the idea in the minds of readers.

In another article from last week, Tariq Butt wrote an overtly political article that accused government and NAB officials of corruption and using an intelligence agency to keep government officials under surveillance. Butt’s article provided no evidence other than the supposed statements of an anonymous “ex-official”, making all of the author’s claims suspicious.

In fact, publishing overtly political articles has been an ongoing problem of The News. While it is commendable that Jang allows a few columns by Raza Rumi and Ayaz Amir to appear on their pages, it is no substitute for changing the general culture of their newspapers and ensuring that what they publish is fair and factual. Perhaps if Jang reigned in their out-of-control reporters, they would not have to allot column space to such calls for basic levels of media responsibility as those written by Raza Rumi and Ayaz Amir.

Jang Group, as with all media, would do well to heed the advice of Mr Raza Rumi

Many pertinent questions have arisen from this conduct of journalists as well as the legislators. The political parties have to display more scrutiny and devise ways of achieving internal accountability. The media at its end has to work towards self-regulation and setting a code of conduct. It should be reiterated that freedom of media is linked to democratic development. By tarnishing the image of civilian politicians and diminishing the trust in democracy the media would be doing a big disservice to its future and credibility.

Three important policy imperatives must be kept in view. Electronic and print media have to work quickly towards a regulatory framework. The state should have nothing to do with this process and it should remain within the realm of the media. Political parties must also show restraint while engaging with media and they should demonstrate that their internal processes are transparent and rule-based. Finally, media barons and owners of newspapers must ensure that the media does not become another interest group like the lawyers fluent in occasional violence and drunk on moral superiority.