Posts Tagged ‘sources’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir Responds

Monday, August 29th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)Last week we revealed that almost the entire article attributed to ”highly placed defence sources” of senior Jang Group employee Mr Muhammad Saleh Zaafir was actually a cut-and-paste job from the website Wikipedia. Today we have received a statement from Mr Zaafir that gives his side of the story. According to Jang Group‘s “Editor Special Reporting”, the fact that almost the entire article is plagiarised from Wikipedia is not his responsibility since it was provided to him by his defence sources and he does not question or verify information received from his defence sources, he only publishes it word for word.

After some discussion, we have agreed that as a professional journalist and especially as one who has risen to the rank of “Editor Special Reporting”, it is in fact the reporter’s responsibility to verify the authenticity of all information received from sources. This is called fact-checking. We were able to determine the true source of Mr Zaafir’s information using a very high-tech system called GOOGLE. We recommend that Mr Zaafir and Jang Group please look into acquiring this technology as soon as possible as it can easily help improve the quality of reporting.

We also agreed that professional journalists have a responsibility to verify and authenticate any claims made by all sources, especially if they are official sources. Simply re-printing information received from anonymous government or defence sources without taking the basic step of fact-checking is not journalism, it is propaganda.

Actually, we would think that Mr Muhammad Saleh Zaafir would be well acquainted with this practice since he has already been warned by the Supreme Court for this failure in journalistic responsibility, after which he tendered his unconditional apology to the Court.

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir, who is the reporter of the said news items, when confronted with the same, frankly and honestly conceded that he had made no effort to verify the veracity of the allegations levelled in the said news items before publishing the same nor did he have any proof in support of the contents thereof. He, however, added at the very outset that he had utmost regards and respect for not only the said hon’ble judges of this Court but for the entire judiciary; that he did not have even an iota of doubt about their integrity and character and that reporting the said news items was a grave mistake on his part.

That the contents of the article in this instance are not specifically called into question is beside the point. Mr Zaafir found himself called before the court and made to humbly apologise for being an unquestioning mouthpiece four years ago. Today, he uses this same lapse in professional judgment as his defence. We hope that, in the future, such a senior journalist will set a better example for junior staff by carrying out his professional responsibilities before publishing articles.

We thank Mr Zaafir for explaining his position in his response, which we have re-printed in full below so that readers can decide for themselves.

SUBJECT: SUBMISSION

My attention has been drawn towards a blog pertaining to a story that appeared in The News with regard a controversy about the debris of a US stealth chopper that was crashed in the so-called compound of Osama bin Laden on May 2 this year.

The western media claimed that Pakistan has provided access to the Chinese to the debris of the chopper since it contained the most sophisticated US technology used in the manufacturing of the machine.

It prompted me to contact the defence sources dealing with the subject. They came out with the denial of the story by saying as: 1-China never asked for access to the debris of the chopper. 2-No Chinese expert visited the site of the crash and examined the chopper debris. 3-China doesn’t need to have access to the US stealth technology and hence not interested in ‘stealing’ of the same through the debris of the tail of a crashed chopper. 4-China has already developed stealth fixed wing plan (Stealth Plan) that undertook successful test flight earlier this year. It shows that China has already complete access to the technology in question. 5-Pakistan did not receive any request by the Chinese for having access to the debris.

The sources provided additional information about the stealth technology and since it was highly technological and at the same time it did not involve any controversy regarding the subject matter. It was used in the story as added information which had only educational characteristics. Had this information not part of the news item, it would have no impact on the standard of the story. The information was not classified in any manner. Why it has been made subject of dispute that I am not interested to know because everybody has his/her on motives. The piece of simple information provided me by the sources is picked by some web or from any other mode that is not my responsibility. I should not question about it. Had I gathered some information from some web I would definitely quote that as it is normal in the news production these days reporting.

The blogger should show courage by giving credit to The News for the story that was CONFIRMED by the highest official spokesperson of the Chinese government on the following day in Beijing. All the facts and essential ingredients of the story were verified word by word. The government of Pakistan through its spokesperson also verified the facts narrated in my story. The confirmation of the information is the real credit of The News and the blogger must appreciate it with ‘heavy heart.’

The exclusive story of the Group must have hurt someone who has some professional jealousy with me or our group. I do take benefit from various sources of networks but I always avoid cutting and pasting because it could prove at times wrong. The question is the basic information that was disputed by any official from China or Pakistan and answer is big NO sir. The blogger has consulted the web and according to him he came to know through this that the additional piece of information was taken from there. Consulting and studying various webs is not a sin and if useful information provided by my sources from there, they have not committed any crime. I hope it should satisfy the dispute mongers and expect that they would come out with their trauma next.

Muhammad Saleh Zaafir,
Editor Special Reporting,
JANG Group- Islamabad

 

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

Jang Group’s Highly Placed Sources Exposed

Friday, August 19th, 2011

The News (Jang Group)Today’s post comes thanks to a tip from a dear reader who noticed something odd about a recent article in The News (Jang Group). The piece by Muhammad Saleh Zaafir examines allegations that Pakistan gave Chinese officials access to the remains of a top secret American stealth helicopter abandoned after the Abbottabad operation in May.

Saleh Zaafir’s piece quotes “highly placed defence sources”, but as per usual does not reveal who these sources are. However, today we are prepared to expose these sources and shed some light on the secret contacts between senior Jang Group reporters and their top defence sources.

The following paragraph comes from Saleh Zaafir’s article:

Providing background of the technology the sources said that it is used to avoid detection by employing a combination of features to interfere with radar as well as reduce visibility in the infrared, visual, audio, and radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Development of stealth technology began in Germany during World War II.

Well-known modern examples of stealth aircraft include the United States’ F-117 Nighthawk (1981-2008), the B-2 Spirit, the F-22 Raptor, and the F-35 Lightning II. While no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft prevents conventional radar from detecting or tracking the aircraft effectively, reducing the odds of a successful attack.

As you can clearly see, Saleh Zaafir was given this information by his “highly placed defence sources”.

The following paragraph comes from a Wikipedia article on Stealth aircraft:

Stealth aircraft are aircraft that use stealth technology to avoid detection by employing a combination of features to interfere with radar as well as reduce visibility in the infrared, visual, audio, and radio frequency (RF) spectrum. Development of stealth technology likely began in Germany during World War II.

Well-known modern examples of stealth aircraft include the United States’ F-117 Nighthawk (1981–2008), the B-2 Spirit, the F-22 Raptor, and the F-35 Lightning II. While no aircraft is totally invisible to radar, stealth aircraft prevent conventional radar from detecting or tracking the aircraft effectively, reducing the odds of a successful attack.

Here is some additional information provided by Saleh Zaafir’s “highly placed defence sources”:

The sources pointed out that in the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia two stealth aircraft were used by the United States, the veteran F-117 Nighthawk, and the newly introduced B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bomber. The F-117 performed its usual role of striking precision high-value targets and performed well, although one F-117 was shot down by a Serbian Isayev S-125 ‘Neva-M’ missile. The new B-2 Spirit was highly successful, destroying 33% of selected Serbian bombing targets in the first eight weeks of U.S. involvement in the War.

And, again, here is a quote from Wikipedia:

In the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia two stealth aircraft were used by the United States, the veteran F-117 Nighthawk, and the newly introduced B-2 Spirit strategic stealth bomber. The F-117 performed its usual role of striking precision high-value targets and performed well, although one F-117 was shot down by a Serbian Isayev S-125 ‘Neva-M’ missile. The new B-2 Spirit was highly successful, destroying 33% of selected Serbian bombing targets in the first eight weeks of U.S. involvement in the War.

During his lengthy interview with his “highly placed defence sources”, Saleh Zaafir was reminded of some additional history.

The sources reminded that the only time a stealth aircraft has been shot down was on 27 March 1999, during Operation Allied Force. An American F-117 Nighthawk’s bomb bay had malfunctioned causing it to remain open for an unusually long time, allowing a Serbian Air Defence crew who were operating their radars on unusually long wavelengths to launch an Isayev S-125 ‘Neva-M’ missile at it, which brought it down.

Once more, a quote from the same Wikipedia article:

The only time that a stealth aircraft has been shot down was on 27 March 1999, during Operation Allied Force. An American F-117 Nighthawk fell to a Serbian Air Defense crew who were operating their radars on unusually long wavelengths to launch a Isayev S-125 ‘Neva-M’ missile at it which brought it down.

So there it is. Jang Group‘s “highly placed defence sources” are…Wikipedia. Now, usually this would be something to laugh at, but this is not a schoolboy who didn’t do his work and tried to pass off a cut-and-paste job from Wikipedia, it is a senior reporter for one of the largest media groups of the nation. Worse, this reporter does not only try to pass off the article as his own work when it is cut and pasted from Wikipedia, he even has the audacity to claim that he received the information from “highly placed defence sources”.

Sadly, this incident does not stand alone but appears to be part of a larger pattern of behaviour affecting the quality of reporting at Jang Group. The question is whether the leadership at Jang will get its house in order before it crumbles from neglect.

See also:

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 4 Comments »

If only our own media was held to the same standard

Sunday, July 10th, 2011

Geo TV report quotes DG ISPR Major General Athar Abbas criticising The New York Times for unsubstantiated reports based on anonymous sources “without any concrete evidence”. According to the official ISPR press release, Gen Abbas gave the following statement:

‘In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in reexamining the claims as new evidence emerged-or failed to emerge’.
The Military Spokesman further said: “if the newspaper continues with its vilifying campaign without any concrete evidence, I am afraid at some point it may end up expressing its deep regret the way it did in the case of its Iraq coverage.

Pakistan Media Watch agrees with DG ISPR that it is unacceptable for media groups to allow controversial and questionable information that is insufficiently qualified to stand unchallenged. We further agree that concrete evidence is a necessary requirement of proper reporting.

Pakistan Media Watch looks forward to our own media adopting this same standard.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Ethics, Geo TV, ISPR | 2 Comments »

Western Media: Reliable Source…When Convenient

Monday, July 4th, 2011

In a curious turn of events during the past week, the Western media has suddenly become the most reliable source for information about the war on terror. Beginning with a Reuters (UK) report that the US is refusing to leave Shamsi airbase, media groups have begun once again pointing to American media as the paragon of truth, when these same media groups at other times term the American media as untrustworthy propaganda.

An article from the American Miami Herald newspaper claims that CIA is still launching drone strikes from Shamsi airbase. This article was dutifully quoted by Pakistani newspapers as proof of “the desire to please the US which is causing ministers of the same government making apparently contradictory statements”.

But this same Pakistani newspaper regularly publishes articles which claim that “the American media has always supported the political establishment” and publishes misinformation.

The historical precedents of White House “lies” in the chronicles of US military aggressions against nations all over the world are incredibly numerous and documented. The American media has always supported the political establishment. Indeed, we must not forget that there has never been credible evidence of Afghan or bin Laden’s involvement in New York’s 9/11 attack. For all practical analysis, 9/11 seems to be an inside job, a Bush administration’s pretext for the Iraqi and Afghan invasion – the American determined global policy doctrine to extend its capitalist corporate interests all over the world.

This is not unusual. Western media is regularly termed by anchors and journalists as propaganda, mouthpiece for American hegemony, and unreliable when it carries reports that are critical of Pakistan or do not fit a particular narrative of US aggression. But when the reports support this narrative, suddenly the Western media becomes the most trusted source.

A new report in American media quotes a ‘prominent former militant commander’ who says that the Pakistani military is supporting militant groups. As usual, this source only spoke “on condition that his name, location and other personal details not be revealed”. Will the media groups that accept anonymous claims in Western media about Shamsi airbase accept anonymous claims in Western media about military complicity with militants also?

In both cases, the Western media reports are based on anonymous sources that are contradicted by other sources who are willing to speak openly. Also, in both cases there are reasons to be skeptical of the claims of these anonymous sources – would a militant commander not want to sow doubt between US and Pakistani militaries as a strategy to ‘divide and conquer’? Somehow the American journalist did not seem to think of this obvious problem.

Both claims could be true, and both claims could be false. We do not have any proof at this point with which to judge the claims of these unknown sources other than their own word. But now knowing who these sources are, how can we accept their word only? We simply cannot know if one source or the other is telling the truth or playing a propaganda game with the media. That does not mean that we should accept the ones that fit our pre-determined beliefs while dismissing the other because it is inconvenient.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The News Misrepresents HEC Devolution

Saturday, April 2nd, 2011

HECIn a front page article for The News on Saturday, Jang Group editor Ansar Abbasi once again deals in rumour, speculation, and misrepresentation – this time regarding devolution of the Higher Education Commission (HEC).

According to Ansar Abbasi,

The HEC is facing the wrath of the parliamentarians after it had refused to accept any pressure for the verification of the MPs’ degrees, more than 50 of which have already been declared invalid whereas above 200 degrees were termed suspected.

Though holding the title ‘Investigative Editor’ of The News, Ansar Abbasi produces no investigative research or evidence to support his claim that somehow 342 parliamentarians have overcome all political difference in a united conspiracy against HEC .

According to MNA Raza Rabbani (PPP), changes to education funding come as a result of devolution required under the 18th Amendment.

“The HEC act will be revisited and reframed to shed its role as centralised funding authority because under the ‘new state structure’ emerging in the aftermath of the 18th Amendment, there is no room for such a role,” the commission’s chairman, Senator Mian Raza Rabbani, said at a press conference here on Tuesday.

Actually, it is not only HEC that is being affected by devolution. According to the report in Dawn

The ministries being devolved are: education, social welfare and special education, tourism, livestock and dairy development and culture. The portions include lotteries, capital gains tax and GST on services from the finance ministry, navigation and inland water wing from the ports and shipping ministry, arms act (issuance of arms licence, except banned bore) from the interior ministry, wills and testaments, trusts, arbitration, bankruptcy and insolvency from the law and justice ministry and a portion of the commerce ministry.

Ansar Abbasi further claims that devolution of the 18th Amendment threatens $250 million assistance under the Kerry-Lugar Act. His only evidence comes from anonymous “informed government sources”. It should be noted that earlier this year a three member Judicial Commission termed Ansar Abbasi’s sources ‘incorrigible liars’.

Former Federal Minister for Education Ahsan Iqbal (PML-N) is now serving his third term representing the people of Narowal as a Member National Assembly. In a paper published last month as part of the ‘March for Education’ programme, MNA Iqbal describes the problem of funding education – including the HEC – as a complex set of challenges involving devolution under the 18th Amendment, the need for a national education policy that serves all parts of society, and a number of ‘structural deficits’ in the budgeting system. In addition to these structural challenges, the role of international aid is also termed significant, but “what that role is has never been fully or clearly articulated”.

Article 25a of the Constitution terms education as “a fundamental right”. It is imperative, therefore, that the government work transparently and honestly towards the goal of developing a revitalized education system that serves all the people. In a democratic system, it is required that both ruling party and opposition MNAs must work together to develop this system for the good of the nation. In order for this to happen, media must inform the masses with the facts and not use this fundamental right as a weapon to score political points.

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

Court Terms Ansar Abbasi Sources “Incorrigible Liars”

Friday, January 14th, 2011

Ansar AbbasiAnsar Abbasi is a constant defender of his reporting and his anonymous sources, even though his predictions do not come true and his conspiracies prove false. Despite the growing record of the unreliability of Ansar Abbasi’s reporting, Jang Group continues to publish his writing to this day without any public corrections or apologies for his past mistakes.

But according to a report in Express Tribune on Thursday, the sources for this conspiracy tale are “incorrigible liars”.

Terming the ‘plot’ to kill the CJ LHC a “remarkable tale”, the Commission said that it was authored by the four men who were not only “incorrigible liars” but also “men of little character and credibility.” The Commission has concluded that these four had enacted this charade and should be punished.

This “remarkable tale” manufactured by “incorrigible liars” is the 11 September article for The News by Ansar Abbasi headlined, ‘Plot to kill Justice Sharif unearthed’. Ansar Abbasi wrote several articles on the theme, including a 14 September article which suggested the plan was a conspiracy of PPP officials.

It should be noted here that the unreliability of Ansar Abbasi’s sources is not a new revelation and has been well documented over the past years.

Let us stop for a moment and think about the amount of taxpayer money, the state resources and the time and energy of police and court officials that were wasted on this wild goose chase.

Jang Group like many media groups beats the drum of corruption as the greatest threat to democracy, yet under their own roof there is a man who is wasting ever more taxpayer resources on wild goose chases and conspiracy theories.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Express Tribune, Jang, The News | 8 Comments »

Drone Statistics

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Show Your WorkIn school my maths teacher used to always require that we write out each step in an equation so that he knew how we arrived at the answer. If a student simply wrote the answer to a complex equation without showing how he arrived at that answer, he was not given credit for the equation because there was no way to know if he truly knew the answer, if he simply guessed, or if he had memorized some answer to give. A similar problem faces the media today on how to solve the equation of civilian deaths caused by drone strikes in the tribal areas.

Today’s edition of The News includes two articles which add to the confusion. One by Amir Mir claims that the majority of deaths were those of innocent civilians:

Of the 1,184 persons killed by the American drones in 124 attacks in 2010, around 59 percent were innocent civilians while the remaining 41 percent were terrorists belonging to numerous militant groups based in the Pak-Afghan tribal belt.

According to his article, Amir Mir’s analysis is based on “data gathered by The News primarily from local and international news sources”. He does not reveal what these news sources are – and important point considering the prevalence of questionable and planted information.

An editorial on the same day in the same newspaper claims that “Nobody, be it nation or agency, is questioning the analysis of the figures for drone strikes in Pakistan is 2010 which have been printed in this newspaper”. If nobody is questioning these figures (which is not true), they should be.

Katherine Tiedmann, of the blog AfPak Channel, posted on Twitter today asking Amir Mir to provide his sources so that they can be verified, noting that his figures are not what she sees.

Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation tells a different story:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2011

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2011* 15 18
2010 591 985
2009 413 709
2008 263 296
2004-2007 86 109
Total 1,372 2,125

*Through January 1, 2011

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2011

Deaths (low) Deaths (high)
2011* 15 18
2010 569 927
2009 293 405
2008 106 134
2004-2007 78 100
Total 1,061 1,584

*Through January 1, 2011

As you can see, these figures provide a much different answer than the one arrived at by Amir Mir – 985 total deaths (on the high end) with 927 of those being militants. That means there were 58 innocent civilians killed, or 6 percent of the total. As you can see, this is a far different result than what Amir Mir found. Unlike Amir Mir, Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedmann do provide news sources to back their figures.

Inaccurate figures for deaths resulting from drone attacks is an ongoing problem in news media. This has been a controversy raised within the media itself by researchers such as Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood. Differences in methodology and the difficulties of obtaining accurate counts make it difficult to know for certain the number of deaths and whether the victims are associated with militant groups. All death counts should be considered with this understanding, and the idea that nobody should question one group of figures is ridiculous.

Dr Zeeshan Usmani’s “Pakistan Body Count” data site has been taken offline after it was shown by Shahid Saeed and Awais Masood to be unreliable. If Amir Mir and The News have sources to back their figures, they should reveal them so that they can be fact-checked. Despite their claims to being unquestionable, they are, indeed, being questioned.

If Amir Mir’s numbers are correct, The News will be doing the nation a service to reveal the source of his data. As it remains, however, his figures are in doubt because there is another data set which does reveal its sources and methodology and contradicts Amir Mir’s claims. We look forward to seeing the data set from Amir Mir so that we may judge for ourselves.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 3 Comments »

Tariq Butt's latest column – Is this reporting?

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

The News today features a top story by Tariq Butt that hardly qualifies as serious journalism. The article, “Fortress NAB shuts all doors and windows” is nothing but a polemic intended to smear NAB officials and is supported by no facts or evidence other than the supposed statements of a nameless “ex-official”.

Tariq Butt’s rhetoric is over-the-top, and betrays an obvious bias against the NAB officials. The author begins his article by describing top NAB officials as “handpicked loyalists of the ruling party” and claims that the agency has “shut itself into a cocoon, with all doors and windows closed to keep a lid on its actions and secret plans”.

The reporter then acts shocked when the agency’s acting chairman and prosecutor general do not take his calls on their personal mobile phones. It is interesting to note that harassing individuals on their personal mobile phones is on the same day condemned by another journalist, Mr Kamran Shafi, who complains of this behavior by members of the intelligence agencies. Have Jang reporters begun acting like rogue intelligence agents?

Tariq Butt’s claims are supposedly backed by the statements of yet another one of Jang’s super secret and anonymous “ex-officials” who, of course, no longer works for the agency that he is supposedly giving confidential information about.

This anonymous source, if he even exists, supposedly told Tariq Butt that “all the officers and staffers, who were still with the NAB, were under strict surveillance by an intelligence agency on the orders of the government to know who tries to leak out any information about whatever was being planned inside the NAB.”

But Tariq Butt admits that his alleged source does not even work for NAB, so how would this person be privy to such information? In fact, he wouldn’t.

But Mr Butt does not let that stop him from making the most hysterical and slanderous accusations. He concludes his article by accusing that NAB “is now engaged in devising ways and means to serve a particular set of corrupt people”. For all the complaints about MNAs allegedly lying about their degrees, I wonder when Jang will begin to hold their own employees accountable for the scandalous behaviour that appears on the front page of their own newspaper.

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

Shaheen Sehabi Explains What It Means To "Have No Shame"

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

Amir Mateen’s attempt a script writing seems to have disappointed ‘The Godfather’ of wild storylines, Amir’s mentor Shaheen Sehbai. In today’s The News, Sehbai shows Mateen how to really write an attack column. Sehbai’s column targets his favourite topic, of course, Asif Ali Zardari.

Before we begin, we must mention that The News has published this bit of writing in the National News section, not the Opinion page. Perhaps the editors were confused by the lack of a ‘Libel’ section in the newspaper – something they should definitely consider including. It would make it so much easier on their dear readers.

shameSehbai starts his column in a prison, which he seems to have detailed knowledge about. We meet the ‘Evil Genius’ Zardari that Amir Mateen introduced us to, but now he is not just an Evil Genius, but he is running a massive prison gang filled with goons that would make Scarface blush with envy.

Sehbai doesn’t tell us who exactly these people are, or how he has learned any of this information, of course. Rather he just tells us that “a number of mafia-type jobbers, some trouble shooters, a couple of well-dressed attack dogs and a bunch of gun-wielders” are now running the show and that “every other sane voice, adviser or friend” has been suppressed. So, we are to believe that the people elected a national government filled with mafia-type killers.

Do not wait for Sehbai to be filling in the cast later. This is one of his most common plot devices – the ‘Mystery Man.’ Shaheen Sehbai knows that he will quickly be sued for libel if he even hints at a name for one of his these colorful characters who you never actually meet, so he gives no one a name. But here is a question for Mr. Sehbai: If you truly believe what you write – that there are mafia-type killers in the government – why don’t you file some report? Why don’t you, at a minimum, name some names? Surely you will be protected by the courts who will see you are only doing a duty. Unless, of course, you are making it all up.

Sehbai goes on to claim that Zardari lost his powers “despite the best delaying tactics that he could deploy.” Apparently the best delaying tactics he could deploy were to voluntarily push the parliament to pass the 18th Amendment and then signing it. Seems like a strange way to delay a bill, if you ask me. Of course, many of the “failures” that Shaheen Sehbai mentions “may not be entirely visible.” This is more exciting than saying, ‘it didn’t happen.’ Or perhaps this is just more of Shaheen Sehbai’s ‘Wishful Journalism.’

Next, Shaheen Sehbai begins to cry that Zardari and his government “make wild accusations and tall claims and trash the opponents without any decency.” This is really too much! Shaheen Sehbai is accusing someone of ‘making wild accusations’ and ‘tall claims’ and ‘trashing opponents without any decency!’ Oh, I just might fall out of my chair. That is truly hilarious.

Who is the victim of these attacks by Zardari and his friends? According to Sehbai it is “a democracy and freedom-loving media.” Yes, you have read this correctly. It’s okay. I will wait for you to finish laughing.

Shaheen Sehbai spends the rest of his article writing things like this:

[Zardari's] close associates, who talk freely against him when sitting in private drawing rooms, say he will stick to the Presidency to keep his immunity if the courts force him to quit either the PPP office or the Presidency.

How does Shaheen Sehbai know what Zardari’s close associates say in private drawing rooms? Are we to believe that the close friends of the President of Pakistan are stabbing him in the back to give some gossip to…Shaheen Sehbai? Shaheen Sehbai can’t even get himself invited to a military press briefing, but we are supposed to believe that he has insider knowledge from the President’s close friends. It is too much to believe.

Sehbai makes more of his famous predictions, this time about Zardari’s secret plans to place his sister as head of PPP. Sehbai’s evidence for this is that:

…the PPP post is called that of a co-chairperson, when it actually should be co-chairman.

Really? THAT is your evidence of a conspiracy? Perhaps Shaheen Sehbai is a sexist, but that does not make a conspiracy.

After this, things take a turn for the truly bizarre as Shaheen Sehabi then calls on the entire nation to unite against Zardari in order to prevent…”another spell of military rule.” It is almost as if Shaheen Sehbai believes that if he follows one crazy statement with another that is even crazier, that maybe people will forget that the first thing he said is crazy.

Obviously, people can have their own opinions about the 18th Amendment and whether there need to be some more changes made. But does anyone really believe that Zardari is going to usher in military rule? Rather it seems that uniting to overthrow Zardari would usher in the military. I don’t pretend to see the future, but Sehbai’s logic is truly puzzling.

Sehbai next goes on to suggest that the Prime Minister to dismiss all the ministers and government officials and replace them with…well, Sehbai doesn’t say. He just says “credible and respected people” should be appointed. Perhaps Shaheen Sehbai could provide a list?

Most hilarious, though, is what Shaheen Sehbai says about the Supreme Court.

It is unfortunate that through a smart game of politicking the focus on implementation of NRO judgments has been shifted to the tussle between the SC and parliament. This tussle is a long drawn test match but the SC has to complete the T20 match it started on the NRO first.

Does Sehbai really want to call the NRO judgments a ‘T20′ match? T20 may be popular, but it is obviously just flashy entertainment and all show, not a real ‘test’ of the two sides. We have had enough show trials in this country. The NRO judgments should be given more thought and consideration that a T20 match.

And this is the problem with Shaheen Sehbai’s column. It is as if he wrote it while watching a match on television, and hurried to write down whatever nonsense popped into his head. His column is filled with the typical assortment of mystery sources, wishful journalism, crazy predictions, and poor logic. He writes a long and drawn-out attack with a poison pen, and he complains that his victim is hurting his own very sensitive feelings. Once again, Jang Group publishes all of this as news. THAT, dear readers, is the real shame.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 4 Comments »

Ansar Abbasi Out LBW (Learn Before Writing!)

Monday, April 5th, 2010

Ansar Abbasi Out LBW - Learn Before Writing!Poor Mr. Ansar Abbasi – he does not know how to quit while he is ahead. After his very poor showing on Friday, Mr. Abbasi has decided to have another go at writing his “news analysis” about the NRO. The column, “After Sindh card, Zardari uses Benazir,” is Ansar’s attempt at playing judge against President Zardari. Of course, he did not do his homework and is therefore out “LBW” – Learn Before Writing!

Today’s column by Ansar Abbasi is, once again, published as “news analysis.” Even though it is a rather incendiary opinion piece, The News (Jang) has not seen fit to put it properly on the opinion page. This is an unfortunate habit of the The News as it is quite misleading to readers.

But perhaps more unfortunate is the fact that Mr. Ansar Abbasi continues to believe that insulting rants are a proper substitute for research and reason.

Take, for example, his suggestion that, “Legally and constitutionally speaking, there is no way out for the government but to implement the Supreme Court’s order in letter and spirit. But practically if the government does this, it would mean political death of the PPP’s co-chairman against whom the corruption cases are too serious.”

Actually, this is not quite true. The constitution states in Article 248 that certain officials may not be tried while they are in office. Any cases against them will have to be heard once their term is complete.

248. Protection to President, Governor, Minister, etc.
(1) The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not he answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Federation or a Province.

(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.

(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President or a Governor shall issue from any court during his term of office.

(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President or a Governor shall be instituted during his term of office in respect of anything done by or not done by him in his personal capacity whether before or after he enters upon his office unless, at least sixty days before the proceedings are instituted, notice in writing has been delivered to him, or sent to him in the manner prescribed by law, stating the nature of the proceedings, the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom the proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which the party claims.

This is no secret. In fact, it has been stated quite clearly by the government that this is their position. And it is not an unreasonable position, even if it is inconvenient to Ansar Abbasi’s political tirade. The Swiss prosecutor has been adamant about his refusal to reopen a case against Zardari until his term expires.

[Geneva prosecutor Daniel Zappelli] said he can’t reopen the case against Zardari, who was elected president in 2008 after years of battling corruption allegations, because he enjoys “absolute immunity” as a head of state.

“We could go further only if the competent authorities in Pakistan decide to lift the immunity of the head of state, which I do not know whether it is possible according to their constitution,” said Zappelli, speaking in English. “If not, we can’t. Absolutely not. Period.”

Ansar Abbasi then goes on to peddle outrageous rumours including that a major political party was planning to attack the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

After the NRO decision, the unnerved PPP was alleged to be even planning physical attacks on the Chief Justice of Pakistan to embarrass Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Money was also reportedly distributed amongst some student leaders of the PSF to organise demonstrations against the judiciary.

If this is true, it is a serious charge that should be taken up with the proper authorities immediately. I ask that Ansar Abbasi immediately file a grievance and reveal his evidence. Otherwise, what are we to think except that he has made the whole thing up?

Also, wasn’t it only three days earlier that this same Ansar Abbasi was condemning a foreign newspaper for quoting an unnamed source? But notice that now Abbasi does not even pretend to have heard his rumour from some “anonymous source.” Rather, he simply says it is “alleged.” Alleged by whom? Surely Ansar Abbasi does not want to be a hypocrite. Please, sir, tell us who your source is for these serious accusations.

Ansar Abbasi’s entire column is actually a poor attempt for him to play judge, jury, and executioner of Asif Zardari. Abbasi says the Supreme Court “is serious to ensure a fair trial of past corruption cases.” Perhaps they are, but Ansar Abbasi sees no need for a fair trial. Instead, he says “Allowing a fair trial to prove his innocence would be a risky gamble that everyone in the party knows is bound to be lost…”

What is the point of bothering with a trial, when Ansar Abbasi has already judged the outcome? This blog takes no position on the issue of Asif Zardari’s guilt or innocence. There is very important legal discussion about Presidential immunity, and even if the President did not enjoy this immunity, surely the courts are the proper place to hold a trial, not the last issue of The News. Perhaps Mr. Abbasi is challenging Shahid Masood to be “Chief Justice of the Media”?

Ansar Abbasi: Challenging Shahid Massod to be Chief Justice of Media?

Ansar Abbasi: Challenging Shahid Massod to be Chief Justice of Media?

Ansar closes his opinion by saying that, “Instead of being befooled by political slogans, the people of Pakistan deserve to know if there is any truth in the NAB’s claim…” Perhaps Mr. Abbasi would do us all the favour of ceasing his foolish political sloganeering, then, so that proper journalists can do their work. At the very least, sir, we beg of you…Learn Before Writing!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Jang, The News | 12 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »