Posts Tagged ‘Talat Hussain’

Where Is Pakistan’s Talat Hussain?

Saturday, June 5th, 2010

Talat Hussain’s recent adventure aboard the humanitarian flotilla bound for Gaza provides an important lesson about the potential for journalists to impact current events. It also raises an important question: why don’t our journalists risk as much for Pakistan as they will for some other country?

A Google search for the words ‘Talat Hussain Hero’ returned about 137,000 links. Pretty impressive.

To be fair, what Talat Hussain did – putting his personal safety at risk in order to get a first-hand account of what was sure to be (and certainly proved to be) a controversial story – was a commendable act, and one that serves as a model for other investigative journalists.

Where are Pakistan’s Heroes?

The first question that came to my mind when watching Talat Hussain’s story unfold, though, was where are Pakistan’s heroes? Whatever heroism may be deemed worthy of Talat Hussain, it was a heroism for Palestinians, not Pakistanis. Certainly the Palestinians are under siege and are need of some heroes. But are we not under siege also?

I was glad to see Wajahat S Khan’s recent article, I am an Ahmadi. But how disheartening that the discussion of religious freedom in our own country has all but been replaced with a discussion of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It seems there is something of a convenient double-standard, no? We are incensed with Israel’s brutality against Muslims in Gaza, but when it comes to religious minorities here…well, it’s unfortunate, yes, but nothing to miss tea over.

Palestine has its hero, Talat Hussain. Who will be Pakistan’s hero?

Treatment of Journalists in Pakistan

The next question that came to mind was another bit of hypocrisy that can be traced to certain media types. Talat Hussain is a hero for putting himself in the middle of a deadly fight in a country that is not his and trying to report the facts of the situation for an audience deeply sympathetic to one side.

It’s a good thing he did not try that here, or he surely would have been labeled a spy and had his home address published in The Nation.

While The Nation may be one of the worst offenders in this regard, receiving international attention for recklessly calling foreign journalists ’spies’, they are certainly not the only media outlet to ‘report’ this type of story. Why do certain media types feel comfortable with this hypocrisy?

We Must Not Miss the Important Lessons

If we are truly to consider Talat Hussain’s act a commendable one, we must not miss the important lessons. We must look at what our feelings about Talat Hussain’s courage say about ourselves when we are faced with similar situations in our own nation. Who in the media is willing to risk their lives for Pakistani Ahamadis? Why are our foreign correspondents ‘heroes’ while foreign correspondents here are ’spies’? What does it say about our media that the best and brightest minds in journalism cannot see this critical divide?

What Talat Hussain did took an amazing amount of courage. He very well could have been one of the unfortunate souls who died in that adventure. He put his very life on the line in order to tell the story of a people suffering. The Palestinians in Gaza have a good friend in him.

Who will be Pakistan’s Talat Hussain?

Conspiracy Brigade Strikes Again Right On Cue

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

Conspiracy Brigade

The conspiracy brigade strikes again, and right on cue. When I first saw the news that some Pakistani had been arrested for the plot to bomb New York, I knew it was just a matter of time before the conspiracy wallahs were out in force.

True to form, Talat Hussain ranted on Aaj that there is some secret plan to pressurise Pakistan to ‘do more.’ He even tried to revive the stinking corpse of the Seymour Hersh conspiracy and Kerry-Lugar by saying that bills such as this are just there to offer a price.

This is the same nonsense that was being recited by Kamran Khan on Geo. Whatever channel I turn to, I am hearing echoes of the same utter nonsense about how maybe the timing of Hakimullah’s statement suggests a conspiracy against Pakistan.

The only surprising thing about the return of the conspiracy brigade is that they took so long to get their story worked out! I’m especially surprised that it took them so long since they seem to have only been able to revive some old dead conspiracies from the past. Really, guys, I expect you to put a little more effort into your work!

But seriously, let’s consider the facts here. This idiot Faisal Shahzad tries to blow up a car bomb – he even admits to it. For the conspiracy brigade, though, it is everyone’s fault but Faisal and his jihadi mentors.

Why can’t this idiot just be an idiot?

Faisal Shahzad, idiot

For the conspiracy brigade, it’s always the same story. After Mumbai, same thing. These conspiracy theorists want us to live in denial always. The fact that these conspiracy wallahs are hawking this nonsense on TV really makes my blood boil. For all their complaining, our problems will not be solved by pointing the finger at India or some blaming some conspiracy in Washington every time some idiot decides to blow himself up.

Guys, I hate to tell you this, but there are actually some idiots in our country. We need to face that fact so that we can do something about it. Because there is one conspiracy against Pakistan that is very real – the conspiracy by the terrorists who continue to attack us.

Nadeem Paracha: The myths, the madness, and the media

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Nadeem Paracha who is quickly becoming a major voice of reason in the popular media has a new blog post today on Dawn.com that takes to task the talking heads of the media for irresponsible and sensationalist reporting. 

After talking of the dangerously concocted narratives peddled by the state, government, and religious parties of Pakistan that I mentioned in my last blog, let’s now turn our attention towards the political and social narratives emerging from the country’s highly animated electronic media.

Still basking (nay, indulgently bathing) in the sudden spat of freedom provided during the early years of General Pervez Musharraf, the private TV news channels, initially in their attempt to differ from the confining traditions of state-owned television, emerged sounding largely progressive and remaining as close to ‘objectivity’ as was possible – at least until they discovered the commercial wonders of what is called the political ‘talk show.’

It wasn’t until early 2006 that many of these talk shows started to devolve and mutate into the kind of rampant and anarchic ogres that they are today. Many of them actually did a wonderful job passionately reporting the tragic 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, in the process also facilitating the unprecedented interest that common Pakistanis exhibited in helping the quake victims.

But, alas, it seems this episode, which, I believe, finally brought the private electronic media into the forefront, had a rather disastrous impact on the nascent egos of various talk show hosts and TV reporters.

Suddenly, they took the noble idea of missionary journalism, and instead of continuing to tread on the ‘objective middle ground,’ began moving way towards the populist right. And what’s more, once their bosses decided that this new trajectory was actually generating better monetary results (à la FOX News), the channels never looked back, sloganeering all the way to the bank!

Personalities such as Shahid Masood, Hamid Mir, Talat Hussain, Kashif Abbasi, Ansar Abbasi, Zaid Hamid, Shireen Mazari have all emerged from the abovementioned scenario. As part of this largely reactionary and at the same time monetarily cynical phenomenon is the transformation of non-media personalities into regular TV feasts.

These include men and women who have become mainstays on talk shows as ‘guests’. Retired generals, small-time politicians, vernacular columnists and urban maulvis whose job it is to maintain the duration of their individual 15 minutes of fame by  sounding off the talk show hosts’ populist and flammable innuendos.

Since the Taliban and the inhuman havoc they’ve been perpetrating is the single most critical issue impacting the country at this very moment, let’s evaluate the popular news channels’ handling of this ordeal.

Recently, many TV talk show hosts and their favourite sounding boards (‘guests’), have come under fire from certain ‘liberal’ sections belonging to the print media, academia, and in the blogsphere.

The more sensationalist and unsubstantiated accusations against some talk show hosts of being ‘ISI agents’ and ‘extremists’ can be put aside as subjective groaning. But then so can what usually comes out of the mouths of many hosts and their guests.

In the last three years at least, TV talk shows have openly thrived on building whole ‘debates’ and arguments on what almost entirely belongs in the floozy and demagogic conspiracy theory sphere.

The topics of the show may have a ring of intellectualism and serious policy matters, but it does not take much time for the so-called ‘debate’ to spiral down into sloganeering, wild theory casting (by the ‘guests’) and self-righteous preaching (by the hosts).

I use the word self-righteous because even though most talk show hosts are having a heck of a time being this new kind of TV celebrity with impressive material and social perks, their rhetoric seems to be surfacing from a besieged mindset. Without having any qualms or need for humility or modesty, they are quick to present themselves as heroes, besieged by the powers that be.

The truth is, the media has never been in the kind of free-floating situation it is today. Though the Musharraf regime blundered by putting an old-fashioned authoritarian cap on it in 2007 – not for entirely wrong reasons, mind you – the current coalition government led by the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), is actually the one finding its democratic credentials taken hostage by a hostile electronic media that is sumptuously feeding upon the many lingering misconceptions about popular democracy that still linger in the minds of Pakistanis.

So what is that narrative echoing in the corridors of the TV news channels that is making some of us suspect the ideological and political dispositions of so many talk show hosts? One way to find out is to track this narrative’s evolution, especially in regards to the matters of terrorism and extremism.

Till 2003, when, comparatively speaking, suicide bombings were a rare occurrence in Pakistan, they were reported by the newly inaugurated private TV channels as part of a simple narrative: the bombings were being undertaken by indigenous sectarian organisations in cahoots with Al Qaeda in reaction to the United States’ post-9/11 action in Afghanistan.

The narrative was simple, but there was a lot of truth in it as well. Even till this day, sectarian organisations such as the (supposedly banned) Sipah-Sehaba  and Lashkar-e-Taiba are believed to be doing the ground work for the Taliban and shady Al Qaeda elements.

In the wake of Pakistan’s more aggressive involvement in the US-run ‘war on terror,’ the above narrative began being tempered by talk show ‘guests’ – mainly from the Jamat-i-Islami, and certain retired generals who still seemed nostalgically stuck in the 1980s’ ‘Afghan Jihad.’

The Pakistan Army’s half-hearted operations in the sensitive Taliban-infested territories too did not help in this respect, and neither did the right-wing provincial government of the NWFP (MMA) that attempted to ‘keep the peace’ by playing the sympathetic ostrich in the volatile province.

As one started seeing talk show hosts and their guests now condemn Pakistan’s involvement against what were clearly monsters, one was left baffled when the reason for their outrage had something to do with ‘tribal Pathans having great honour and appetite for revenge!’

Of course, it was conveniently forgotten that the ‘honourable’ tribals from whose ranks the Taliban were emerging found nothing so dishonourable about slaughtering not only fellow Pakistanis, but also their own Pushtun kinsmen?

But just when this contradiction and the utter feebleness of it started to become apparent, Musharraf blundered by delaying taking action against the violent Lal Masjid clerics and their army of self-righteous thugs.

The Musharraf dictatorship clearly manhandled the whole issue. But it is also true that electronic media coverage of the Army’s action against the terrorists at the mosque is yet to be paralleled in its utter show of irresponsibility, including in-studio and on-site reporting and ‘comment’ by reporters and hosts that sometimes bordered on actually eulogising and applauding the violent holy thugs.

I still wonder how much of the manic and rabid reactionary sparks that one saw flying around the TV studios at the time contributed to the construction of minds seeking violent revenge in the shape of suicide bombings against the common citizens of Pakistan?

The entirely lopsided and irresponsible coverage of the Lal Masjid is clearly the local electronic media’s darkest hour, one that was only partially rectified by the same media’s following fetish: The Lawyers’ Movement.

With the rise in terrorist attacks on Pakistani civilians, the narrative that put the action of Muslims seeking ‘justified revenge’ against fellow Muslims began weakening, until the sudden appearance of the likes of Zaid Hamid (on a struggling news channel and a music channel!) and Shireen Mazari.

Conspiracy theories about Mossad/RAW/CIA involvement in the matter that were once restricted to obscure crackpot websites suddenly exploded onto the Pakistani mainstream media scene. Some suggest this was done to justify the Pakistan Army’s operation in the north-west, making it look like a fight against infidels (as opposed to it being a civil war against monsters created and ignorantly tolerated by us alone).

So the following has become the new narrative, not only on TV talk shows, but consequently, and dangerously, within much of society: ‘Those conducting suicide attacks on common men, women, and children in Pakistan, cannot be Muslims. They have to be infidel foreigners, most probably funded and trained by RAW, Mossad, and even the CIA. These agencies want to take over Pakistan’s nuclear assets and control the imminent rise of Islam.’

Much psychosomatic gibberish emerges from this unsubstantiated and delusional narrative peddled every single day on talk shows. And if this is the only answer that these ‘experts’ have for the besieged people of Pakistan, then, I’m afraid, we truly have become a wretched nation which has decided to hold on to half-truths, myths, and fantastical stories as a means to safeguard our ‘honour,’ instead of depending more on reason and a positive exhibition of self-criticism. There is no bigger honour than saying and respecting the truth, no matter how disturbing it might be.

Open Letter to The Telegraph (UK)

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

In his recent column, “Pakistani TV performing vital democratic function,” Mr. Hasan Mansoor does a disservice to the facts about Pakistan’s media. While TV executives like Azhar Abbas may tell reporters that “their news helps inculcate democracy and gives a voice to the disenfranchised,” their actions tell a different story.

Rather than reply to media critics like Nadeem Paracha, Abbas instead suggests that criticism is part of a defensive strategy by the government. He claims that media critics fail to “counter argument with argument,” but this is simply not the case. For the BBC, Ahmed Rashid wrote a very eloquent and well documented piece about the glut of conspiracy theories in Pakistan’s media.

Rashid’s piece echoed sentiments in Adam Ellick’s excellent post on the New York Times’ blog that featured a video about the failure of pop-music stars to address Taliban violence, choosing instead to focus on anti-Western conspiracy theories. That Pakistani media – especially TV – has become a veritable marketplace of nutty conspiracy theories is not news.

Unfortunately, the failings of Pakistan’s media do not stop with harmless conspiracy fantasies. Take, for example, the recent international outcry around Pakistani newspaper The Nation in which a respected American journalist was accused, absent any evidence whatsoever, of being a spy for both the CIA and Israel’s Mossad.

Did the paper apologize for the obvious ethical problems, not to mention life-threatening dangers, associated with this lapse in judgment? No. Rather, the paper published a semi-coherent diatribe by TV personality and conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, Ahmed Quraishi, in which Quraishi plead victimhood for The Nation having to suffer criticism for an act that could result in the murder of another American journalist in Pakistan. Have we already forgotten Mr. Daniel Pearl?

Talat Hussain’s claim that, “We adopt very democratic methods. Here you find people from both sides,” is eerily reminiscent of similar claims to “Fair and Balanced” reporting from a certain American TV station. This American station also proclaimed that it was giving a voice to the disenfranchised, despite the fact that independent research found that it’s viewers were less well informed than those of other major news outlets. Imagine a media market saturated with FOX News clones. Hardly a service to democracy.

Sadly, Pakistani TV today serves less a democratic function than a demagogic one. Though free from government intervention and control, TV executives and editorial boards have overwhelmingly opted to promote the sort of fantastic conspiracy theories one expects from basement-run Internet message boards, not responsible commercial media outlets. Mr. Abbas and his colleagues are doing democracy in Pakistan a disservice, and would be well advised to clean up their act.

Talat Hussain makes a $640 Million Mistake

Friday, October 30th, 2009

If anyone needs evidence that Pakistan’s most popular TV anchors just reel off nonsense without checking facts, please watch the interview given by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to a group of Pakistani anchors.

Talat Hussain of Aaj TV, who often speaks as if he knows everything, wanted to embarrass Hillary by “proving” that the U.S, does not give Pakistan enough. In his recent shows he has been mouthing off against the “insulting language” in the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid bill, which triples non-military assistance to Pakistan to $ 1.5 billion per year for five years.

Talat claimed that the U.S. was paying Kyrgyzstan $ 700 million as rent for a military base in that country. Hillary corrected the arrogant and self-righteous Aaj TV anchor and said the rent was not that high but was in the range of $ 50 million. Not one to ever digest facts, especially those that prove him wrong, Talat Hussain continued on to say that must be the rent “per month.” The US Secretary of State remained polite and left the Kyrgyzstan base rent figure unresolved.

None of the other “famous and popular” anchors, including Moeed Pirzada, Nasim Zehra, Naveen Naqvi, Mubashir Luqman and others, knew the figure themselves to be able to step in and correct their colleague.

So, what does a simple google search reveal to be the fact?

The US agreed in June 2009 to triple the rent of its base in Manas, Kyrgyzstan to $ 60 million, up from $ 17 million, PER YEAR.

The US also agreed to pay an additional $ 37 million to Kyrgyzstan to build new aircraft parking slots and storage areas, plus another $30 million for new navigation systems. That adds up to a grand total of $ 127 million in the first year and a recurrent payment per year of still $ 60 million only!

Here’s the link to a CBS news story one of many stories on the subject available on the internet, beyond the crazy right-wing dominated Pakistani blogs.

Where did Talat Hussain of Aaj get his figure of $ 700 million per year? Nobody knows. Maybe from his friends Shireen Mazari or Ahmed Quraishi—all purveyors of anti-US opinions with little regard for facts.