Posts Tagged ‘The Guardian’

How Propaganda Gets Into Foreign Media

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

Proper investigative journalism is severely lacking and this is effecting not only our own media but international reporting on Pakistan as well. As reporting on Pakistan becomes more and more dangerous for foreign journalists, often accused of being ‘spies’ by certain right-wing elements, the international press becomes reliant on our own journalists to feed them information. In turn, they are fed propaganda, not actual reporting, which is then added in their own reporting. Once this happens, Pakistani media refers to the international press as a way of legitimising their own inventions, even though it is their own words that have been repeated.

Declan WalshAn example of this problem was made clear in The News of yesterday. A front page article titled, ‘Raymond Davis was CIA spy: UK paper’, is actually a re-published article from the UK newspaper The Guardian. The article, by Declan Walsh and Ewen MacAskill, was originally published over the week end. The News re-published the article on Monday without changing a single word or giving proper attribution.

Ansar AbbasiThe article concludes with by citing ‘press reports’ about a rather peculiar speculation: “that the authorities worry the US could try to spring Davis in a “Hollywood-style sting”. If that phrase is not familiar to you, let me explain its origin. The threat of a ‘Hollywood-style sting operation’ is an invention of one Ansar Abbasi who works for The News. He introduced the phrase in an 11 February article titled, ‘Multiple security layers erected for Raymond Davis’, a piece that also threatens ‘some subversive act from India to get the double-murderer to embarrass Pakistan’. As always, the sources for Ansar Abbasi’s supposed conspiracies by American and Indian forces are unknown.

Ansar Abbasi may have invented from thin air these conspiracy theories, or they may have been fed to him by intelligence agencies. But the trick has worked because The Guardian has now repeated the claim on their respected pages, only attributing the claim to ‘press reports’ and not mentioning the name of Ansar Abbasi which would have alerted readers to the questionable origin of the claim. These conspiracies can now be repeated by our own media manipulators as reports of a preeminent UK newspaper, no need to mention their birthplace in the work of Ansar Abbasi.

Media reports on Raymond Davis are already filled with confusing and contradictory articles in Pakistan. Now our own propaganda has made its way into the international press. Whether this is by chance or by design is not known. What is known is that in a case as sensitive as Raymond Davis, the media has a responsibility to provide neutral reporting of facts and not to play the sensationalism card. That may be too much to ask of certain quarters in our own media, but we hope that the international press will not be so easily manipulated.

Unfortunately, as foreign journalists are threatened and labeled as ‘spies’ by certain elements that do not want the truth to come out, these foreign journalists rely on Pakistani journalists to provide them with research and analysis. When that research and analysis is filled with planted conspiracies and misinformation, it only serves to hide the truth. We pride ourselves on our free media, but can the media be truly free when it is so easily and so often manipulated for political ends?

Lessons From Forged Wikileaks Story

Friday, December 10th, 2010

Wikileaks Forgery

I don’t want to spend too much time on the forged Wikileaks story that was exposed by The Guardian yesterday as it has been covered fairly extensively already. But there are some important lessons that should be discussed, and so I will spend a short time on those.

Some have laid the blame squarely on Jang Group, but that’s not quite fair. While Jang certainly shares some fault, they were not the only media group to run the story and neither were they the originators. Actually, the story was also run by The Nation and Nawa-i-Waqt as well as Express Tribune. That this story was not carried by one media group only but by a wide selection suggests that the mistake was not intentional but the result of two common media problems.

The first problem that is highlighted is the rush to ‘scoop’ other news organizations and be the first to publish headlines – especially if those headlines will get attention – without doing proper background checks to confirm the facts. We see this far too often. In the case of a bomb blast, news programmes will report a certain number of deaths before their reporters have even arrived to the scene, only to change their reporting several times until the facts are known. There must be a balance between reporting news quickly and reporting it factually. It is better to be second to break a story and have it correct than to be first and be incorrect. In this case, Dawn did not run with the original story, and comes away looking more reliable because of it.

The second problem is the habit of relying on questionable sources. This story appears to have been first broken by the website dailymailpost.com, a website that has previously been exposed as part of a propaganda ring. According to today’s The News,

A check on the Internet as well as The Guardian report showed that the story was not based on Wikileaks cables, and had in fact originated from some local websites such as The Daily Mail and Rupee News known for their close connections with certain intelligence agencies.

This blog and others have been trying to bring to light the question of intelligence agencies and other vested interests using journalists as puppets. Perhaps some times there is money changing hands, perhaps other times a reporter is awed by access to a well-connected source, perhaps the reporter simply believes the story is too good to pass up – whatever the reason, we see too many incidents in which news reports make claims based on statements by ‘reliable sources’ that never come true and then fade away. This is not to say that journalists should ignore their sources, but perhaps they should do a little more investigation to verify the story.

Both of these lessons center on the same point – the need for better fact checking.

Express Tribune has published a retraction and public apology letting readers know that the story was a mistake. Jang Group has also been forthcoming and published front page stories explaining that the story was a mistake and revealing the source for the material as some questionable websites. These media groups should be commended for their honesty in retracting the story and admitting the mistake. Unfortunately, today’s issue of The Nation continues to peddle the story even after it has been shown as a forgery.

In journalism, mistakes are made. This is why many newspapers include a ‘corrections’ section where they can let readers know in the event of a mislabeled photograph or some details that have been reported and later learned to be incorrect. For larger incidents like these forged Wikileaks documents, a full article such as published by Express Tribune and The News is appreciated. We hope that the lessons will be taken and all media groups will use the unfortunate incident to remind their editors and reporters of the importance of getting the story right.

Journalism…Or Jingoism?

Wednesday, October 13th, 2010

Fasi ZakaFasi Zaka has a new installment in what appears to be a series on the treatment of Dr. Aafia by news media. If you will recall, Fasi made a startling claim a week ago that TV anchors were deliberately misreporting the Dr. Aafia case. This week, he continues his expose by analyzing several shows and asking an excellent question: “Is this journalism or jingoism?

Dr Aafia has been hijacked, and not just by the Americans, who had her flown to the US and gave her a dubiously excessive punishment for attempted murder, but by the Pakistani media itself.

Just recently Meher Bokhari conducted a TV programme on Samaa on Dr Aafia Siddiqui, and it was an atrocious attack on the idea of responsible, or even mildly responsible journalism. She opened her piece on the programme with an emotional plea about the “daughter of the nation” and how “time” would ask Musharraf about his actions. Is this journalism or jingoism?

If she had attached sideburns and worn flare pants she would be a shoo-in for deceased actor Mohammad Ali with a shout of “judge sahib!” inevitably coming our way. Guests on her programme were Dr Aafia’s sister, Dr Fauzia Siddiqui, Senator Talha of the JUI and senior ‘analyst’ Zaid Hamid.

Zaid Hamid immediately went off on an amazing tale of why the Americans were after Dr Aafia. He explained that she was a neurologist who had biological weapons’ knowledge that the Americans were afraid of, and that her Indian MIT students were complicit in the frame-up and even went to question her in jail in Afghanistan. I like fiction, but this is too much. Dr Aafia’s two children are in the custody of her family, with one missing, but in the programme the killing of two children was being stated as fact.

To this hogwash Meher Bokhari said nothing, and it looked like she was ready to let things slide until Dr Aafia’s sister said that her sister has a PhD in education, specifically on learning by imitation. Senator Talha then, despite having just heard this, and having been on jaunts to the US on government money to see Dr Aafia in person, said Dr Aafia’s PhD was on lining up “discarded” children.

Again, Meher Bokhari had no interest in correcting anything or playing a responsible role. On a CNBC programme I was on, I mentioned this to Senator Talha when he repeated the same tripe (this was after the Samaa programme), after which a shouting match began where the guests were only interested in haranguing Marvi Memon, who was also present.

In all this, the only voice of sanity was Dr Fauzia. But no one was interested in her because it spoilt everyone else’s agenda. Meher Bokhari kept asking the rhetorical question, “What did Aafia do that cannot be forgiven?” clearly ignoring the issues prior to 2003 when Dr Aafia was on the radar for association with al Qaeda. The UN report never came up.

Zaid wants to use Dr Aafia for cutting off ties with the Americans, Senator Talha for cheap political mileage and Meher Bokhari for playing to the gallery. Dr Fauzia also presented a hypothetically logical reason for why the Americans have done what they have to Dr Aafia. But again, that was of no interest to Meher Bokhari and Co. Why bring logic into the equation? Frankly this particular programme of Meher Bokhari made Fox look good in comparison.

And now, the MQM – for ages not a word about the Aafia case until the Imran Farooq murder. Two pieces of information inconclusively suggested the murder may have been an intra-party affair, the first being a report in The Guardian and the second a vague statement by Scotland Yard. This was followed by a flurry of activity by the MQM for Dr Aafia.

Quite possibly the motive, entirely circumstantial at this stage, is to put the party on an anti-western front, especially with regard to their system of justice. And should things turn ugly in London, the championing of Dr Aafia’s ‘cause’ will serve as the pretext for pursuit of a criminal case – in a western court of law – against the party. After holding a rally for Dr Aafia, Dr Fauzia wryly remarked that it would have been better had it been held years earlier.

To get Dr Aafia back and to help commute her sentence will only be done by a more rational approach. That, however is unlikely to happen given the ways of the Aafia mafia.

Disaster Relief, Then and Now

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Ahmad Noorani, journalist or political operative?Ahmad Noorani writes for The News today a curious article about flood donations received from the international community. The thesis of Mr Noorani’s column appears to be that the present government is not as effective as the Musharraf regime in 2005. Despite the author’s intentions, though, his presentation of facts to back his claim are questionable at best. Often they are simply incorrect.

According to Noorani, “the total present pledges so far stand at only $777 million and the actual money received so far is only $82 million”. This is false.

According to data compiled by The Guardian, committed funding (funds that have been received) stood at $687,228,789 on 26 August. And additional $324,309,146 in uncommitted pledges (funds that have been promised, but not yet delivered) is outstanding. That means that the total present pledges can be no less than $1 Billion.

The largest donor is the United States, which has given $155,930,000 and pledged an additional $50,000,000. The next two largest donors are Saudi Arabia ($74,448,904) and United Kingdom ($64,765,001). In addition to monetary donations, many countries have provided “in kind” donations of foods and transportation, such as over 30 helicopters that are being provided by the US.

According to Noorani,

“A spokesman for the Economic Affairs Division confirmed to The News that by the weekend the total aid received in cash stood at $82 million while relief goods worth $60 million had also arrived, making the total foreign aid received at $142 million.”

It is not clear from Mr Noorani’s column what account the representative from EAD confirmed, but the claim that “the total foreign aid received” was not more than $142 million is not possibly correct.

It is also of concern that Mr Noorani compares international response to the 2005 earthquake to the response to the 2010 floods without considering the very different contexts of these two disasters. In fact, there are several important differences between the two events that analysts believe to be responsible for the difference in international aid.

The death toll in the 2005 earthquake was over 73,000. The latest reports put the number of deaths from flooding at around 1,600. While the number of deaths attributed to the floods is expected to grow, it is a slower killer than the earthquake, potentially making it seem less urgent to many international donors. According to one NGO, disasters that are more quickly destructive raise more relief money.

World Vision typically raises 10 to 15 times more from donors responding to a hurricane or earthquake as opposed to a flood, said Randy Strash, World Vision’s strategy director for emergency response.

There are other obvious reasons as well: The economy in 2005 was much stronger than the economy in 2007, making many donors feel that they can give more of their personal funds to help others. And, while the worst crisis in recent history, the flooding comes only a few months after the earthquakes in Haiti resulting in what many are calling “donor fatigue”.

None of these points are addressed in Mr Noorani’s column.

It is also curious that, when describing donations, Mr Noorani switches between currencies without providing any constant by which to compare. After some basic conversions using the website XE.com, it appears that some of Mr Noorani’s data points may be misleading.

For example, according to Mr Noorani, the total demands of provincial governments amount to over Rs.1 Trillion, or $11.8 Billions in US dollars. While no one suggests that the amounts currently raised for relief and reconstruction are anywhere near adequate, none of the recent crises saw such a large amount of donations.

The most recent crisis before the floods, the earthquake in Haiti, has received a pledge from the international community for $5.3 Billions over the next two years. This is less than the $7.5 Billion pledged by the USA alone last fall even before the floods devastated the country. Furthermore, the pledge did not come until April, four months after the disaster. While everyone will hopefully do more to help the flood victims, saying that fundraising is a failure if it does not achieve such levels as Mr Noorani suggests does not provide a realistic metric for evaluation.

Given the introduction and conclusion so the column, the author’s intent seems to be to suggest that the present government is not as effective as the Musharraf regime. What the author actually does, however, is make false comparisons and ignore important qualitative and quantitative data that explain differences in the response to the 2005 and 2010 disasters. While we hope that Mr Musharraf is able to raise some funds to help the country, it is important that media reports of donations be accurate and impartial so as to encourage everyone to give generously. Misleading reports such as the one filed by Mr Noorani do not help.

BREAKING: 21 International Media Organizations Write to Government About The Nation

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

BREAKING: A group of 21 international media organizations has written a letter to Minister of Information and Broadcasting Qamar Zaman Kaira expressing concern about The Nation.

The letter is in response to an article by Kaswar Klasra in The Nation earlier this month that – with no evidence or factual support – accused a fellow journalist of being a spy. This group letter to the Minister comes following public condemnation from Committee to Protect Journalists and an appeal from the editor of The Wall Street Journal.

The letter is signed by Editors from ABC News, Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, The Guardian, BBC, The Independent, CNN, Al Jazeera, The Economist, Financial Times, Los Angeles Times, France Info, McClatchy Newspapers, National Public Radio, Reuters, The New York Times, TIME, Newsweek, The Times, Radio France Internationale, and The Wall Street Journal.

The letter reads as follows:

TO: Qamar Zaman Kaira,
Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan
4th Floor, Cabinet Block, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad

RE: Nation article about Wall Street Journal reporter

16 November 2009

Respected Minister Kaira,

We are writing to register our strong concern at a recent development that has caused alarm among international media organizations working in Pakistan.

On November 5, The Nation newspaper published a front page article accusing Matthew Rosenberg, a correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, of working for the C.I.A., Israeli intelligence and the U.S. military contractor Blackwater.

Mr. Rosenberg is a respected journalist of high standing. Not only was the article unsubstantiated, it critically compromised his security and raised questions about whether he can return to Pakistan to work safely in the future.

The article also has broader implications. These are difficult times for all journalists in Pakistan. Our employees already face an array of threats, including violence and kidnapping, as they strive to provide timely and accurate coverage. Now those risks have been needlessly increased.

We strongly support press freedoms across the world. But this irresponsible article endangered the life of one journalist and could imperil others. It is particularly upsetting that this threat has come from among our own colleagues.

We recognize that courageous Pakistani journalists routinely face greater dangers than their international counterparts. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, five Pakistani journalists have been killed in the past 12 months alone. And we are heartened that several Pakistani media organizations have denounced The Nation’s story.

But we are also concerned that an incident of this kind – tarring a foreign reporter as a spy – could occur again. We ask the government of Pakistan to take note of this story and to take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of all media personnel in future.

Page 1 of the letter

Page 1 of the letter

Page 2 of the letter

Page 2 of the letter

Page 3 of the letter

Page 3 of the letter