The latest series of stories began last weekend when Ansar Abbasi reported for The News that “Pakistan has lost…more than Rs8,500 billion…during the last four years”. Abbasi’s source, for once with a name, is none other than Transparency International Pakistan (TIP) Advisor Syed Adil Gilani giving the claim some credibility. But the numbers quoted, rather than giving a clear view of corruption, actually provide a confusing and convoluted picture of the so-called “corruption”.

After several paragraphs of condemning statements, Abbasi finally gets to some hard numbers. But what readers are presented with are not cases of government officials pocketing money or steering it to their cronies. Instead, we are told that “circular debt is Rs190 million”, “state-owned enterprises like PSO, PIA, Pakistan Steel, Railways, SSGC, SNGC are eating away Rs150-300 billion per annum”, and “tax to GDP ratio in 2008 was 11%, which in 2011 has reduced to 9.1% instead of being increased”.

Economists can debate the proper level of circular debt and whether the government should own enterprises like airlines, railways, etc. But this is not corruption. Neither is the tax-to-GDP ratio. According to Abbasi, “this the drop of 1.9% in the tax GDP means annual loss of US$ 3.3 billion”. Even if his maths are correct, does he honestly expect us to believe that the PM has personally evaded US $3.3 billion in taxes? Again, this is a cultural problem – not official corruption.

Abbasi’s article takes a turn for the truly bizarre, however, when he attempts the following mathematical misdirection:

The TIP adviser added that India’s tax-GDP ratio is 18%, and at that rate, Pakistan’s tax evasion/corruption in FBR is 9% of $175 billion, which is US$15.5 billion per year, i.e. Rs1,400 billion per year.

Did you see what he did there? He’s not even comparing apples to oranges. Rather, he is suggesting that we pretend that the apples are oranges so that we can get an even higher number!

Believing he had discovered a magic formula for attacking the government, Ansar Abbasi continued his assault on mathematics a few days later when he claimed that he was mistaken on Sunday. The present government has not cost the nation Rs8.5 trillion – but Rs20 trillion!.

Where did Abbasi find an additional Rs9.5 trillion? After his article appeared on Sunday, he apparently received a phone call from his friend Dr Shahid Siddiqi who suggested some additional “corruption” that he could add to his equation. Now, in addition to counting spending for public enterprises like transport and steel, Ansar Abbasi is including national security spending as “corruption”.

Quoting the State Bank of Pakistan figures, Siddiqi said the cost of war on terror to country’s economy from April 1, 2008 till January 31, 2012 stands at Rs4400 billion ($50 billion).

And not only is he adding military spending, he is also adding in trade deficits and monetary devaluation!

The trade deficit of these years has been $47 billion where as the Pak rupee fell from Rs68.16 per dollar in June 2008 to Rs90.50 in February 2012. The rupee fell by Rs22.3 per dollar during these years. A total of $30 billion has been transferred out of Pakistan during the first three financial years of the Gilani regime.

At this point the question must be asked if there is anything Ansar Abbasi and his sources believe is not corruption?

It should be noted that Dr Shahid Siddiqi appears to be a ‘go-to’ economist for Ansar Abbasi’s economic hit pieces. In October 2011, Ansar Abbasi quoted Dr Siddiqi extensively terming the government as “lying” about economics and bleeding the country through corruption. Ansar Abbasi quoted Dr Siddiqi again in December 2011 as saying “the overall economic situation of Pakistan under the present regime is the worst in the 64-year history of Pakistan”.

Mr Adil Gilani, too, may have a grudge to bear against the present government as he has found himself summoned before Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) Lahore over questions about his relationship with National insurance Company Ltd board member Qasim Amin Dada. Previously, it was reported, Mr Adil Gilani’s son resigned from his position as board member of Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (PNSC) after questions were raised about his appointment.

We do not question that corruption is a legitimate and serious problem in society. But stirring up a cloud of dust and calling it smoke does not make a fire. Hit pieces based on formulas that inflate numbers do not help expose and eliminate corruption, it only serves to distract from those who are legitimately trying to shine a light on serious issues of corruption and governance. If we are going to reduce and eliminate corruption, we need serious journalists to do the honest work of reviewing data and separating what is and is not legitimate use of taxpayer funds.

Mubasher Lucman and Najam Sethi may both talk about the same issue on their shows, but their viewers are likely to take away very different perceptions. Fans of Mubasher Lucman are likely to think that Najam Sethi is a liberal and possibly a paid agent of America. Fans of Najam Sethi, on the other hand, are more likely to think Mubasher Lucman is right-wing and possibly a paid agent of the establishment. They watch the person whose views align more closely with their own, and dismiss the views of the other.

This phenomenon is not confined to talk shows either. Are the same people reading The Friday Times reading The Nation also? How much overlap is there between readers of The News (Jang Group) and Dawn? While there is probably some overlap between readers of these large circulation newspapers, how many The News fans cannot stand Nadeem Paracha? And how many Dawn readers refuse to read anything by Ikram Sehgal?

But it’s not just the personalities that differentiate media groups. Each group’s editors also makes decisions about what stories to emphasise and which to play down. As an experiment, we looked at several major newspapers on Friday to see what was considered headline news. What we found was interesting.

In the English media, The Nation, Express Tribune, and Dawn each carried two front page stories about contempt charges against the PM. The News carried seven. On first two inside pages, neither Express Tribune nor Dawn published additional stories. The Nation added one, and The News filled almost the entire second page with two more bringing their total number of articles on the first two pages about the PM’s legal troubles to a grand total of nine – six more than the next closest paper!

We then looked at editorial pages. Express Tribune and Dawn both published editorials about the issue. The Nation did not. Here again, The News stood out by publishing an editorial right next to a major opinion piece by the editor, Mohammad Malick, also!

Things were even more interesting when we compared to Urdu media. Nawa-e-Waqt carried 9 front page articles about the issue, Daily Express and Jang both carried 11. The front pages of Urdu newspapers are notoriously crammed, but 11 articles on the same story?

Nawa-e-Waqt had nothing on the first two interior pages, while Daily Express added two more and Jang added an additional three.

This was fascinating to us. For readers of The News or Jang, charges against the PM didn’t seem like a story, it seemed like the only story.

It should also be noted that The Nation, the only English language newspaper that had no editorial about the issue, used most of its editorial space to write about Kashmir, NATO and the WTO.

What does all this mean? We think it indicates that the media may becoming increasingly fragmented. Rather than competing over quality reporting, different media groups are simply providing different groups ‘news’ that reinforces their point of view. Liberals have liberal voices to look to for analysis, conservatives have conservative voices, and with online publishing fueling the growth of alternative media, extremists and conspiracy mongers have their own media groups also.

As a result, society is becoming increasingly fragmented. People assume that those they don’t agree with are liars or hypocrites. They don’t understand how someone can possibly see things in a different way since everyone they read and listen to agrees with them. Certain positions become “obvious” or “undebatable”. What they don’t realise is that the other guy is thinking the exact same thing about him.

Fragmented media might be a good business model by allowing media groups to focus on appealing to one specific niche market, but the question should be asked whether it also creates problems for society. Readers of Jang are likely to think that PM’s contempt case is the most pressing issue of the nation, while readers of The Nation might think that national security takes center stage. How can we agree on how to solve the most important issues facing the nation if we can’t even agree on what the most important issues are?

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers for this. The most readily available solution, though, may be to change our habits as media consumers. We should challenge ourselves by not only consuming that media that reinforces our own beliefs, but should also consider the points of those we disagree with. In order to do this, we should not limit ourselves to one or two media groups that we are comfortable with, but should venture outside our comfort zone to see how other media groups are reporting the news. And if we see that one media group, for example, is treating a story completely differently than every other media group, maybe we should ask ourselves if they are reporting the news…or trying to influence it.

That Ansar Abbasi’s article is speculation and not evidence-based is admitted by Abbasi’s own words:

Talking to media persons on his return from Davos after attending the World Economic Forum Conference, the prime minister is reported to have said, “Any decision about the extension of DG ISI would be taken at an appropriate time.”

There is no explanation as to why did the prime minister say this but given the track record of the rulers and their style of soiled politicking, Gillani may use the extension card as a lever to get Pasha softened on memo issue.

In other words, “There is no explanation as to why did the prime minister say this but” I am going to invent an explanation anyway.

Ansar Abbasi is, of course, entitled to his own speculation and whatever conspiracy theories are born in his head. And if Jang Group believes Ansar Abbasi’s fantasies and conspiracy theories are worth publishing, they have every right to do so. But such inventions are not reporting, they are opinions and should be properly published on the pages clearly marked as containing opinions so that readers are not intentionally or unintentionally misled into thinking that Ansar Abbasi’s speculation is something other than what it is.

Maya Khan’s little stunt may have been intended to shame unsuspecting young people, but she ended up only shaming herself. It was Maya Khan’s raid itself that resulted in expressions of disgust not only across Pakistan, but internationally. A week later, Samaa TV announced that Maya Khan has been sacked along with her team. Her insincere ‘apology’ was apparently a slap in the face to not only Samaa’s viewers, but her bosses as well.

As usual, Cafe Pyala notes some important lessons to be learned from the sorry affair. Other media groups, too, are recoiling from the embarrassment. The editorial board at The News termed Maya Khan’s behaviour as ‘Beyond the pale’:

Once again the question of ‘how far’ has arisen. It concerns the limits of private space and how far into that space journalism is entitled to go and under what circumstances. Given the conservative nature of our society there are considerable risks attached to this type of journalism, which panders to the lowest common denominator and fawns at the feet of extremism. It is tantamount to vigilantism, and some might view the segment as a licence to take matters into their own hands and harass – or worse – people who are breaking no law by being together in a public space, whether or not they are related by blood or marriage. The argument has been made that in journalism there are no boundaries – but there are. A responsible news organisation will have a set of ethical rules, the limits beyond which they do not go. This was guttersnipe journalism, unworthy of the name. Young lives may well have been damaged in the sleazy scramble for ratings. It was also indicative of just how far the media in Pakistan has to go before it reaches maturity. This was beyond the pale, and we should not see its like again.

We don’t disagree with Samaa TV‘s decision to fire Maya Khan, and we hope that it sends a strong signal to other journalists that such behaviour is not going to get you fame and fortune. But we also hope that the discussion of journalistic ethics does not stop with Maya’s sacking.

Outrage around Maya Khan’s show resulted largely from the sympathy we all could feel for the victims of her ‘raid’. As The News correctly reflected, “Given the conservative nature of our society there are considerable risks attached to this type of journalism, which panders to the lowest common denominator and fawns at the feet of extremism”.

But it is not only young people who are at risk of this ‘guttersnipe journalism’. Governor Salmaan Taseer lost his life in part due to his treatment by the media. To this day, a disturbing number of people hold the mistaken belief that Governor Taseer was a blasphemer despite their being no evidence to support such accusations.

Salmaan Taseer is an extreme case, but how many people believe that Nawaz Sharif is soft on India, that Asif Zardari tried to flee the country, that Husain Haqqani wrote a memo to Admiral Mullen, or that Imran Khan is secretly meeting with American officials? Just as Maya Khan’s programme gave the impression that the young people were doing something wrong without every actually having any evidence, the media gives false impressions of politicians and public figures also.

Certainly the private lives of ordinary citizens should be treated differently than the public lives of politicians. And certainly politicians who engage in illegal or corrupt practices should be exposed. But they should be exposed with facts and evidence, not with rumour and innuendo designed to give the impression of guilt without ever actually having to prove it. Just as “young lives may well have been damaged in the sleazy scramble for ratings”, the lives of public figures and their families are also damaged by the sleazy ratings race.

Maya Khan may deserve a public sacking, but firing her will not clean up journalism. If we treat Maya Khan’s firing as the solution to the problem, rumours, innuendo and conspiracy theories will continue to dominate headlines long after Maya Khan’s few minutes in the spotlight are long forgotten.

Imagine our disappointment, then, when we opened today’s edition of The News only to find another editorial, this time giving utmost sympathy to the claims of Mansoor Ijaz about his own security concerns in what appears to be a blatant double-standard.

This is what The News said about Husain Haqqani:

There has been no fulminating cleric calling for Haqqani’s demise, nor protests or rallies against his alleged treachery. Today Haqqani remains in the PM house, and one might reasonably wonder why there and not some other place – his own home for instance, suitably guarded against intrusion or attack. But that is another unknown, alongside all the other unknowns of this curious affair. We wish no ill to Mr Haqqani, but might attach greater credence to his claims of insecurity were he able to support them with something a little less ephemeral than euphemistic references to ‘powerful quarters’. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?

This is what The News said about Mansoor Ijaz:

Can anyone be blamed, then, for accusing the government of trying to intimidate Ijaz into staying away from Pakistan and standing in the way of the memo investigation reaching its logical end? It boggles the mind why the government would want to lose its already tenuous moral ground by shirking from its primary responsibility of witness protection. If the judicial commission fails to complete its work, the assumption of Husain Haqqani’s guilt and the complicity of top government leaders will be recorded in historical memory. An easier way out has already been suggested by Haqqani’s lawyers when they asked the commission to arrange testimony of their witnesses through video conferences. If this can be done for one side, why not for the other? The government must exhibit that it is committed to protecting Ijaz for the sake of the truth, and make every effort to get him to come to Pakistan or get his testimony for both the judicial and parliamentary commissions. On his part, Ijaz also needs to exhibit more faith in the judicial process to which he says he is ready to surrender the truth.

According to The News, Husain Haqqani is crying crocodile tears while he is placed on the ECL and sitting behind armed guards at PM’s house, but Mansoor Ijaz has an understandable complaint while he enjoys the comfort of his home in South France and is able to travel freely. We are not questioning whether Mansoor Ijaz has received any threats, but why are his claims more believable to The News than Husain Haqqani? Is it because The News wants to create different impressions about the two people? Or is The News simply unaware of their obvious double-standard?

This is the worst sort of double-standard because it so obviously takes sides in a case that is presently sub judice. Rather than acting like the media team for one side or the other, Jang Group would be appreciated to inform readers without bias. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?

The Embassy also issued an official denial to Dawn, telling their reporter that the US Embassy will not support Mansoor Ijaz with his security or any of his activities if he comes to Pakistan.

The US embassy had a word about Mr Ijaz’s trip, too. It came out with a denial of reports that he had been given any assurance.

Spokesman Mark Stroh, talking to Dawn, said the embassy would not be involved in coordinating his security or any of his activities during his stay here.

The comments came in response to Mr Ijaz’s media interviews in which he had claimed to have been assured by US authorities of support during his stay in Pakistan.

This raises the question if Jang Group knew that the US clearly refused to provide support to Mansoor Ijaz on Saturday, why did they publish an article on Sunday implying that US supports Ijaz? The article contains several statements by Mansoor that could be misunderstood as meaning that Mansoor Ijaz has the support and protection of his government, which had been denied by the US Embassy. But the statements by US Embassy spokesman denying Mansoor Ijaz’s claims do not appear, even though Jang Group had this information a day earlier.

Readers of The News must be scratching their heads and wondering what other information Jang Group selectively leaving out of news reports.

With last week’s piece, we asked if it was possibly “intended as blackmail to prevent a politician from participating in elections”. The latest article makes the situation even more curious. According to Abbasi, his anonymous source “received a copy of the communication sent by Musharraf’s confidante to the ex-US Congressmen”.

So now there is an alleged secret memo written by the envoy of Musharraf and delivered to a retired American official asking for US support in Pakistan. And even though it was a secret carried out only by trusted emissaries, somehow it wound up at the office of Jang Group.

Why does this plot sound familiar…? Of course! The first ‘Memogate’ saga was obviously such a box office success that it was only a matter of time before a sequel appeared. Only it seems that in their rush, the memogate’s producers have forgotten that the first episode of ‘Memogate’ has not even finished before they already rolled out the next episode in the series.

As we wrote last week, Ansar Abbasi does not need to reveal the name of his ‘influential diplomatic source’, but it is becoming increasingly strange that the supposed ‘secrets’ of every unpopular politician are suddenly ending up in the pages of Daily Jang. Has Ansar Abbasi suddenly learned the art of investigative reporting? Or is someone feeding him this information? What is the motivation of these ‘sources’? Who will be the next politician to have a ‘secret memo’ to US officials magically appear in Daily Jang? I guess we’ll have to wait for the next sequel to find out.

In a detailed front page story of The News on Sunday, Ansar Abbasi asks, ‘How did Musharraf become a billionaire?’ While questions about the source of Gen Musharraf’s personal fortune are legitimate, they typically focus on public information – how was he able to afford his London home? What is his current source of income? But Ansar Abbasi points to new information about Musharraf’s personal wealth, and it is not only the information, but how Ansar Abbasi was able to access it that raises troubling questions.

In his article, Ansar Abbasi spends no less than nine paragraphs listing details of Gen Musharraf’s personal accounts with banks and trading accounts in UAE. Not only does Ansar Abbasi list the amounts each account contains, but the account numbers themselves. All of this information is attributed, as usual, to “a source”.

Musharraf has announced that he will return to Pakistan this month to participate in the next parliamentary elections. The question must be asked who would have access to such private financial information as overseas bank accounts, including their account numbers and amounts? And why would those with access to this information be interested in revealing it to Ansar Abbasi? Is it merely a coincidence that Ansar Abbasi’s “source” has revealed this information at this time? Or is Abbasi’s article intended as blackmail to prevent a politician from participating in elections?

This blog has no way of knowing whether the information provided by Ansar Abbasi is true or false. If it is true, we also have no way of knowing where the money came from – whether from looting the national treasury as seems to be implied by the article, or from legitimate sources such as book sales and speaking fees. It is in the public interest to know that politicians are not building personal wealth through corruption, but it is also in the public interest to know how such private information becomes public. Ansar Abbasi does not need to reveal the name of his anonymous source, but it may be in the public interest to know whether his source is an employee of the bank – which is the bank’s concern, or an employee of some other organization – which may be a concern to democracy.

Who was the fulminating cleric calling for Saleem Shahzad’s demise? Where were the protests or rallies against his alleged treachery? Were there protests or rallies before Zahid Qureshi was tortured and mutilated? Who was the fulminating cleric calling for Umar Cheema to be kidnapped and tortured? Where were the protests or rallies that preeceded Kamran Shafi’s home being strafed with gunfire? Which fulminating cleric was it that threatened Hamid Mir? Where were the protests and rallies that led to Samaa TV’s Ghulamuddin being forced into hiding in his own country? Who is the fulminating cleric that is threatening Najam Sethi?

For Jang Group to suggest that fatwas and street rallies are required prerequisites for one’s health and safety to be in grave danger in this country is insulting to the brave men and women of the Pakistani press who every day live in fear of those we are reduced to referring to as ‘powerful quarters’ lest they find us in disfavour. How many times has an editor requested of a reporter to remove any names and references, knowing all too well the chilling crackle on a phone call, the ringing of a doorbell at 4am, or the Corolla that becomes increasingly familiar on one’s regular route?

Perhaps there has been no street protest against Husain Haqqani, but what about when Jang Group itself publishes articles terming him a traitor? Or when Jang Group publishes articles by mysterious authors that term Blackberry data as “the hammer that nails the coffin shut of those who stand accused of committing such heinous crimes against the state”. What about the production and distribution of videos like this one by “security consultant and defence analyst” Zaid Hamid.

Being on the bad side of powerful quarters is not a safe place to be. Something we as journalists know perfectly well. The issue of the memo is presently sub judice as the Supreme Court has initiated a commission to separate truth from rumours. In the meantime, responsible media groups should not engage in publishing articles terming those involved as ‘traitors’ who have committed ‘heinous crimes against the state’. They should also refrain from making light of the very serious issue of security and safety for individuals who are accused of such acts without ever having been even charged with such crimes, much less convicted. The consequences, we know, can be severe. In short, facts please. Or is that just too much to ask?

The latest media story from Jang Group reports that Judicial Executive Panel (JEP) has criticised Asma Jahangir for defending Husain Haqqani. A short version of the article appeared in The News and a longer version in Daily Jang. What a mystery, though, is the organization – Judicial Executive Panel (JEP). A Google search turns up exactly one reference – the article in The News. So who is this “Judicial Executive Panel (JEP)”?

According to the Urdu piece, the members of JEP are:

Muhammad Irfan
Shehansha Shumail Paracha
Muhammad Hussain
Abu Bakr Siddiq
Shafeeq Chuahan
Zahid Saadiq
Sidrah Chauhdhry
Chauhdry Ahsan
Muhammad Razzaq
Chauhdry Yasin Basheer
Muhammad Saad Shibli
Qaiser Rehman
Muhammad Qaiser Maan
Ahmed Imran Ghaazi
Chauhdry Aftab Majeed
Muhammad Rafaqat Dogar
Muhammad Khalid Arain
Sundus Gul

Very interesting group. Chairing the meeting was Muhammad Azhar Siddique, who you may remember as the attorney who petitioned LHC to ban Facebook. Previously, Muhammad Azhar Siddique has petitioned the Supreme Court to scrap the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act of 1972, and in another case, Muhammad Azhar Siddique petitioned LHC to block the appointment of Sherry Rehman to the post of Ambassador to the US, saying she

had presented a bill in the national assembly to make amendments in the blasphemy law (Section 295-C of PPC) and by doing so she had become disqualified under Article 62 of the constitution

The petition was dismissed.

The English medium piece for The News is one paragraph only, criticising Asma Jahangir and saying Husain Haqqani should come out and face the people if he is not guilty. In the Urdu piece for Daily Jang, though, Muhammad Azhar Siddique speaks much more strongly, terming Husain Haqqani a traitor who is hiding in the PM house and daring him to come out and face the people.

Since day one of the new year, Jang Group‘s publications have featured a steady stream of stories attacking the government, their lawyers, and even human rights activists who question whether everything to do with the curious memo case are above board and exactly as they appear. There was the unexplained front page article by a mysterious foreigner who criticised “such heinous crimes against the state”. And now mysterious legal groups headed by right-wing lawyers are appearing from thin air and being quoted by Jang Group strongly condemning people as traitors before any charges have even been brought!

All media groups make mistakes. This is not an excuse, but a reality. But when a pattern of “mistakes” begins to appear in which supposed “news” reporting takes the shape of attempts to influence the public about the proper outcome of a case, one has to ask whether there is an attempt being made to substitute a media trial for a judicial commission.