Posts Tagged ‘Zardari’

Reporting or Campaigning?

Sunday, December 26th, 2010

Shaheen SehbaiIt is being reported that consensus mode is working well in the National Assembly, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain has agreed that PML-Q will support the government, and even Mian Nawaz Sharif has pledged PML-N support for the government. If politicians can mature beyond petty bickering and backstabbing, why can’t our media?

Consider the column by Shaheen Sehbai featured on the front page of The News today which basically amounts to an anti-Zardari campaign sheet rather than an actual news report. While the editors clearly labeled the piece “Commentary”, one is left to wonder why this could not be placed on the Opinion page and whether the commentary is honest analysis or simply Sehabi continuing his predictions of a failed government now going into three years after elections.

For example, this is Shaheen Sehbai’s ‘Commentary’ on the Altaf Hussain-Zardari relationship:

The levels of playing fields for both these leaders, sitting as part of a coalition which is sinking, or doomed to sink no matter how long it is artificially stretched, are noteworthy. Altaf Bhai appears to have acquired a much higher moral ground because Zulfiqar Mirza and company have pulled Zardari and the PPP down to below ground level.

But the level Zardari has set for sticking to some morals in politics is pathetically sub-surface and almost non-existent. An important columnist and writer recently remarked that he had never heard the word “corruption” in any of Zardari’s speeches and addresses. Anti-corruption and accountability for the present rulers means how to escape and kill both these dragons.

Despite the defection of Maulana Fazl-ur-Rahman, there is little evidence to support the claim that the coalition government is ‘doomed’. To the contrary, recent reports linked to in the first paragraph of this post demonstrate quite the opposite – coalition and opposition parties dedicated to seeing the democratically elected government complete its full term.

But Shaheen Sehbai takes the political rhetoric of some opposition leaders and makes a warning against Nawaz that he should “stop the Zardari train”.

The opposition, led by Nawaz Sharif, is the most confused lot as they share power and fear the Army but by ignoring the rapid collapse of every institution, they are proving that the political system is unable to correct itself. If the politicians cannot stop the rot, someone will have to do so. By not doing anything, Nawaz Sharif is inviting others to intervene. This is what he fears but this he probably does not understand.

Again, this is not commentary or analysis of the day’s news, it is the campaigning rhetoric one expects to hear from a rally loudspeaker. Shaheen Sehbai has started with his conclusion – that Zardari is doomed – and has built his commentary around this rather than looking at the facts and determining a conclusion based on those.

Obviously, Sehbai is entitled to his own opinion. But as consumers of news, we are also entitled to ask whether it is useful for our understanding of events. Cafe Pyala reports today that Jang Group is making some interestng personnell changes that appear to be a sincere effort to temper the over-the-top anti-Western rhetoric that has crept into its organization’s reporting on foreign policy and provide a more balanced, reasoned reporting and analysis. Perhaps it would be worth considering to do something similar related to domestic politics as well.

Ghosts, Goblins, and Shaheen Sehbai's Cloudy Crystal Ball

Monday, December 6th, 2010

Shaheen SehbaiI will admit, what Shaheen Sehbai lacks in facts he certainly makes up for in tenacity. That man is relentless! Having spent some time reading the Wikileaks database, he has figured out a way to justify all of his mistakes over the past two years. But when you boil down Sehbai’s column to its essence, you find that no matter how hard he wishes, there is still no meat in the pot.

According to Shaheen Sehbai today:

The ghosts say when Ambassador Patterson conveyed the minus-1 formula to Washington, the delayed reaction was indifference and almost a tacit approval as if people would be much relieved if that happened in a constitutional or legal way, without direct military intervention or takeover.

This is essentially the same as what Sehbai wrote before:

The State Department, specifically Hillary Clinton, has almost categorically declared that they are no longer interested in saving President Asif Ali Zardari if he falls in his current battle for survival, waging in the superior courts of Pakistan.

Here is what the secret US diplomatic cable actually says:

3. (C) During Ambassador’s fourth meeting in a week with Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Kayani on March 10, he again hinted that he might, however reluctantly, have to persuade President Zardari to resign if the situation sharply deteriorates. He mentioned Asfundyar Wali Khan as a possible replacement. This would not be a formal coup but would leave in place the PPP government led by PM Gilani, thus avoiding elections that likely would bring Nawaz Sharif to power. We do not believe Army action is imminent. We do believe Kayani was laying down a clear marker so that, if he has to act, he can say he warned the U.S. in advance and gave us ample opportunities to pressure both sides to back down. Kayani is trying to leverage what he considers predominate U.S. influence over Zardari, instead of seeking a direct confrontation that could provoke an unhelpful civil-military clash.

Do you see the glaring problem here? Despite Shaheen Sehbai’s most wishful thinking, the fact remains that the cable says something completely different from Sehbai’s reporting. Actually, it says that Gen. Kayani ‘hinted’ to the US Ambassador Anne Patterson that he might have to ‘reluctantly’ persuade President Zardari to resign “if the situation sharply deteriorates” in the hopes that the Americans would influence the president to not make any mistakes. The cable concludes with a statement by the US Ambassador, “Zardari needs to win back the military’s confidence.” That’s a far cry from Zardari being removed by the Army with the blessing of the US State Department.

What the document doesn’t say is that the Army is planning a minus-1 ‘soft coup’. Neither does it say that the Americans approve – tacitly or otherwise – such a plan.

To understand this better, consider a topic besides back-room political dealings. Without having any contacts in the military or being privy to any secrets, it is probably safe to assume that there are contingency plans with both the Pakistani and Indian armies for the event of a nuclear war. These plans are, of course, discussed between the military and intelligence so that “if the situation sharply deteriorates”, no one is caught unaware.

But it would be beyond the pale to make the leap from, “the army has considered what could happen in a ‘worst-case’ scenario” to declaring that Pakistan and India will be in a nuclear war any day now. This is the style of Shaheen Sehbai – wishful thinking packaged in sensationalism. All spice and no meat.

What does begin to reveal itself, though, is how Shaheen Sehbai has been made a puppet of certain factions within the establishment who feed him rumours and leaks that they know he will package and publish in a manner useful to their plans. Perhaps these elements of the establishment must feel that Sehbai is not clever enough to realize the actual situation, or perhaps Sehabi is a willing participant.

What is clear is that Shaheen Sehbai is quite selective about his facts, carefully choosing certain sources who he is willing to believe without question – he calls these ‘ghosts’, and certain others whose statements he dismisses out of hand as nothing but cronyism – what he calls ‘power players’ but are clearly the ‘goblins’ in his fantasy tale. To Sehbai, the statements of these ‘ghosts’ that follow Pervez Musharraf to New York City are like gold form the tongues of Angels, while those who dare suggest that Sehabi does not have all the facts are merely ‘anti-Army zealots’ – a curious charge from a man with a well documented record of anti-Army headlines of his own. Of course, the fact that the tiger has changed his stripes now is simply another example of the double-standard that Shaheen Sehbai uses for himself.

It should also be noted that this is the same Shaheen Sehabi who wrote an article on 22 October 1999 for Dawn that describes Pakistan as a “patient” and Pervez Musharraf as the “surgeon”, and who wrote earlier this year that his sources for information about Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry were “circles close to General Musharraf in London and Washington”. It seems that these ghosts of Musharraf are sitting squarely on Shaheen Sehbai’s shoulders and whispering directly in his ears.

Shaheen Sehbai, having read through the Wikileaks database, has decided that his predictions over the two year past are vindicated because the American diplomatic cables have revealed that there are disagreements and tensions in the Pakistani government. He is encouraged by the ghosts of Pervez Musharraf.

Shaheen Sehbai writes almost 2,000 words describing an establishment and a political class deeply distrustful and suspicious of each other. Again, not exactly ground-breaking news there. But Sehbai conveniently ignores the facts – that the evidence in the Wikileaks cables proves that his predictions and his reporting were wrong from the very beginning.

Despite writing over two years ago that “the present Zardari-led set-up will not last long”, Asif Zardari remains president, and the PPP remains in government. Undeterred by an inconvenient reality, Shaheen Sehabi concludes his 2,000 words by making the same prediction he has been making since before day one – that Zardari will be removed from government.

It appears Shaheen Sehbai is using what is called the ‘broken clock strategy’ since even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Obviously, someday Zardari will not be president of Pakistan. It could be in 2013, it could be 2018…it could be sooner or later. But Sehbai knows that as long as he keeps predicting that Zardari is leaving office, eventually he will be correct. Rest assured that the day Zardari leaves office, Shaheen Sehbai will pen a column declaring himself vindicated again.

In the meantime, you’ll get better news by looking out your windows than Shaheen Sehabi gets from his crystal ball. And you won’t have to read 2,000 words to get it.

President Zardari Addresses SAFMA

Monday, November 8th, 2010

President Zadari addressed the 4th national conference of South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) on Sunday during which he urged the media to take a more positive tone and assured journalists that his administration will not take a crack down on the media as previous governments have done.

The President acknowledged the struggle of media for the cause of democracy despite the difficult conditions in which journalists work.

He assured that next elections would be free and fair.

President SAFMA Pakistan Nusrat Javed and senior journalist Ziauddin also spoke on the occasion and pledged their support for continuity of democracy, rule of law, across the board accountability, fight against terrorism and extremism and for a free media and independent judiciary.

Ziauddin said media will always be in a confrontation with a government as it is watchdog for the interests of society.

Both Zardari and Ziauddin are correct. A free media will always be in some tension with the government because it is a watch dog that must keep the government responsible. But a watch dog that is always barking when there is nothing there is not good either. Both the government and the media have their responsibilities that must be held accountable. Government must be held accountable if there is any corruption and also journalists and editors must be held accountable if they are not reporting facts.

It is a positive sign of progress, we believe, that President Zardari and President SAFMA Pakistan Nusrat Javed can speak respectfully for each other about ways that each can do his job and still respect the work that the other is doing also.

Express Tribune Joins Gossip Brigade

Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010

In a disappointing move, The Express Tribune has apparently decided to take a page from Hamid Mir’s gossip column in their own newspaper. The article, “Zardari makes an appearance; raises eyebrows“, by reporter Maha Mussadaq reads like a celebrity gossip column and provides no substantive news to readers.

What Maha Mussadaq’s short article lacks in substance, it makes up for in

While some had their appetite for food others were looking forward to some juicy gossip. “So I’ve heard the President is also coming tonight,” said a diplomat to another with raised eyebrows and quirky smiles. Yes, the most interesting sight of the night was the surprise appearance of President Asif Ali Zardari as the chief guest. Before his coming, there were rumours going on about his arrival, where some knew about his plan others were puzzled as to when and why was he coming?

President Zardari walked down the carpeted stairs towards the tent where all the guests were waiting, of course with an entourage, smiling, saluting, and waving. The president began his brisk round of the tent shaking hands with guests, and left leaving the guests with mixed feelings where a lot were puzzled, a few happy, some with smirks and a handful least bothered faces were spotted which were sweeter than desert.

Now, tell me, what is the point of this? It reads like the script from a drama serial, not serious reporting on a diplomatic event. And what is meant by the phrase, “some with smirks and a handful least bothered faces were spotted which were sweeter than desert”. Is the reporter injecting her own opinions into the article?

Our media already has too many gossip columnists and too few serious reporters. Please, the editors of Express Tribune should kindly stick to reporting news, not celebrity gossips.

'Auntie Talk' With Hamid Mir

Saturday, October 30th, 2010

Gossip AlertMr Hamid Mr writes in The News (Jang Group) today that President Zardari’s recent attendance at a diplomatic function honoring Turkey raised “disturbing questions”. Upon reading the column, however, it was only learned that Hamid Mir engages in more parlour gossips than a dozen busy-bodies.

Here are the so-called “disturbing” question according to Hamid Mir:

Despite all this political gossip, many Western diplomats were seriously trying to understand the unusual presence of President Zardari on the national day of Turkey. Some Foreign Office officials were telling them that it was not unusual because presidents had attended diplomatic functions in the Chinese and US embassies in the past.

A top government official informed The News that President Zardari had given a goodwill gesture to Turkey for its unprecedented help given to the victims of the recent floods. He also said Pakistan, Turkey and Iran had become partners in 6,566 km long railway line project worth $20 billion.

Many people were discussing whether Turkey was going to invest a lot in the power sector and was this the reason President Zardari graced the national day of Turkey but they were also asking what was the role of a president in a parliamentary democracy.

The presence of President Zardari in a very important diplomatic gathering raised many valid questions in the minds of foreign guests. They were asking their Pakistani friends that if prime minister had become powerful after the 18th Amendment, then why US President Obama is still calling and inviting President Zardari to visit Washington?

They were also asking whether President Zardari was giving signals to the diplomatic community of Islamabad that he was still the most powerful man in the government. They were asking where was PM Gilani? Poor Pakistanis had no answer to all these disturbing questions raised by their foreign friends.

These questions are not disturbing, and probably they were never even asked by anyone. Let’s think about this for one moment, shall we? Why was the President attending a diplomatic function for a close ally that is making some investments in our country? Do we really even have to ask such a question?

Why is US President Obama calling for Zardari to come visit if 18th Amendment made the PM more powerful? President Zardari may have returned some powers to their proper office as part of democratic reforms, but he is still ‘head of state’ and the head of the PPP. The office of President was not abolished. Why shouldn’t Obama invite Zardari for a chat?

These questions are not disturbing, they are banal.

But there is one disturbing thing reveal by Hamir Mir. The so-called ‘disturbing questions’ account for only the final paragraphs in a long column of many paragraphs. What is reported in the rest of the article? It is only the most stereotypical gossips you can imagine. Did someone move to the other side of the room and not shake Zardari’s hand? Was someone whispering in the corner? What did some PML-N say about some Minister?

Is Hamid Mir is auditioning for a new celebrity gossip show? Perhaps he can call his new show “Auntie Talk” because he reminds me of listening to my auntie sit around and gossip about the people in our neighborhood over tea with her friends.

Whatever his intentions, Hamid Mir has only embarrassed himself by writing such a gossip column. Whatever one’s political preference, it must be admitted that a real journalist could easily write a column about any world leader titled ‘Disturbing Questions’ that includes real questions of governing, diplomacy, and politics. For Hamid Mir, though, there is apparently only some parlour gossip. Disappointing, indeed.

Ahmed Quraishi v. Ahmed Quraishi on Geo

Monday, October 25th, 2010

Ahmed QuraishiAhmed Quraishi has weighed in on the media debate. In his typical style, Quraishi ignores the more thoughtful discussion of his more intellectual colleagues in journalism and jumps straight to accusations of some American conspiracy against Geo for being “critical of Mr. Zardari”. But upon careful reading, Quraishi’s critique quickly falls apart.

Quraishi’s entire claim of conspiracy is based on two newspaper articles published by The Washington Post: One titled, “Pakistan’s press piles on president” and the other titled, “Pakistan’s Emboldened Judiciary Threatens Government Stability“. Quraishi does not deny that the press is “piling on” the president as, presumably, he knows that such a claim is too much even for his own readers.

Rather, Quraishi says that “such one-sided and biased reporting can appear in Washington Post shows there are power centers in Washington that take any attack against the incumbent Pakistani government very personally”. Of course, using Ahmed Quraishi’s same logic, one-sided and biased reporting in The News shows that are power centers in Islamabad that take any attack against the incumbent Pakistani government very personally. And that, let me tell you, is simply silliness.

Quraishi’s logical problems don’t stop there. He claims that this is not simply one article, but “underscores a trend in the US media over the past one year”. His evidence? One other article published by the same newspaper one week earlier. Again, using Ahmed Quraishi’s same logic, if it rains in Sialkot for two days in one week, therefore there is a one year trend of constant rain for the whole country. It simply makes no sense.

Most interesting, though, is what this new column reveals about how Ahmed Quraishi changes his conspiracy theories to fit his political objectives. In his latest article, Quraishi defends Geo as a voice of Pakistan. But in 2007, Quraishi himself accused Geo of being a tool of American interests!

This is why most Pakistanis have never seen American diplomats in Pakistan active like this before. And it’s not just the current U.S. ambassador, who has added one more address to her other most-frequently-visited address in Karachi, Mrs. Bhutto’s house. The new address is the office of GEO, one of two news channels shut down by Islamabad for not signing the mandatory code-of-conduct. Thirty-eight other channels are operating and no one has censored the newspapers. But never mind this. The Americans have developed a ‘thing’ for GEO.

Of course, in 2007 Ahmed Quraishi’s worries were somewhat similar. At that time he was worried that the Americans were supporting democratic reforms in Pakistan by not propping up Musharraf. In 2010, he is worried that the Americans are supporting democracy by not standing aside for another coup. Ahmed Quraishi perhaps gives away his ideology a bit later in his 2007 article, though, when he writes:

Musharraf has also told Washington publicly that “Pakistan is more important than democracy or the constitution.” This is a bold position. This kind of boldness would have served Musharraf a lot had it come a little earlier. But even now, his media management team is unable to make the most out of it.

For Quraishi, the nation is not democracy – which is the will of the people – it is only the will of Ahmed Quraishi, a “media manager” or propagandist, and his patrons.

It’s a bit cheeky of Ahmed Quraishi to criticise an American newspaper for commenting on Pakistani politics and media when Ahmed Quraishi himself has made a career out of creating conspiracy theories about American politics and media.

At least the American newspaper had the professionalism and decency to seek out comments from Rana Jawad, Fekhar Rehman, and Cyril Almeida. Of course, the article that so offended Ahmed Quraishi was written by real journalists, not “media managers”. Perhaps instead of criticising the Washington Post, Quraishi could take a moment to learn a thing or two about real reporting.

Ansar Abbasi vs. Ansar Abbasi on 18th Amendment

Saturday, October 23rd, 2010

Ansar AbbasiThere is a famous saying that no man has a good enough memory to be a perfect liar. Ansar Abbasi could never be a good liar because his memory is so short that he cannot remember even what he has claimed the day before. Within the past two days, Abbasi’s statements in his columns about the SC verdict on 18th Amendment come into direct contradiction.

Yesterday, in a bit of irony that did not go unnoticed by many, Ansar Abbasi claimed that the government was unhappy with the SC verdict because they were hoping to cause a conflict between the government and judiciary.

The otherwise aggressive Presidency, whose men unleashed unending scathing attacks on the judiciary following the apex court’s NRO decision, has gone on the backfoot as the Supreme Court’s latest decision has won more sympathisers for the judiciary, even within the government and in the Presidency.

According to a credible source, a president’s top aide and federal minister, whose advice really matters a lot in the Presidency’s decisions, did not show any appreciation after getting the details of the interim order. The source said that the minister wore a sullen face as soon as he got to know as to what the apex court had ruled.

The source said that the negative reaction of such grim faces was expected to be reflected discreetly through the media. “Some panic phone calls have already been made to certain friends in the media to encourage media persons to pick up holes in the judgment,” the source said.

In only 24 hours, Ansar Abbasi must have forgotten his talking points, though, because his column for today makes the opposite claim.

Sardar Latif Khosa, a former cabinet member and one of the legal aides of the president, has already welcomed the SC decision, terming it as well considered and well thought-out. He added that the SC order suggested the best way to deal with the issues that were brought before the judiciary. Yet another presidential aide and President Zardari’s political aide Faisal Raza Abidi had also termed the SC order as “excellent” and “judicious”.

Generally, the PPP legislators and even the government representatives are excited about the decision as it has successfully averted the much-feared confrontation between the judiciary and parliament.

So how does such an experienced journalist as Ansar Abbasi make such an error? Actually, he gives himself away today. Here is what Ansar Abbasi explains:

There are fears amidst political and journalistic circles that the Presidency and its top legal mind and Law Minister Babar Awan have some reservations about the Supreme Court’s interim order because of which they are not coming up with their response.

It is alleged that some of the presidential aides are instead encouraging their friends in the media to pick up holes in the SC’s interim order and raise the question if it interferes in the legislature’s domain.

Whether he intended to or not, Ansar Abbasi has exposed himself and too many of his media colleagues, though they may be unnamed here. There is no evidence that the government is trying to cause a conflict with the judiciary, and there is no evidence that the government or the President himself is unhappy with the verdict. Actually, this is all only the gossip among political and media elites.

Recent events have already suggested that there are some media elements fueling the executive-judiciary tensions. Ansar Abbasi has just given more evidence. It is time for the media to stop playing games and reporting their office gossips. Please, stick to the facts.

The News vs. The News On Deedar Hussain Shah

Sunday, October 10th, 2010

The News (Jang Group)Yesterday’s edition of The News (Jang) included another example of politicized reporting that even contradicts other reports in the same newspaper.

Ansar Abbasi’s top news story, “New NAB chairman, a Jiyala from A to Z” accuses President Zardari of appointing a political crony as the new NAB chief. His report calls Deedar Hussain Shah “controversial” and includes statements that PML-N through Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan found the candidate unacceptable.

But another report by Rauf Klasra in the same paper, “Nawaz trusted the new NAB chairman”, describes this new opposition to Deedar Hussain Shah as NAB chairman as like a tiger changing its stripes.

The court documents show that Nawaz and his legal team were satisfied with the role of the SHC CJ, Deedar Hussain Shah, because they believed that in line with the norms of justice, he neither allowed a speedy trial of Nawaz nor he formed a full bench like his successor.

Deedar Hussain Shah, when he was the SHC CJ, had actually appointed a three-member bench comprising Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Rabbani and another judge, to hear the Nawaz case and the former prime minister was quite satisfied with this bench and its proceedings. After reading these papers, it becomes quite obvious that Deedar Hussain Shah was sent to the Supreme Court because General Musharraf was unhappy with him during the trial of Nawaz Sharif.

The official record shows that Nawaz’s legal team had praised the then SHC CJ Deedar Hussain Shah in the petition no. 172/2000, which was filed to challenge the speedy trial and formation of a full bench by the new SHC CJ. The petition was filed on June 27, 2000, challenging whether Sindh High Court registrar could constitute a full bench for hearing of anti-terrorism appeals under Rules 2 and 5 of the high court.

Nawaz Sharif’s lawyer had complained in writing to the SHC after the elevation of Deedar Shah as the SC judge followed by the appointment of the new SHC CJ that the role of secret agencies had suddenly become important in proceedings that had greatly disturbed Nawaz. He complained in the petition that after the appointment of the new SHC chief justice, inconveniences had been created by four intelligence agencies.

But, today after the lapse of 10 years, the PML-N leaders have come out to attack the same judge and challenged his appointment as the NAB chairman on grounds that once he was a PPP worker and had contested election on its ticket. But Nawaz’s legal team and leaders did not question him or his past political affiliation as they had found him a professional judge who did not allow secret agencies to disturb the court’s environment or form a full bench or order his speedy trial as it was done later.

The documents revealed that with the elevation of Deedar Hussain Shah to the SC in April 2008, Nawaz Sharif was not happy, telling the court in writing that when he (Deedar Shah) was the SHC CJ, environment of the court was smooth, orderly and peaceful. Deedar Shah had also worked with Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhary and had retired without any complaint against him as he enjoyed a good record as a judge.

This sudden change of opinion is well documented and makes for an important news story. When citizens hear that one politician is challenging the appointments of another, they must have the knowledge of history to determine if these challenges are being made in good faith, or are political theatre only.

Despite The News having access to all the information about Mian Nawaz Sharif praising Deedar Hussain Shah for so many years, Ansar Abbasi seems to have ignored this information and did not even ask probing questions to get to the heart of the matter. He simply repeated, in very political terms, the opposition talking points.

By calling Deedar Hussain Shah a ‘Jiyala’ (PPP activist) through-and-through, Ansar Abbasi is acting like an opposition agent, not a journalist. Please, we have enough political operatives – what we need are journalists.

Please, Keep It To The Facts

Monday, September 6th, 2010

The following comment was left on a column by Ms Beenish Ahmed for Huffington Post. Ms Ahmed writes about the rumours being circulated that Asif Zardari has purchased a London flat for some £140 million. Whereas Waj’s evidence was an email being forwarded around, Ms Ahmed’s proof comes from statements of Dr Saeed Elahi in The News.

Dear Miss Beenish Ahmed,

There are a few problems with your story that I think require addressing. First, you say that The News confirmed that Asif Zardari purchased the flat. But the article you link to says that this was a claim of Dr Saeed Elahi – an opposition MPA from PML-N. How is this a confirmation? Also, while Mr Sehbai has certainly made this claim also, the original source of the rumour appears to have come from an email being circulated (http://pakistanmediawatch.com/2010/08/27/waj-s-khans-real-estate-rumours/) which is clearly a political propaganda.

Second, your concluding paragraph suggests that the rumours are as yet unproven, but you also claim that Mr Zardari has “habit of skimming government moneys for personal use”. This is a very serious charge – what proofs do you have to support this claim?

It seems that the overall point of your article is commendable – that media organizations such as The News should not “twist the truth for political appeal” which you deem “occupational corruption”, but even in your argument you are making several assumptions that perpetuate rumours without any supporting evidence. Please, keep it to the facts.

As I point out in the comment, it does appear that Ms Ahmed is trying to be fair. She does correctly point out that,

If the story is a false account, it will only prove a willingness of one of Pakistan’s most revered media outlets to twist the truth for political appeal, in other words, enter into the same sort of occupational corruption it tries to hold the government responsible for.

Unfortunately, as noted in the comment, she also repeats other claims that may exist in the popular opinion, but have not been proven by any actual evidence. This makes them neither true nor false, but unkowns. This is something that we believe is a regularly occurring problem in media that is difficult to fix, but must be addressed: Only reporting actual facts that can be proven, not “facts” that are really “assumptions” or “beliefs”.

I was encouraged by Ms Ahmed’s clear attempt to move toward an objective review of the story, but her repeating rumours and her failure to report that the source at the foundation of her claim, Mr Saeed Elahi, is an opposition politician demonstrate that there is still more work to do.

Waj S. Khan's Real Estate Rumours

Friday, August 27th, 2010

I love email. It makes communication fast and easy. No more standing around waiting for the post office to open if you only have a computer and an Internet account. Unfortunately, it’s the perfect way to spread all sorts of rumours and smears. “Hey, I was just forwarding an email!” That roughly translates to, “I want to gossip, but I don’t want to be responsible for whether or not its true!” In fact, it is such a problem that there are entire websites dedicated to debunking these “urban legends” that get circulated in emails. A good friend of mine often tells me that, “if it is in an email someone forwarded you, chances are it is not true!”

I also really like Wajahat S Khan. I think that, among the TV personalities out there, he is a pretty reliable guy. Of course, everybody makes mistakes. I think Waj made a pretty big mistake today with a post on his blog today about a “confidential email” claiming that Zardari bought a million pounds flat in London. Why is Waj spreading rumours and political propaganda?

This “confidential email” is simply another smear against Asif Zardari, as is clear from its closing lines:

This is a small reminder to the sick people in Pakistan, who were against the throwing of the shoe to a “Respected President of Pakistan abroad”!!!

They are purblind to the realities of the damage this man called Zardari has done to the nation.

But what damage would Zardari have done by buying a flat in London, if that is even the case? And why is Waj publishing a rumour that even declares that it doesn’t know the facts? The email itself says that “The final bid was made by mobile phone from inside a bullet proof car”. Is Asif Zardari the only man to own a mobile and a bullet proof car? What kind of proof is this?

Frankly, it’s quite disappointing that Waj saw fit to promote this sort of obvious political propaganda on his blog. As a respected journalist, he lends such obvious political smears an air of authority that they do not deserve. Why did he not exercise his investigative skills and do more research rather than simply repeating an obvious political rumour?

But let’s get to the meat of this email rumour, shall we? Actually, let’s see if there’s really any meat there, or if it’s just a mess of mashed pulses mixed with a handful of masala meant to fool the unsuspecting.

First, is it really newsworthy if Asif Zardari buys a flat in London? Look at other leaders. Pervez Musharraf owns a flat worth many millions of pounds. In fact, many Pakistani politicians own London flats.

The meeting took place at his apartment on the ninth floor of the Castleacre, Hyde Park Crescent.

The cost of the accommodation certainly runs into millions of pounds. Musharraf would not talk much about how he mobilised funds to purchase this because the money was ‘pooled’ by his own lecturing resources, his US-based son, Bilal, and the assistance from a friend that was not named.

It is the same locale, a few meters from the picturesque Hyde Park, where fabulously rich Pakistani politicians like Nawaz Sharif, still have or had apartments. As I reached the high security multi-storey plaza twenty minutes before the appointed time, I was greeted by a well-built Pakistani, wearing the traditional Safari suit of the same colour, and was told that Sahib has just finished his physical exercise, spanning one and a half hours.

Actually, the Sharif family are quite the wealthy landowners in London, with several properties worth millions of pounds each.

Of these, the Sharif family residence, three flats at 17 Avenfield House, 118 Park Lane alone are worth around 12 million pounds (Rs1.6 billion). According to documents available, Flagship Investments Limited, one of the companies run by the Sharif family in London, owns property worth around 10 million pounds in Central London. This does not include the value of the company’s offices. Hasan Nawaz Sharif, the son of PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, is listed as the director of company on official documents. According to its website www.flagshipinvestments.co.uk, the company refurbishes and redevelops luxury residential properties in top end Central London locations. Sought after properties in Mayfair, Knightsbridge, Kensington and Bayswater are their primary focus. The company’s address listed on the website is Stanhope House, Stanhope Place, Marble Arch – one of the city’s priciest neighbourhoods. However, according to documents, the company moved to Tower Bridge House on St Katherine’s Way in November 2007 – a much more upscale property located near the bank of the River Thames.

The company’s website lists several properties, which include Flat 8, Burwood Place – London W2, worth 700,000 pounds (Rs96.6 million); Flat 9, Burwood Place – London W2, worth 900,000 pounds (Rs124.2 million); 10 Duke Mansions, Duke Street, London W1, worth 1,495,000 pounds (Rs206.31 million); Flat 12a, 118 Park Lane, Mayfair – London SW1, worth 475,000 pounds (Rs65.55 million); Flat 2, 36 Green Street – London W1, worth 800,000 pounds (Rs110.4 million); and, 117 Gloucester Place, London W1 (value not listed). The website also features a piece of real estate near the Buckingham Palace, which is valued at around 4,450,000 pounds. In addition, one of the properties listed on the website – 841 Neil Gwynne House, Slone Avenue – is said to be the residence of one Waqar Ahmed, listed on the documents as the Company Secretary of Flagship Investments Limited.

MQM’s Altaf Hussain owns multiple million pound properties in the UK. Evan PTI’s Imran Khan’s massive property which includes a private cricket ground for his sons was paid for with the proceeds from a London real estate deal.

Like most world leaders, Asif Zardari is wealthy. This should not be any surprise. And while it is a popular for his political opponents to spread rumours about his wealth, it is also a fact that Asif Zardari was a very successful businessman long before he ever met Benazir Bhutto and got involved with politics.

While there is no evidence that Asif Zardari is the buyer of this flat, the buyer, however anonymous right now, will come to be known. All properties in the UK have to be registered, so even if it is bought in the name of a company, the owner will be easily traceable. Why not wait until the registration is complete to say who the buyer is? Is it because this is now political opportunity to undermine the credibility of the President? That’s fine for political operatives, but not for serious journalists. I expect better, Waj.