News Media and MQM

In responding to the story of Altaf Hussain’s stepping down from party leadership that turned into another episode of his ‘return on popular demand’ within hours, the readers have shown better news sense than newsmen.

Here is the Dawn.com story from which I have picked just two of the many sensible comments:
Azmul Hussain: "Surprise resignation? Are you sure Dawn? I don't think anyone was truly surprised by an act that has been practiced many times before and with the same result". (299 likes)

Burki: "So, Altaf Hussain (says) his residence was searched by police in UK. How come Dawn never reported it?" (344 likes)

The second question points a firm middle finger at what could either be self-censorship practiced, not just by Dawn but the entire Pakistani news media when it comes to reporting on MQM, or it could be a collective newsgathering failure to report an important development in the Dr. Imran Farooq murder case.

In a tense battle for breaking news no one in the electronic media considered this news worth reporting, let alone following up, allowing Altaf Hussain to break it and give details in his speech a good ten days later. Could it be the ignorance of reporters sitting in London? Jang Group's editor investigations, Ansar Abbasi, disagrees. 'Reporters knew what was going on but we are scared to report on MQM,' he said in Capital Talk on June 30.

Investigations by London Metropolitan Police and Scotland Yard picked up in the past weeks after nearly a year of quiet. Two houses in London were reportedly raided by police on June 18. More searches were conducted the next day and a ‘British citizen of Pakistani origin wasquestioned’. And finally, on June 20 one news story hinted in passing that one of the houses searched by police ‘was registered in the name of Altaf Hussain’.

If its true that reporters and editors tremble in fear of a regional political party, and willingly give up their duty to report honestly and fairly, how can it be expected to report on national level political parties, criminal gangs, and the much bigger and ferocious terror outfit, Tehrik e Taliban Pakistan and its various affiliates all over the country?

If police involves the head of a political party in a murder investigation, and it is not a story worth telling, what is?

Sources of shame

Every journalist in this country has access to ‘informed sources’ who feature in a majority of stories in print and electronic media on a daily basis. Why then do the consumers of news complain of being uninformed, or worse, being confused and misled by the information?
One of journalism’s universal principles is to attribute all information to the relevant person, group or entity, clearly identified in the story. Exceptions must be very few and must require supervising editor’s consent. Quality media all over the world exercises discretion in the use of unnamed sources of information and where they are used, an attempt is made to justify it to the consumer, within the story. And there may still be unforeseen and adverse consequences. The last time BBC used an unnamed source in a high profile case was in 2003 when it reported to its domestic audience that a well informed official within the government believes the Tony Blair government ‘sexed up’ its Iraq dossier to get a pro-war endorsement from the Parliament. In that instance, the source committed suicide, two top BBC directors had to resign, the reporter lost his job, and the entire BBC had to retrain to ‘regain the confidence of the audiences’. (Highlights of Hutton inquiry report).
Compare this with Pakistani media that attributes even the most official and open announcements for public – sighting of moon by the designated committee of religious scholars, for instance – to unnamed sources (this example from AFP news headlines feed for mobile phone users). Why? I routinely ask journalists participating in my training workshops. I get different replies but the underlying perception is the same: Stories attributing information to unnamed sources sound more credible, even to editors. One reporter narrated this incident in which he attended a news conference held in Peshawer and filed his story. The next day he saw the Islamabad correspondent’s story published in his paper, instead. He called up the news editor and the explanation was: the Peshawer story seemed run of the mill as it quoted people that the rest of the media was quoting. But the Islamabad story stands out because it quotes ‘sources’. I would’ve thought the anecdote was a joke if the rest of the 20 or so mid-level to senior journalists hadn’t nodded in agreement with the narrator.
Reporters, sub-editors and senior editors know all too well that the term ‘sources’ is merely a euphemism for:
1- Reporter’s imagination. Just think of something and attribute it to sources. Who’s going to know!
2- Laziness. Attribution requires meticulously and contextually quoting a subject. It also requires the reporter to know the full name and exact designation of the person quoted. Why get into all this trouble when my editors are happy with the usage of ‘sources’.
3- Planted stories. Sources are not motivated to spill beans to help the cause of journalism, or to respect the right of public to know facts; they have their own personal or institutional reasons and they use news media to further their agenda.
4- Coercion/bribe. Journalists are ‘persuaded’, threatened and bribed all the time to put out some information without disclosing the source. Governments and intelligence agencies routinely use this ploy.
True, there is a story now and then that explains, to the satisfaction of an informed consumer, the reason(s) for withholding a source’s identity; and not all stories attributed to unnamed sources are malicious; but by and large the use of ‘sources’ in news media or not attributing information at all, fails journalists in their professional duty to be accurate, fair, objective and neutral, and should be viewed with suspicion by the consumers. And that brings us to the question of a news media outlet’s credibility – considered the most valuable asset of the organisation anywhere else, but here in the ‘sub chalta hei’ land, the media houses find nothing too shameful.
During Lal Masjid operation, late one night the Islamabad bureau chief, Hamid Mir, said live on Geo that his sources confirm a number of explosions in the residential sectors of the city. The information was wrong but Geo never retracted or followed up on that story, completely oblivious to the panic it created among Islamabad residents and their loved ones watching Geo all over Pakistan and abroad.
Except for a couple, all mainstream newspapers fell for the fake WikiLeaks story put out by Online news agency in December last year. No editor asked the question: Where did Online get this information from? The News and Jang even put it as their lead story, with the former not even crediting the story to the agency, giving the impression it was the paper’s own information. But next day when it dawned on editors that they’d been duped, some like Express Tribune accepted their mistake and apologised to the readers while The News chose to blame Online for not properly vetting the story, as if the newspaper editors get paid their salaries to trust the judgment of hundreds of news agencies that put out thousands of stories every day. With the innocence of a crafty teenager, The News still tried to save face: ‘We learnt from our sources that the story was dubious and may have been planted’. It WAS planted and the media group as a whole DID fall for it, was something the story never said.
Then again at the end of last month all newspapers, this time Dawn included, carried a story about the arrests made at Karachi airport of two suspected killers of Dr. Imran Farooq, on receiving a tip-off from British intelligence. The names of the arrested were not given in the Dawn story of August 26, and they were said to be affiliated with ‘a political party’. The Nation went a step ahead and screamed that the murder case was ‘nearing its conclusion’ with the arrest of ‘three suspects’ including the ‘mastermind, Khalid Shamim who also belongs to MQM’. The Nation story gave the un-attributed details of the plan as if it’d seen CCTV footage, and added that all suspects had owned up to their part in the crime. The same story with additional ‘sensational revelations’ appeared on Paktribune.com on August 27.
Here was a story the entire media seemed to endorse. But when MQM snubbed them for the reporting it termed “devoid of truth, baseless and concocted” the same media cowered into carrying the terse statement word for word, and none of them stood by their story or their sources. To add insult to injury, the interior minister weighed in with MQM in categorically denying if any arrests were made, and if British intelligence had tipped off Pakistan on this case.
What is the consumer of news to make of all this? If it was a war of attrition between MQM and an intelligence agency, how come media positioned itself to be the only loser? And without the consumers’ trust how long can this news media survive?

I, me, myself ... and us

Pakistani media is increasingly getting better at being the story than covering one. On September 9 there was only one story: Altaf Hussain's media conference in London that started a little after 7.30 pm PST and ended just in time for Bolta Pakistan, starring Nusrat Javed and Mushtaq Minhas.
The programme didn't last beyond the first commercial break, and shortly after that internet was buzzing with talk of Nusrat Javed getting the sack for taunting Altaf Hussain. It was not a rumour though: Nusrat himself announced it on Capital Talk. However, that same night and all day the next day, Aaj News continued announcing to its viewers: 'The management strongly refutes the impression created in the media that senior anchor person Nusrat Javed has been terminated (farigh in Urdu) or that his termination is being considered. He is still an important member of this organization'. End of the story?
Not this. On Monday 12th September journalists walked out of both Houses of Parliament in protest against 'sacking' of Nusrat Javed. When they were given the usual pep talk by the concerned ministers, a majority of journalists wanted to get back to work but others continued demanding immediate action. The two groups exchanged hot words and ended in a 'scuffle' as reported by daily Dawn. The agitators then took to the street where the local press club leaders had a chance to deliver speeches and everyone had an opportunity to pose with Imran Khan - the rebel always searching for a cause, and in his desperation often getting the wrong end of the stick. Was he duped again? For that matter did the protesting journalists have a cause?
Let's see: After Bolta Pakistan was discontinued on 'technical grounds', Nusrat Javed called up Mohammed Malick, Geo's resident editor who was a guest on Capital Talk, and told him that MQM had his programme taken off air and he had 'resigned' in protest. The host Hamid Mir took him on phone line and this time Nusrat said he had been 'sacked'. He also accused MQM of threatening the life of 600 staff members if the programme continued. However, he did not attribute this information to any one.



Later, he told his friends and colleagues what sounds like truth: During the break the management of Aaj asked him to stop clowning and get on with his job. He refused and walked out in a huff. The man who professes journalism to be his only passion in life, broke the first rule of journalism by publicly misstating facts about his own story, and by not apologising or explaining his position to his viewers later. As for the protesting journalists, they were simply following the tribal code of protecting one of their own. Though in this case without ascertaining if the person really needed protection.
Freedom of expression is not a blanket allowance for dumping verbal trash in public. What Nusrat Javed indulged in, all through the 18 or so minutes of his programme was his personal opinion of Altaf Hussain, rather than an analysis of his speech. He was visibly and uncontrollably angry at the epithet of bay-ghairat Altaf Hussain had used for Nawaz League but Nusrat Javed in his peculiar state chose to apply on Punjabis in general and Punjabi anchor persons in particular. He responded to this 'personal insult' by narrating his family tree to prove he was a son of Punjab's soil, directly addressing and challenging the MQM leader and mimicking his song and dance routine so consistently, the unnerved co-host Mushtaq Minhas had to plead the producer to go for a break (watch the last few seconds of the clip below). The only time he seemed at ease was when ANP leader Zahid Khan joined on phone line and called Altaf Hussain a 'mad man' and his speech 'bakwaas' - the derogatory terms a decent host like Nusrat Javed does not allow on his show in normal circumstances.



Nusrat Javed resumed his show starting Tuesday 13th September and its been business as usual ever since. He forgot to follow up on his criminal allegations against MQM. He conveniently chose not to inform his viewers if he was really sacked, and on what terms was he re-hired. All that remains of this sorry episode is occasional swear words for MQM, and adulatory remarks in favour of Nusrat Javed for standing up against it, in the countless discussions on internet. Is that the kind of viewership a senior, serious and passionate journalist wants to appeal to?

Deciphering bhai

1- Altaf Hussain's marathon sit-down comedy dubbed as an international news conference went on for more than three hours during which he sang, hand-danced, waved Quran, appeared drunk (or forgetful), and read some documents in a foreign language no one understood.
2- This event was broadcast live, without interruption even for news heads or the sacred 9 'O clock detailed bulletin, or the more sacred talk shows, or the more important advertising spots, by EVERY TV news channel in Pakistan.
3- Here is a bullet point precis of what he said (in my words):
a) 12 May wasn't MQM's doing. It was Musharraf's idea and we only did his bidding (the would-be famous quote: God is my witness I don't know who placed containers on Karachi roads. And if anyone has a problem with that, go to ICJ against me).
b) No one listens to Supreme Court but if it gives a verdict against us, it will be implemented. In that case God is a better judge, and the people are even better at judging such things.
c) Some powers are out to dismember Pakistan but if the army and the ISI (apparently for him they are two different entities) join hands with MQM workers, the threat can be neuteralised.
d) Answering a question from Islamabad he lost his composure and said: 'some people wish that MQM should indeed start breaking up the country'.
e) Quoted from a lot of material available on the net as proof of his assertions.
f) Spoke harshly against ANP and JI, and called Musharraf 'buzdil' and N-League leaders 'be-ghairat' but hardly anything against PPP and nothing at all about Zardari, Gillani and Associates.
4- After the event Nusrat Javed opened his show by freaking out at the epithet of be-ghairat that he somehow connected with TV anchors.
5- Hamid Mir in Islamabad and Kamran Khan in Karachi vied for air time and the crafty Mir was able to throw out the Khan after 15 minutes.
6- MQM's leaders in Karachi made it in time to assorted TV studios, mostly to defend the song-and-dance routine of their leader.
7- Every guest in the post-event talk shows said the opponents were crossing the line of decency, and then decently did the same.