Selective perception

When media tries to prove itself more patriotic than others, it tramples public interest.


The French statesman, George Clemenceau, who led his country in the first world war, famously said, “War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.” Well, times have changed. Mass media, considered to be a soft power for a long time, has assumed an active and over-reaching role in trying to influence matters as serious as public policy, diplomacy, and at times, war.

In the case of countries where media’s dominating role is restricted to commercial interests only, perhaps the situation is still under control. However, if the countries are involved in a conflict, the game becomes a little more complex, and dare I say, extremely dangerous. The jingoism being displayed brazenly by media, and the professionals running the show, in both India and Pakistan these days is a prime example of that. News television channels are particularly running wild in whipping up war hysteria with no regard whatsoever for the implications any such adventure might have for the future of either country in the short and long term.

According to a recent report issued by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, television news viewing in western countries has declined by 3-4 percent since 2012 and is likely to reach a staggering 25-30 per cent over a ten-year period. This reduction in news television viewership is in line with the decline in newspaper readership as the audience is showing an increasing shift towards online mediums. Not quite in India and Pakistan where news television in private sector is a booming business and has sown exponential growth during the last two decades.

Ratings-driven television stations, in their quest to attract eyeballs, are going to every possible length to form public opinion in favour of another war between India and Pakistan. Be it the framing of news stories, the choice of words, the selection of guests for talk-shows and sound bites, or the ever-frenzied anchors, everything is pointing in a certain direction. Anybody refusing to wear overt patriotism on his/her sleeve is being termed a traitor, and the governments are being egged-on to show more aggression towards the “enemy”.

Whether these media houses are punching above their weight or the viewers are taking this content too seriously is another debate, but a dangerous game is on for sure. The television channels are apparently pushing both the leadership, and the general public, in both countries to the brink where restraint is off the table and anybody hinting even slighting towards this option is frowned upon.

What is most amazing in this circus is that the basic rule of thumb — objectivity, has been thrown out of the window. The trigger-happy anchors, and the hyper-nationalist news managers appear to believe everything coming from the government and military circles without questioning the content or the rationale, as if any such move would brand them a traitor as well. To make matters worse, social media gossip has become mainstream news. Actor Fawad Khan was condemned by Indian news channels for allegedly saying “Pakistan first” after his exit from India. Nobody reported that this story was lifted from an unknown website that carried it first with the disclaimer that “it was not verified”.

The manner in which the Indian and Pakistani television stations are reporting incidents, and particularly statements originating on either side, is utterly questionable to say the least. Om Puri, Mahesh Bhatt, and Salman Khan were Pakistan’s hero because they spoke in favour of Pakistani artists but Humayun Saeed was not, only because he disagreed with the call to ban Indian films in local theatres. These double standards are sickening and hint at a tendency to take the audience for granted by playing on their emotions.

These news channels take pride in “informing” and “shaping” public opinion. Shaping? Yes. Information? Not quite. There are several surveys that have provided evidence that those who watch a lot of television news, or believe everything that they watch on the idiot-box, actually know less. In a survey conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University in 2012 that aimed at gauging the knowledge of American public about current affairs over a ten-year period, the results were shocking and exactly opposite to the popular belief.
However, one finding from the survey that the “ideological news sources, like Fox and MSNBC, were just talking to one audience” captures the essence of what is happening in India and Pakistan these days. Media in both countries is knowingly preying on a select group of audience that has been brought-up on a steady diet of hyper-nationalism and doctored history and is unable to fathom reality in any other way.

Another survey conducted by a team of researchers in eleven countries was published in 2013. The main findings of the survey were foreign news offered by the main TV channel, was quite limited in scope, and mainly driven by a combination of national interest and geographic proximity. This interplay of framing and securitisation is driving the content of mass media in India and Pakistan. When the national security interests take over, and the consequences of going against the tide are grave in nature, the media professionals tend to choose the easier route. It suits the interests of the powers-that-be as well because the blatant show of patriotism, and the game of accusations and counter-accusations, helps mask the actual issues like poverty and governance that concern the common man. The quest to please the pressure groups is real, and immediate, and the public interest, well, is not such a priority when it comes to “national interest”.

Most of the arguments here pertain to the electronic media, only because they have held the most sway overtime. The print media is no different though. They are trying to match their illustrious partner (news television) at every step in this tango dance, albeit on a war song. The kind of adjectives being used in the headlines and news stories, and the pictures being printed to go with the news stories, are nothing short of selective perception. The only agenda appears to be to prove themselves, and their organisation, more patriotic than others even if it means that facts have to be concealed, distorted, or made-up.

Those who suggested that the news anchors from both sides, who are crying hoarse for the use of force, should be sent to war first, are wise, but who cares for sanity when emotions are running so high. The ruling elite in both countries, instead of being cognizant of the situation and showing some restraint, appears to have taken the bait.

How long will they be able to resist the temptation to act the way media wants them to is a frightening thought. Whether the media professionals will take a deep breath and do some soul-searching is perhaps too distant a dream as things stand now. They have smelled blood and would settle for nothing less than seeing this blood being spilled in a theatre of war.

This article first appeared in The News on Sunday on October 9, 2016.



ARY takes over BOL: New trends in Pakistani media industry

Featured image

The embattled TV channel, BOL’s story has taken a significant turn. ARY CEO, Salman Iqbal has announced to take over the yet-to-be-launched television channel in front of a packed house at BOL’s headquarters in Karachi that generated thunderous applause. The merger/take-over has been made possible under a percentage formula agreed upon by the managements of both BOL and ARY whereby the administrative control of BOL will rest with ARY.

This sets a new precedent in the media landscape of Pakistan, and particularly the television industry that has so-far been marked with fierce competition and hinging the bets on the downfall of others. To their credit, ARY management was also the first one that announced to stand by the BOL employees, who were facing an uncertain future after the NYT expose of Axact, BOL’s parent company, almost three months ago. Under the circumstances, this presents the most viable alternative for BOL and its employees. The protests that they had been arranging during this period to press for BOL’s launching were nothing more than a shot in the dark.

The take-over by ARY and the resolve to launch BOL within the next three weeks must have become possible after some background assurances from the powers-that-be. If the change in command helps troubleshoot the impediments in the issuance of the no-objection certificate (NOC) to BOL to kick-start formal transmission, it certainly will be a welcome sign. This will also resolve the most pressing issue (future of BOL’s employees) in the near-term that was also the primary concern of the journalistic community and the government. In the wake of this latest move, only time will tell whether the decision of those who couldn’t wait that long and have already left BOL for other channels was justified or not? The way these mass departures will impact the day-to-day running of BOL in future is another debate altogether.

Featured image

However, there are some long-term questions that will spring up once the dust on the take-over euphoria settles down. To start with, whether ARY management will be able to keep the inflated salary structure of BOL and provide all those facilities promised to the staff earlier by Mr. Shoaib Shaikh? If it happens to be the case, how will Mr. Salman Iqbal reconcile it with the salary structures of employees working for other ARY channels? The second question pertains to the promises that journalists will be making all the editorial decisions in BOL. The editorial freedom enjoyed by ARY staffers so-far is as good or as bad as any other player in the market. One doesn’t expect a radical change after this take-over either.

Featured image

It is difficult to predict the future but if ARY’s almost 15 years old legacy is any indication, BOL will just be another kid on the block with salary structures in line with the prevalent industry standards. Regarding the editorial freedom, the less said the better. Even with those limitations, addition of another competitive outlet can only be termed good for the overall health of the industry. The ARY management and those associated with BOL will do well though if they get rid of the “biggest TV channel” rhetoric and be a little realistic. The illusion (or should it be called a pipedream?) that Mr. Shoaib Shaikh was so successfully able to create and sell, albeit for a whisker, is well and truly dead.

There is enough food for thought in this development for other media owners in the market. One does hope that this take-over paves the way for other such mergers whereby the media organizations doing well and willing to expand would think about negotiating a deal with other smaller / struggling entities. This will only make these smaller organizations commercially more viable and resolve at least some of the complaints about working conditions and delayed salaries.

When self-interest trumps morality

picBy Awais Saleem

So the inevitable has happened. Kamran Khan, the self-proclaimed guru of investigative journalism in Pakistan, has found a new platform. Among the first few to join the now embattled BOL with much fanfare, he led the first batch that jumped ship, and is now the first one to find a new abode. All this with as much ease as if nothing has happened in the meanwhile. Neither his designation has changed, nor the rhetoric.
It took just a couple of tweets for him to announce his departure from BOL – in which he made a beleaguered attempt to take the high moral ground without any mention of those he had promised to lead towards a revolution – as well as to make his new association with Dunya public with reasons that sounded as shallow as the content of his shows not too long ago. He also claimed to have offers from all news channels before taking his pick. This “offers galore” is enough to judge an industry’s standards where not a single media organization was able to take a stand based on principles. Dunya TV’s management had announced just a day earlier to stand with BOL’s employees. It just turned out to be a prelude for KK’s red carpet welcome. The president of his own faction of the PFUJ, Rana Azeem, who will forever be worth gold for giving a press freedom award to Mubasher Luqman, had vowed to boycott the media organizations that opened doors for BOL’s head honchos-turned-deserters now finds himself reporting to KK as his new president and editor-in-chief. If his ‘distinguished’ career is any indication, Rana Azeem will not take long in becoming a KK sidekick. The other faction, headed by Afzal Butt, is also quite vocal because Mushtaq Minhas happens to be one of the stalwarts of their group in press club and PFUJ politics. Both these factions were not irked in the same manner when Mubasher Luqman and other channels were gunning for Geo’s closure last year.


This move, in all probability, is just a strategic pit stop for KK before he eventually returns to Geo. Still, should KK be singled out in an industry where self-interests have trumped ethics from the outset? Is he the first prominent name that has become an embodiment of self-preservation as the be all and end all of everything? Those thinking on these lines have perhaps forgotten the once mighty Shahid Masood leaving ARY for GEO, going to PTV, coming back to GEO, leaving again for ARY, and I have lost count after that. The same was the case with Amir Liaqat’s Geo to ARY, back to GEO, leave again for Express, and return to Geo hopscotch. Both of them did flirt with BOL but somehow stopped short of joining. Interestingly, like the proverbial king of investigative journalism, one considered himself the top-most analyst while the other boasted of being the most sought-after televangelist. The similarities do not end there. All of them fell for presidential posts, made similar claims after every move, and at least two of them have had their names linked to fake degrees one way or the other.
Then there are others of the same ilk. Did Nusrat Javeed, who is now taking on KK via twitter, not know who was calling the shots and what was going on behind the scenes at Axact and BOL when the word in the air was all about the shady business that Declan Walsh only authenticated later on in his NYT story. Perhaps Nusrat’s justifications, and those of Azhar Abbas, Asma Sherazi, and Iftikhar Ahmad, would be no different than those articulated by Wajahat Saeed Khan in his Pak Tea House article. When the purpose is to find excuses to rationalize a step taken in the wrong direction and for the wrong reasons, the outcome is anybody’s guess. There can be no two opinions that all of them willingly ignored everything else to scoop up Axact’s fat paychecks and allied perks. All of them knew, being in the A-list of Pakistani journalist fraternity, that they have nothing to lose and could easily find new destinations even if the Axact-funded BOL doesn’t make it big. KK has done just that and others will follow suit shortly.
These are just the big fish though. For everybody else out there, barring a few sane voices, the priorities have been no different. As much as one sympathizes with those who will not find the transition as smooth as those big guns, the fact remains that those who joined BOL precisely what they were getting into. If they were caught unawares, I doubt their journalistic capabilities. If they did and decided to look the other way, they should own up their actions now instead of hiding behind conspiracy theories and discrediting those not in agreement with them. Well, at the end of the day, it was a matter of personal choice. They took a decision thinking about their personal good, and that is fine. I personally have no problems with that. We do not live on an island of idealism and everybody is free to set his/her own priorities. But they do need to show some moral courage and face the consequences themselves too. Can those finding all kinds of faults with rival media organizations and posting pictures of BOL (being shown as a lion), being hounded by dogs (symbolizing other channels), deny that those very dogs were feeding them and their families not too long ago? Some introspection and basic decency never does any harm to anybody. There is no doubt about it that the hype about the Axact scandal on rival channels is driven by stiff and filthy business practices, but how is it different compared to Shoaib Shaikh’s open (and often bordering on delusional) challenges that he will teach other media owners a lesson? Those rivals got the much-needed ammunition in the form of the NYT story at the right time and are exploiting it fully to hit back at competition now. As they say, it always takes two to tango.
Ever since privately owned television channels made a foray in Pakistan, grabbing whatever can be grabbed at whatever cost possible has been the name of the game for the media owners as well as the workers. How many of those championing the cause of journalism now took a stand when the ‘seth’ started replacing the institution of the editor? How many of those drawing six figure salaries from current mainstream media outlets tried to do something about the disparity in salaries with other colleagues? How many of them staged a protest when their colleagues were fired without any reason? While negotiating their packages with the previous employers, how many of those who are now very agitated that BOL’s demise would potentially inhibit the industry’s growth spared a thought for those working in B and C class media houses (Capital TV, Waqt TV, News One, Din TV, Channel 5, Daily Pakistan etc. to name a few)? In dozens of such organizations, journalists are either lowly paid or not paid at all but how many have taken to the streets for them? The privileged ones were content with their personal welfare back then and that has not changed even now. How many of them would have questioned the inquiry against Axact and turned it into a question of the “freedom of press” if their personal stake was not involved? They are right though in thinking that they have to fight it out on the streets to survive when the Kamran Khans of this industry will be able to pick and choose cushy jobs sitting in London.
This is how it has been throughout all these years and this is how it will be for the foreseeable future. No false dawn or overnight miracle is going to change its fate unless the people involved in this game are not ready to change themselves. That will begin by being realistic and making sacrifices for the profession’s lofty ideals instead of hollow sloganeering. There is no harm in having aspirations but there is a very fine line that separates it from daydreaming. When that line is blurred, as is the case at present, all questions pertaining to ethics or morality will be Greek to those bent upon making it big by hook or by crook in an industry that has already reached a saturation point.

This blog was first posted here.

Pakistani Media: Dreams and Realities

Featured image

By Awais Saleem

Who doesn’t like fairytales? A world where there are no problems, everything is hunky-dory and there is a messiah to take care of all our worries. But fairytales are also short-lived, and hardly ever exist in real life. Realities are complex, in our face, and mostly not very enjoyable whether we like that or not. The same appears to be happening in the aftermath of the New York Times story about the alleged wrongdoings of Axact.

The management of Axact-backed television channel BOL projected it to be the dream venture of all journalists, where they will be taken care of in every possible manner. Starting from a hefty paycheck, ideal working conditions and a complete revamp of their lifestyles, they could name anything and aspire to have it in their grasp. This immediately resonated with most of the working journalists in Pakistan’s media industry where conditions have been far from ideal. This is despite the steady improvements in the last decade or so when private television channels started broadcasting. Still, there are many organizations where journalists are suffering from issues like low or delayed wages, job insecurity, workplace pressures, long duty hours, and lack of a proper service structure. The rumours about Axact’s alleged dealings in fake degrees and pornographic material were shrugged aside either because the offers were too tempting to let go or because the senior names of the industry who joined BOL in the beginning were considered credible enough to take the plunge.

The dream lasted a good couple of years but the smooth-sailing ship got caught up in tidal waves when the interior ministry of Pakistan, following the NYT scoop, launched a formal investigation into the affairs of Axact. The first reaction offered by the coterie of senior journalists employed by BOL was that the organization was innocent until proven guilty. Nobody questioned that argument although the follow-up stories in the NYT, together with the onslaught from rival media houses, kept building pressure and the top brass of BOL soon caved in, culminating in their resignation a couple of days later.

The six bigwigs, who have tendered their resignations with immediate effect, citing “ethical considerations” and the “call of conscience”, include President, Editor-in-Chief, and Co-founder, Kamran Khan, President and CEO, Azhar Abbas, Senior Executive Vice President, Iftikhar Ahmad, and Executive Vice Presidents, Nusrat Javeed, Asma Sherazi and Wajahat Saeed Khan. All these were faces of BOL and hardly anybody was expecting them to take such a hasty decision. Despite being shareholders of the company, they did so nevertheless and hell has broken loose ever since. The majority of the critique coming their way is on the grounds that they left their colleagues in the lurch at a difficult time. Others are questioning as to why these eminent names of the media industry didn’t exercise due diligence at the time of joining this new venture? Emotions are running high and not many are looking at the troubling questions dispassionately.

To start with, this senior lot really should have stood with their colleagues at a testing time. Kamran Khan and Azhar Abbas particularly were instrumental in persuading a majority of the other staffers to switch affiliation from their respective organizations to BOL. To depart without thinking about them, and take refuge behind conscience, is a lame attempt to become a hero, which they are anything but. They are at best a self-serving lot who joined BOL for their vested interests and resigned to resurrect whatever, if at all, was left of it. However, did those who followed them and joined BOL calculate the pros and cons before doing so? One follows somebody blindly mostly when the credibility and integrity of the person in question is beyond any question. In the case of Azhar Abbas (who earlier left GEO for DAWN before returning to GEO leaving his team behind) and Kamran Khan (alleged to be affiliated with several dubious characters), I have my doubts. As for the other quartet who put in their papers, the less said, the better.

Those asking why these gentlemen didn’t question their employers about their sources of funding perhaps live in a utopian world. How many of them, currently working for different media organization, cross-questioned their employers about the legitimacy of their wealth when they were negotiating the job. Can they go ahead and raise this question to their current employers as well? If not, then they should immediately stop being hypocrites. Since 2001, when private television channels were granted licenses, other than the big business houses, high-profile land grabbers, bank loan defaulters, tax evaders, and convicted criminals are also owning news television stations in Pakistan in an attempt to launder their ill-gotten wealth as well as to gain access to the power corridors through their media outlets. Such grey areas in the personal integrity and business practices of television channel owners, their covert political affiliations, direct influence on the editorial content and erosion of the institution of the editor (replacing it by a hybrid owner-editor) has hardly raised a red flag, barring a few valiant voices, for Pakistan’s journalist community during the last decade or so.

The owners of these media outlets are now facing collective criticism from several journalists for allegedly conspiring to bring BOL down even before its formal launch. In doing so, these critics are conveniently forgetting that each new media outlet did bring some improvement in the life of Pakistani journalists, particularly those affiliated with television stations. Things have certainly taken a leap for the better since they were 10 years ago. The Chairman of BOL, Shoaib Shaikh promised to take it to an altogether different level, but it always sounded too good to be true. Several other high-profile names like Talat Hussain, Amir Maten, Rauf Klasra, Najam Sethi, and Muneeb Farooq etc., to name a few, did find the offers from BOL rather perplexing and didn’t join the ranks. Obviously, these folks were not just thinking in terms of money but also about the allied, and mostly disconcerting, factors.

Having switched jobs thrice and in rejecting a few others during a journalism career spanning almost 15 years, I can relate to the thought process involved in such a crucial decision. The chances of success are always 50-50 (like a toss) because there can be no guarantees of anything. All employers promise the moon at the time of hiring and suffer from memory lapse soon afterwards. The onus of weighing the risks involved is almost always squarely on the employee concerned. It must be said that BOL, and the people associated with it, are turning out to be no different. The dust on the illusion they created is slowly starting to settle down. Most of those who are rooting for Shoaib Shaikh to lead a media revolution that will upstage current media owners (and organizations) perhaps don’t realize that no single organization can turn-around the fate of the industry which has already reached a saturation point in terms of the advertising revenue and the number of television channels that it can sustain.

Another question pertains to the immediate future of BOL. It will most likely withstand the existing challenging phase and will start formal operations in due course as 1st Ramadan has already been announced as the launch date. Most media workers are standing by it and that’s the right spirit at this time. A majority of the workers joined in with good intentions for better prospects and shouldn’t be faulted for doing so. With the spotlight in all Pakistani primetime news shows on Axact, BOL has received some free publicity already, as being controversial can often turn out to be a recipe for success in Pakistan. However, the ratio of positives and negatives will be no different for this new entity than they are in other organizations. If not the existing problems, there might be a new set of problems but to think of it as an ideal paradise, away from the maddening crowd, is akin to burying one’s head in the sand. The reports of a spat between Shoaib Shaikh and Azhar Abbas after the latter announced his resignation have surfaced already, which should open some starry eyes. The first signing after the string of departures is of Mubasher Luqman, which is enough to conclude which way the elusive “revolution” is heading. No media baron is different in this industry. What’s different is just the manner of their gamesmanship. For any businessman, a worker is just a tool to be used when needed, and to be dispensed with when not.

Any industry rises and falls together, and mostly represents the overall fabric of a society. Inflated expectations and jackpots either don’t materialize or don’t last long and the bubble has to burst sooner or later. Therefore, better accept the uncomfortable realities, start owning responsibility for your actions, and push for change collectively (with the help of your colleagues in different media organizations and representative organizations) from within instead of waiting for messiahs to turn around your individual fortunes in a jiffy. It simply doesn’t happen in the real world. What sounds implausible and fishy turns out that way more often than not. This Axact scandal is a reality-check for the entire media industry and hope it is taken in that spirit. The current “us versus them” mentality in the media is just a zero-sum game in which ‘saints’ are no saint and ‘satans’ are no satan. After every happy ending in a fairytale, we all have to return, albeit reluctantly, to the real world anyways.

Meanwhile, the interior ministry of Pakistan’s ongoing investigations into the allegations against Axact should be conducted on merit and without any external pressures. Shoaib Shaikh’s strategy to use BOL as the defense-shield for Axact hasn’t worked so far. Both the accused as well the investigators would do well to keep both the sister organizations separate, as there is no allegation per se on BOL as yet. Sadly, if Pakistan’s track record of high-profile inquiries is any indication, the outcome of this new exercise can be anybody’s guess. The prevailing situation in Pakistan’s media industry does not inspire any confidence that things will change for the better (not just financially but also vis-à-vis credibility and overall structure) anytime soon. However, if at all there has to be any concrete and credible investigation into the funding sources of BOL, it needs to rope in all other media outlets as well in order to make all of them come clean about their respective ownership structures and funding trail. The benchmarks should be the same in each case. Otherwise, the way things are going downhill, this so-called boom, being touted by many as the highpoint of the media industry in the country, will not take long to bust.

The Chessboard of Pakistani Journalism

By Awais SaleemFeatured image

To say that the exposé done by the New York Times on a Pakistan-based IT company, Axact’s shady business practices has caused ripples in the Pakistani media industry would be an understatement. The way it has divided opinions among the working journalists, be it senior or those still learning the ropes, is even more startling.

The NYT story had detailed alleged involvement of Axact in running an international network selling fake online diplomas and degrees through sleek websites of ghost foreign schools and universities. However, among the circles having anything to do with the Pakistani media, most of the content in the NYT story about Axact has already been common knowledge. The fact that the NYT has done a story quoting sources has only led credence to these rumors and made it more sensational. The other part of the allegations against Axact that they also host pornographic websites has not even been mentioned by the Times. Axact emerged as a known name in Pakistan’s media fraternity in mid-2013 when they announced plans to bankroll a new television channel, BOL. They offered unprecedented salaries and perks to the aspiring employees and subsequently hired several eminent journalists. At times, the figures simply didn’t add up and their claims about revolutionizing Pakistan’s media landscape sounded too good to be true. Still, the surreal nature of these promises and the rumors about questionable funding behind this new entity hardly deterred the journalists, including some very senior and celebrated names of Pakistani journalism, from joining this new company. It defies logic that these journalists got duped during the hiring process and didn’t know of the accusation on Axact when Pakistan’s media landscape was abuzz with these rumors about shades of grey. For many of them, this was not the first time because hardly any new player in Pakistan’s television industry, since it was deregulated in 2001, could be absolved of having an entirely above-board financial record.

Soon after the Axact scandal broke in the media, a war of words broke out between the journalists from both sides (BOL and other organizations) in the mainstream as well as social media. The severity with which they attacked each other was not only surprising but also disturbing. In more than 15 years of being an active journalist before taking a break to return to school, I have never seen such polarization in the Pakistani media. Both sides are nitpicking, showing selective perception, and speaking only half-truths to justify their own positions. The battle lines have been drawn based on the affiliation with different media organizations, leaving no room for objectivity.

Those who have already joined BOL have accused their former colleagues in other media organizations of siding with their owners to spread misconceptions about the new venture (BOL) to block its potential success. Somehow, they conveniently forgot that a few weeks ago, they were themselves employed by the very same media organizations that they were now criticizing. What is happening with BOL now has already happened with Dunya and Geo but these protectors of media;s integrity and independence were silent at that time for obvious reasons. The question is that if the already existing organizations were so bad and the owners were such Satans, did these noble souls question those practices when they were part of that set-up? If the answer is no, then does it mean that the ethics and morals are dependent on the “doctrine of necessity” and material interests?

On the other hand, those journalists who have not (or not yet) joined BOL have been critical of their colleagues who moved on and joined BOL for better prospects as somebody who sold their souls to an allegedly corrupt organization (Axact) only for a few bucks. Could these torch-bearers of uprightness and clean reputation look inwards and say with certainty that everything about their own organization and the respective managements is absolutely transparent? Moreover, how many of them never changed a job for higher salaries or better working conditions? If they cannot answer these questions, then they have no right to point fingers at those who can’t be faulted for availing the opportunities coming their way.

Most of the journalists in Pakistan have knowingly and willingly joined these new channels left, right and center during the last decade or so. For a majority of them, the increasing zeros on the paycheck after years of professional struggles and financial strife have provided enough justification to fall for this bargain. They have taken solace in the fact that their professional working wasn’t getting affected by whatever reputation their organizations’ owners had otherwise. There was a general acknowledgment of what was wrong at least in private conversations, if not very openly. The last thing I expected was to witness both sides to defend these wrongdoings so vehemently. It is clear that both sides are sitting in glass houses and throwing stones on each other, taking a self-righteous position. In trying to take potshots at each other, they have conveniently forgotten the skeletons in their own closet.

There are no two opinions that journalists in Pakistan have endured several decades of tough professional and financial circumstances and have every right to good earnings and lifestyle. But becoming part of an alleged scam, and getting blinded by the digits on the paychecks, does not provide any justification whatsoever to shy away from the troubling questions staring everybody associated with the Pakistani media in the face. If it does happen to be of no priority for anybody, then that person is clearly in the wrong profession. If the “so what” argument being presented by the journalists predominantly on the social media on the grounds that “none of the earlier media owners has clean hands” is to be bought, then what would they say about the police officials who were being offered more money by Taliban to switch sides at the height of counter-terrorism operation in Pakistan?

If the accusations have been raised on Axact management, it is true that they are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Simultaneously, it is also true that the accusations are of very serious nature and rubbishing them or making claims of innocence are also a bit premature. Being a journalist is much more than being somebody’s employee (and mouthpiece) to ensure taking a fat paycheck back home every month. The last thing a journalist is expected to do is to act as an irrational activist of a political party but that has started happening increasingly in Pakistan. Driven primarily by financial rewards, all ethical and professional journalistic considerations have been put on the backburner and both sides are equally at fault in doing so. That’s certainly a far more disturbing big picture that merits attention, debate and some honest soul-searching on the part of all those involved.

The reality of employment opportunities and working conditions available for Pakistani journalists at the moment is not all black and white but has definite shades of grey about it. They can either (at least) acknowledge and get on with it or take a clear stand against it based on nothing but strict principles. The latter option is easier said than done. But some honesty from both sides would do no harm. In this small industry, nothing remains hidden forever and there are no permanent friends and foes. Let journalism retain some sanctity as a profession and allow each other to remain professional colleagues instead of making it resemble a chessboard. Remember, at the end of the game, the king and the pawns go into the same box.

Archive – Blast from the Past



(Originally published in Daily The News, Pakistan)



(For Indo-Asian News Service – IANS, India)



(Originally published in Express Tribune)



(Originally carried by

TTP chooses Fazlullah, makes intentions towards Pakistan clear

TTPBy Awais Saleem

It’s official. Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has elected a new chief. In doing so, it has displayed such uncanny clarity regarding its path ahead that it is difficult not to envy it. By choosing a leader who is known for his extremely hardline stance and a personal history of hostility towards the State of Pakistan, they have made their violent intentions quite clear.

If there was any confusion as to what kind of conclusions can possibly be drawn from Mullah Fazlullah’s elevation, the new TTP chief himself has minced no words in rejecting the idea of holding peace talks and making it evident that the battle-lines are drawn. The hopes for a negotiated peace settlement, as some have argued, are thus nothing but daydreaming.

The TTP has given this message loud and clear at a time when Pakistan, despite being torn by terrorism for over a decade now, continues to search for the right kind of narrative – let alone strategy – to combat it. Much of the debate in the aftermath of the killing of Hakemullah Mehsud (Fazlullah’s predecessor) in an American drone strike last week betrays logic. It has only highlighted the disarray with the ranks of ruling elite when it comes to a counter-terrorism strategy while also compounding the existing confusion within the society.

While the soft stance of politicians like Imran Khan, Syed Munawar Hasan, Molana Fazal-ur-Rehman and the likes towards militants is already known, the way they have gone berserk in portraying Hakeemullah and TTP, at war with the State of Pakistan, as heroes, certainly raises alarm bells. These leaders do owe a clarification or two for equating the killing of a most-wanted criminal with the sacrifices given by thousands of innocent Pakistanis and soldiers in this valiant fight.

However, it is the abject manner in which the central government, represented by interior minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, has chosen to align with these TTP sympathizers that raises the red flag. When a State starts falling prey to populist jingoistic narrative, this can’t be taken as anything else but meek surrender. Half the battle is in the intent, which this government has looked like losing from the word go.

Whichever way one tries to analyze possible reasons for this official posture, it appears mind-boggling. If the Nawaz government is doing it out of the fear of losing the right wing’s support to more radical parties, it is risking the country’s very existence. In case the government believes that burying its head in the sand will save it from TTP, they are again mistaken. Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, holding fort in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, has tried it and lost three of its legislators (including a sitting law minister) so far in just four months. Just how they refuse to learn their lessons, despite the TTP giving an emphatic snub to their ‘lovey dovey’ overtures, is a debate for some other time.

Lastly, if the regime thinks that the killing of a terrorist can be used for gaining leverage in diplomatic relations with the U. S., in a replay of hyped reactions after Osama bin Laden’s killing in May 2011, this is as bad a strategy as one can think of. The ethical and legal considerations surrounding drone strikes as well as the violation of national sovereignty are indeed genuine concerns, but how can that be allowed to give credence of anti-state elements is quite perplexing. These are two entirely separate issues and must be dealt as such.

The policy of appeasement has been counterproductive previously, and it is highly unlikely to work in future. Mullah Fazlullah himself played the role of the wrecker-in-chief when a peace agreement was negotiated in 2008 between his father in law, Molana Sufi Muhammad (head of the Tehreek-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Muhammadi) and the provincial government (Awami National Party) of the time for imposition of Shariah law in Malakand. It didn’t take TTP long in violating the terms of agreement that eventually led to the military offensive in order to cleanse the valley of militant elements.

More recently, Pakistani security apparatus has been raising concerns over Mullah Fazlullah’s activities in Afghanistan, allegedly in sync with Afghan intelligence, to wage terrorist activities in Pakistan. Just days after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made his intention to hold talks with TTP, Fazlullah orchestrated the attack in which Maj. Gen. Sanaullah Niazi (G.O.C Swat) was martyred. Prior to that, he masterminded the attempt to kill teenage prodigy, Malala Yusufzai last year.

Thankfully, Malala survived, but the militant ideology that has been so pervasive in today’s Pakistan, owing to these jumbled priorities by the politicians and sections of the media, has continued to thrive. With Fazlullah’s elevation to the TTP throne, this ideological battle has become official. There is no clear answer as to what the result will be, but the initial signs are dangerous and don’t inspire much confidence.

Desperate times, it is believed, call for desperate measures. Present times are indeed desperate for Pakistan but the measures to confront such an arduous challenge are nowhere in sight. Shallow sloganeering and point scoring will serve nobody’s purpose. This war requires immense clarity of thought and impeccable courage to take action. It will not be won by any half measures. But the way things are going, merely calling for a rational approach, sadly, sounds like asking for too much.