By Yousuf Nazar
The credibility of the government is low but so is the credibility of the media. The media coverage, with some exceptions, is compromised by commercial interests and the agencies. Also, there is no transparency in terms of ownership, outside interests, and finances.
The politicians and the establishment get a lot of flak but it is about time the self-righteous media takes a critical look at its own state of affairs. We complain about dynasties in politics but is the media any better or different?
Let us talk about the conflict of interest.
Daily Times and Business Plus are owned by Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer, who also served Musharraf as a federal minister. How can they be impartial?
DAWN CEO's elder brother, Hussain Haroon has been appointed as Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN. It is a matter of record that M.A.H. Ispahani, Quaid-e-Azam' s associate, had called Yusuf Haroon an American agent, who had "˜Mujibur Rahman in his pay'.
ARY's owners were involved in the famous case (1994) of transfer of $10 million to Mr. Zardari's Capricon Trading account with Citibank Dubai.
GEO TV broadcasts programmes from Voice of America. How much money does it receive, if any, from VOA or other US sources? VOA is owned and controlled by the United States government. Its Board members are appointed directly by the President of the United States.
It is inappropriate to receive any money from a foreign government, directly or indirectly, or a propagate its views, for a media organisation that purports to believe in independence and objectivity. Would GEO like to discuss, or can it discuss this aspect publicly? Those who believe in the freedom of press, expression and accountability should also talk about their owners and probe if they too are compromised.
Militancy is an illegitimate child of the establishment. So it does not matter who killed Benazir Bhutto - militants or the establishment? But have we made any progress during the last one year in exposing and catching her killers?
This was endorsed the same night and about two hours after her assassination by the editor [Najam Sethi] of a newspaper (Daily Times) in his interview to BBC Urdu service. This newspaper's owner is now the governor of Punjab and was then a minister in Musharraf's government.
Three weeks later, on Jan. 18th the CIA chief confirmed that Bhutto's killer was indeed Al Qaeda and Baitullah Mehsud.
Bingo. Problem solved!!!
Now some of the "˜objective analysts' would say this is conspiracy theory. Well, is Ron Suskind (formerly of the Wall Street Journal and Pulitzer winning journalist) also a conspiracy theorist when he, in effect, accuses Dick Cheney of condoning the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, in his book "˜Way of the World'?
I was not surprised. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto told me on Sept. 3, 1977 that Jimmy Carter was behind his government's overthrow.
Those who accused Taliban or Al Qaeda of her murder should read her email of Oct. 26, 2007 to Mark Siegel, that was read by Wolf Blitzer of CNN after her death. Musharaff was responsible for her death.
This by no means is a defence of the Talibans, who are a retrograde and destructive force. But why a double standard? Baitullah Mehsud should be hunted and tried but so should be Musharraf. The murderous elites of thic country have double standards. One for Bengalis and another for their killers. One for Z.A. Bhutto and another for his hangman
I know personally for a fact that she believed that the intelligence agencies were plotting to kill her and around Oct. 22, 2007 communicated these concerns, supported by written material, to the US Ambassador Anne Patterson.
Those who dismiss every accusation against the CIA as conspiracy theory need to prove that they are not benefiting from the US government, directly or indirectly. Otherwise, they should use solid reasoning and logic other than just rhetoric.
Many of the analysts appearing on TV (be it GEO, DAWN, AAJ or ARY or others) or publishing articles in newspapers are associated with groups or think-tanks that have been funded by the US government or organisations.
Under these circumstances, it is hard to maintain or pretend impartiality. The media must disclose conflict of interest in such cases.
For example, PILDAT has received support from the USAID and International Republican Institute (IRI). USAID is a US government agency. IRI's Board includes John McCain and former US Ambassador to Iraq L. Paul Bremer.
People associated with PILDAT do have a conflict of interest when they are discussing the US policies. Should not this be disclosed and highlighted to the viewers?
The big brother still stares down. We do not need to glorify the Khakis as some TV channels seem to be doing. The top generals have followed and continue to follow Washington's line. It is wrong to view them separately from the historic and current realities. Remember they said somethig about drone attacks"¦. mumbling something about sovereignty? Did those words carry any value?
The jingoism is bad and destructive. The main issue is many people are scared or shy of talking about the role of our military leadership; and the role in the context of its close relationship with the Pentagon and the CIA. The connection is too old, too deep and too murky to be denied or ignored.
MMA stands for Mullah, Military and America. Why do we just discuss or target the Mullah bit? Which militant organization in Pakistan does not or did not have connection with the agencies? Name one!
And which military ruler / army chief did not have a close relationship with the US? Too close judged by normal standards. We want to discuss the foot soldiers but are too chicken to talk about their generals and their allies - NATO or non-NATO?
Most of the journalists and editors just sit in offices and discuss militancy and war on terror without visiting the affected areas or doing any research or investigative work. How many of them have discussed that the American special operations forces and the CIA are operating on Pakistani soil? This has been frequently reported by the US media including the New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, MSNBC, Army Times, etc.
We do not need warmongers. We don't need bigots. But we do not need American stooges [Mr. Zardari being no exception] either. It is one thing to desire and maintain friendly relations with the US - a pragmatic course - and quite another to be a puppet or worse a paid agent of the US.
How do we define national interest? Kargill was a disaster. So is Mumbai and so was Kabul and so has been Swat, and Waziristan.
But blaming the extremists is not enough. Islamic Militancy exists but it is also a foreign policy tool of the US and Pakistani establishments. Some groups, according to sources such as ABC News, Telegraph, and New Yorker, are supported by the US.
How, Why?