Pakistan has seen a television revolution over the past decade or so, opening up the political dialogue and in some cases giving voice to pro-democracy demonstrators. But there’s been a downside, as the New York Times noted:
But the television revolution has also, in some respects, been bad news for Pakistan.
Some shows have given an unchallenged platform to extremists like Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, for whom the United States has offered a $10 million bounty. Conservative clerics have used the airwaves to reinforce prejudice and even urge violence against minorities. Editorial independence is sometimes curtailed by the businessmen who own the stations and unashamedly use them to peddle their interests.
Controversy also surrounds the anchors, some of whom view themselves as players on the national stage rather than impartial observers of its machinations.
Giving a platform to extremists? Reinforcing prejudice and bigotry? Owners using the airwaves to promote their business interests? Anchors seeing themselves as national players?
Hard to fathom.
Does the irony drip?
Or gush?
Perhaps “ooze” is the optimal term.
More like dribbles, like a bad case of clap.
The FAIR postings on this site are invariably incisive, well reasoned, well written and well edited, and they deal with the most important problem America now confronts: a highly secretive oligarchy that controls the major media.
Many of the comments here have amplified these postings and been useful to its readers, at the least for assuring us that there are other people out there who know what’s going on and who care.
It is a shame, then, that we must also confront, on a regular basis, such sappy nonsense as the two comments above.
Rupert Murdoch owns television networks in Pakistan? Who knew?
i like both the express tribune and dawn. sometimes they publish excellent reports by DC think tanks that explain the problems between pak and the usa much better than american media does. american media is full of adjectives that slant the readers perception and mostly only gives the american side ie ‘the [long suffering victim] usa is losing patience’. it is also nice to read the comments by their readers. they respond to the points in the article without the silly rancor and name calling and they can actually write good english-unlike so many american comments.
The NY Times excerpt you have quoted here conveniently failed to mention that the $10 million dollar bounty on Hafiz M. Saeed is not to apprehend the man himself (because he is not in hiding); it is a reward for whoever can produce evidence (the kind that is actually admissible in a court of law) implicating him in the Mumbai attacks. In a daily briefing on April 4, 2012 the US State Dept spox Mark Toner admitted that this bounty was announced precisely because the US has no such evidence, and he dodged a journalist’s question of why that evidence couldn’t simply be taken from the Indian government, who insists it has already given it to Pakistan. This begs the question of why Hafiz M. Saeed’s been labelled as an extremist then.
Also, Hafiz M. Saeed is actually busy DE-RADICALIZING terrorists operating in Pakistan and his organization the LeT has taken up arms against al-Qaeda. If the Pakistani media were providing a platform for extremists the NY Times should have cited a more appropriate example than Hafiz M. Saeed’s.
It’s interesting how the fundamentalism and terrorism of Saudi Arabia and “our other allies” are completely under the US mainstream media’s radar. The hypocrisy, sycophancy, and incompetence of mainstream media is appalling.
Two wrongs never make a right. If the attempt to do so were eliminated, most political conversation would halt. The unenlightened majority would glare at each other in silence. Only morally superior folk like Lashkar-e-Taiba and I would smile beneficently like Buddhas.