AJK govt bans Joint Awami Action Committee, notification issued

[M. Sarmad]

I watch all the available BBC media and scrutinise it rigorously. I have seen this clip also. I observe the quiet "updates" made to reports an hour after release, 2 hours after release, a day after release, all in order to keep the most important "stakeholders" happy. I watch this process unfold live in front of my eyes.

In the past, I would document such changes rigorously and write pages of text to their complaints departments demanding equivalent treatment in line with the law and internationally accepted definitions.

I could happily bore you to death with the blatant discrepancies and double standards deployed by the BBC editorial team when it comes to Pakistan.

That is mostly off topic and beyond the scope of this thread.

Nevertheless, this "reporting ecosystem" all does contribute to the defining journalistic standards of a media organisation. These tend to be the reasons why we trust certain media as truly impartial while we question other media. To be more specific, we assume a "default starting point" for a given media house along the available narrative spectrum and if that media house deviates from that starting point, we can infer the reasons that might explain said deviation.

My observations hitherto have placed BBC and AJ at a very similar default starting position regarding Pakistani interests, both influenced by a clandestine Delhi centric influence, to varying degrees.

How are perceptions modified by media? Well.....The specific content of any report matters but the headline also matters, the wording matters, the thumbnail matters, the look on the face of the reporter in the screen grab matters, the very fact that this is being reported at all as some ghastly headline news in the South Asia section also matters. Why is this reported and other episodes around the world and in our neighbourhood summarily ignored?

Which brings me neatly back to a comment I made to @Owaiz on a different thread -

Truth in journalism is not solely the reporting of the truth of any matter, but must encompass reporting of the WHOLE truth, reporting of NOTHING BUT THE truth, and a concerted REFUSAL TO OMIT other relevant truths pertinent to said matter. And that's all assuming that these various components of truth are free from bias or manipulation in the first place.

BBC and AJ fail this standard. Caroline Davies is a great example of why.

I can certainly name you more trustworthy journalists, whose opinion, even while wearing a BBC lanyard, I would sooner trust. If the ever sceptical (and cynical to a fault!) Jeremy Bowen were deployed to south Asia, free from hindustani editorial "oversight" I assure you, BBC's reputation would improve overnight in my eyes at least.

I agree with most of that, and I have no illusions about the BBC or AJ or any other international media house for that matter being impartial on Pakistan..... They all carry a slant and bias against us....


But that is not the point here..... A biased outlet can still report a true thing, and bias does not make the dead alive (or vice versa) or switch the blackout back on...


Things in AJK are bad...... We mishandled it badly, and that is exactly what handed the fuel to every anti Pakistan detractor out there..... They did not manufacture this..... We fed it to them.


Fix the house first...... Shooting the messenger changes nothing while the thing being reported is real.

 

[LC150]

so another yahudi sazish from our combo of brain dead faujeeets and cum on Noonies...

you guys have serious IQ issues


the fact remains you screwed up governance Pakistan wide...

reep what you sow

no sympathy here

 

[LC150]

some thing to hide?..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[LC150]

agree with most of that, and I have no illusions about the BBC or AJ or any other international media house for that matter being impartial on Pakistan.....

I have yet to see any thing of major facts they have reported on Pakistan as fundamentally wrong....

some key take aways

> Pakistani army controls the civilians via Hybrid regime : TRUE

> Pakistan army sponsors terrorists and later turns on them : True (but so do other countries)

> Pakistani governance is horrible : True

> there is no rule of law : true

> no body is interesting investing Pakistan : Apart from predatory investors no one else.

> the military rigs elections : true

> The state use excessive force in Kashmir, Baluchistan, KPR and Punjab : true



and so on...


so what is false is that is being reported?...



it is time for all apologist to realise that they are the bad guys...

 

[Owaiz]

I watch all the available BBC media and scrutinise it rigorously. I have seen this clip also. I observe the quiet "updates" made to reports an hour after release, 2 hours after release, a day after release, all in order to keep the most important "stakeholders" happy. I watch this process unfold live in front of my eyes.

In the past, I would document such changes rigorously and write pages of text to their complaints departments demanding equivalent treatment in line with the law and internationally accepted definitions.

I could happily bore you to death with the blatant discrepancies and double standards deployed by the BBC editorial team when it comes to Pakistan.

That is mostly off topic and beyond the scope of this thread.

Nevertheless, this "reporting ecosystem" all does contribute to the defining journalistic standards of a media organisation. These tend to be the reasons why we trust certain media as truly impartial while we question other media. To be more specific, we assume a "default starting point" for a given media house along the available narrative spectrum and if that media house deviates from that starting point, we can infer the reasons that might explain said deviation.

My observations hitherto have placed BBC and AJ at a very similar default starting position regarding Pakistani interests, both influenced by a clandestine Delhi centric influence, to varying degrees.

How are perceptions modified by media? Well.....The specific content of any report matters but the headline also matters, the wording matters, the thumbnail matters, the look on the face of the reporter in the screen grab matters, the very fact that this is being reported at all as some ghastly headline news in the South Asia section also matters. Why is this reported and other episodes around the world and in our neighbourhood summarily ignored?

Which brings me neatly back to a comment I made to @Owaiz on a different thread -

Truth in journalism is not solely the reporting of the truth of any matter, but must encompass reporting of the WHOLE truth, reporting of NOTHING BUT THE truth, and a concerted REFUSAL TO OMIT other relevant truths pertinent to said matter. And that's all assuming that these various components of truth are free from bias or manipulation in the first place.

BBC and AJ fail this standard. Caroline Davies is a great example of why.

I can certainly name you more trustworthy journalists, whose opinion, even while wearing a BBC lanyard, I would sooner trust. If the ever sceptical (and cynical to a fault!) Jeremy Bowen were deployed to south Asia, free from hindustani editorial "oversight" I assure you, BBC's reputation would improve overnight in my eyes at least.

People generally resort to ad hominem attacks when they run out of arguments to criticize something on its own merits.

Have Al Jazeera and BBC reported anything that is false ? If that were so, why is the regime banning other journalists from going to Kashmir so that they may expose the false and biased reporting these outlets have supposedly done ?

As to questioning why the reporting is being done at all ( which is already an admission that it is substantively true), Kashmir is a nuclear fkadhpoint and both Al Jazeeta and BBC are widely followed by audiences who live in the region or have roots there , and, in the case of the BBC, have been vociferously protesting against state oppression very close to their headquarters.

 

[Master Chief]

I agree with most of that, and I have no illusions about the BBC or AJ or any other international media house for that matter being impartial on Pakistan..... They all carry a slant and bias against us....


But that is not the point here..... A biased outlet can still report a true thing, and bias does not make the dead alive (or vice versa) or switch the blackout back on...


Things in AJK are bad...... We mishandled it badly, and that is exactly what handed the fuel to every anti Pakistan detractor out there..... They did not manufacture this..... We fed it to them.


Fix the house first...... Shooting the messenger changes nothing while the thing being reported is real.

I don't disagree with your fundamental criticisms at all. The government has clearly performed poorly in this sequence of events.

The outstanding questions of relevance are:

1. Is there any evidence of "significant" vote rigging (I have, sadly, come to accept some manipulations in all democratic processes - even in UK, complaints are rife during polls of manipulation and breaking of the rules - so was there any rigging that would be enough to alter outcomes?).

2. Is voter turnout sufficient to claim the election results to be adequately reflective?

Personally, on the information I have seen, I have to accept that PML-N have won a reasonably representative and fair election here (and I effing loathe PMLN with all my heart!).

 

[Master Chief]

People generally resort to ad hominem attacks when they run out of arguments to criticize something on its own merits.

Have Al Jazeera and BBC reported anything that is false ? If that were so, why is the regime banning other journalists from going to Kashmir so that they may expose the false and biased reporting these outlets have supposedly done ?

As to questioning why the reporting is being done at all ( which is already an admission that it is substantively true), Kashmir is a nuclear fkadhpoint and both Al Jazeeta and BBC are widely followed by audiences who live in the region or have roots there , and, in the case of the BBC, have been vociferously protesting against state oppression very close to their headquarters.

Sir. I made no "ad hominem" attack on anyone, not you, not Caroline Davies. I tagged you to be part of the discussion (if you wish) because I have discussed this precise issue with you also.

The issue in question - what actually defines journalistic truth?

I will happily accuse BBC and AJ of PATENTLY FALSE reporting on the basis that truth with omission is not truth at all.

Have they commented on the election outcomes? Have they commented on the reliability of the vote count? No. Instead, they have commented on a firm crackdown on a miscreant organisation that requires informational suppression.

What on earth do you think happens when there are riots here in UK due to MISINFORMATION or DISINFORMATION?

When Tommy took to social media following the Southport murders, was he not roundly condemned for false social media coverage that led to conflagration and rioting?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander my friend.

Please do not be under some misconception that acts of sedition against national institutions, encouragement to riot, or disinformation/misinformation are tolerated in "democratic" countries any more than they are in "hybrid regimes".

 

[M. Sarmad]

I have yet to see any thing of major facts they have reported on Pakistan as fundamentally wrong....

some key take aways

> Pakistani army controls the civilians via Hybrid regime : TRUE

> Pakistan army sponsors terrorists and later turns on them : True (but so do other countries)

> Pakistani governance is horrible : True

> there is no rule of law : true

> no body is interesting investing Pakistan : Apart from predatory investors no one else.

> the military rigs elections : true

> The state use excessive force in Kashmir, Baluchistan, KPR and Punjab : true



and so on...


so what is false is that is being reported?...



it is time for all apologist to realise that they are the bad guys...

I am inclined to agree with you..... Most of what you say is true. Pakistan, like any other country, has its fair share of problems....... Our governance structure is nothing to be proud of, and we rank poorly on many global indices....

That said, many people with little understanding of the region and its geopolitics have an even darker perception of Pakistan...... They see it as little more than a lawless Afghanistan with nuclear weapons...... That image is far worse than the country's actual reality...

Where did that perception come from? mainly from the fact that international media coverage has mostly portrayed Pakistan through an overwhelmingly negative lens, focusing disproportionately on terrorism, instability, and extremism while giving far less attention to the country's complexities and positive side....... That's the bias and slant I am referring to.

As for our classless jurnails, I have no hesitation in endlessly criticizing them for their repeated interference in politics and use of brute force against civilians to remain power ...... But I also believe the Pakistan Army has played a central role in defending the country against external security threats from both the eastern and western borders..... Credit should be given where it is due, just as criticism should be directed where it is deserved....

 

[Owaiz]

Sir. I made no "ad hominem" attack on anyone, not you, not Caroline Davies. I tagged you to be part of the discussion (if you wish) because I have discussed this precise issue with you also.

The issue in question - what actually defines journalistic truth?

I will happily accuse BBC and AJ of PATENTLY FALSE reporting on the basis that truth with omission is not truth at all.

Have they commented on the election outcomes? Have they commented on the reliability of the vote count? No. Instead, they have commented on a firm crackdown on a miscreant organisation that requires informational suppression.

What on earth do you think happens when there are riots here in UK due to MISINFORMATION or DISINFORMATION?

When Tommy took to social media following the Southport murders, was he not roundly condemned for false social media coverage that led to conflagration and rioting?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander my friend.

Please do not be under some misconception that acts of sedition against national institutions, encouragement to riot, or disinformation/misinformation are tolerated in "democratic" countries any more than they are in "hybrid regimes".

Sir, this thread is about the ban on the JAAC and related events in AJK, so I don't want to derail it by getting into philosophical discussions about journalistic standards.

You have questioned the credibility of Al Jazeera and BBC as sources of news about these events and are now equating them to social media posts by someone who is well known as a far-right, Islamophobic nutjob. Then you proceed to equate the bans and curbs on journalists in AJK with media freedom in Western democracies like the UK.

So, let me ask you, when was the last time the UK police or army accused of killing tens of civilian protestors and foreign and domestic media organizations were prevented from covering such events ?

 

[Master Chief]

Sir, this thread is about the ban on the JAAC and related events in AJK, so I don't want to derail it by getting into philosophical discussions about journalistic standards.

You have questioned the credibility of Al Jazeera and BBC as sources of news about these events and are now equating them to social media posts by someone who is well known as a far-right, Islamophobic nutjob. Then you proceed to equate the bans and curbs on journalists in AJK with media freedom in Western democracies like the UK.

So, let me ask you, when was the last time the UK police or army accused of killing tens of civilian protestors and foreign and domestic media organizations were prevented from covering such events ?

You have misunderstood my post
I'm not equating BBC and AJ with Tommy Robinson. I'm equating agitators in Pakistan with agitators anywhere else, e.g. Tommy Robinson.

If the media can condemn agitators CONSISTENTLY around the globe, and acknowledge the need to suppress their acts of misinformation/disinformation driven agitation, then all well and good.

Hitherto, I have seen AJ/BBC defend harsh policing of Tommy Robinson but cry false tears for Pakistanis who are also policed harshly. This double standard is nothing new.

In Iran, violent and armed monarchist terrorists were defended by the same media organisations, who referred to them as "peaceful protestors". We are led to believe that 40,000 unarmed Iranians were "massacred" in 3 days. I mean, is that number even remotely possible without carpet bombing a city?

I am all for criticism of Pakistani institutions, including the army where warranted. But for the criticism to come from proven charlatans and shills and for us to blindly believe and parrot it without question is a stunning feat of hypocrisy.

 

[Owaiz]

You have misunderstood my post
I'm not equating BBC and AJ with Tommy Robinson. I'm equating agitators in Pakistan with agitators anywhere else, e.g. Tommy Robinson.

If the media can condemn agitators CONSISTENTLY around the globe, and acknowledge the need to suppress their acts of misinformation/disinformation driven agitation, then all well and good.

Hitherto, I have seen AJ/BBC defend harsh policing of Tommy Robinson but cry false tears for Pakistanis who are also policed harshly. This double standard is nothing new.

In Iran, violent and armed monarchist terrorists were defended by the same media organisations, who referred to them as "peaceful protestors". We are led to believe that 40,000 unarmed Iranians were "massacred" in 3 days. I mean, is that number even remotely possible without carpet bombing a city?

I am all for criticism of Pakistani institutions, including the army where warranted. But for the criticism to come from proven charlatans and shills and for us to blindly believe and parrot it without question is a stunning feat of hypocrisy.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Was the UK police or Army accused of killing or shooting to kill Tommy and his buddies and did the BBC defend such actions by the police or the army ?

 

[hussain0216]

Some really bad publicity for Asim Munir and his goons from these events.

Inside city gripped by deadly protests in Pakistan-administered Kashmir

The BBC is the first media organisation to gain access to the city and speak to people on the ground in Rawalakot.

www.bbc.com

Now world will consider Pakistan the bad guy in Kashmir as memories of insurgency in IoK are long forgotten.

I don't think anyone cares

 

[Goenitz]

Glad you get it mate!

Even in the uk people have stopped believing the bbc. bbc is a pro-zionist/pro-indian news outlet.

allow bbc to report freely then if they have no viewership and you have nothing to hide.