The Sorry State of Fact Checking

The saddest fact about Pakistani media today, be it print media or electronic, is that everyone is free to peddle whatever horse-manure they want to present as facts and no one questions them. One can bear these pseudo facts being paddled by tabloid writers. But when someone who is called a senior analyst, who has also been a federal minister of Pakistan, is writing things without doing due diligence, one wonders where are the people whose job is it to scrutinize every thing being published as a fact.

Case in question; the column by Dr. Babar Awan in Dunya Newspaper. He has leveled so many allegations, like Nawaz Sharif's stay in New York costimg $18,000 per night and also every cab in NYC brandishing "Go Nawaz Go" label. Here is the column he wrote

http://e.dunya.com.pk/colum.php?date=2014-09-29&edition=LHR&id=37809_52056642

I have written enough already about the hotel cost. Let me talk about "Har Taxi per Go Nawaz Go ka board laga tha". Someone posted a photo-shopped picture of an NYC cab advertising "Go Nawaz Go" and Dr. Babur Awan got so excited looking at that tempered image that he proclaimed that EVERY taxi cab in NYC was displaying that. Well, I was there in that city that day and I didn't see a single taxi cab with that advertisement; most of them were still displaying ads for strip clubs.

Dr. Babur Awan thinks that every Pakistani cab driver can display whatever he wants on his cab. That is not the case. Taxi cabs in New York City are regulated by the Taxi & Limousine Commission (T&LC  and that is inscribed on the license plate of every cab in NYC) and no cab driver can display anything on the cab without the approval of T&LC. If they had done that, as Dr. Babur Awan is saying that they did, they would have lost their driving licenses by the next day.

This may seem like a trivial and frivolous issue but it's symptomatic of a very troubling trend. Pakistan has suffered long enough of "creative" reporting of  history. In past few years that creative reporting has been increasingly creeping into current affairs. It's troubling and dangerous because a nation mired into identity crises and looking to get it's bearing needs to at least have their facts reported correctly.

This is  not an individual problem, it is an institutional one. An individual can write whatever their fancy. Dr. Babur Awan can write that angels were descending on New York with "Go Nawaz Go" placards. It's the responsibility of the institution that is sending those words to the press to verify what is being published. Western news outlets have someone called a "content editor" whose primary job is to verify the facts being published. Back in the days when I was a journalist in Pakistan, we didn't have content editors but it was common for a news editor or editor to circle a piece in an article with red and ask the reporter or the writer if that part was verified by the writer.

I am of firm belief that that tradition must have gone by the wayside too because in two days, the day Dr. Babar Awan's article got published and the day before, in the same opinion page of the same newspaper, three writers quoted three different room rates for Waldorf Astoria hotel. All three were wrong but even if one was correct, the other two had to be wrong which made me wonder, what was the editor of the opinion page smoking? Why didn't he/she asked these three writers how come their "facts" didn't match each other, let alone matching the
reality.

No wonder that Pakistani journalism is going through an epic credibility crises of unprecedented proportion which makes people like me sad to the core who once prided themselves of once having some link to the journalistic profession of Pakistan.

Faux Hotel

A lot of hot air, which has left me somewhat dumbfounded, has been hitting the airwaves in Pakistan about Nawaz Sharif's choice of hotel while he is here in New York attending UN General Assembly's annual session.

Before I get to that, let's clear some of the fundamentals out of the way that may sound irrelevant but are not.

Let's start with United States Secret Service. It's a federal agency working under United States Department of Homeland Security. The Secret Service is responsible for the security of the president of the United States, president's immediate family, the vice-president and his/her immediate family. This protection is not just while they are in the office; it is for life. So, the Secret Service protects all the living ex-presidents, all ex-vice presidents and so on and so forth.

An additional responsibility of the Secret Service is to protect the visiting heads of states. If you are Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Secret Service will protect you while you are in United States. They will provide you the same kind of protection that they provide to the President of the United States.

And they would love it if you are not staying in New York City (NYC). Why?

A routine protection regimen for a visiting head of a state staying at a hotel means the Secret Service would make regular electronic and canine sweeps of the hotel lobby, the room he/she is staying in, the floor he/she is staying at and the elevators in that hotel. But if that dignitary is staying in a hotel in NYC, it becomes even more complicated. Anyone familiar with NYC can tell you that the hotels in NYC do not have parking spaces (real-estate is expensive) which means that if you are Nawaz Sharif, the Secret Service would have to drive your car right in front of the hotel entrance, you would get out of the car, take a few steps to the hotel entrance...and for those few steps, you would be exposed to a sniper and the Secret Service does not like that. What they do in this situation is that they occupy part of the street, put up a tent that covers width and breadth of the distance between the car and the hotel entrance and thus ensure that when you step out of the car and enter the hotel, you are invisible to a potential sniper on a high-rise looking for you. It's not perfect but it's the best they can do. On top of that, they put snipers on the buildings around the hotel to return any fire when you are leaving the hotel or coming back.

One can imagine how cumbersome that is. One can also imagine how cumbersome it would further become if the Secret Service has to do all that for not just one head of a state but close to 120 heads of states at the same time. That is what they have to do whenever all these world leaders descend on New York on such UN sessions.

If everyone of these leaders decides to stay in a separate hotel, the Secret Service would have to do all that described above 120 times. That's a logistic nightmare. So, what do they do? They give every visiting head of the state a list of recommended hotels to stay at in NYC. A lot of factors must be considered for such a list; the location of the hotel, the route from the hotel to UN and back etc. Nawaz Sharif chose Waldorf Astoria Hotel to stay. And the airwaves in Pakistan are filled with, mainly, two allegations;

1-) Waldorf Astoria is the most expensive hotel in New York
2-) The room NS is staying at is $8,000/night

Waldorf Astoria is NOT the most expensive hotel in NYC. Ritz-Carlton, The Plaza, Four-Seasons, St. Regis, all of them are more expensive than Waldorf Astoria. In fact, according to a past article by Business Insider, Waldorf Astoria is the 10th most expensive hotel in NYC. I checked their website today, and called to confirm, and their Tower Suite, the most expensive they have, is $529/night. But, hang on. There is this Presidential Suite. That goes for about $7,000 to $10,000/night. And one of the anchors in Pakistan, who yells at her audience instead of talking to them, showed the pictures of that suite in her program saying this is where Nawaz Sharif was staying. That makes sense!! He is staying at the Presidential Suite...

But, no, he cannot be.

Why?

Well, the Presidential Suite is called "presidential" for a reason. Whenever the President of the United States is in New York, that's where he stays  (that is why it is called "White House of Manhattan"). This suite has hosted every president from Herbart Hoover (1931) to Barack Obama (2014). Whoever pays $7,000 to $10,000 per night for this suite is not paying that money for the luxury but for the history of this place and for the bragging rights. Nawaz Sharif cannot be staying there because, on those very days while he would be in NYC, Barack Obama will be staying there.

Which begs the question: if Waldorf Astoria is not the most expensive hotel in NYC, then why every president of the United States chooses that hotel to be his abode while staying in NYC.

Waldorf Astoria has a unique feature that makes it the most favorite hotel in NYC for the Secret Service.  Recall the tent for the arrival of the person they are protecting; Waldorf Astoria has a driveway that goes right beneath the hotel building with an entrance to the hotel, which makes it much more secure than a tent.

I passed by the Ritz-Carlton yesterday, a more expensive hotel than Waldorf Astoria, and there was much more activity outside that hotel than what I observed outside Waldorf Astoria today, which is right across my office. That tells me that there are many more dignities staying at Ritz-Carlton than there are at Waldorf Astoria. But then I can't call them to ask to confirm since that would be the most certain way to have a knock at my door by a couple of Secret Service agents asking me why I wanted to know that.

I do not have access to some classified source. All of the above is common knowledge among New Yorkers. Any journalist or anchor in Pakistan could find all that out by browsing the net and talking to someone in New York in less than two hours. I wonder why no one bothered. Is it just laziness or has the entire media become Imran Khan: what is whispered in the ear comes right out of the mouth without a moment's hesitation?

Dear Professor Imran Khan

These days, a couple of experts in Political Philosophy are lecturing people of Pakistan about what "True Democracy" means by citing, according to them, the fundamentals of "True Democracy". The principles they keep on repeating have little or nothing to do with the idea that is democracy. Those principles are about good governance and the rule of law; none of which requires "true democracy" as a prerequisite.

I am going to ignore Alama Tahir-ul-Qadri in his quest for his dream system. He is too smart for the likes of Pakistani people. I am going to focus on Professor Imran Khan, ignorant of history (I can prove that) and ignorant of the dynamics of polling day (I can prove that too) who keeps claiming to know EVERYTHING (he said, "yeh police walay bhi Tehreek-e-Insaaf ke saath hain" before he accused the same policemen of murdering people whose dead-bodies are yet to be found) and who keeps telling people of Pakistan that he knows what "True Democracy" means  (citing Scandinavian countries.)

Democracy, as an idea, embodies some very fundamental tenants. One of them is, "the will of the people would be the supreme law." That one rule means that a true democracy HAS to be Secular. When a state adopts a faith, it disenfranchises a large number of the populace. When the constitution of a country says, "Sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;", that's not true democracy Doctor Imran Khan. That is not a democracy being practiced in Scandinavia sir. Abul A'la Maududi was smarter than you.  He had an intellect you can not even  dream of achieving and he knew what "True Democracy" meant and he never wished for that. Maududi wished for "Islamic Democracy". 

Come on Imran bhai, tell your followers what you want. "Islamic democracy" or Scandinavian democracy? Also, please tell them that there are no Anti-Blasphemy Laws in Scandinavia (remember those cartoons? yes.). Or, tell them what your version of democracy is, since Jamaat Islami is your coalition partner in KPK, and see how many face-painted youngsters are willing to follow you into a Maududi-designed decmocracy,  

Dear Paksitani Liberals

Congratulations! Another voice has been silenced. Shahbaz Bhatti was killed because, unlike most of you guys, he spoke up and now that he is dead, his voice has joined your deafening silence.  He died because most of you stayed silent when Salman Taseer was speaking up, you remained silent when Taseer was killed and most importantly, you chose to remain silent when Taseer's murder was being celebrated in the streets of Pakistan. That was the time when you should have been shouting at the top of your lungs. But you remained silent. And they killed Shahbaz Bhatti. And I am sure your silence will prevail.

Some of the liberals who did speak up and continue to speak are not at the mercy of the crazed fanatics (and please don’t tell me that they are being funded by USA or UK. You know and I know that it’s not the funding that’s doing the killing. It’s the lethal ideology that is doing it. Do you mean to tell me that America funded the people who were distributing sweets in the streets after Salman Taseer was killed?), the ones who still choose to speak are really at your mercy and part of their blood, when it is spilled, will be on your own hands.

Almost all of you know that the blasphemy laws have no place in a modern democracy and yet none of you has said that so far to the best of my knowledge. Some of you have just talked about how it is ‘misused’ and ‘abused’ when in the hearts of your heart, you know that the law shouldn’t even be used in this day and age. It shouldn't be in the books of law, period. You chose to mince words and skirt the issue when the need was to speak clearly and unambiguously. If no one says what needs to be said, the others can’t agree. How can one support the unspoken?

I have no reservations about the other side. They are not silent like you. They have their cards right on the table faces up. We know what they want. It’s you who worry me. You  want to play your cards close to your chest so the rest of the world doesn’t even know what are you holding.  Well, guess what, the game in Pakistan is almost over. You can take your cards and shove them.

Hypocrisy; that’s what killed Salman Taseer and that’s what killed Shahbaz Bhatti. It killed them by not trying to save them. By not joining them saying, “yes, we agree with them!” and telling the fanatics that just by silencing some voices, the message will not die.

So stay silent my friends. But if you think that your hypocritical silence will be enough to save your own necks, you are sadly mistaken. When all the voices are silenced, they will come for you. The irony is that there will be no one left to speak for you.

Charles Darwin's Silence

Writing my previous post (The Myth of Arrogant Atheist) reminded me of an incident that I wanted to talk about but never got around it. I will take this opportunity lest it slips my mind again.

Some time back, I was in Toronto attending a Darwin Day gathering. A very dear friend of mine and I were speaking at the occasion. My topic was why believers feel so antagonized by Charles Darwin’s theory and my friends was talking about Darwin's life. Prior to that gathering, he and I had been talking about, for some time, about my rather militant manner in discussing ideas and ideologies. He had reprimanded me several times for focusing on winning arguments instead of winning hearts (and I plead guilty).  During his talk, my friend mentioned Darwin’s loving relationship with his wife Emma who was a devout and practicing Christian. He also mentioned how Darwin let his wife editorialize his books so that they didn’t offend believers.

After his talk, someone from the audience asked him why Darwin never professed atheism and why was it that he let his wife modify his work. That is a very frequent question and it is worth wondering why a person whose work is responsible for making more atheists than anyone else in the history of human kind and who made it possible for atheists to become “fulfilled atheists”, in the words of Richard Dawkins, never publicly renounced his own faith.

My friend, uncharacteristically for him, thundered that because Darwin was not among the people who don’t give a damn about other peoples’ feelings. That made me smile because I had a hunch that my friend’s answer had something to do with my presence there. The hunch was proven next day when I received a very endearing and affectionate note from him explaining the causes of his spontaneous outburst.

Anyways, what I wanted to say to him that day, but didn’t because I didn’t want the event to become an argument, is that it may very well be the case that Darwin was protective of his wife’s religious feelings but that is just speculation (as far as I know). I have always felt that Darwin’s silence about his own faith can be because of something else (which is also a speculation) and that something else has a little bit of explaining to do. (This point onward I am borrowing heavily from the research done by Christopher Hitchens on this very subject).

We are one decade deep into 21^st century and in a day and age when humans are looking at Mars to set feet on. Even in these modern times, being an atheist is a kiss of death on many levels. In many parts of USA, being an atheist is worse than being black (or even being a Muslim, no kidding!). Once you profess atheism, you have to kiss any ambitions you might have of holding a public office goodbye because a known gay person can win (and have won) elections but a professed atheist can’t even think of doing that. (The only direct physical threat I have personally received didn’t come from a frothing at mouth Muslim fundamentalist. It came from a redneck in Georgia who, after knowing that I didn’t believe in god, told me to be careful and try not to be in his presence when he has his gun on him.) To my knowledge, there is not a single atheist (or even agnostic) in the US House of Representatives or US Senate although atheists constitute a sizable number among US population. This is in 21^st century where the church doesn’t have direct political power. Think about the times it did.

In 18^th century, when David Hume wanted to opine on religion, he had to present his views in a fictional dialog in which he himself wasn’t a participant. A century before him, Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated just for questioning the immortality of soul. Galileo faced death for making a genuine scientific discovery that contradicted church’s official position (and the Vatican only recently apologized for that). Thomas Paine whose “Age of Reason” was the first full frontal attack on Old and New Testaments and organized religion refused to accept the label of “atheist”.

In the times when Benjamin Franklin invented lightening rod, the lightening bolt was believed to be a direct act of god. When he introduced his invention to the general public, he was obviously apprehensive about people claiming him to be competing with god so following is what he wrote in the introduction of lightening rod.

“It has pleased God in his Goodness to Mankind, at length to discover to them the Means of Securing their Habitations and other Buildings from Mischief by Thunder and Lightening.”

So, he, in a nutshell had to give god the credit of his invention (and the inclusion of the words “at length” makes me smile every time I read the sentence and I am sure Benjamin was smiling too when he wrote them. If those two words were not there, one could mistake Benjamin Franklin to be a devout Christian. I am happy that he included those two words in sort of a wink to the future generations.)

Darwin’s era was only a slightly after Benjamin Franklin’s. If introduction of lightening rod was such a risky adventure, one can only imagine how dangerous was the introduction of Darwin’s theory; a theory that shook the very ground on which religion stands; that we, the humans, are a special creation of a designer. Humans could now understand the diversity of life without invoking a designer. Benjamin Franklin couldn’t publicly claim to defeat the god and here was Charles Darwin, with one of the biggest, if not the biggest, discoveries of human history in his hands. He was not just talking about defeating god. He was about to make god irrelevant as far as the diversity of life on Earth was concerned. This could ruin Darwin’s personal and professional life utterly but more importantly; this could ruin his work based on years of study and hard work.

No wonder Darwin was apprehensive of his work being rejected without review just based on the ideological repercussions. Maybe that is why, printed on the cover of the first edition of “The Origin of Species”, was Frances Bacon’s suggestion that one should not only study god’s words but also god’s “works”. I am quite certain that Darwin was on pins and needles in the first few weeks (or maybe months) of the publication of “The Origin of Species”. The subsequent editions did not have that inscription of studying god’s work.

It was his latter book, “The Descent of Man” that actually created significant ripples and this was the book Emma reportedly editorialized. But even after her editing, you can see Darwin being much more outspoken than his first book and I completely understand that. For a scientist, the most important thing is the propagation of his work because science, truly, is a team sport.  If a work isn’t communicated to the other scientists, it’s wasted work. Once the core of his theory was out, Darwin took more liberty with his ideas in his subsequent work and you see the supposed influence of Emma decreasing gradually.

So, my friend may very well be right that Darwin didn't publicly admit the loss of his faith (which he did admit in personal correspondence and his autobiography which wasn’t meant to be published) protecting his wife’s feelings. But I suspect that the real cause was the concerns for his own safety and the preservation of his work.

Rafi

Richard Dawkins welcomes the pope to UK - Dawkins style