It is said that politics is not the name of principles but rather it is the name of possibilities. Is this possible that all of us can achieve our ideals? The answer is no. So how can we say that we are successful in our lives? But if thought carefully we can get only those objectives which are possible to accomplish. The same is the case with politicians. What the journalists and analysts present in their columns and TV programs is the story of idealism. They base their discussion on an ideological idol and then start worshiping that. That is the reason that politicians can’t satisfy them. That is not the mentality of our journalists only. Every one of us has the same attitude.
Last week our media champions were allowed to grab Mrs. Clinton in discussion. The questions asked by our anchors – champions of principles and morality- were principally accurate but technically there were flaws in some questions and some questions were irrelevant. For example Mubashir Lucman asks a question regarding Swat agreement. He emphasized on the aspect of American approach of negotiation with Taliban in Afghanistan and American criticism of Swat agreement with Taliban. But he forgot that Swat agreement was not successful. How can we defend a failed agreement? He was well aware of the fate of Swat agreement but still he was criticizing American condemnation of it.
Again Mubashir Lucman asks that we are not able to satisfy our public when they ask that just by one phone call we gave support to America but now America gives us aid with conditions. I think if a military man asks this question so he will be justified. How can journalists – as I do remember all of them (journalists) have condemned that act of Musharaf- ask this question? On one occasion answering a question Mrs. Clinton said that “Bush is not my president”. She said that Bush has supported Musharaf. But our journalist forgot to tell her that Musharraf came to power during her husband tenure. And Mr. Clinton was involved in dealing of Nawaz Sharif with Musharaf giving him legitimacy.
Talat Hussian asked a question about the charges difference of bases used by US in Pakistan and Tajikistan. His argument was to tell her that why Pakistan is less paid. But she said in response that it is an international agreement how you can object? She said in a very deriding manner that how much dollars we have given to Pakistan. Talat Hussian should ask this question from Pakistan army that why you people are less paid for giving bases to America. The same mistake was done by Hamid Mir when he asked a question about the arrest of some American personnel in Islamabad. Is this the question to be asked from Americans? Instead we should ask from our bureaucracy that why those American were released. And once they are released so it means that it was not a criminal act and there is no need to inquire about.
In the beginning she said that if Pakistan does not need help so America is not going to impose it. And it was heartbreaking to see that all our 7 anchors were quite. It means we need help and our anchors know it very well. But they don’t know how to condemn the conditions of KLB in logical way. The question regarding Drone attacks and resolution of our parliament, was nicely handled by her. She said that all these matters have been discussed with General Kayani and Pasha. And that is the point what I feared. She has tried to divide our civil and military leadership. But our anchors were not able to create an opposing public opinion about her as they do with our politicians. If they think that she was our guest that’s why they did not want to insult her so they must know that in international politics there is no concept of guest and host. May be they don’t know how our politicians are insulted on air ports in America?
Some of our anchors are experienced in interviewing foreign dignitaries but they were not well prepared. I do remember an Interview of Shusmita Suraj of BJP party of India. She was invited to a program of PTV hosted by Tallat Hussian and produced by Iqbal Bungash. Tallat Husian was so confused that he asked her on one occasion “ok madam you tell me what I should ask you?” and she replied Tallat you are host of the program how can I tell you? I have heard that even Iqbal Bungash was not happy about that program because the questions were dictated by some one else. And it feels that even now the questions were dictated to these seven anchors.
It was very strange when people heard the murmuring of the anchors with each other. May be they were telling clues to each other. It did not give a good impression to the local public and international journalist community. The questions asked by these journalists can be heard sitting at any cafeteria and listening the common folks. If these questions would be based on logic she would certainly confuse. But she looked more confident while answering the questions.
The author is a column writer. His Articles can be seen at www.thefrontierpost.com . He supports democracy and human rights. Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/media-hawks-hovering-over-hillary-clinton-1403863.html