On the eve of the historic Senate election on March 4, there was only one question on everyone’s mind. Who will win between Yousaf Raza Gilani and Hafeez Shaikh and who will fail? An anchor was of the opinion that Shaikh’s defeat was impossible. The main argument was that Hafeez Shaikh was a representative of the IMF. How can the IMF’s representative lose? Does it mean that IMF will not issue $6 billion loan? Hence, the establishment will not let him lose and this implies they have become neutral. The remarkable thing is that this assumption concluded that the establishment is non-political.
I was a bit shocked but smiled. Shocked as the anchor has forty years of experience in journalism, and smiled because the analysis was ridiculously weak. When did the IMF even want its representative as a senator? Hafeez Sheikh would have been a senator when there is a stipulation with the loan agreement to extend Imran Khan’s rule for five years. If there was such a thing, would the opposition be unaware of it? The next day, when the Senate election was underway, some well-known anchors on various news channels were found making the same absurd claims.
When the vote count began after the polls, a strange spectacle was observed on a renowned TV channel even before the results were announced. This channel ironically calls itself the No. 1 channel and its anchors as No. 1 analysts. Three analysts suddenly started arguing that if Gilani loses, what will be the fate of the PDM? Mazhar Abbas became rather emotional and predicted that as soon as the results are announced, Prime Minister Imran Khan would deliver a triumphant victory speech.
The failure or success of the PDM should be talked about by those who have successfully adhered to journalistic principles. It is a disturbing practice that the baseless analysis of appeasing undemocratic forces in order to secure a job is being carried
At the same time, they began to justify this imaginary speech. “Why wouldn’t he make such a speech?” This initial phrase is still ringing in my ears. The argument was: “PDM had announced not to contest the Senate election but backed out.” He further contended that PDM has many misgivings which were evidence of its failure. Former DG ISPR would not even believe that this is the same Mazhar Abbas who considers it necessary to prove his anti-establishment stance frequently.
He was about to vent his anger when suddenly the news anchor interrupted him. “Viewers are getting this breaking news from Islamabad. Big news is that Yousuf Raza Gilani has won the Senate election. Hafeez Sheikh has lost.” Immediately after hearing the news, not only did the great analyst Mazhar Abbas but also the other two lost their minds.
The question is on what basis are these so-called analysts showing their loyalties. We have often heard and read analysis during the elections if a party wins then its effects will be felt on politics. What kind of analysis is it that the Election Commission staff is counting the votes in the National Assembly and these wise men start one-sided analysis even before the result is announced? Have these senior analysts forgotten the difference between social media and mainstream media? Why are people allowed to comment on politicians who ignore even the most basic principles of electoral analysis and violate journalistic ethics?
The failure or success of the PDM should be talked about by those who have successfully adhered to journalistic principles. It is a disturbing practice that the baseless analysis of appeasing undemocratic forces in order to secure a job is being carried out which dissolves moments with the breaking news. A large number of analysts have already removed from screens and newspapers and those still secure are hanging on for their jobs and staying on for the sake of journalism. It is the responsibility of a journalist to analyse politicians. But who will analyse journalism? If we do not do it ourselves, then we will do what we are told. And they not only analyse, they also take action. Is that what we want?
