Pakistan vs. Punditry

I know the US Democratic contenders' debate is important, but how important, compared to, say, the imposition of martial law in nuclear Pakistan?

If the last debate was any indication, the University of Nevada's Las Vegas campus is right now crawling with reporters assigned to cover the presidential horse-race. According to Drexler University, close to 400 members of the media were "credentialed" for October 30th's debate. More than 200 news organizations covered it. One New York daily sent a "live" blogger and five of their editorial staff, including two political editors and a gossip columnist. (The Daily News's Heidi Evans authored an all-important sidebar on Hillary Clinton's ten-year old bout with deep vein thrombosis.)

As for Pakistan, we called around. According to their spokespeople, US networks are relying on just a handful of reporters to cover what could well be the world's most critical crisis. ABC alone, boasts two full-time producers in Pakistan: Gretchen Peters and Habibullah Khan. Philip Reeves, NPR's man on the story, is based in New Delhi. (Sariah Nelson, reports on the region from Kabul.) NBC opened a bureau in Islamabad two years ago but flew in Richard Engel, Middle East Bureau chief and correspondent to cover the crisis. CBS told us they retain one regular camera crew and use local or flown-in reporters "depending on the story." CNN has a bureau in Islamabad, but declined to offer details. Fox News may not have understood the question.

Talking on RadioNation this week, Jonathan Schell couldn't have put it more strongly. Even before the declaration of a state of emergency, there was an emergency. "The Pakistan of Pervez Musharraf has, by now, become a one-country inventory of all the major forms of the nuclear danger," writes Schell. Crude coverage has created a dangerous over-simplification: "The US media have set things up as strong man vs, terrorist," says journalist and author Ahmed Rashid on this Sunday's program.

Pakistan's journalists, always under pressure, have been fighting for their lives. President Pervez Musharraf's government has shut down local TV stations, stopped foreign cable newscasts and threatened journalists with imprisonment. On Thursday, two of Pakistan's four main national news channels returned to the air. It's unclear if the channel's owners agreed to the government's requirement that they sign a "code of conduct."

Sadly, US media don't need a "code of conduct" to keep them in line. Pakistan vs. Punditry? As far as the US media are concerned, there's simply no comparison.

Comments (6)

1. "I know the US Democratic contenders' debate is important, but how important, compared to, say, the imposition of martial law in nuclear Pakistan?"

   Well, Ms Flanders, what do you expect US to do about it? Bush isn't going to abandon his pal. The Congress sure as hell isn't going to cut funding to Musharraf...they won't cut funding for the war in Iraq.

   The UN is helpless without us. The Europeans don't care and India is gleefully laughing (with a cautious eye on who controls the Paki nukes).

   So...given a Democratic President in 2008 will be the ONLY thing that changes the situation (if possible)...shouldnt we concentrate on the steps that would lead to that???

   Posted by Mask at 11/15/2007 @ 7:28pm

2. Well, didnt' the white house make their statement about being "disapointed" with Musharref? What more do you want? End of story! The white house is clearly disapointed with our strategic ally--move on!!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 11/15/2007 @ 7:42pm

3. well...once again, but for the stupid waste of the iraq debacle...might have trapped OBL in tora bora...and not had him running around stirring shit up in pakistan...

   but for...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/15/2007 @ 8:09pm

4. "I know the US Democratic contenders' debate is important, but how important, compared to, say, the imposition of martial law in nuclear Pakistan?"

   How exactly is the Democratic debate important? Will anyone remember it a year from now? If not, maybe we should rethink what we consider to be "important"

   Posted by srjenkins at 11/16/2007 @ 12:34am

5. A lifelong miserable failure, from his cheerleading days at pappy's alma mater to invading Iraq, George W. Bush is simply pursuing the "Freedom FOR DICTATORS Agenda" with respect to Pakistan. Case closed.

   Saddam was simply the wrong kind of dictator... but it's all relative, see, because Musharraf and Mubarak are cut from different dictatorial cloth. Hence, they qualify for massive aid and support under the "Freedom FOR DICTATORS Agenda".

   It all becomes clear once one cognizes The Truth: That rightwingers have no intelligence, no integrity, no moral compass as it spins in wildly convulsions of relatavism, no capacity to apprehend the truth, no clue about governance for the people as opposed to for lining their bank accounts.

   Posted by John_Shaft at 11/16/2007 @ 07:38am

6. I noticed in the debate last night that Joe Biden and Bill Richardson offered DETAILED, SPECIFIC, and CONCRETE answers on Pakistan....

   while John Edwards said basically "I'm going to get rid of the Bomb! Isn't that cool?"

   Posted by Mask at 11/16/2007 @ 2:26pm