The comments on this article are really interesting. Nobody disagrees with Bhutto's point that Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari is an opportunistic hack. In fact, one of the commenters calls him a "a murderer, a scoundrel of the first order." Another refers to Zardari and his entourage as a "clown brigade." But nobody seems to appreciate Bhutto for pointing this out, either.
Ahson Hasan says "I have little sympathy or respect for Pakistani elite and that includes this article's author," although he concludes with "It's good to discuss issues and Ms. Bhutto's piece is worth reading," which is somewhat contradictory.
Other commenters are less restrained.
"Said easy from a million miles away... with all due respect when was the last time Ms Fatima Bhutto came down to see in real life whats happening in our Godforsaken country," says Ziaul. "I actually feel sorry for people like Fatima get educated at prestigious institutions n then go on to criticize the one identity that they have...You guys come for a dozen a dime!"
"If Ms Bhutto is so concerned about the fate of Pakistan, she should head back and try to reign in matters. She of course is in the enviable position of actually being able to do something, coming from a most elitist and influential family," says Adnan Qureshi.
These guys have a point. Western papers are chock full of writers like Bhutto, and Ziaul is right that these guys are usually educated at prestigious universities. The commenters are also reading Foreign Policy, which suggests that they're fairly intellectual themselves, and justifiably frustrated that their talents are being wasted while Bhutto has managed to turn her elite roots and famous name into a cash cow.
I appreciate diversity - as I've said before, I think one problem with mainstream American media is that they don't have enough of it. But is it really 'diversity' if the same views appear under an Arabic name?
Foreign Policy recently ranked Pakistan in its top 10 Failed States. High praise, indeed. And Bhutto's essay slots neatly into FP's view of Pakistan as a torn down backwater run by an avaricious fool who nonetheless manages to play a deep and dangerous double game. Say what??
What would be really diverse, of course, is if FP actually found a Pakistani writer who could praise Zardari for what he has done right - reveal the double game he seems to play with such skill, get behind the scenes of how this individual thinks, wheels and deals. But they won't do that for risk of alienating their readers. In an America where states consider revoking the Constitutional citizenship rights of babies born in America to immigrants - in a nation where a lawmaker unapologetically gets up and says things like "we have to target the mothers" - in a nation where a racist rant is the same thing as an article that examines both sides of the immigration debate - is it any wonder that magazines like FP are afraid of 'real' diversity?
Is Zardari the idiot? Or are we?
(Note: I don't know anything about Zardari, I'm just suggesting that he's probably not the grabby moron that Bhutto's article conveniently assumes him to be - or at least, that's probably not the whole story.)
Reading this post again, I realize that there is another way to look at the situation. As they look to add "diversity" to their newsrooms, it's inevitable that magazines will occasionally strike out. It's possible that the Bhutto piece wasn't malicious, it was just a lazy attempt at diversity.
very well said. To be truly 'diverse' (in opinion, and not merely in genotype) needs patience, and open mind and willingness to sit at the table with characters you may find unsavory. Its easier to poll a celeb who is a good, convenient stand-in, and available right here on American soil.
ReplyDelete