Nation Lip Syncs To JUI-F Leader’s Tune

February 8th, 2010

With a sensational headline, today’s The Nation reports today that  Jamiat Ulama -e- Islam (JUI-F) leader Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman says that there are over 9,000 Black Water personnel in Islamabad. The Nation reports these statements without verifying the truth of the JUI-F leader’s claims. As such, The Nation joins the ranks of media outlets acting more like political stooges than legitimate news organizations.

The report, published in the Politics section, simply parrots the words of the JUI-F leader without any comment as to the reliability of the claims, easily leading some readers to accept that they are true. But despite their 7 seats in the National Assembly, JUI-F is not an intelligence organization and has not, as far as I know, actually determined the number of Black Water personnel (if any) in Islamabad.

The sensational claims of the JUI-F leader do fit with the general tone and political stance of The Nation, but they are not a subjective opinion open for debate. If The Nation would like to only be a political propaganda paper, then it should advertise truthfully as such.

Individuals can have an open and honest debate about whether or not foreign security contractors should be allowed to operate in Pakistan. This is a good topic for opinion pages and editorials. What is not open to debate, however, is the number – if any – of foreign security contractors actually in the country. This is an objective fact that is verifiable with proper research. The Nation failed to do their jounralistic duty and conduct any investigative research to verify the politician’s claims. Instead, they simply repeated what the politician said with no question.

If our media is going to serve the public and be a service to our democracy, they are going to have to do more than repeat the unverified claims of politicians and conspiracy theorists. Investigative research and fact checking is hard work, but it is a vital part of a healthy news media. This is a lesson The Nation still needs to learn.

Jang Group Saving The World Says…Jang Group

February 6th, 2010

One thing you will not find a lack of in media is Ego. If we could only transform media Ego into electricity, we would solve load shedding forever. A perfect example of this is a recent headline in The News: “Aman Ki Asha” bears fruit as India ready for talks.

Blogger Ahsan on his blog Five Rupees took notice of this display of congratulatory self-importance.

No, Jang Group, You Did NOT Just Take Credit For The Resumption Of Indo-Pak Talks

Oh dear. Has there ever been a more self-important headline in a newspaper before? I’d credit General Kayani or the IPL fiasco for the resumption of talks before I’d credit this Aman ki Asha crap.

Anyway, here’s the rundown of this whole “resumption of dialog” thing: right now, Pakistan has sought “clarification” of the agenda for talks which India has proposed. While this happens, Rehman Malik will be meeting his Indian counterpart later this month (I fully expect Rehman Malik to make a NYT-front-page-making gaffe at this summit, by the way…something along the lines of “We have evidence that RAW was behind the Mumbai attacks of 26/11″ or “Dawood Ibrahim is a friend of Pakistan’s” or some such).

After the clarification is presumably issued, there will be wrangling over why India wants to discuss everything but Kashmir and water, and why Pakistan wants to discuss nothing but Kashmir and water. If we somehow get through the phase, dates will be set, agendas will be ironed out, “historic” meetings will be scheduled — only to be derailed by the next crisis on the subcontinent.

Media certainly plays an important role in society and can be a force for good. But spare us the self-importance and huge Egos and just give us the facts please!

What Sells Better? Peace or War?

February 5th, 2010

Newspaper Sales

On this blog we ask the question, “Pakistan’s media is free…but is it fair?” Mostly we try to answer this question by fact checking the news and correcting the misinformation that is promoted by some media organizations that think they can fool the public. But there is another aspect of media that must also be addressed, and that is by looking at how the media is influencing public opinion, and if that influence is being used responsibly or irresponsibly.

Today’s Dawn editorial makes an important point about how the media fuels militarism and anti-India populism, thereby hindering the possibility for peace.

The editorial, “Quest for Peace,” discusses the ongoing tensions between Pakistan and India, and the struggle to establish a working dialogue between the two nuclear powers to settle differences and misunderstandings without resorting to violence. One of the obstacles to this, however, is the media.

There is a media which is still not sure what sells more: peace or war? There is this tendency in the governments on either side to periodically raise the bogey of a hostile neighbour, for a cheap populist slogan overrides all other matters.

Obviously, when money is the only motive for determining what the editorial line of the newspaper will be, there will be a tendency to move towards more sensational themes. Everyone wants peace, but also everyone wants to read about war. It is more dramatic.

But the responsiblity of the media is not to be dramatic. Please let that be the job of film directors and playwrights. The responsibility of media, on the other hand, is to inform the people so that they have the facts about what is actually happening. In matters of war and peace, what could be more important?

We have already seen how the media has almost started a nuclear war in the past. As we said then, “when it comes to the delicate peace between two nuclear powers, the stakes are too high for the media to play to the gallery and exaggerate…” Already this has been a problem in the past. It must not be continued.

Nadeem Paracha vs. Aamir Liaquat

February 4th, 2010

Though we typically focus on news talk shows and newspapers, it is not beyond the boundaries to also include some religious television shows. Obviously, this is not a blog about Religion Watch, and I don’t want to venture too far into questions of religion. But I do think it’s fair to make some criticism of the way that religious programmes on TV take it upon themselves to comment on matters of current news and politics. Other countries have their televangelists who meddle in politics, so we have the same thing.

Nadeem Paracha takes one of our homegrown telegangelists to task in a blog post on Dawn today.

Aamir Liaquat, host of GEO TV's Alim Online programme

When ‘Islamic’ televangelist, Aamir Liaquat, traveled to Saudi Arabia to perform (his umpteenth) Hajj late last year, intelligent, sensitive and rational Pakistanis let out a sigh of relief.

The more mischievous ones among us even prayed to the Almighty to let the Saudis fall in love with this eminent ‘Islamic scholar’ and fund his outlandish theories. The whole idea behind this sincere pray was for Liaquat to stay put in Saudia Arabia playing the Saudi faith’s Dr. Frankenstein (remember Dr. Maurice Bucaille?), leaving television viewers in Pakistan ever so grateful to the Saudis for keeping him there, away from the corruptions and temptations of Pakistan.

But, alas, all hopes have been dashed as Liaquat has been brought back for yet another invigorating season of ‘Alim Online.’ This despite the fact that in 2008, he was accused of instigating violence against the Ahmadiyya community through his highly enlightening show, and is also known for holding some truly audacious views about Islam, society, and politics in Pakistan.

Well, actually, such men (and some women), have ironically proven to be real attractions for multinationals wanting to advertise their brands during the most foolhardy shows, so one can understand private television channels’ unflinching obsession with these characters.

That said, this article will focus on a 10-minute section of Liaqaut’s show that aired on January 29 this year. After announcing his return to the mini-screen (so much for our prayers), Liaquat launches into a discussion on our unfortunate cricket team that has recently turned suffering defeat into an unparalleled art, nay, a fascinating science.

For a second I thought he would start cursing the fact that there are still not enough Tableeghis in the team for it to start winning again. But Liaquat, being the bolt he is, said this instead: “Our team has been losing a lot lately. So, a viewer called me and said, Liaquat bhai, do mention the fact that ever since Pakistani cricketers started wearing shoes with green soles, they have started to lose!”

Yup, you read that right. Liaquat bhai then went on to endorse this brilliant insight by suggesting that green soles are the culprit because green is the colour of Islam and also of our national flag.

Marvelous. This should also mean that the Pakistan team should stop playing on grass, and the hockey team should stop dribbling and running across green AstroTurf as well?

Conscious of the fact that maybe even the biggest religious nutcase will have some trouble swallowing this belligerent and breathtaking proclamation, Liaquat then quickly adds that this was a matter of faith and not aqal (reason). In fact, he said that such talk has to do with belief and would not be understood by the ‘worshippers of reason’ (aqal kay poojney walley).

So, on a mainstream Pakistani TV channel, which has recently made it a point to become the leading upholder of a corruption-less society, we get to hear about a very green reason behind Pakistan’s defeat in Australia. More than that, in a country with less than a 50 per cent literacy rate, we also get to hear how useless and sinful things like logic, reason, and intellectuality really are for the Muslims. Bravo.

Anyway, in that glorious 10-minute span, Liaquat then moved on to comment on some international politics. He talks about the recent murder of an Iranian nuclear scientist, and asks our own bomb daddy, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, to watch his back.

Interestingly, he also alludes to the fact that Dr. Khan is a regular viewer of his show. If so, then I have a question. Was it aqal that Dr. Khan used to make the bomb, or did the non-green soles of his shoe did the trick? Or maybe the doctor sahib’s brains are (literally) green, along with his heart, gallbladder and kidneys? Maybe it is not a bomb at all that he has made, but a giant shoe with non-green soles that we will use to kick India with?

Moving on, Liaquat bhai then at once puts the blame of the Iranian nuclear scientist’s murder on the continuing existence of a handful of synagogues in Iran! Shame on Iran for being a repressive theocracy and still managing to demonstrate more religious tolerance than a democracy like Pakistan can or ever will afford.

Then, like a typical whining demagogue, Liaquat says that there are synagogues in certain Muslim countries, but no mosques in Israel. At once realising that one of the holiest mosques of the Muslims is situated in Jerusalem (Dome of the Rock/Masjid Aqsa), he quotes a supposed Gulf News report that states that the Israelites have protested that the early morning call for prayer from the mosque is too loud and should be stopped.

After going through dozens of recent editions of Gulf News I could not come across even a single report suggesting the above. However, even if this is true, then Liaquat bhai should also share with his evergreen viewers the many incidents in Pakistan where perfectly good Muslims have rightly gone to court against a maulvi or two to stop them from turning the volume up to 10 while delivering the morning azaan. And as any pious Pakistani would vouch, the early morning call for prayer is (comparatively) the softest.

Anyway, doesn’t this make Iran and all the other Muslim countries that have synagogues seem a lot more tolerant than Israel?

Liaquat bhai then goes on to talk about the ‘Jesus’ Bible coded guns that were handed to some American soldiers in Afghanistan (but then taken back, even though bhai does not mention this). He says this is a sign that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is a crusade. He moves on to suggest that the Swiss cannot tolerate minarets (on mosques); the French can’t tolerate hijabs, so on and so forth.

Indeed, how intolerant of them. But for the sake of the argument, let’s reverse the situation. Let’s say, a misled, misguided, bad and green-soled-shoe wearing Muslim like me objects to the fact that the Pakistani soldiers are trained to chant ‘Allah Akbar’ as a battle cry; or that army tanks and trucks have hadiths written on them – these are the trucks, tanks and soldiers the army will take into a war, wouldn’t it? So how is this any different than guns having verses from the Bible?

Let’s now go on to say that a bad Muslim like me also bemoans the fact that churches are regularly attacked in this country and that there are many areas in Pakistan were a woman without a hijab, a burqa, or a woman in a western dress, can’t even imagine venturing into without being harassed or attacked. If I start asking such questions, how many bemoaners of western intolerance will be willing to exhibit any tolerance themselves?

And now, returning to our cricket team, Liaquat bhai should also remind himself that each and every non-Muslim country where Inzimamul Haq’s hyper-tableeghi team played, it made it a point to hold public prayers (in the stadiums) and openly practice Islamic evangelism.

The Indians, the Australians, or the British didn’t challenge this blatant show of religious exhibitionism. It was stopped (and rightly so) by the Pakistani Cricket Board. And can you imagine what might have happened had the Indian team or an English squad decided to use Pakistani stadiums for Hindu or Christian rituals and their tours to the country as a recruiting side activity? Liaquat and the likes of him would have been throwing green-soled shoes at them and calling it jihad!

So, Liaquat bhai, life’s a two-way street, a fact that men like you continue to dodge. But what can one expect from a person who has nothing but contempt for reason and aqal?

The Nation’s Economic Conspiracy Theory

February 3rd, 2010

The Nation never fails to impress us with the some of the conspiracy theories that they publish. Today is no different as the editorial writers venture into the world of economics. Unfortunately, rather than ask an economist for advice and explanation, the editorial writers chose to create a conspiracy theory to explain what they do not understand.

The editorial explains this bizarre conspiracy when The Nation talks about “the real trap.”

However, the real trap the government needs to escape, is that of the IMF, which is only offering aid because Pakistan is helping the USA, which is allied to Europe, which names the IMF Managing Director, in its War on Terror. The IMF conditionalities, combined with government extravagance, are causing the unchecked growth in debt by a government which never tires of its concern for the poor. While Pakistan might need assistance to tide over the difficulties it may be facing, such assistance should not be at the cost either of the national economy, or of national honour and dignity. As the increase in the debt burden under the PPP-led government shows, turning to the IMF has meant not just the sacrifice of national honour, but a worsening of the national economic situation.

Let me see if I can sort out this tangled mess of conspiracies.

First, the IMF is only offering aid to Pakistan because the USA wants it to, and the USA only wants it to because the USA is allied to Europe and Europe names the IMF Managing Director. Apparently there are some conditionalities involved with the IMF aid (as there are with all IMF aid), though The Nation doesn’t let us know what exactly they are. The Nation also tells us that there is some government extravagance (again, undefined). These mysterious conditionalities mix with the extravagence and cause massive increases in debt because according to The Nation PPP cares too much for the poor! All of this together, of course, hurts the national honour and dignity.

If you found that hard to follow, take no worries, dear reader. I have created a chart that explains it perfectly clearly.

The Nation's explanation for rising debt

Did that help explain? Don’t worry, I don’t understand either.

The national economy is not only a topic of debate but an issue that affects the lives of everyone. Because it is an issue of such seriousness, it deserves to have serious discussion. Making up some fantastic conspiracy theory by throwing in every bogeyman that you can think of (IMF, USA, Europe, War on Terror, “conditionalities,” poor people) and then saying that these are all mixing together to harm the national honor is a waste of time that could be better spent discussion real solutions to such important issues.

Credibility, and how to lose it

February 1st, 2010

Hajrah Mumtaz wrote an excellent piece in Dawn over the weekend about media credibility and how news organizations risk losing this vital piece of their business. Threats to media credibility are certainly not unique to Pakistan, but neither are these same threats missing. Also, our media is vulnerable to some of these threats at a time when the stakes are especially high.

Mumtaz mentions two ways that media can lose credibility. The first is when news organizations reduce the size of their staff and resort to ‘outsourcing’ the material for their reports. This can easily result in biased or propaganda pieces getting used in the place of actual reporting.

The second, which Mumtaz says is a more direct threat to Pakistan’s media is manipulated by political agents:

There is another way in which the issue of news credibility crops up, however, and that lies is in the influence and biases of the owners of news organisations, and their political links. Media and politics have become intertwined in the past decade: in terms of some media outlets, both print and broadcast, a consistent stance for or against a certain government, or political party, or leader, or even an issue, can clearly be identified. Matters are not helped by rumours that journalists have or can be bought, or not, or put in planted stories, or end up presenting as ‘objective’ news material that is little more than an official press release.

This is fairly clearly a problem already. This blog has found examples recently of major newspapers parroting political talking points without verifying the claims and printing anonymous opinion pieces as ‘news.’ While FOX News has already gained the reputation of a political propaganda machine in the USA, our own Shireen Mazari has made quite a reputation for herself at home and in the world, even being called the “Ann Coulter of Pakistan.”

Unfortunately, the two problems mentioned by Mumtaz are possibly working together for to the detriment of the nation.

The shrinking size of international media organizations makes it more likely that these agencies will look to the news reported by Pakistan’s media for stories and facts. So there is a problem if the stories are politically manipulated and the facts are not verified.

The result will be confusion in the world about what is happening in Pakistan. Eventually, people will stop trusting any information that comes out of our media as tainted by the reputations of these irresponsible media talking heads. Our media, as a result, will not be trusted in the world and people will not know what the real situation in Pakistan is. How would it be otherwise?

Pakistan’s media has many good journalists and excellent editors. These individuals have the ability to prevent this course by continuing to provide quality reports, but also by putting positive pressure on their colleagues to act responsibly and professionally, and to self-police the media and criticize their colleagues when they act outside the lines.

Together, we can make sure that the world not only gets the true story about Pakistan, but that they can believe it.

Journalists Or Political Stooges?

January 29th, 2010

The embarrassing case of dual nationality and the national media

Pakistan media - journalists or political stooges?

Pakistan media - journalists or political stooges?

Earlier this week a report was widely circulated in the media that some government officials were holding dual nationalities. Only there was one major problem with the story — the journalists did not investigate, and simply parroted what appear to be false accusations. This embarrassing episode raises a vital question about our media: Does our news media employ journalists or political stooges?

Tuesday morning, the headlines screamed across the papers: The News“NA echoes with concerns over dual nationality,” DAWN“Lawmakers oppose dual nationality for civil servants,” Daily Times“MPs want to ban dual nationality holders from public office,” Frontier Post“Govt urged to suspend dual nationality holder officials.” Ill-informed parliamentarians had read off a list of names of public officials who supposedly had dual nationality including Shaukat Aziz, Moin Qureshi, Hamish Khan, Hussain Haqani, Azam Swati, and Salman Farooqi. The newspapers dutifully reprinted these names without ever verifying if they were true, accusing government office holders of having questionable loyalties.

The next day, the newspapers were forced to print retractions and corrections, but by this time the damage was already done. The newspapers failure to verify the accuracy of the accusations they repeated gave readers the impression that they were true. The rumour was already started that these officials are holding foreign citizenships, even though there is no evidence to support the claim.

The scandal here is not so much that some politician would tell a lie in order to make attention for himself or to slander some opponent. Sadly, we have become rather accustomed to that. Worse, the scandal is that the newspapers – all of them – printed these statements without even attempting to verify the claims, despite the fact that they know good and well that such accusations must be verified. This is a serious failure on the part of the media to perform its most basic job.

Proper journalists investigate and verify claims, they do not simply repeat wild accusations. This situation could have been easily and properly managed if these journalists had done their job and simply requested the evidence of dual nationality from the parliamentarians making these claims. If the politicians cannot or refuse to provide evidence of their claims, is that not a key part of the story? The journalists could have easily called the respective immigration authorities in the nation where the official supposedly has dual citizenship. Surely they have telephones in their offices?

And this was not some minor claim that was being reported. These were serious accusations with serious consequences. The Constitution disqualifies for some government offices anyone who acquires the citizenship of a foreign state. One would think that, considering the seriousness of these accusations that the journalists would take a few moments to verify the claims before printing them. But, rather, each of the newspapers ran the story without question, printing the accusations as if they were not journalists but political stooges working in street level politics.

People rely on the media not to be an echo chamber of lies and half-truths used for political gamesmanship. Journalists are supposed to be more than just film stars lip-syncing to the playback of political speeches. The people rely on the media to report hard facts, not rumours and gossip. If the journalists who are writing for major newspapers are not checking their facts, it calls into question the very reliability of the media itself.

The media should do more than issue a correction on their websites. These are serious accusations that these news organizations have simply parroted. They owe their readers and the accused a proper response by investigating the claims and publishing new stories that state very clearly what the facts are in this case.

The Nation Report About Obama Speech Belongs On Opinion Page, Should Be Properly Sourced

January 28th, 2010
American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

American President Barack Obama Giving His Speech

Today’s The Nation includes a report by an anonymous person known only as “Special Correspondent” on American President Barack Obama’s speech to the American Congress last night which chastises him for not mentioning Pakistan specifically enough. While it is true that Pakistan was not mentioned by name in the speech, the article is clearly meant to suggest a snub against Pakistan and thus belongs more appropriately on the Opinion page of the newspaper. Moreover, the suggestion that a lack of a specific mention of Pakistan in a speech by the American President to the American Congress is a snub is really quite silly.

The Nation’s anonymous reporter begins the article by criticizing Obama for not speaking enough about Pakistan and India-Pakistan relations.

Declaring that the United States has strengthened partnerships with its anti-terrorism allies, President Barack Obama on Wednesday cited his adminitration’s effective fight against al-Qaeda militants but said nothing specific about close ally Pakistan.

Although Obama took note of partnerships in Asia, his first State of the Union address made no mention of Pakistan, a US ally in the war on terror. There was also no reference to India-Pakistan relations and their impact on regional stability. The contentious Middle East conflict was another
major ommission in the speech.

It is true that Mr. Obama’s speech did not mention Pakistan by name, but it also does not mention any other nations that are currently fighting against terrorists. Mr. Obama did mention partnerships broadly, but does not single out any specific nations. For example, he said:

We’ve prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula.

Actually, the reason that Mr. Obama did not mention Pakistan or India-Pakistan relations in his speech was not a snub against Pakistan but because his speech was mostly about US affairs only. In fact, the anonymous reporter for The Nation even admits this in his report:

Obama’s address focused largely on economic recovery initiatives that his administration is pursuing…

Additionally, while Mr. Obama did talk briefly about foreign policy challenges, including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he did so from an American perspective for his American audience. He did not mention any of the other countries with troops in those wars, not only Pakistan. The anonymous reporter from The Nation does not mention that Mr. Obama also does not specifically mention other nations that are fighting against terrorism, including:

  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • Canada
  • Italy
  • Netherlands
  • Poland
  • Australia
  • Spain
  • Romania
  • Turkey
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Belgium
  • Norway
  • Bulgaria
  • Sweden
  • Hungary
  • New Zealand
  • Croatia

Even though they were not mentioned, none of the media in other countries are writing anonymous opinion articles suggesting they were snubbed and trying to pass them off as ‘news’.

The Nation has a well-documented anti-American position with regards to foreign policy. Obviously, they have the right to this position and it is their right to continue to publish anti-American Editorials and Opinion columns. But such political positions belong on the Opinion page, not in the  sections for actual news reporting. The column in The Nation is clearly meant to raise anger among those people known as the Ghairat Brigade. The fact that the report is sourced to an anonymous “Special Correspondent” makes it even worse than misleading, though, it’s simply unprofessional.

DAWN Report About CEC Inquiry Leaves Out Key Constitutional Articles

January 27th, 2010

A report in today’s Dawn says that the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) is investigating claims that President Zardari is ineligible to hold the office of President, but the report leaves out a key detail – Article  Constitution.

The report claims that a petitioner has asked the CEC to investigate whether Zardari was eligible to stand for office under under Article 63(2) (3) read with articles 5, 25, 50, 62 and 63 of the Constitution. The petitioner claims that, with the Supreme Court’s voiding the NRO, Zardari has become retroactively ineligible to stand for the office of President under Article 41(2) that says a candidate must be qualified to be elected as member of the National Assembly.

The Dawn report fails to note, however, that Article 41(6) of the Constitution states quite clearly that, “The validity of the election of the President shall not be called in question by or before any court or other authority.”

In fact, the only means provided in the Constitution for removing a sitting President are in Article 47: “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, the President may, in accordance with the provisions of this Article, be removed from office on the ground of physical or mental incapacity or impeached on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross misconduct.”

While it might be of some academic interest as to the retroactive eligibility of Zardari, the fact is that he was elected and Article 41(6) legitimizes that election. Moreover, at the time of the election, all the facts available now were available then, so there is no new information that would have changed the outcome of the election other than the voiding of the NRO, which was, of course, not void at the time of the election. To quote a common phrase, you cannot un-ring the bell.

Readers of Dawn’s report may be misled into believing that President Zardari’s election could be retroactively voided, causing a crisis of leadership in the government. In fact, the Constitution clearly says this is not true. In the future, Dawn should make sure that it’s reports include all the important facts so that readers are able to fully understand important situations.

Conspiracy Theory Embarrasses Journalists

January 25th, 2010

Aside from the many problems that conspiracy theories create at home, it also is a problem that these conspiracy theories make us look particularly silly in the rest of the world. Take, for example, a 23 January article in The New York Times, an American newspaper that is read all over the world. The article I refer to addresses the recent visit of American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. In the article, Pakistan’s media gets a mention, but not for asking hard-hitting questions about the war or American foreign policy. No, our journalists ask about a worn-out conspiracy theory. How embarrassing.

Pakistani journalists asked Mr. Gates if the United States had plans to take over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons (Mr. Gates said no)…

First, it is time to retire this tired conspiracy theory, born of a paranoid misreading of an article by American journalist Seymour Hersh. Mr. Hersh’s article claims that there are secret agreements between the American and Pakistani militaries to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the unlikely event that Taliban militants overrun Islamabad. A suggestion that the Foreign Ministry firmly denies. It does not say that the US wants to steal Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Even if Mr. Hersh’s claim is true, though, and we have some agreement with the US to defend our nuclear arsenal against militants, that is not the same as the US trying to take our weapons. Let’s look at the facts: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the US possesses over 5,000 nuclear weapons. According to the same group, Pakistan possesses 70-90 nuclear weapons. Now, let us think rationally for a moment. Why would the US, with 5,000 nuclear bombs, want to steal our arsenal of 90? It does not make any sense.

And yet, despite the fact that Mr. Hersh’s article does not talk about stealing our nuclear weapons, and the fact that this worn-out conspiracy theory does not make sense for five minutes, here in the international press are Pakistan’s journalists quoted as asking the American Secretary of Defense if he has secret plans to steal our nukes. This is the state of our media? It’s shamefully embarrassing.

Journalists had the opportunity to ask important, hard-hitting questions of the American Secretary. They had the opportunity to ask about delayed payments for the Coalition Support Fund (CSF), American reactions to sabre-rattling by India, or the transfer of defense technology so that we have the tools to defend ourselves against militants. Instead, they chose to ask about a conspiracy theory. Next time, I hope they do a better job.