In a column for Express Tribune last week, Fasi Zaka made a startling claim: TV anchors are intentionally misleading viewers about the Dr. Aafia Siddiqui case.
I have a friend who works in the production unit of Pakistan’s most watched channels, and she told me an interesting anecdote that when the verdict was announced for Dr Aafia (not the sentencing which has been done separately now) the news team all thought Dr Aafia was not entirely innocent because of other facts in the case, but when they went on air they agreed to do so with the unequivocal line that she was innocent.
This is a problem. We might expect politicians to make statements based on the public opinion, but reporters we expect to provide objective facts – not simply tell us what we want to hear. If TV anchors are intentionally changing their reporting to cover up uncomfortable or unpopular facts, they are not really reporting at all.
Politicians will naturally change their positions to match the popular mood. No politician wants to be at odds with the popular opinions. For this reason, particularly with important international issues like the case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, the people must have the facts to properly understand the issues and pressure the political leaders to make the correct positions.
If journalists are intentionally reporting what they think people want to hear rather than what the facts are, an information chaos results. Unfounded rumours and gossips becomes legitimized when they are repeated on TV or in the newspapers, and then become even more entrenched when politicians make speeches and statements that follow these stories.
It is imperative that journalists report the facts – even when these facts are uncomfortable. Otherwise, we will only be building on a foundation of error.


