On 25th December, in a report titled, ‘Military stands at number five among corrupt institutions’, The News reporter Usman Manzoor wrote that “sources said military stood at number five among the 10 most corrupt institutions of the country.” Once again, Jang’s sources have let them down.

The actual report, which was released on 28th December, lists the military at number nine. And the report does not list “the 10 most corrupt institutions of the country” – it lists only the 10 institutions TIP asked about.

Unlike the previous surveys, this year the NCPS covers only the basic survey report to measure the perceptions, nature and extent of corruption being faced by consumers of the following ten public sector departments:

1. Police
2. Electricity Supply
3. Health Dept.
4. Education Dept.
5. Military
6. Justice / Courts
7. Revenue / Property Registration
8. Taxation
9. Customs
10. Tendering & Contracting

Local Government has been deleted from the survey, and Military has been added for the first time in the list of departments surveyed

After the report was released, Pakistan Today, however, carried the headline, ‘In the list of corrupt, military among top 10 and ‘independent’ judiciary also climbs’. While not as bad as the headline in The News, it is still factually incorrect.

If reporters had bothered to read as far as the first page of the Foreward, they would have learned that, of the ten institutions covered in the report, “The least two corrupt departments are Education and Military“.

We would not be so bold as to suggest that corruption is not a major problem in society. The media has a role to play in solving this problem by investigating and exposing corruption where it exists. But this requires more than rumours, gossip, and misleading reporting – it requires real journalism.

Oh, and if TIP really wants to stir a hornets nest, perhaps they should do some research on corruption in another institution – media.

We are referring, of course, to reports that created a stir on Wednesday night when media groups rushed to report the resignation of Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani. As the evening progressed, the reports escalated. Not only had the Ambassador resigned, but he had already moved out of the official residence. Then we were told that not only had he resigned and moved out of the official residence, but he was not returning to Pakistan. As it grew later there were even reports that Haqqani had applied for asylum in the US! The media frenzy had reached a full peak.

Of course, not one single one of these reports was true. It was all lies and fabrications invented by reporters and their sources and given the green light by unquestioning editors and producers.

Following the media’s false reporting of a conspiracy against the judiciary last year, Farrukh Khan Pitafi wrote the following:

In the golden days of journalism, we were taught not to carry any report unless there was prima facie evidence or at least three separate sources available. In the case of a breaking story or report of critical importance, this rule was relaxed to either two independent sources or word from the horse’s — in this case the prime minister’s or the law minister’s — mouth. As evident however, none of these precautions were taken, nor was any patience shown for such details to emerge. Innocent until proven guilty is the universal principle in case of unsubstantiated allegations. However, in this particular case it was deemed fit to consider the government guilty until proven innocent.

Unable or unwilling to find anyone at the Embassy in Washington or the presidency to confirm the rumours, our media not only ran with the story, they ran riot with it. Were the false reports necessary?

By 1:30am, Dr Firduas Awan was available to give a statement that the government had received a letter from Ambassador Haqqani offering his tender resignation by saying that he did not want to be “a distraction from the major challenges facing our country and our government”, but that no decision had been made to replace anyone. It was less than 24 hours later that Geo was able to contact Ambassador Haqqani by telephone to get his statement on the air.

Imagine if the news channels had simply taken the time to check not with their ‘reliable sources’ who every time prove embarrassingly unreliable, but with the actual people involved in the story. It would have prevented confusion, misinformation, and the continued humiliation of the media as incompetent and untrustworthy.

As the dust begins to settle, it is worth once again revisiting the recommendations of Farrukh Khan Pitafi.

The best practice would be to ask the concerned reporters or the channel managements to produce the evidence. It is important not to confuse a source with evidence. Even when we have sources we are not supposed to air an item without our own satisfaction. And in any case, no source will ever accept that it had generated such information in the absence of recorded evidence. If media outlets do not produce evidence they should be fined and asked to ground the reporter for a bit. This is about the only civilised way.

Now let us focus on the source of the problem in the heart of darkness. Apart from the culture of cynicism that has mushroomed around the current government and for which the government’s poor media policy is to be blamed, the institution of a professional editor is almost extinct in this country. In the presence of owner-editors the assurance of content quality and adherence to media ethics becomes impossible. Our profession has become highly complacent and in a conflict between the business owners and a professional editor, most journalists wish to stand with the former. Had there been professional editors in place, even if unverified information was produced, it would not have made it to the screen or print. Also the professional editor, given the damage caused, would have sacked someone.

Of course, there is the issue of talk show hosts-anchorpersons and their reckless attitude. It must be recognised that since each anchor-host is responsible for the content of his program, he/she is usually expected to act as an editor for the content. But remember in the heat of live programming there always is the chance of some inappropriate behaviour. A professional editor as the media’s conscience should always be there to remind the anchor and to issue the corrigendum. Yet these are mad times and even at stations with elaborate infrastructure, a tendency of getting carried away has been witnessed.

Getting carried away has become not only a tendency, but an addiction. It is time to break the habit.

Claiming to speak for 187 million Pakistanis, Bokhari says that every individual wants to be at peace with India – but not at the expense of forgetting the atrocities of the past. First of all, unelected TV performers do not speak for the people. Second, if Bokhari stepped outside her elite media bubble for five minutes, she would know that while no one wants to forget about the past, neither are the people interested in wallowing in it. The reality is that all of the clips she played simply talk about keeping and maintaining good relations with the neighbors – something that 70 per cent of Pakistanis say they want. The 30 per cent who don’t, perhaps, are laal topi walas who make their money by projecting anti-India hysteria.

Speaking of which, Bokhari invites as her guest none other than Zaid Hamid whose failed TV show ‘Brasstacks‘ was built on the same anti-India hysteria. Zaid Hamid plays his role perfectly saying he was in a state of “shock” when he heard Nawaz Sharif’s speech calling for closer relations between Pakistan and India. When Senator Mushahid Ullah Khan (PML-N) tried to explain that the self-appointed defenders of the realm were making a mountain out of a molehill, he too found himself victim of Bokhari’s wrath.

Suggesting that Nawaz Sharif is soft on India is outside the boundaries of sanity. It was Sharif was ordered the first nuclear tests in 1998 in response to India’s testing their bomb, and it was Sharif who was PM during the Kargil War the following year. Whether you support Nawaz Sharif or you do not support Nawaz Sharif, saying he is soft on India is ridiculous.

Meher Bokhari says Pakistan wants parity with India, but forgets that parity is not enmity. Pakistan is and should be India’s equal, but that does not require it to be hostile or hateful. Just as Nawaz Sharif ordered the first nuclear tests to remove any doubts about Pakistan’s nuclear capability, he also signed the Lahore Declaration committing both nations to resolve differences with peaceful dialogue and cooperation.

Bokhari also repeatedly refers to India as a Hindu nation as opposed to Pakistani Muslims, creating a sense of religious conflict where none need exist. Once again, Meher Bokhari is wrong on the facts, and wrong on history. Actually, India is home to some 160 million Muslims. At the time of independence, there were more Muslims in India than Pakistan. And just as there are millions of Muslims living in India, there are 7 million Hindu Pakistanis also.

Meher Bokhari asks whether Nawaz Sharif has forgotten the blood spilt of millions of Muslims, seemingly forgetting that this is not a natural state of affairs. Hindus and Muslims have lived in peace and harmony in the subcontinent for hundreds of years, and in spite of attempts by some to continue animosity between Pakistan and India, most people are not interested in continuing tensions.

Through out the program Meher Bukhari continues to bash Nawaz Sharif saying that he forgot the contributions of our founding fathers when all Nawaz Sharif said was that Pakistan and India have several similarities, including cuisines. She consistently plays on the religious sentiments of people by inviting guests like Zaid Hamid and Jamat-e-Islami representatives.

Not content with merely bashing the PML-N chief, Bokhari then drags out an anti-American conspiracy theory, telling viewers that the Americans want us to think that the terrorists’ inside of Pakistan who are “a part” of Pakistan are the real enemy. Once again, Meher Bokhari gets her facts very, very wrong.

Many of the militants responsible for killing innocent Pakistanis are indeed foreign, but they are not American or Indian. Many are Uzbek, and just this week it was militants crossing the border from Afghanistan who killed an anti-Taliban tribal elder and his son in the Bajaur tribal region. Or perhaps it was the TTP and LeJ militants who were recently arrested armed to the teeth that Meher Bokhari terms “a part of Pakistan”?

Towards the end of the program she again shows an excerpt from Jinnah’s speech in which he mentioned talks about the two-nation theory. She forgets to mention that Quaid-e-Azam never said do not keep good relations with your neighbors. Jinnah also famously said that “in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” It was always the goal of Pakistan’s founders that Pakistan and India would co-exist as good neighbors, not eternal enemies.

There is a difference between losing sovereignty and keeping good relationships with neighbors. Meher Bukhari wrongly projects that the current leadership along with PML (N), MQM and ANP are wanting to get back together with India when reality is, all of these parties want good bilateral relationship with India. Meanwhile, she conveniently ignores the ongoing violations of Pakistan’s sovereignity by foreign terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

This is not the first time that Meher Bokhari has stooped to jingoism. The timing of Tuesday’s programme must be noted as well as it aired just one day before a 20-member parliamentary delegation left for India. Certainly Bokhari’s programme will be dismissed in some corners as mere entertainment. But as we have shown before, there is a line between entertainment and incitement, and how can our parliamentarians expect to be received by their Indian hosts after such an introduction?

The 18th Century English poet Samuel Johnson famously said that ‘patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels’. Certainly there is nothing wrong with loving one’s country, and relations between Pakistan and India are a valid topic for analysts and commentators to reflect on. But what Dunya TV aired on Tuesday night was neither news nor analysis, it was an ugly reflection of a poisonous mindset desperate for attention. It’s time to change the channel.

It should first be noted that The Nation editorial had the unfortunate timing of being published on a day when Karachi was in flames not from any American drones, but because some people were being Pathan or Mohajir in the wrong place and wrong time. But this was not the only problem with the claim of drones as Pakistan’s ‘main problem’.

According to The Nation, “the casualties of innocent tribesmen that these pilot-less planes cause tend to radicalise the affected population and add to the strength of militants as well as to Pakistan’s difficulties in subduing them”. This is a typical response that is heard widely – drones are creating terrorists and suicide bombers. But this claim ignores two important facts.

First is the rising number of terrorists and suicide bombers who are children kidnapped and brainwashed by Taliban at training centers.

Second is that if the death of innocent tribesmen is turning their families into militants, why this only happens after drone attacks and not after militant attacks on mosques and bazaars and other places? If the death of a loved one turns people into terrorists, there should be many more anti-jihadi terrorists than pro-jihadi terrorists.

The ‘main problem’ with The Nation‘s editorial, though, is that it makes the argument that drones are responsible for producing terrorists, and then says that Pakistan will get drones from China and use them ourselves.

The only choice left with us is to tell the US in clear terms that it should not exacerbate the situation by continuing with the policy of drones and let us handle the problem ourselves like we have overcome it in Swat. Obviously, the Americans are unwilling to supply us the drones, but we have a far better option. The Chinese would and, as in the past, be ready to give us technology as well.

And so The Nation lets the cat out of the bag. Despite its constant writing that drones cause more civilian casualties, that drones are creating terrorists, that drones are illegal and immoral – the truth is that The Nation likes drones.

Actually, this makes sense. Surely The Nation was aware of Maj Gen Ghayur Mehmood’s briefing this year where he stated that “majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements”. And accepting that The Nation are patriots who want to see terrorist elements driven from their country, it would only be natural to want to use technology that is effective.

It is also natural for The Nation being patriots to want the technology for Pakistan military and not to have American or other foreign troops carrying out such missions within Pakistan’s borders.

So here is the problem: Why not just say this?

What we are seeing is a ‘main problem’ with not just The Nation but too much of Pakistani media. In an attempt to be clever, it makes incorrect and misleading statements to raise the emotions of the awam as part of a strategy to force some other group (the Americans, usually) to do what we want.

Professional propagandists might think that they are clever and doing a service to their country, but what kind of patriot lies to his own people? More importantly, despite telling these half-cocked stories about drones since the past few years, it is no more likely that the Americans will transfer the technology to us. This oh-so-clever scheme doesn’t work.

Media should not be in the business of propaganda or clever schemes. Media should be in the business of reporting facts. Media groups, anchors, and journalists are entitled to their own opinions, but these too should be based in facts, not clever misinformation.

Ultimately, truth is more persuasive than fiction. Media’s constant peddling of conspiracy theories and misinformation undermines not only its own credibility, but maligns the character of the nation in the eyes of the world. Why would the Americans or any other country trust us with advanced technology when they look at our media and see a culture of bald faced liars? If The Nation and other media groups want to do what is in the best interests of Pakistan, they will clean up their act and set an example of honest reporting.

According to headlines in the newspapers today, the US refuses to vacate Shamsi air base.

The United States is rejecting demands from Pakistani officials that American personnel abandon a military base used by the CIA to stage drone strikes against suspected militants, US officials told Reuters.

This news is certain to confirm the fears of many that the US is sinking its talons into Pakistan and refusing to let go. But later in the same article, officials said that actually the Americans are vacating the base.

“They are vacating it,” the official insisted. “Shamsi base was for logistic purpose. They also used it for drones for some time but no drones have been flown from there.” The official said no base in Pakistan was presently used by the Americans for drone operations. But he did not give a precise date for when drones supposedly stopped operating from Shamsi.

However Minister Information and Broadcasting Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan has stated that demands for US to vacate Shamshi airbase are bogus.

Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan on Thursday said news of Pakistan demanding the United States exit Shamsi Airbase was bogus and had been created by the media, Express News reported.

Speaking to the media in Lahore, Awan said that she was a member of the Defence Committee and nothing of this sort was discussed during the meeting.

What makes this story more confusing is that two months ago the media reported that the Americans had already left Shamshi.

ISLAMABAD: A senior Pakistani intelligence official told CNN on Friday that United States military personnel have left Shamsi Airbase in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province.

This was also confirmed by American officials.

A US military official who did not want to be identified told CNN, “There are no US forces at Shamsi Air Base in Balochistan.” He did not respond at the time or writing to queries as to whether US personnel had been based there in the past.

Therefore, this is what we have learned from the media:

1. Americans are at Shamsi airbase and also are not at Shamsi airbase.
2. Pakistan has demanded Americans leave Shamsi airbase and also has not demanded Americans leave Shamsi airbase.

In other words, whatever you already believe, there is a media story that will support it. Whatever are the actual facts, though, we still do not know.

I think it is time to get away from the general practice of hiding behind genteel phrases such as ‘a well known anchor’ or ‘a leading TV channel’ and not name names when being critical of some publicly expressed views of celebrity media professionals. Surely, such a namby-pamby approach, based on misguided notions of solidarity within the tribe, is not in the public interest.

So, what is it that I intend to discuss today? The preamble should give you a clue. Some weeks ago I discussed the maddeningly infuriating power of belief over reason. This makes it doubly important that those in our media, who are in such a powerful position to influence the thinking of the average Johnny, take seriously their fiduciary duty to at least critically examine their beliefs before inflicting them upon us. That is because, for all the interdependence — and remembering my take on the Feynman homily — the media shapes public opinion far more than reflects it.

And this is especially important in the context of our foreign, defence, and nuclear policies, that have long been the tightly guarded preserve of our military. In the new information age many more people than hitherto are now aware how our security agencies have successfully manipulated our media — and continue to do so by all available means, fair or foul — to mould public opinion as they see fit in their own interest. A genuine point of view — no matter how outlandish or stupid — I can understand; but artful and egregious dissimulation? What should one say of such wilful deceit (in ‘national interest’?) posing as ‘a possible point of view’ that merits a respectful hearing? To add insult to injury is that large sections of our baa’sha’oor (aware) populace readily swallow such nonsense.

In this context, forget for a moment the likes of Zaid Hamid (though I would like to know where he gets his funding). Instead, let me discuss the publicly expressed views of Ms Maria Sultan, reputedly an academic, who is often seen on TV as a serious and thoughtful expert on defence and nuclear issues.

On the Mehran base attack she was there immediately with the standard deep insight of ‘the hand of RAW cannot be ruled out’ (has she changed her mind since, I wonder?). And she was a prominent critic of the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Bill at the time our army launched its short-lived domestic PR campaign against the Bill. But what takes the cake is her view on the issue of the ‘threat’ from the US to our nukes, expressed in the context of the recent debate that seeks to identify the US as ‘the biggest threat to our security’.

This is what the lady had to say (on Dawn TV, in The News of May 24 and in her SASSI blog): “The US can hit nuclear sites under a new law which allows the US to invade a country and confiscate its nuclear weapons” and “the US has allocated a budget for possible attack to secure our nuclear assets”.

To add the necessary verisimilitude to lend plausibility and expert authenticity to her view she went on to cite the precedent of how the US successfully stripped the former Soviet Republics of their WMDs under the 1991 US ‘Co-operative Threat Reduction Programme’. Not only that, she added for good measure that “the US carried out more than 300 sting operations in the former Soviet Republics to this end”.

Now, if even a quarter of all this be remotely true then indeed we should worry. But let me ask two questions. Will the lady provide evidence for her claim about those alleged sting operations in the former Soviet Republics? For all my research I have not been able to find any. And what is this ‘new US law’ she is talking about that authorises such US actions and has set aside funds for such purposes? I cannot find any such law.

The closest I can get to is to assume she is referring here to the Obama-Luger Bill of 2009 (hardly new) that carries forward the thinking behind the 1991 US initiative and its follow-up legislation. But in all such legislation, nowhere is there even the slightest hint of allowing the US to forcibly and unilaterally carry out its allegedly nefarious designs. The policy is, “…To provide monies (some $ 75 million) to train and equip personnel in friendly countries for the detection and interdiction of proliferation related shipments of WMDs, etc.” (An example would be the setting up of facilities at a port to check containers being exported.) As in the case of the former Soviet Republics, where the US came up with more than $ 1 billion a year for more than 10 years to assist them in their weapons de-commissioning programme, the policy is one of assistance to those who seek it, not one of enforcing something against the will of another state.

Am I wrong or being unfair? Perhaps the good lady will put me right then. Until such time, how much credibility do you think she enjoys with me? Next week, I intend to discuss other similar cases.

Another conspiracy theory easily debunked when a private individual takes the time to do some basic research. But this piece is not about one specific mistake. Rather it points out a continuing pattern in the media in which journalists, anchors, editors, and producers broadcast misinformation without performing the minimum fact-checking. We are lucky that someone such as Munir Attaullah will be willing to take the time to investigate and correct misinformation, but isn’t this the job of the editors, anchors, and producers themselves?

Too often we allow ourselves to be misled by impressive sounding titles and elaborate writing. Individuals are allowed their own opinions, but not matter what your degrees, no one is entitled to his own facts. Facts are facts…except when they aren’t.

The reporter begins by referencing a recent speech in which President Zardari dubbed Nawaz Sharif as “Maulvi Nawaz Sharif”. But Ansar Abbasi does not give any context for this statement, instead presenting it as if it came from thin air.

Actually, Ansar Abbasi’s own newspaper, The News, reported that in another recent speech of his own, Nawaz Sharif accused the military intelligence agencies as responsible for “ruining the country”. Actually, this is not the first time that Mian Nawaz has accused the military of ruining the nation. In 2006, Nawaz Sharif presented a speech at a PML-N meeting in London where he said that Pakistan Army was worse for the country even than Indian Army.

A seemingly bitter and perhaps even desperate Nawaz Sharif on Thursday castigated Pakistan Army generals in the harshest ever terms, accusing them of destroying their institution by using it to promote their political ambitions.

He even went to the extent of comparing the Pakistani Army with its arch rival the Indian Army and declared that the latter was much superior in professionalism to the former.

He said the Indian Army did not harm Pakistan as much as the Pakistani generals, “and that is why we have to continuously face the ignominy of being called a failed state”.

It was in response to this ongoing attitude that President Zardari gave his speech earlier this week during which he termed the PML-N chief as “Maulvi Nawaz Sharif” who he accused of “practising the politics of Zia”. In response, Abbasi reports, PML-N leader Ch Nisar “asked both the government and armed forces to stick to the Islamic ideology”.

This is the actual context that for the political battle between the PPP and PML-N, but readers of Ansar Abbasi will understand it differently. Rather than giving all the facts and letting readers decide for themselves, Ansar Abbasi writes that President Zardari wants to fight the US-led war on terror “for the next 30-40 years while the PML-N insists on policy review as per the will of parliament”.

And Ansar Abbasi does not stop there. He goes on to say that present policies “have started pushing religious people against the wall as the difference between religiosity and extremism is being mixed up to the disadvantage of the former”. Ansar Abbasi says that Ch Nisar is expressing “serious concerns” about “the present suffocating environment for practising and principled Muslims.”

This is a very curious claim. Where are religious people being pushed against the wall? Azaan still fills the sky each day. Mosques are still filled with religious people. In fact there is no shortage of religion anywhere in the country.

Perhaps the answer can be found in another part of Abbasi’s column in which he questions the military’s decision to arrest a brigadier for alleged links to banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir. According to Ansar Abbasi, HuT is “a global Islamic organisation involved in peaceful political struggle for the unity of Muslims”.

But journalist Ziauddin Sardar says there’s more to HuT than their propaganda admits.

During a recent debate on PTV, the Pakistani satellite channel, a prominent member of HT told me emphatically: “The idea of compromise does not exist in Islam.” This is standard HT rhetoric, and it explains why the group is deemed dangerous and worthy of being proscribed. Intolerance of that kind is a natural precursor of, and invitation to, violence.

In fact, violence is central to HT’s goals. Its primary objective is to establish a caliphate. It seeks, I have been told on numerous occasions, a “great Islamic state” ruled by a single caliph who would apply Islam “completely to all Islamic lands” and eventually to “the whole world”. What would be applied “completely” is the sharia, Islamic law.

No wonder they recognise no compromise. Their ideology argues that there is only one way Muslims can or should be ruled, that those who form this caliphate have the right to rule, that all others must submit unconditionally and that only this political interpretation of Islam is valid and legitimate. In other words, the caliphate of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s vision can be established only by doing violence to all other interpretations of Islam and all Muslims who do not agree with it – not to mention the violence it must do to the rest of the world, which also must eventually succumb.

Neither is this the first time that Ansar Abbasi has shown sympathies for extremist groups. Speaking on Capital Talk after the Abbottabad operation, Ansar Abbasi infamously gave sympathetic statements about Osama bin Laden.

Abbasi concludes his latest column by praising PML-N and bashing the government, a blatant political bias that has no place in respectable journalism. It is unknown whether Abbasi is exploiting religion for political ends, or whether his ultimate goal is to promote banned extremist groups and use the cover of journalism for propaganda. What is known is that his columns continue to misrepresent the facts and present a distorted view of reality.

The Nation

Actually, a simply search of Google News immediately revealed hundreds of articles about the incident including pieces in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal and USA Today.

The original source for the article is a conspiracy theory website called, ‘The European Union Times’. Other articles featured on this website include stories about how to gain immortality and several articles promoting the HAARP conspiracy theory which was debunked by Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy last year.

So why did The Nation re-publish this easily de-bunked conspiracy theory from a conspiracy website? And don’t the editors of The Nation do even a simple Google search to verify the claims made in articles before they go to press? When all the facts are considered, the article raises some troubling questions – but not about the US, rather about the credibility of The Nation.

The source, speaking through his tears, makes wild claims about not only infiltrators in the military but plans to attack an American airline also. His claims don’t make any sense, but rather than ask questions that might help determine if he is telling the truth, Hamid Mir suggests how the source might change his story to make it more believable. He actually helps his source invent his story while he’s speaking!

When the show cuts back, Hamid Mir pleads for protection for the young man implying that as thin as his sources story is, we should believe it.

Actually, we shouldn’t believe it. In less than two days, the source appeared on Waqt TV saying he made the whole thing up to get revenge over a love dispute.

The man who made sensational claims about the PNS Mehran base attack has turned out to be a disparate lover who fabricated the story just to revenge his failure in marrying a sister of an army man. Muhammad Junaid in an interview with Waqt News confessed that he had nothing to do with the Karachi naval base attack. “I am not a witness to it and totally unaware of the facts about it,” he said.

This is a classic example of unprofessionalism and poor reporting. Rather than investigate and ask tough questions to get to the bottom of the story, Hamid Mir appears to help the young man with his lies. Despite the fact that the man presented no evidence, Hamid Mir accepts his story without question and broadcasts the interview on television even requesting security for the man.

Muhammad Junaid claims that he made the whole thing up to get revenge in a love dispute. What is Hamid Mir’s excuse?

In addition to Ansar Abbasi conveniently quoting his own unnamed sources, the same issue of The News also includes a news report by Dr Raja Muhammad Khan of National Defence University Islamabad. This is the same Dr Raja Muhammad Khan whose name has previously appeared in connection to a propaganda ring connected to retired ISI officials and Ahmed Quraishi.

Now Dr Raja M Khan is published by The News spreading conspiracy theories including that Osama bin Laden was not killed.

But this is also a fact that, the US authorities have failed so far in giving the solid and logical proof of the OBL’s death. The authorities have yet not released any video or the photographs of the operation, making the event as totally incredulous. Some analysts believe that OBL died long-ago in Afghanistan.

Just how distorted is this information? Even al Qaeda has confirmed that Osama bin Laden was killed. And this is not the only transparently silly conspiracy theory in Raja M Khan’s article. Also he says that the raid in Abbottabad was nothing but an American topi drama.

This raid in fact was a staged managed drama aiming either to; bring political victory for the re-electioneering of Obama or else to; pave the way for the US future military actions against Pakistan and to have an access to our strategic arsenals.

Actually Obama’s rating in the US has not been helped by the Osama raid. Even if Obama had intended the raid to help his re-election, why would he do it over a year before the elections? Wouldn’t it make more sense to announce the death of Osama just before the election? This conspiracy which is also being peddled by such persons as Hamid Gul and Aslam Beg simply defies all logic.

In another article in the same issue of The News, Farrukh Saleem claims that American officials are in Pakistan only to improve President Obama’s re-election campaign.

John Kerry and Mike Mullen have been tasked to secure more good news out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to keep up the momentum going into the Iowa Caucuses and then into the presidential election scheduled for 6 November 2012.

Again, this is a laughably absurd statement since Adm Mike Mullen was given his position not by Barack Obama who is a Democrat but by George Bush who is a Republican.

An editorial in the same edition of the newspaper includes distorted information about drone strikes.

It is also clear that drones have claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent people – and only a few militants.

Actually, the openly available data from Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation with all sources presented for review shows that the vast majority of deaths from drone strikes are militants – not innocents.

This also confirms the statement by General Officer Commanding 7-Division Gen Ghayur Mehmood:

Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many, but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.

“Yes there are a few civilian casualties in such precision strikes, but a majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements.”

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that The News has presented misleading and distorted information about drone strikes. The fact that The News continues to publish misleading and distorted information about drone strikes calls into question their intentions whether to inform or mislead readers to promote a political agenda.

What is the intention of these stage managed conspiracy dramas we will not speculate about here. But we will laugh a bit at the obvious ridiculousness of The News running front page articles crying about distorted information while filling their paper with the same.