There is certainly a time and a place for criticism of the US and its foreign policy. Whatever one’s particular opinion of American policy towards Pakistan, certainly intelligent people can disagree and have an honest debate about particular facts of that issue. But the murder of over 90 innocent people whose only crime was praying in a way the Taliban did not approve of has nothing to with the Americans, RAW, or economics. It has to do with our own problems that we must face and overcome. To try to make it appear otherwise only distracts from the real issues that created such a monster in our society.

And this is exactly what The Nation does – try to distract from the real issues by blaming someone else.

The incident should rouse the nation to seriously reflect upon the causes of such unfortunate events that keep recurring with frightening frequency. The massive inroads of intelligence agencies of enemy powers out to destabilise the country; the worsening economic conditions that make it possible for them to lure away the poor, hopeless youth to work for them and even resort to suicide for meeting the needs of survival of the remaining family members; the high rate of illiteracy that proves a fertile ground for breeding a mindset of militant fanaticism and readily accepts the logic of throwing away the gift of life; and, above all, a weak, inefficient and corrupt government that lets the above ugly scenario build up as a result of its policies, which promote foreign powers’ agendas to the detriment of national interests – these are some of the glaring factors that lie at the root of such bloody happenings.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the The Nation’s disgust at this murderous event, but like their employee Shireen Mazari, they simply cannot be bothered to face the facts. Are we honestly to believe that severing ties with the Americans would make the TTP less murderous? That it would solve the problem of anti-minority prejudice?  That the terrorists would stop recruiting, stop killing, stop their war on Pakistan? That all of the religious extremists would suddenly throw down their weapons and become democrats?

The Nation obviously blames RAW, USA, Zardari – everyone but the actual extremists. This was no drone attack; it was no conspiracy of the fabled Indian-Isreali nexus. It was the result of violent extremist teachings that are widely available across the country, and the brainwashing of our youth. Why does The Nation not speak out about this? Why does The Nation not condemn the people here in Pakistan who mislead our youth by infecting their minds with a virus of hate and violence?

Newspapers play a vital role in our country. They present information to people who are not present at the scene of a major event so that all citizens can better understand what happens in their country and make informed judgments about how to proceed. By exploiting the Lahore massacre to promote their specific political ideology at the expense of actually informing the citizens of the facts, The Nation has failed in its job.

Her column, “Our collective shame and some troubling questions,” actually begins quite well. She sees the slaughter of innocent Ahmadis in the middle of prayer as a wicked act that speaks to the degredation of our society acted out by religious imposters.

Islam which teaches brotherhood and tolerance has all but disappeared in spirit and essence from within us and, instead, we are filled with hatred, intolerance and a desire to simply kill all those who may differ from us. As for the Pakistani nation, how far we have sunk from the ideal of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah should be shamefully visible to every sane Pakistani.

In fact, Shireen Mazari goes on to call on us to stop looking to blame others for our own problems, and to take responsibility for the extremist ideologies that have infected our society.

 There can be no shying away from this horrendous act in Lahore and it is time that the Pakistani nation took stock of itself and its leadership and made a determined effort to restore the spirit of tolerance and accommodation that is the essence of Islam and that must be the essence of our nationhood since Pakistan comprises a rich diversity of people – all of whom are equally dedicated and loyal to this land.

This is all quite good! I must admit, when I read it my heart began to lighten. Shireen Mazari is an excellent writer, though her hatred of America has blinded her too often to the realities under her own roof. It has led her to concoct the most ridiculous conspiriacy theories, so poorly constructed a school child could disprove them quite easily. She has aligned herself with the Ahmed Quraishi and Zaid Hamid school that teaches that facts and reason are to be avoided, leaving her isolated from former colleagues who lament her fall into paranoia. So for Shireen Mazari to finally write a column like this was a breakthrough to be applauded.

Or so I thought.

It wasn’t until I reached the end of the column that that familiar voice began to seep through the page. There had to be some mention of the Americans. There had to be some conspiracy. Nothing could simply be a horrible, wicked act perpetrated by sick minds under the influence of religious imposters. And there it was.

There are also some troubling questions about the Lahore targeting of the two Ahmadi places of worship:

First: The timing comes at the peak of US pressure for the Pakistan Army to begin its operations in North Waziristan Agency. Mere coincidence or not, every time the US has wanted the Pakistan military to commence an operation in FATA, there have been such acts of terror prior to the commencement.

Second: The incidents happened when Pakistanis were celebrating Youm-i-Takbeer, the anniversary of our going overtly nuclear – something that still is not acceptable to the West and Israel.

Third: What is equally relevant is that our Government and our national security managers need to seriously look into how friendly spy agencies from West Asia and the US-UK were allowed to establish direct links to Kashmiri freedom groups based in Pakistan, especially central and south Punjab, during the Bosnia war.

It’s sad, really, to so clearly see the sickness that is a paranoid obsession. Shireen Mazari is not a stupid person, by any means. She knows that the Americans had nothing to do with this. She knows that these murders had nothing to do with nuclear assets. Sometimes an apple is only an apple. But her mind is like a warped glass that reflects a distorted view of the world. It is as if she cannot help herself, no matter how hard she tries.

Shireen Mazari begins with a noble call to shed the hatred and intolerance that can cause some terrible event like we suffered this week. But then she ends overcome by her own hatred and intolerance. Someday, perhaps she will be cured of this sickness and finally know some peace.

Certainly all people have opinions about important issues, and journalists – by the nature of their work – talk to people involved in all sorts of political activity both good and bad. But Pakistan has a set of groups within the journalist community that have either intentionally or unwittingly been part of political activity.

Ayesha Siddiqa made this point a few days ago, and today Nadeem Paracha continues the examination of the problem on Dawn Blog in a must-read post:

The emergence of a taped conversation, allegedly between famous TV anchor and journalist, Hamid Mir, and a member of what is called the ‘Punjabi Taliban,’ has created great furor – especially within the journalistic community in Pakistan.

In the the conversation, a man recognised by some as Mir, makes derogatory remarks against the Ahmadiyya sect and insistently alludes that Khalid Khawaja – the controversial former ISI man who was kidnapped and murdered by an group that is believed to have ties to the Punjabi Taliban – was a CIA agent and close to the Ahmadiyya sect.

He blames Khawaja for the death of Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) cleric, Ghazi Rashid, who was killed in the military action against armed men holed up in the volatile mosque in 2007. He tells the Punjabi Taliban that it was on Khawaja’s insistence that Ghazi continued to fight from within the besieged mosque, but was then abandoned by him.

Khawaja, who was supposedly in the custody of the Punjabi Taliban at the time of the conversation, was later found murdered by his captors who accused him of being a CIA agent and responsible for Ghazi’s death. These are the two main points that the conversing journalist makes while talking to the Punjabi Taliban member in the leaked tape.

Leading members of the liberal intelligentsia have frequently been raising concern and alarms against certain prominent figures in the local print and electronic media, blaming them of overtly sympathising and at times glorifying the violent antics of assorted sectarian and Islamist organisations.

People like Hamid Mir, Dr. Shahid Masood, Aamir Liaqat and Ansar Abbasi (all belonging to a large media group in Pakistan), have come under intense scrutiny by their detractors for not only ‘angling’ their stories and rhetoric in favour of extremist organisations, but also constantly undermining the current democratic set-up in Islamabad.

Ironically though, whereas the liberal sections of the media have not gone beyond labeling these men as Taliban sympathisers, it is their opponents within the large net of pro-Taliban actors in the media and the intelligence agencies who are said to be behind leakages such as the taped conversation mentioned above.

According to well-known columnist and author, Ayesha Siddiqa, “the conversation should not surprise people as Hamid Mir has old links with the Islamists and the intelligence agencies.” In an article she adds that there is not a single journalist, especially on the electronic media, who comments on national security and is not fed by the military or one of its many intelligence agencies.

Author of the acclaimed book, Military Inc., Siddiqa says that at present there are three opposing groups within the military and its agencies. One is pro-West, one is pro-Taliban, and the third is pro-China. All three are always at loggerheads. This also means that while each one of these groups has journalists planted in newspapers and TV channels, they use their plants to cancel out the reputation and influence of those belonging to the opposing groups.

But there is nothing new about this. The agencies have always had personnel on their payrolls operating as reporters, anchors, and ‘analysts’ ever since the Ayub Khan dictatorship in the 1960s. Respected journalist and author, late Zamir Niazi, in his book, The Web of Censorship, suggests that the agencies recruited a number of ‘journalists’ during the Ayub dictatorship, specifically to check leftist sentiments that were all the rage among journalists at the time.

Then during the Z.A. Bhutto regime, Niazi hints that the populist government and the conservative ‘establishment’ fought a battle of ideas through paid journalists. But the phenomenon of agency-backed journalists upholding the military establishment’s agenda and ideology in the press  really came to the fore during the Ziaul Haq dictatorship in the 1980s.

As left-leaning journalists were forced to exit newspapers during the Zia dictatorship, the corridors of these newspaper offices were suddenly stormed by large groups of pro-establishment personnel, mainly consisting of anti-Bhutto journalists and pro-Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) men.

With the role of the ISI and other intelligence agencies expanding due to Pakistan’s direct involvement in the so-called ‘anti-Soviet Afghan jihad,’ many of these journalists were brought under the wings of various agencies, triggering a trend that still disfigures prominent sections of mainstream Pakistani media. What’s more, between early and late 1980s, the agencies were also able to plant men in the administration and finance departments of various mainstream media groups.

I got first-hand experience of this in 1993 when I joined a newspaper of a large media group; my appointment letter was constantly delayed, in spite of the editor asking the head of finance to release it. The head then bypassed the editor and went straight to the publisher, claiming that I should not be hired because I was a ‘communist’ who’d had links with the KGB (as a student) in the 1980s! As it turned out, this man was an active member of the JI, and also said to be close to a pro-jihad agency.

Crowded at the top

By the 1990s, most media groups had become a startling reflection of the tense sectarian, ethnic and ideologically fractured society that Zia’s disastrous regime and policies had left behind.

The media group I was a part of (for 10 years), was teeming with various lobbies, fighting out a cold war against one another. There were the usual high-profile agency-backed journalists who (as Siddiqa rightly suggests) were/are the ones who always manage to get the best scoops; then there was a large pro-JI lobby (whose mission, it seemed, revolved entirely around getting those they deemed to be ‘leftist’ or ‘liberal’ chucked out from the organisation); there was also a pro-MQM lobby who made sure that MQM received as much positive press as possible; and a ‘liberal’ lobby made up of assorted progressives. But more worryingly, the 1990s also saw the entry of ‘journalists’ planted or having sympathies with radical Sunni sectarian organisations such as the Sipah Sahaba.

As the agencies again became active, this time to sideline any democratically elected government that they saw as a danger to their on-going post-Zia maneuvers in the field of jihad (in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan), a number of fresh recruits were instilled in newspapers, so much so, that opposing agencies (all with right-wing Islamist agendas, but differing on sectarian and policy grounds), now began drafting ‘journalists’ to put forward their particular version of pro-jihad ideology and interests. The result was infighting in the country’s intelligence gathering and security apparatus as one agency tried to undermine the other in their quest for more funds and political influence.

An attack in 1992 on a prominent journalist (famous for scoring a number of scoops and presently a famous TV anchor) was a stark reflection of this. The journalist, whom many believed was being fed stories by an agency, was claimed to have been attacked by the supporters of an opposing agency.

Such was the talk at the time, heralding the laying down of a whole new ball game in the intrigue-filled world of mainstream journalism in Pakistan. And this new ball game really got going when (during the Musharraf dictatorship) private TV channels were allowed to mushroom. This is the phenomenon that many within the media blame for triggering the on-going ‘anti-democracy’ and ‘pro-Taliban’ narrative one comes across on almost all major TV news channels. Opposing agency men were said to have come together during the Musharraf dictatorship to counter (through their ‘media contacts’) agency people who were supporting Musharraf’s (albeit half-baked) operation against extremist organisations.

Some political commentators point at the electronic media’s role during the Lal Masjid operation and the Lawyers’ Movement as examples in this respect. They believe whereas some TV anchors and reporters blindly lapped up ‘exaggerated figures’ and scenarios that they were fed to them by agency men opposing the pro-Musharraf organs, the game got even bigger when the same anti-Musharraf agencies ‘facilitated’ some political parties to invest heavily in the Lawyers’ Movement.

Though almost all mainstream parties took part in the landmark movement, however, the PPP and some small leftist parties blamed the PMLN and JI of mutating the movement’s orientation towards the rightist sides of the ideological divide, especially when pictures of activists carrying pro-Taliban and pro-Osama placards at the lawyers’ rallies started appearing in (mainly English) newspapers.

Observers believe that if the journalists belonging to the so-called pro-Musharraf factions of the agencies felt themselves being bogged down by those with alleged links to the more pro-jihad factions, the pro-Musharraf strains in the agencies put men like Zaid Hamid on TV – a manufactured pro-Musharraf demagogue originally placed to distract the people from events such as the Lawyers Movement.

Whose line is it, anyway?

Whereas today when the agencies (with the pragmatic support of bosses of some large media outlets) have successfully sidelined whatever there is left of any liberal, secular or leftist thought in the mainstream electronic media, it seems the channels are now overflowing with right-wing media men, many with clear links in the agencies.

But it’s not been a unanimous takeover. Simply because of the mentioned infighting between various groups within the agencies. For example, on surface, it should sound strange and contradictory if one right-wing media personality attacks another, as was the case when Zaid Hamid publicly accused Hamid Mir of being a CIA agent.

But this can easily be explained if one dwells deeper into the increasingly overlapping and complex maneuvers of the agencies. As a fellow columnist recently noted, in a matter of merely a month, two leading media personalities have been exposed in the most dramatic manner. He claimed that Zaid Hamid had dubious relations with a particular faction of the agencies, but was brought down when another faction decided to strike by bringing into play Zaid’s controversial past with a cult-like Islamic group which some puritanical Islamic organisations consider was blasphemous in its beliefs.

Another fellow journalist thinks that the ‘Mir tapes’ were leaked by a different faction of the ISI or IB. A faction perhaps opposed to the faction that Mir is alleged to have had links with.

The most interesting thing is that whereas attempts by the liberal media personnel to castigate right-wing and contentious TV personalities have not gone beyond protest columns and editorials, it has been such personalities’ fellow rightist journeymen who have been out to orchestrate their downfall.

Zaid Hamid called Hamid Mir a CIA agent, but it was Zaid who got his animated TV slots canceled when a sectarian Sunni organisation threatened to attack the channels that so enthusiastically ran the hate-monger’s much watched shows. On the other hand, Mir laughed off Zaid’s accusations but not before (unwittingly or otherwise) providing a platform on his own show for some politicians to make a meal out of another rightist TV anchor, Shahid Masood, only to supposedly have his own conversation with the Punjabi Taliban ‘leaked.’

Much more is being ‘leaked’ (more frequently than ever) to various websites. Recently, a website also put up a list of the outstanding dues that major media groups still owe in taxes to the government. Also under scrutiny are the ideological orientations and ‘links’ of journalists such as Ansar Abbasi, Shaheen Sehbai, and Amer Mateen.

Hamid Mir has denounced the taped conversation as fake. So has the media group he works for. But surprisingly, instead of investigating the level of involvement some journalists clearly have with extremist groups and intelligence agencies, all the organs of the said media organisation have gone into overdrive in attacking some of their contemporary media outlets, the government, and ‘liberal journalists’ of instigating a ‘conspiracy against free media.’

It is true that many of this media group’s ‘attackers’ have no respect for a free media. But by suggesting that the free-for-all mudslinging and dangerous angling that some of its anchors openly exhibit is akin to the group’s love of democracy and freedom of the media is really a self-defeating delusion, if not a big black joke.

1. Hillary Clinton threatened Pakistan

Hillary Clinton has once again come into her own true self and issued a direct threat to Pakistan of “severe consequences” if the ‘terror attack’ of Time Square New York City had been successful and found to have definitively originated in Pakistan.

FALSE
As proven yesterday, Hillary Clinton did not issue any threat to Pakistan. This is a lie. Here is what Hillary Clinton actually said:

“I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking. They have done a very significant move toward going after the terrorists within their own country.”

2. US government and media are ignoring facts

Why are the US government and media paying no heed to Shahzad’s alleged connection to the Yemeni cleric and to the Taliban’s clear denial of any link to Shahzad?

FALSE
A simple Google News search shows hundreds of articles about Faisal Shahzad and Anwar al-Awlaki and also hundreds more about Taliban denying a link to Faisal Shahzad. Does Shireen Mazari not have any Internet access? Officials from the US government first said they did not believe there was any link. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano called him a ‘lone wolf.’

3. Ambassador to Washington was silent

Why did our Ambassador to Washington maintain a strange silence in the immediate aftermath instead of seeking access to Faisal Shahzad, given that despite being a US citizen his Pakistani links were being played up?

FALSE
Ambassador to Washington Husain Haqqani was on CNN News to discuss the incident. Also he was in all of the newspapers with some statements. Does Shireen Mazari not read the news herself?

4. Foreign Minister Qureshi must have known Faisal Shahzad to make a statement about the cause

More important, how did he know the cause unless he had met Shahzad, knew him earlier or had been told by him that this was the reason behind his alleged action?

FALSE
Foreign Minister Qureshi was was speaking to CBS News soon after Faisal Shahzad was captured. His statement about the atttempt being a response to drone attacks was obviously his preliminary evaluation of the situation. Also, why is it so unbelievable that the attack would be a response to drones? Aren’t drone attacks what Shireen Mazari and The Nation have been upset about for years? A government official does not have to know a miscreant in order to have an opinion.

4. Interior Minister Malik assumed Faisal Shahzad was guilty

Interior Minister also made a similar statement as if Shahzad had been found guilty already.

FALSE
Interior Minister Rehman Malik was only repeating the facts as he heard them – as was everyone. Also, Faisal Shahzad admitted his guilt. Why is is that Shireen Mazari believes confessed terrorists to be innocent, but presumes government officials to be guilty?

5. Faisal Shahzad’s father was arrested, showing that this government is as bad as Musharraf.

Why should the father of Shahzad have been arrested? Apparently it was given out that his arrest was to facilitate the FBI team but is it the job of the government to aid and abet the US or to protect its own citizens? It would appear the answer is the former for this government, in which case there is little difference in how this democratic government is treating its citizens and how Musharraf treated Pakistanis.

FALSE
This is just silly. First of all, Faisal Shahzad’s father was not arrested.

The interrogators questioned Bahar Ul Haq in the northwestern Pakistan city of Peshawar. The retired senior Pakistani air force officer is the father of Shahzad.

Ul Haq — who lives in the Peshawar suburb of Hayatabad — was neither detained nor arrested, the source said.

Second, how can Shireen Mazari compare treatment of citizens under the present government to Musharraf? That is so ridiculous that it does not deserve a response.

6. Civil and military leadership are allowing US to threaten Pakistan

What is truly disturbing though is the civil and military leadership’s silence on questioning US intent. Why are we allowing the US to threaten us while we continue to entertain their civil, military and intelligence teams/delegations? Why are we not insisting on out investigation team being in Washington if the US can send an FBI team to Pakistan?

FALSE
This is not only silly, it is offensive. Shireen Mazari may make her money by spreading rumour and conspiracy theories, but civil and military leaders have real jobs and real responsibilities. Also, why would we send a an investigation to Washington? The attack was in New York and Faisal said he was trained in Pakistan. Only Shireen Mazari would want to send investigators to a city where nothing happened.

7. Military is cowardly for not starting war with America

In the aftermath of the Clinton threat, at the very least shouldn’t the Pakistan government suspend cooperation with the US, at least temporarily? Should our ambassador not convey our displeasure at this overt threat? Stoppage of NATO supplies and the downing of a drone will send a clearer message than any apologetic mumblings from the leadership. Finally, is our military prepared to compromise our defence and security, target more Pakistani civilians, simply to do the US bidding and commence a premature and hasty North Waziristan operation?

FALSE
This is not just silly. It is insulting and dangerous. Our soldiers are every day fighting and dying to protect the freedom of Shireen Mazari to go around head uncovered and making all sorts of false conspiracies (see above). Now she has the audacity to call them cowards? Already we have shown that there was no ‘overt threat’ made against Pakistan. It is not my place here to comment on whether drone attacks are wise or not, but certainly it seems that shooting one down would make matters much worse. Why does Shireen Mazari trying to create more violence? Perhaps Shireen Mazari should let Gen. Kayani and the military leadership do their own jobs.

Shireen Mazari concludes here column with a ‘hodge-podge’ of conspiracy theories. Apparently we will see US troops invade Pakistan to destabilize the government and steal Paksitan’s nukes while the ‘US/IMF’World Bank’ works to destroy Pakistan. All of this she provides no evidence for, of course. She just says it as if wishing would make it come true. And how sad that someone like Shireen Mazari would only wish the worst for her country.

Debunking Shireen Mazari’s crazy conspiracy theories was not difficult. It only took a few minutes of Google searches and remembering articles that I’ve read in the newspapers or programmes I’ve seen on TV recently.

For example, why is it that a journalist like Shaheen Sehbai can continually make wrong predictions, and still he continues? Or that Ahmed Quraishi can say the most wild conspiracy theories over and over again with no consequences?

This is not to say that there should be some laws against free speech. Quite the contrary. But what it does mean is that, if we are going to have a press that is both free and fair, we the citizens will have to keep our eyes on them to hold them to standards of professionalism – especially if they will not do it themselves.

As our most recent military dictatorship melted away before the bright glare of overwhelming public pressure, two heroes — equal parts martyrs and warriors — were left standing hand in hand above the settling dust, bowing to our uproarious applause. The judiciary and the media came to represent the courage of the people against tyranny.

And so it came to pass that private broadcast media in Pakistan was no longer a child, to be seen and not heard. Its shoulders were broader, its voice deeper, the set of its jaw commanding. To silence it now would take more than a gesture, more than a sharp word; it had become, in a word, formidable.

Its power is awesome, its responsibility terrifying. No medium comes close to the visceral impact, the emotional connection of television. It is a breed removed from its older, quieter, cautious cousin, the newspaper. It is breathtakingly alive. It is in our living rooms, our offices and our coffee shops, never further away than the twitch of a finger. It bleeds into our casual conversations, our collective conscious and unconscious, our mental map of the world.

Soundbytes burrow into our minds, piercing deeper than any earworm jingle. Images embed themselves in our hearts long after our minds forget their context.

In this new epoch of media power, a dilemma appears: the dichotomy of public and private media. I would never advocate sliding back into the days of state-monopolised press. We (the people, not just the media) have struggled mightily against censorship and blackouts. Terrible crimes are committed in the darkness.

But the only alternative, private media, is beholden to profit and spectacular one-upmanship, particularly as our industry is passing through the exciting, wondrous, painful throes of puberty.

Pakistani mass media is now a dangerously powerful adolescent. It has its growing pains, its awkwardness, its susceptibility to bad examples. It has fits of anger, and an overriding desire to be accepted, to be liked, to be popular. Its potential is magnificent, but like any adolescent, it errs.

Channels heap dislike upon the despised and laurels upon the popular. They follow each other’s trends, even as they duel one another in spectacular sensationalism.

When the media lends its voice to one side and not the other, they become more than observers and reporters. The power to shape and focus the collective will, the power of propaganda (literally, to propagate a viewpoint) will crush most opponents. It is a fearsome weapon and invaluable in, say, fighting terrorism. But to turn it on legitimate politicians or parties is to subvert the very ideals of democracy that the media should protect.

It has become common practice to air accusations as truth without presenting proof (how many times has the ghastly spectre of “a foreign hand” been conjured without details?) and to repeat endlessly a spectacular image or soundbyte without context. To cut out a piece of the truth, with jagged blade and heavy hand, is to mutilate it, often worse than outright falsehood.

Political talk shows now arrest the attention of millions of households. They serve less as debates and more as political and public arenas. Thousands of years ago, arenas were venues where blood was spilled for the entertainment of a crowd that paid to become a mob. The blood has become metaphorical and a virtual arena seats millions, but little has fundamentally changed.

When private pictures of television anchors are released to the public, it is a shameful invasion. But it is merely an extension of the Schadenfreude that the media has helped foster. Part of the task of free media is to shine a light on shadowy dealings. But to delight in shame is a terrible instinct, and must not be fed.

All this amounts to more than lacklustre journalism. It actively hurts us. It turns us into a people attracted to storms, to thunder and lightning, to uproarious sound and naked fury with no real substance. It makes us delight in public shaming and humiliation, rather than true accountability. The truth is lost in the tussle, and we do not notice.

No freedom can be absolute. When we attack the speakers instead of the speech, invade the private lives of the family of a public personality or give airtime to hate speech because spectacle sells, we must remember that for true freedom, one man’s liberty must end where another’s begins.

We all err, and we cannot fairly expect otherwise from the media. Mistakes will be made. But to deliberately air hate speech or misinformation or groundless xenophobia is to sell the national interest for profit.

The greatest dangers of the exploding industry are we, the consumers. We are not a media-jaded culture. We think of the media as we think of the moon: an insentient satellite that watches over us, reflecting the infinite light of wisdom and truth so that we may gaze into it. But where the moon is incapable of infidelity and has capacity for neither fear nor favour, the media is a man-made entity, created and maintained by human beings. It is prone to human greatness and human greed, our passions and our prejudices, our courage and our cowardice, our marvellous wonders and our malicious whimsies.

Their power is not limited to reflecting the public will; they can mould it, shape it, focus it for good or ill.

Make no mistake, a watchdog media is an indispensible democratic institution, and its robust growth is amongst the greatest silver linings in Pakistan’s blackening cloud. But who watches our watchmen? What check can there be upon a young and powerful institution that we cannot shackle without maiming ourselves? Only we, the people.

We must be patient, but vigilant. We must never oppose the freedom of the media. We must evolve as consumers. If we change the market, the industry must change to survive.

We must recognise that the media does not and cannot pass down universal truths from on high to be accepted uncritically. We do not expect perfection from our politicians, Lord knows, and we cannot expect it from our media. But we can guide them into being all that they can be.

The guardians of our truth, and of our liberty.

A few weeks ago, Army Chief Gen. Kiyani invited editors and columnists to a press briefing. Interestingly, Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood were not invited. Was this an intentional snub by the military brass to send a clear signal that these people do not speak for the military? Or was it just that these journalists are so irrelevant that the Army did not think to invite them?

Usually, if a reporter is truly close to the establishment, they are not only invited, they are given special access like a closed door briefing before the official briefing so that they can get background statements from the officials. These four not only got no invitation to a closed door briefing, they were not even invited to the regular press briefing!

Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood are well known for claiming to be unofficial experts on the Pakistani establishment – especially the military. They are always saying that they have spoken to high up sources, even when what they say turns out to be wrong. But it seems from this latest snub that they are not as connected as they claim to be.

Ahmed Quraishi and Shireen Mazari in particular tend to represent ‘old think’ on security issues. They support a military coup and for the military to cut iself off from allied powers and are opposed to the present democracy and the way that Gen. Kiyani is working with the government.

While each of them probably has some contacts from the military, it could be that their contacts may not be current military leaders. Also, it could be that their sources are actually retired military or ex-military who supported the Musharraf and Zia dictatorships and are filling their heads with false information rather than accurate information in attempt to disrupt the actual policies of the current military establishment.

If this is the case, it makes sense for them not to receive invitations to press briefings by the military brass. The military leadership would recognize them as working for elements that are opposing the actual plans and policies of Gen. Kiyani and his staff so they would refuse them any invitations.

None of these media personalities will reveal who their sources are, so we do not know if this is the case. It could be that sometimes their sources do not exist at all, but are simply invented in order to give their articles and talk shows some air of authority that is missing. But it seems very apparent that if they cannot even get an invitation to a public press briefing, they probably do not have sources that are very high up.

Was this a calculated snub? Is it because Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood do not represent the Army? Are Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood reflecting an old mindset from the past that the present establishment wants to distance itself from? Or does the military brass think that Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood are just too irrelevant to bother inviting them?

Whatever the answers are, one thing is made clear by the snub – Ahmed Quraishi, Shireen Mazari, Shaheen Sehbai, and Shahid Masood obviously do not speak for the military.

Lately, Pakistani media has been propagating the perception that a secret map by U.S. military official Lt. Col Ralph Peters was issued in 2006  to safeguard Israeli security interest and to balkanize Pakistan.

This map has been quite frequently used by Zaid Hamid, journalist Ahmed Qureshi, DR Shireen Mazari, DR Shahid Masood and many others to highlight the American, Indian and Israeli conspiracy in balkanizing Pakistan. This eventually gave them a strong foundation to form their conspiracy theories in order to blame America and its allies rather than Taliban or local terrorists for the attacks in Pakistan.

The map is below:

According to these conspiracy theorists, the above map is a part of a secret plan devised to achieve Israeli security, American energy interests in Baluchistan and Indian long time desire for the disintegration of Pakistan.

Here is the link of a so called security report from Zaid Hamids’ website that is using this map as the best source of evidence against the so called enemies of Islam.

http://brasstacks.pk/pdfs/policypapers/PNACPolicyPaper.pdf

This second link is to a video where he  analyzes the map and highlights the Israeli security interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBPKBgRSH34

Also refer to this “DR”Shireen Mazari article where this map was again used as an evidence for Pakistan’s balkanization.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/21-Oct-2009/Pakistan-trapped-in-the-US-game-plan

Rebuttal of this map hysteria:

Ralph Peters is a retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel, novelist and respected expert on military and intelligence issues just like experts in Pakistan such as General Hamid Gul,  Mirza Aslem Baig or Talat Masood.

http://www.pritzkermilitarylibrary.org/events/2005/09-21-ralph-peters.jsp (About Ralph Peters)

Let us see how this map is in favour of Israeli security interest.

Before this, let me ask Zaid Hamid, his followers, and other conspiracy theorists the following questions:

•     Mr Zaid Hamid, et al, has anyone of you ever attended a math class in school?

•     What grades did you obtain in your technical subjects at University?

•     Do all of you have fake degrees just like the former minister for religious affairs in Pakistan (Amir Liaquat Husain)

Are all of you so blind in your misperceived patriotism and false pride that you have conveniently ignored a major section of this map by Ralph Peters?

Well my readers must be wondering why I am asking these questions

Hang on.

Can anyone tell me what a “map key” is?

I can find the best definition of map key here:

“A map key is a list of words or phrases or colors — usually within a box in the corner of the map — that usually explains the symbols that that are found on the map itself. Also referred to as a “legend.” (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_map_key)

This is the accepted definition of a map key. I doubt that the conspiracy theorists interpret the map of Ralph Peters through the key provided.

Below is the key extract from the above map.

Now what is this key telling us?

It’s indicating that in this map, those countries that are named in black are gaining territory and those in red are losing territory. There are also those countries shown in the map in grey that neither lose nor gain territory.

Now the most blatant error that Zaid Hamid and Co. are making here is to miss out a fundamental point about Israel’s name in Ralph Peters’ map (Remember red means losing territory)

Please see below the extract from the map showing Israel’s name in red which means the country is losing territory.

How come this map is in favour of Israel and how is it possible that this is anywhere successful in achieving Israeli security (by Zaid Hamid) when the map itself is showing Israel losing significant territory to Jordon and Lebanon?

In other words how is Israel achieving its so called goal to balkanize Pakistan by simultaneously balkanizing itself?

This is typical of conspiracy theorists like Zaid Hamid and Shireen Mazari that they distort every piece of information and manipulate it to serve the interest of their paranoia. In this map they are only highlighting the balkanization of Pakistan, conveniently ignoring Israeli territorial loss

Full marks should be given to the gullible followers of the conspiracy theorists who can’t even analyse a simple map key and instead choose to blindly follow their baseless diatribe against this map.

Now let’s look at this article from Ralph Peters which came along with this map in the United States Monthly Military magazine in the year 2006.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899/ (Please read it)

In this article titled “How a better Middle East would look” Ralph Peters carried out an experiment by hypothetically changing the borders of certain countries in the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa to address the concerns of the oppressed people in these restive regions. Some of these concerns are:

• Baluchistan in Pakistan: the Baloch people have been deprived of their rights and fair share on local resources by the Pakistani Establishment. Not to mention the killings of thousands in army operations, extra judicial killings, kidnappings and mass tortures by the security forces which have added to the Balouchi peoples’ misery.
• The Pasthun Durand line, which has divided the Pashtun tribes in two countries (Pakistan and Afghanistan), has been a source of unrest and hostility for decades.
• Gaza, West Bank and Golan Heights: thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli Security Forces through cluster bombs, chemical weapons, aerial bombardment and through brutal oppressive tactics like blocking the supply of electricity and water in the name of security concern by the Israeli forces. Also, many Israeli citizens have been a victim of suicide bombings and indiscriminate killings by Palestinian Movements.
• Similar territorial issue’s in Iraqi region of Kurdistan which fought with Saddam regime on autonomy and has been a victim of a genocide called Al – Anfal campaign where Saddam Hussein’s regime massacred thousands of Kurds.

Ralph Peters map was merely just a recommendation based on his personal opinion rather than a clear directive of US Foreign Policy by Department of Defence or CENTCOM.

In fact the journal his article was published in has clearly stated its guidelines here:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/custserv/guidelines/ (Please read the “who we are” section)

According to their website “Armed Forces journal” is a military magazine where retired or current US military officers share their opinions, analysis and reviews on military policy, defence issues, technology, logistics and tactics. It is senseless to think that this journal dictates US foreign policy.

If it is assumed that Armed Forces Journal dictates American foreign policy then why the same journal has an article extremely critical of (War on Terror) Iraq war and the Blackwater security company (Now known as XE).

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/10/2865287/ (Iraq War)

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2009/01/3889281/ (Trail for Blackwater agents)

Also if conspiracy theorists label Ralph Peter’s map as a doctrine of US foreign policy then they contradict their most cherished claim that Israel and Jews rule America. This is because according to Peters’ map Israel is ceding its territories by withdrawing to pre 1967 borders

Interestingly, HAMAS, a political organization classified as “terrorists” by the US, demands the same territorial retreat from Israel as shown in the above hypothetical map. This demand is also accepted by Palestinian Liberation Organization’s chief Mahmoud Abbas and was also the recommendation of the UN Security Council resolution 242.

Please refer to these references for HAMAS’s stance and UN Resolution:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/04/2008615098393788.html

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/240/94/IMG/NR024094.pdf?OpenElement

A similar article was recently released by a prominent Chinese based think-tank called China International Institute for Strategic Studies that caused massive uproar in the Indian media as the article advocated the balkanization of their country into different states based on several ethnicities.

However after mass hysteria in the media, the spokesperson of the Indian ministry of external affairs clarified to them that the article was representing only the personal opinion of an analyst rather than anything to do with the official Indo –Chinese bilateral relations.

Hence after carefully interpreting the Ralph peter’s map, we can safely reach the conclusion that the map was based on a hypothetical analysis, merely recommending that Pakistan, Israel and some other states give up territories in order to accommodate the demands of the oppressed people and to somehow bring peace in these restive regions.

If an opinion from an individual analyst, journalist or think tank is taken to represent the official policy of a country then how should one interpret former ISI’s chief General Hamid Gul statements in favour of balkanaizing India? Should this also be considered an official declaration by the Chief of Army Staff or the President of Pakistan?

Please refer to this many video of Hamid Gul legitimizing Indian balkanization

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N-uoukDCD0&feature=related

Also refer to this Hamid Gul’s article:

http://generalhamidgul.com/pakarticles/18-pakistan/237-mein-bharat-kay-tukray-tukray-hota-dekhna-chahta-hoon

Conspiracy Spiders Weaving Their Tangled Web

Ayesha Siddiqa’s column in Dawn today is an excellent review of the silliness that continues to waste time and energy – not to mention providing a distraction from important issues. Of course I am referring to the conspiracy theory industry. That’s what it is, really, an industry. These are people who have figured out how to make a lot of money by hawking ridiculous fantasies and dramatic stories. Obviously, they don’t need the same evidence or facts that a real journalist would provide. Just a juicy story about a secret enemy is all that’s needed.

I COULDN’T believe my ears when responsible quarters informed me of an American-Blackwater conspiracy to isolate Pakistan.

According to this heinous plan the objective will be achieved by infiltrating the media, specifically through placing people in responsible positions in the print and electronic media. These plants will then be made responsible for freaking out ordinary people.

While some Blackwater agents are said to be responsible for making people paranoid about a secret plan to destroy Pakistan and take away its ‘crown jewels’ — its nuclear weapons — others have been given the task of exciting the populace with the idea of fighting some kind of holy war against neighbouring states and more.

This is called psy-ops, the art of instilling fear in the hearts of citizens and making them lose touch with reality and faith in their own capabilities. The biggest tool of course is the rumour mill, which is constantly in action churning out half-lies and half-truths. Anyone who cannot be bought off by the company is immediately termed a foreign agent. Such tricks are also useful in hiding the fact that it is in reality these people, who are working to isolate Pakistan, that are on Blackwater’s payroll.

There is evidence of using psy-ops in the past against ordinary folks and making them believe in some outside force conspiring to destroy them. The Germans before the Second World War are a prime example. The entire nation had lost touch with reality to a point that they stopped using rational thinking to assess the behaviour of their own leaders and held a certain kind of people responsible for the malaise they suffered from.

Resultantly, there was the famous witch-hunt through which the Jews, the ‘gypsies’, the physically disabled, homosexuals and non-conformist intellectuals were killed or forced to leave. Very soon, the Nazi military machine managed to get rid of people who would have proved to be an asset for the Third Reich.

Apparently, one of the secondary objectives of the conspirators is to create an environment which kills creative minds and pushes them to leave, hence the brain drain. It didn’t occur to ordinary Germans that their leaders, who were responsible for the First World War as well, were caught ‘with their pants down’ in the process of using military power against the rest of the world, and as such were equally responsible for the tragic state of affairs. In fact, the real conspiracy was to take away the rational faculty of the ordinary citizen.

In Pakistan today ordinary persons are being fed fear and paranoia so that they cannot think about the mistakes made by their own leadership. This is not to suggest that other nations do not make questionable plans but the fact is that painting the world in shades of black and white is in itself a conspiracy against the people.

For instance, the story about the historic American let-down does not mention that our own leadership was equally responsible for serving the interests of foreign states in return for both ‘cash and kind’. Publicly asking Hillary Clinton questions regarding the control of the ISI, for example, is nothing but superimposing the idea of the Pakistani nation’s EQ (emotional quotient). So Washington — rather than Islamabad — decides everything in Pakistan.

I haven’t been informed as yet but I suspect that there is even a larger conspiracy afoot to impair the minds of Muslims all over the world. This is done through instilling the fear of some ‘foreign hand’ behind everything that happens in their countries. Spreading such rumours gradually weakens and ultimately deadens their capacity to think of themselves as people who can control their destinies.

According to this plan, the answer for everything bad or unpleasant lies outside. The bulk of the mentally de-capacitated citizenry then gradually looks up to a certain set of leaders as ‘knights in shining armour’ who will protect them and the state.

The absence of systems in what is called the Muslim world is an eye-opener. The conspiracy deepens since people are also made to believe that their lives will only improve through installing a certain kind of programme on their national hard drive.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

Hello people, and welcome to the First Annual Pakistani Private TV Channels Awards. I, Wamid Mir, will be your host for the evening and with me will be the lovely, Dr. Shireen Blackwater Baymaari. Let’s kick off this grand event, but first, a choti se break, and a word from our main sponsors, Aafia Fairness Cream.

Yes, people, every Pakistani daughter, wife, mother and sister should be using this cream, made from natural Jalalabad almonds, ripe Swati lemons, and scintillating Afghan gun powder extracts. Experience a great sense of non-Caucasian fairness with Aafia Fairness Cream … otherwise you’re a traitor!

Over to you Shireen.

Thank you, Wamid. I hate the US!

That’s nice to know, Shireen. Now, can we know who the nominees for our first award are?

No! Not unless you expel the Blackwater agents planted within the audience.

Okay. Can you help us pinpoint them?

There! There’s one!

What? That’s an empty chair!

Well, that’s what Blackwater would want you to believe. Get him out!

Right. We will. Now can you please announce the nominees for our first award?

Okay. The first award is for the Loudest Talk Show Host. And the nominees are: Dr. Deafeningly  Danish and  Meher Blah Brunette Bokhari.

And the winner is: Dr. Deafeningly Danish!  Dr. Deafening, please come up the stage and accept your award.

THANK YOU, SHIREEN!! THANK YOU WAMID! CAN YOU HEAR ME??

Ahem, yes, we can Dr. Deafening. Can you kindly take the award without delivering a speech? I don’t think our mics and speakers have enough watts in them to handle your voice.

OKAY, WAMID SAHIB! AND SORRY, MEHER, I BEAT YOU!!

OH, YOU SHUT UP, YOU URDU-MEDIUM MAN-SIREN!! THIS IS NOT FAIR!! I AM LOUDER AND DUMBER! CAN YOU HEAR ME??

We can hear you both loud and clear. Now will you kindly keep quiet?

OKAY!

Phew. Thank you. Do I hear whistling in the hall, or is it just my ears ringing? Anyway, on to our next award. Shireen, can you take us through it?

No!

Now what?

I can see CIA agents.

Where?

In your ears.

In my ears? But it’s just wax.

Precisely.

Okay, I’ll get rid of it.

Good boy. Okay, our next award is for the most Blessedly Warped TV Personality. And the nominees are: Zion Hamid; Dr. Aamer Aafat; and Dr. Shahid Barood. This is a tough one. But, alas, the winner is the great Zion Hamid. Zion sahib, kindly come and take your award from Wamid Mir saheb.

Zion sahib is in India at the moment, Shireen. He will be with us via satellite. You can see and hear his acceptance speech on this big screen behind me. Yes, Mr. Zion.

Hello, Wamid. Hello people. I am speaking to you live from the Red Fort in New Delhi. And I want to give the nation the good news that my army has taken over India. Rejoice!

That’s India? You are sitting in front of a video backdrop of the Red Fort.

Shut-up, Wamid. What do you know? You’re a CIA agent, anyway. I am in India, and to prove it, I have with me, Muhammad Bin Qasim! Say hello to our brothers and sisters in Pakistan, Qasim bhai.

That’s Ali Azmat!

Shut-up, Wamid. He is Muhammad Bin Qasim. Every Pakistani is Muhammad Bin Qasim!

Even the women?

Especially the women! Have you ever seen Maria B without make-up?

You are making fun of your own supporter?

We are at war. And war is fun.

Err … Zion sahib, the Red Fort backdrop was just replaced by a backdrop of a beach in Honolulu.

It was? Oh … umm … that’s not Honolulu. That’s a beach near Mumbai.

Really? Since when have Mumbai beaches got Hawaiian women dancing on them?

Well … err … its tourism season here in Mumbai.

But we thought you were in Delhi.

I am! I can prove it. I have with me Aishwarya Rai. Say hello to your new rulers, sister Aishwarya.

What? That’s Ahmed Qureshi in a sari!

How dare you! Enough! I can’t accept this stupid USA-India-UK-Papua New Guinea-sponsored award of yours. I have better things to do.

Like what?

Like conquering Israel! My next speech to the nation will be delivered from Tel Aviv.

I see. Well, good luck, Zion sahib. By the way, before you go, just wanted to tell you your backdrop has changed again. And it looks very much like Disney Land.

Alhamdulillah! It seems we’ve conquered the United States as well. Rejoice!

So, Shireen, whom do you want to give this award to now?

Well, I always thought the award should have been shared by all the nominees. They’re all so blessed. Come on up, guys, come to mama, and take your Most Blessedly Warped TV Personality Award!

Nice. Shahid Barood, would you like to say something?

I can’t, Wamid. The evil government is out to destroy me. I’m in hiding.

But you’re right here. We can see you.

No, Wamid, you can’t. I’m not here.

You are very much here, now speak!

Mama Shireen, kindly explain the sensitivity of the issue to Wamid.

Wamid, since Barood is in hiding, we’ll have to call Aamer Aafat to receive this prestigious award.

But he’s right here. I can see him. You can see him. The whole world can see him!

See who?

Shahid Barood!

Where?

Here! Right in front of you!

Stop hallucinating, Wamid. It seems that ear-wax of yours has gotten into your eyes as well. Good luck, Barood, wherever you are, and may the force of brave journalism be with you.

Thank you, mom, I will only come out of hiding after this corrupt government is toppled by gallant journalists like you and me.

Hey, me too!

Okay, you too, Wamid.

Thanks, Shahid.

Sigh. Life is not easy when one’s in hiding.

Where are you hiding?

I am in a bunker designed specially by Peo TV for my brilliant talk show, ‘Meray MutaBak-Bak.’

Well, good luck to you, my brave friend. Let me shake your hand. Oh, my, your palms are so cold. Do meet us whenever you come out of hiding.

I will, I wish you could see the state I am in.

But I can.

No you can’t!

Of course, I can’t.  My bad. Anyway, Dr. Aamer Aafat, kindly collect the award from us.

Jazzakallah! Jazzakallah! I am honored. How much money am I getting with this award?

Err … none.

Mahshallah. And may I know how much money you are getting to host this show?

As much as you are getting to do that show of yours, ‘Zaalim Online.’

Alhamdulillah. Really happy to hear that. You see, brothers …

I’m a sister, dimwit!

Oh, a thousand apologies, sister Shireen. Wah! Kya naam hai. Shireen. The Sweetening. Mashallah.

Shukriah.

No, sister. Say Jazzakallah. We are, after all, Arabs.

But my ancestors were Jats from Punjab.

Wamid bhai, Punjab is in Arabia.

No, it isn’t.

Yes, it is pyare bhai. Can I see the soles of your shoes?

They’re green.

No wonder. Brother, green is the colour of Islam, it is the colour of Pakistan, and now it is also the colour of my hair. Here, see the green streaking in my hair and beard? Lovely, isn’t it? But, brother, it can’t be the colour of the soles of your shoes.

What are you talking about? You have a garden in your house that has green grass and on which you walk. And the carpet you are standing on right now, its colour is green too!

No, brother, you are obviously mistaken. The carpet is black. Isn’t it, Sister Sweetening?

Yes, it is. Blackwater black!

And the grass of your garden. Is that black too?

Arey, Wamid bhai. What are we talking about? Let’s talk about the message of love and peace that our faith gives. Let’s go out and stone a few heathens, lynch a few Jews, flog some women and …

Let’s just move on, shall we. The next award is for the most Ubiquitous Talk Show Guest. And the nominees are: Gymran Khan; Marvi Siren; Sansar Abbasi; and Haroon-i-Islami. This award will be given by the famous TV hosts, Kamran Can’t and Javed Sermon Chudary. The winner is, the super-fit, Gymran Khan!

Wamid, Gymran is not here. He’s busy negotiating with the Taliban.

Thank you, Shireen. He must be up in the mountains of Waziristan then.

No. Zaman Park, Lahore.

What? There are Taliban in Zaman Park?

No, that’s the name of the area where Gym lives.

So Gym has invited the Taliban to his place?

No. He has invited Qazi Hussain Ahmed.

So who is negotiating with the Taliban then?

Gym is, of course.

But he’s in Lahore.

So where else should he be? Mars?

He should be where the Taliban are!

Where are the Taliban?

Waziristan, Swat, Bannu, South Punjab …

Lies! All Blackwater propaganda!

Then with whom is Gym negotiating, if there are no Taliban?

I never said that!

You just did. Kamran Can’t is a witness. Right, Kamran?

Corruption, Zardari, Zardari corruption, Zardari, corruption, corruption, Zardari …

Never mind. Well, folks, I guess that’s about it. Take care of yourself, and I hope you enjoyed this disaster, but we are proud of it because it’s our very own disaster … and a mighty lucrative one as well.

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.