Mubasher Lucman and Najam Sethi may both talk about the same issue on their shows, but their viewers are likely to take away very different perceptions. Fans of Mubasher Lucman are likely to think that Najam Sethi is a liberal and possibly a paid agent of America. Fans of Najam Sethi, on the other hand, are more likely to think Mubasher Lucman is right-wing and possibly a paid agent of the establishment. They watch the person whose views align more closely with their own, and dismiss the views of the other.

This phenomenon is not confined to talk shows either. Are the same people reading The Friday Times reading The Nation also? How much overlap is there between readers of The News (Jang Group) and Dawn? While there is probably some overlap between readers of these large circulation newspapers, how many The News fans cannot stand Nadeem Paracha? And how many Dawn readers refuse to read anything by Ikram Sehgal?

But it’s not just the personalities that differentiate media groups. Each group’s editors also makes decisions about what stories to emphasise and which to play down. As an experiment, we looked at several major newspapers on Friday to see what was considered headline news. What we found was interesting.

In the English media, The Nation, Express Tribune, and Dawn each carried two front page stories about contempt charges against the PM. The News carried seven. On first two inside pages, neither Express Tribune nor Dawn published additional stories. The Nation added one, and The News filled almost the entire second page with two more bringing their total number of articles on the first two pages about the PM’s legal troubles to a grand total of nine – six more than the next closest paper!

We then looked at editorial pages. Express Tribune and Dawn both published editorials about the issue. The Nation did not. Here again, The News stood out by publishing an editorial right next to a major opinion piece by the editor, Mohammad Malick, also!

Things were even more interesting when we compared to Urdu media. Nawa-e-Waqt carried 9 front page articles about the issue, Daily Express and Jang both carried 11. The front pages of Urdu newspapers are notoriously crammed, but 11 articles on the same story?

Nawa-e-Waqt had nothing on the first two interior pages, while Daily Express added two more and Jang added an additional three.

This was fascinating to us. For readers of The News or Jang, charges against the PM didn’t seem like a story, it seemed like the only story.

It should also be noted that The Nation, the only English language newspaper that had no editorial about the issue, used most of its editorial space to write about Kashmir, NATO and the WTO.

What does all this mean? We think it indicates that the media may becoming increasingly fragmented. Rather than competing over quality reporting, different media groups are simply providing different groups ‘news’ that reinforces their point of view. Liberals have liberal voices to look to for analysis, conservatives have conservative voices, and with online publishing fueling the growth of alternative media, extremists and conspiracy mongers have their own media groups also.

As a result, society is becoming increasingly fragmented. People assume that those they don’t agree with are liars or hypocrites. They don’t understand how someone can possibly see things in a different way since everyone they read and listen to agrees with them. Certain positions become “obvious” or “undebatable”. What they don’t realise is that the other guy is thinking the exact same thing about him.

Fragmented media might be a good business model by allowing media groups to focus on appealing to one specific niche market, but the question should be asked whether it also creates problems for society. Readers of Jang are likely to think that PM’s contempt case is the most pressing issue of the nation, while readers of The Nation might think that national security takes center stage. How can we agree on how to solve the most important issues facing the nation if we can’t even agree on what the most important issues are?

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers for this. The most readily available solution, though, may be to change our habits as media consumers. We should challenge ourselves by not only consuming that media that reinforces our own beliefs, but should also consider the points of those we disagree with. In order to do this, we should not limit ourselves to one or two media groups that we are comfortable with, but should venture outside our comfort zone to see how other media groups are reporting the news. And if we see that one media group, for example, is treating a story completely differently than every other media group, maybe we should ask ourselves if they are reporting the news…or trying to influence it.

A report in The News today serves as an excellent example of how the media’s power to shape the way we perceive events can be used to serve a political agenda. According to reporter Sohail Khan, former Senator Azam Swati (PTI) through his counsel Tariq Asad has petitioned the Supreme Court to place the name of President Asif Zardari on the Exit Control List. Why? Because an article in The New York Times said that Zardari could be planning to leave the country after 27th December. Swati’s counsel argued that this raised a question of public importance per Article 184(3).

A few things should be noted here. First is the New York Times article which serves as the basis of Swati’s petition. Here is the part that Swati quotes:

Some Pakistani and Western officials said last week that if Mr. Zardari returned, it could be only for a cameo appearance before Dec. 27, the fourth anniversary of the death of Ms. Bhutto, the two-time former prime minister, in a gun and bomb attack in the city of Rawalpindi, near Islamabad.

After that, Mr. Zardari would probably leave for a long — perhaps permanent — convalescence in London or Dubai, the officials said.

Who are these “Pakistani and Western officials”? Nobody knows. Are they opposition party members or some other kind of agents? Do they have any way of knowing the president’s plans, or is this pure speculation based on thin air and wishful thinking?

Additionally, the same New York Times article also says that “General Kayani told the United States ambassador at the time, Anne W. Patterson, that he “might, however reluctantly,” pressure Mr. Zardari to resign and presumably leave Pakistan”. Would this not result in a question of public importance per Article 184(3) also? Why does Swati selectively quote The New York Times article? Is it because he is using the media to report the facts or to promote a political agenda?

Actually, Azam Swati is not the only one who selectively quotes from the foreign media. In his own petition to the Supreme Court, Swati notes that “the news of NYT has been reported by all the newspapers of Pakistan”, giving it extra importance. But these reports also selectively quote the original article.

The Nation reported the Times story with the headline, ‘Zardaris return cameo appearance’, as if it were a statement of fact and not a speculation attributed to unknown people. And in its report, The Nation conveniently left out the part where Ambassador Patterson claims that Gen Kayani told her he was contemplating a coup.

The News included even less in its report, saying the Times “quoted some Pakistani and Western officials”, but failing to note that nobody knows who these “officials” are. The News even went further and removed every part of the original New York Times story about the military threatening the civilian government and making it seem like the president was thinking of running from the country.

Dawn pared the original report down to little more than just a headline, but at did note the Times’ claim that the Supreme Court was being “pushed by the Army” to investigate the president.

This was reported the same way in Urdu papers also. Jang carried the story as a brief news piece suggesting there was reason to believe the president might leave. Nawa-i-Waqt carried the brief version of the story as well, and Express even added a little touch of its own by reporting that “according to New York Times report, 27 pakistani officials and western ‘diplomats’ have said that his return is temporary” – none of which actually appears in the New York Times story.

In other words, there is a petition before the Supreme Court that is based on media reports that selectively summarise a foreign media report that paraphrases the speculation of unidentified people. As a result, the people’s perception of events may have been manipulated, and what they believe is reality may actually be a carefully designed version of reality that better serves a political end. Ironically, the foreign media group at the foundation of this case is one that is routinely criticised for “publishing anti-Pakistani reports” that are “planted to derail a country like Pakistan” when the claims it reports are viewed less favourably.

The public interest is not defined by political ends, but by knowing the truth. This is a shared responsibility of both media and judiciary. If one fails, it can cause the other to fail also. Reporting rumours and innuendo is not journalism, and legal decisions based on such rumours and innuendo is not justice. If the media fails to do its job responsibly, it can have disastrous consequences.

In March, you might remember, General Officer Commanding 7-Division Maj-Gen Ghayur Mehmood said in a briefing that drone strikes are effective and have low civilian casualty rates.

“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.”

Two months later in May we learned from Wikileaks that there may have been requests for increased drone strikes from the highest levels in government – only, not the civilian branch.

Newly released Wikileaks cables revealed that the US military’s drone strikes programme within Pakistan had more than just tacit acceptance of the country’s top military brass, despite public posturing to the contrary. The cables state that the country’s military was requesting the US for greater drone back-up for its own military operations as long ago as January 2008.

This blog has no knowledge of whether drone strikes were ever officially authorised, requested or approved or if they were not. If an investigative journalist wants to look into this question, I’m certain many people would be quite interested to learn the answer. Of course, if any journalist is actually interested in learning the truth, he shouldn’t limit his search to Islamabad.

Having finished his studies in the UK, Bilawal has recently returned home. This, along with some statements by his father, set off a firestorm of speculation about Bilawal’s future in politics. This speculation was quickly dampened when Bilawal explained that he would not contest the 2013 elections. That was that for a while, until Bilawal began visibly taking part in party politics. The grandson of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and son of Benazir Bhutto, one might think that politics is part of Bilawal’s DNA. He is also co-chairman of Pakistan People’s Party founded by his grandfather, so most people were not surprised that he has become involved. Still, though, he has turned down a ticket saying that his goal is to spend the next years learning politics before diving in head first.

In a time when popular slogans include terms like ‘untested’ and ‘change’, one might  be forgiven for thinking that Bilawal’s interest in politics would not be seen as a bad thing, especially by a media that seems fixated on another recent entry to politics. Like most of the population, Bilawal  is young. Unlike many sitting politicians, his degree is not only valid but quite respectable. Unlike many of the elites, he is not asking his father to secure him a ticket – actually, quite the opposite as he turned one down. Instead, he is spending his days traveling the country and visiting the people. No one has to praise Bilawal, but we are hard pressed to find some justification for a front page attack. Yet that is exactly what we saw on the front of Monday morning’s The Nation.

According to the reporter, Zamir Sheikh, ‘Debutant Bilawal to carry a lot of baggage’. The piece, which is published as if it were news and not merely the opinion of Zamir Sheikh, begins the very first sentence saying “he lacks the charisma of these two leaders and would find it difficult to handle the affairs of the party and lead a campaign in the coming general elections whenever they are held”. The second sentence, just in case you didn’t read the first, claims that the charisma and egalitarian ideology of his grandfather and mother “would be missing when Bilawal goes out in public to garner support for his fast declining party”.

Since Bilawal has not demonstrated any lack of charisma or anti-egalitarian ideology, the author obviously cannot provide any evidence to support these attacks, so he spends the next several paragraphs complaining about the President and Prime Minister, neither of whom are named Bilawal.

Most shamefully, though, the author closes his article with an obvious attempt to inject a family feud into Bilawal’s life, alleging that he will be opposed by the Bhutto family. Zamir Sheikh does not offer any quotes from any member of the Bhutto family, he only throws this claim out as if he were the Bhuttos’ official spokesman and not a journalist. Judging by this article, it is not clear that he is legitimately either.

This blog takes no position on Bilawal Bhutto Zardari entering politics. In a democracy, all citizens have the right and responsibility be involved in politics, and any citizen who is eligible has the right to contest elections if he so chooses. Targeting one person who is not an elected official and has not been accused of any wrongdoing suggests that powers opposed to him are afraid of what he might accomplish and have begun to launch a ‘preemptive strike’ against the young man. Bilawal should not receive any special treatment, but neither should he be the target of special attacks – especially when he hasn’t even done anything yet.

Let’s begin with Ahmed Quraishi. On 6th May, Ahmed Quraishi was the guest on Voice of Russia‘s radio programme. During the interview he said that,

“At some level, maybe not the entire government, but at some level Pakistan definitely was on board with the United States before the operation was carried out and some of the logistics that were involved in that operation do indicate that it would not have been possible to carry out the operation in its entirety without a major, a good level of cooperation on the Pakistani side”.

Quraishi goes on to say that the Abbottabad operation “of course also vindicates the US intelligence community [and] the US military in Afghanistan”. Interesting.

Then on 10th May, Ahmed Quraishi further wrote that the operation that killed Osama bin Laden was a joint Pakistan-US victory. Here is how Ahmed Quraishi described the scene:

“Crucial and critical intelligence from Pakistan and the United States succeeding in pinpointing the location of al-Qaeda terror chief. ISI gave decisive leads on the trusted courier of bin Laden. The CIA and the US military put together a plan to take him out. By virtue of the more advanced American surveillance technology, Washington filled in the gaps and sealed bin Laden’s fate.”

Ahmed Quraishi then goes on to criticise the military for not explaining their larger role in the operation.

“Instead of ‘admitting’ failure, it was better for the army chief to object to CIA hijacking a joint victory and turning it into a one-sided victory and a one-sided attack on our military and ISI. And we could have certainly done without our foreign secretary quoting US national security adviser to confirm to our media that we did scramble some fighter jets in the end. The weak media management capabilities of our civilian and military bureaucracies are breathtaking.”

Neither is Ahmed Quraishi the only one who was making such statements. Let us take a moment to revisit the front page of The Nation on 3rd May, just after the raid:

The Nation front page of 3rd May 2011

The front page article by Sikander Shaheen quotes “top level official sources” saying that “200 Pakistan Army men provided ground support” for the operation while “four helicopters of the Pakistan Army hovered over the fortress-like hideout of al-Qaeda chief at Thanda Choh”. Shaheen goes on to quote “military sources” that “US dignitaries thanked the military leadership of Pakistan on intelligence sharing and the successful operation”.

It seems that perhaps not only Ahmed Quraishi but Sikander Shaheen, military and intelligence leadership, 200 jawans and four helicopter pilots should be under suspicion.

Let us be clear: We have not seen any evidence that Ahmed Quraishi, Sikander Shaheen, Wajid Hasan, Husain Haqqani, Asif Zardari…or anyone else had any advance knowledge or was privy to any secret information about the raid. During the aftermath of the raid, there was great confusion and many people were making guesses about what happened. Because of this, it is easy to take even the words of a democrat like Wajid Hasan or a hyper-nationalist like Quraishi and twist them to create suspicion. But that is not journalism.

The White House has categorically denied Mansoor Ijaz’s claims that anyone knew about the Abbottabad operation, and headlines speculating about whether one or another government official may have had secret knowledge of the American operation are completely irresponsible. Rather than carrying out witch hunts against government officials based on speculation and innuendo, perhaps it would be better if journalists thought about who was feeding them false information following the raid and who is feeding them information now.

Earlier this month, several newspapers reported on a conference of Aalmi Majlis Tahafuz Khatme Nabuwwat in a way that was criticised as being less like a news report and more like a press release. Each of the pieces in Daily Jang, Daily Khabrain, and Daily Express is basically the same report about what was said at the Khatme Nabuwwat conference, including the claim that “the real threat is not Haqqanis but Qadiani’s denial of Prophet’s finality”.

In each piece, the anti-Ahmadi claims are published without comment. While Daily Jang, Daily Khabrain, and Daily Express will certainly offer the defense that this is not their position, that they are simply reporting what was said, is it possible that readers of these newspapers could come away with the idea that Khatme Nabuwwat’s positions are validated by the reports?

But even if the report was neutral about the Khatme Nabuwwat gathering, why was only one side of such a controversial issue presented for readers? With such a strong statement against Ahmadiyyas by Khatme Nabuwwat, why did the reporter not seek out a comment from an Ahmadiyya leader for his response? Since the claim involves matters of national security, why did the reporter not request a clarification from ISPR about whether terrorists or Ahmadis are the real threat to Pakistan?

On Monday, The Nation published an article titled, ‘NWA action to pave way for US boots’. The unsigned article describes a speech by Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan Ameer Syed Munawar Hassan at a press conference in Sahiwal. The reporter dutifully describes the JI chief’s claims: America is hell-bent on making India super power of the region, Pakistani rulers have taken dictation from America, Pakistani government is pro-America and anti-Pakistan, American aid is breeding corruption in Pakistan, etc.

While we have no reason to doubt that the JI chief said these things, as The Nation reported, we would like to ask our dear readers again whether reporters have a responsibility to their readers to fact check the subjects that they are reporting, or if they should simply publish what they are fed without question.

Actually, there is no easy answer. The Nation cannot be condemned for taking the side of JI in this case because they are only reporting what was said. But neither does it appear that the reporter asked the political leader for proof of his claims. For example, Munawar Hassan claims that “America is hell-bent on making India super power of the region” and “Pakistani rulers have taken dictation from America”. These are serious charges. Shouldn’t Munawar Hassan be asked to show his evidence for making such claims? Or are we supposed to merely take him at his word that this is true? Why didn’t the reporter ask for a response from government officials who were being accused of being ‘anti-Pakistan’?

The question comes down to whether these media groups are reporting, or just transcribing? Are they giving readers a complete understanding of issues and events, or are they, intentionally or unintentionally, acting as mouthpieces for political groups? Unfortunately, the answer is not so easy. But these difficult questions must be answered if we are to improve the quality of our media and, with it, the quality of discussion that we have on the issues of the day.

The Nation

The first question that must be asked when approaching the topic of censorship is who is to decide what is censored. According to the LHC, the websites that should be banned contain blasphemous content. But who decides what is blasphemous?

It is easy to point fingers at websites like Facebook that include pages like the immature “Draw Muhammad Day”. But what about Ahmedi websites? Are these ‘blasphemous’ also? Is Malik Ishaq to be the judge of content? Will we see all Shia websites blocked also? Will the censors be Barelvi or Deobandi? What about Sufis?

One year ago, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali, Emir of Tehreek-e-Azmat-e-Islam told Daily Nawa-i-Waqt that 80 per cent of the Constitution is un-Islamic. Should government websites be banned also? Extremist groups like Hizb-ut-Tahrir that democracy itself is un-Islamic while some religious scholars say that Islam is firmly rooted in democracy. Who will decide what should be banned? Or should we just ban everything?

These problems also directly affect freedom of the press. When this same issue of internet censorship was raised last year, we wrote that internet censorship should worry the media.

The truth is, such an unchecked power of censorship is too easily open to abuse. Today we may be blocking access to some cartoons under the justification of anti-blasphemy laws. But tomorrow it might be a newspaper or TV station that is banned for the same justification.

Freedom of the media is a vital part of our democracy. That means even allowing the media the freedom to be wrong. The alternative may sound good at first, but it always ends up the same – and that is no freedom at all.

If the Media Mullahs decide that Facebook or Google is un-Islamic and should be banned, what is to stop them from deciding the same about Geo or Express 24/7 or even The Nation?

The Nation says that ‘the Western world needs to analyse its notions of freedom of speech and individual liberty’, but it is precisely this freedom of speech that has made Islam the fastest growing religion in the West. Censorship can never stop false or illegitimate or blasphemous ideas. Only by allowing freedom of speech can falsehoods be properly argued and corrected. This is the proper role of media – to present the facts and correct false information. By defending censorship, The Nation seems to be saying that it is unable to do its job. That says more about The Nation than the West.

That these incidents occurred on Eid also highlighted the fact that, instead of praying for the prosperity and progress of the country on this sacred occasion, the perpetrators committed these deeds instead, making one doubt that they could have been Muslims. This gives rise to the suspicion that the perpetrators of these and other deeds of terrorism may well have been penetrated by India, particularly after it obtained consulates in Afghanistan from the Karzai regime.

Previously, the militants, who claimed that they were following the precepts of Islam, were careful enough to leave aside religious festivals, and it goes without mentioning that the biggest religious festival of Islam was among them. Now that this taboo has been broken, the government needs to be particularly vigilant at the next Eid, due in just over two months, and Ashura and its related gatherings.

The Nation claims that in the past, militants have not carried out attacks on religious festivals and holidays. Research into past militant attacks, however, reveals that this is not true. Actually, terrorists have been carrying out attacks at mosques, religious events, and Islamic institutions in Pakistan for years.

There have been dozens of attacks on mosques and other Islamic institutions and festivals in Pakistan over the years. Some of those incidents are listed as follows:

On 31st August, a suicide bomber detonated in a parked car outside a Quetta mosque, killing 11 people after Eid prayers.

A few weeks earlier, more than 40 people were killed in a suicide attack at a mosque in Jamrud in the Khyber tribal agency just after Friday prayers ended. This is during the holy month of Ramadan.

In April, the Taliban killed 41 people in a double suicide attack on a Sufi shrine (considered a holy place by some) in Dera Ghazi Khan in an attack on minority religious groups.

In March, at least 10 people were killed and 37 injured when a powerful bomb exploded in a mosque adjacent to the historic shrine of Akhun Panjo Baba in Akbarpura after Friday prayers.

In January, suicide attacks targeting Shia religious processions in Lahore and Karachi killed 16 people. The Fedayeen-e-Islam, a subgroup of the Pakistani Taliban, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and Jaish-e-Mohammed, claimed credit for the Lahore attack.

All of the attacks listed above took place since the past eight months. But terrorist attacks on religious occasions and places are not new. Actually, this was not even the first time an attack took place on the sacred occasion of Eid.

In 2006, 22 people were killed and dozens wounded in a suicide attack during an Ashura procession in Hangu. 20 more people were killed and 60 injured by a suicide bomb attack during another Ashura procession in Karachi in 2009. Ashura processions were not attacked in 2008, but only because police arrested five militants, including a suicide bomber, who were plotting attacks before they could carry them out.

In 2007, on the eve of Eid ul-Adha, a suicide bomb blast again targeted Aftab Ahmad Sherpao killing at least 57 and injuring over 100 at Jamia Masjid Sherpao, in Charsadda District.

In 2009, a suicide bomber killed five and injured 12 people at a girls’ religious school in Pishin district of Balochistan.

Also in 2009, at least 32 persons were killed and 85 others injured in a powerful suicide blast during funeral procession of a Shia elder, and more than 30 Shia Pakistani worshippers were killed and more than 50 wounded in a devastating suicide attack outside a mosque in the town of Dera Ghazi Khan.

In one of the most brutal and brazen attacks, as reported by Geo, a suicide assault team stormed a mosque that is frequented by Army officers. Forty persons were martyred, including children, and over 80 others injured in the terror attack at Parade Lane mosque in Rawalpindi.

Even religious clerics are not safe from militants, a fact proven when a suicide bomber killed five Pakistanis, including anti-Taliban cleric Dr. Sarfraz Naeemi, in an attack on a mosque in Lahore during Friday prayers.

As we can see most of these attacks took place on Mosques while prayers were in progress or people were getting ready for prayers. Since Friday prayers hold importance for Muslims, militants target mosques at Jumma Prayer times. These attacks, however, as clearly shown above have not been limited to mosques and include funeral processions, madrassas and religious congregations.

Neither are The Nation newspaper’s suspicions that perpetrators may have risen from India ignores the fact that responsibility for attacks has consistently been claimed by militant extremist groups such as Laskhar-e-Janghvi and Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan who consider as ‘takfiri’ anyone who does not accept their extremist ideology.

It is important that prominent newspapers like The Nation condemn terrorism as they did in their editorial on 3rd September, but it is equally important that these condemnations tell the facts about terrorists and not make excuses for them, even unintentionally, by perpetuating conspiracy theories that confuse the masses about who is responsible. The fact is, terrorists have no taboos.

It should also be noted that this is not the first time that The Nation has corrected an error after it was brought to their attention. On 16th August we noticed an incorrect photo being attached to an article on the website, and it was quickly corrected after the mistake was brought to their attention. As we said at the time, “mistakes happen”. This is understandable. Unfortunately, we are also living in a time when some groups will use illegal methods such as hacking websites in order to spread propaganda. As is clarified in the response from The Nation, this was the case with the articles by Zabihullah Mehsud which were not approved by The Nation and they are taking action to correct this.

No media group is 100 per cent perfect or accurate all the time. The most trustworthy ones, though, are the ones that are willing to admit and learn from their mistakes. By not only correcting the issue, but honestly and transparently investigating and offering a public clarification, The Nation deserves to be commended for setting an excellent example to all media groups.

Dear Pak Media Watch

Thank you and Mr Rumi and Ms Isfahani [Editors Note: Raza Rumi and Farahnaz Ispahani are not members of the PMW team, but we thank them for helping bring this matter to attention.] for bringing this post to my attention. I have gone through this PMW comment, as well as the previous one mentioned in the introduction, which I was not aware of at the time that it was published, roughly a year ago. Having looked into the matter, I am in a position to reply and address the concerns raised.

To begin, there are most certainly items posted with the byline “Zabihullah Mehsud” on our website. The last one is dated 28 August, 2011. Having carefully gone through all three (KHI, ISB and LHE) editions of The Nation’s print edition on the 27th, 28th and 29th of August, 2011 neither that news nor that byline has been published on our pages, nor would we normally have carried it in the manner it was displayed on the website. After checking the source of the news uploaded, it is with regret that we confirm that our website has been hacked and due to the gaps in our security this post and others like it, carrying the “Zabihullah Mehsud” byline, have not been identified or caught by our anti-hacking software. We apologise for this unfortunate incident and for the matter displayed and the inconvenience caused to our readers. The process of upgrading our site has begun; an emergency session was called at the head office of The Nation with our website managers and an advanced security system for nation.com.pk is being put into development immediately. The news items linked in the PMW post along with all others archived with the same byline are being removed as I write this.

As you said in your post of September 2010, “…it would not be unusual for a reporter to quote a Taliban spokesman,…” as is the practice in The Nation, Reuters, Telegraph, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and AFP, among others – all of whom regularly reference the Taliban spokesman (Zabihullah Mehsud) in their reports. The parts added directly from the Taliban website, which do not appear in our print edition, are also extensions of the hacking problem, that this PMW post has helped identify.

In response to your question regarding The Nation’s thoughts on “…the suicide bombing outside a Quetta mosque that killed at least 11 people on Wednesday…” please refer to our editorial, to be published tomorrow (3 September, 2011), which I hope will satisfy your curiosity. It may interest you to know that regarding the hacking of our site, we will also be carrying an editorial in The Nation to be published on the 4th of September, 2011.

Sincerely,
Rameeza Majid Nizami