Monitoring Desk: Pakistan has always been under the target of biased media a textbook example of how certain groups, individuals, and countries can try to bully others through the soft power of media.
Related Story: The Story Behind “Secrete Pakistan Cable Documents U.S Pressure to Remove Imran Khan”
One such example is an absurd article written by USA-based Murtaza Hussain who had been writing unfounded pieces in the past also against Pakistan. Some of his pieces published in ‘The Intercept’ were considered by the government of Pakistan ‘as a textbook example of biased, unverified reporting’ aimed at undermining the state of Pakistan. His recently published article about Pakistan appeared in ‘Drop Site News’ which is owned by its co-founders, journalists Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Grim who in July 2024, left The Intercept to co-found Drop Site News which operates through fiscally sponsored by the Social Security Works Education Fund.
Media experts of the government of Pakistan believe that Murtaza Hussain has penned another article full of logical flaws and unsupported claims, revealing its lack of credibility. Official media experts indicate the following logical and professional flaws in this article:
- The article alleges that “thousands of people” are missing, yet it fails to provide any concrete evidence—no CNIC numbers, official complaints, or verifiable reports. Such sweeping accusations without proof highlight the author’s intent to sensationalize rather than inform.
- The claim of gunfire and live ammunition use is unsubstantiated. In an era where almost every protester has a smartphone, why are no videos or photos capturing these alleged actions? If gunshots or violence occurred, it is highly improbable that thousands of protesters would fail to document and circulate such evidence on social media.
- The mention of drones monitoring the protests raises another glaring inconsistency. Had drones been deployed, protesters would have spotted and captured them using their smartphones. The absence of such footage further undermines the article’s credibility.
- The article conveniently omits any discussion of the political leadership whose call to protest led to these events. This omission reeks of bias, as it seeks to paint the state as the sole aggressor while ignoring the accountability of those who instigated unrest and later abandoned their supporters.
- Claims of shoot-on-sight orders and “military-backed suppression” are not supported by evidence or credible sources. These accusations seem designed to malign state institutions without any basis in reality.
- The article appears to be a propaganda piece aimed at appeasing supporters of a specific political party. Its selective narrative and failure to provide factual evidence expose its true intent: to stir unrest and undermine public confidence in the state.
