Guardian Uses WikiLeaks For Propaganda, Pakistani Media Can’t?

[Hasbara Buster]

Now, that is what is called responsible journalism.

"Western professional journalists adopt and echo government statements as their own, as self-evidently true, without subjecting them to rational analysis and challenge. As a result, they allow themselves to become the mouthpieces of state power. It is fundamentally the same role performed by the media under Soviet totalitarianism."

http://www.vkblog.nl/bericht/170729...r_the_distorted_vision_of_the_corporate_media

 

[roadrunner]

no big deal. Some Pakistani papers will gladly report what is in the interests of India anyway.

It's more of a question of the average Joe's intelligence to decipher truth from lies. It applies universally.

 

[TankGirl]

The papers often run stories sourced from various news wires or papers they have agreements with - Reuters, AFP, APP, NYT etc. and I doubt either the Western or Pakistani papers double check every fact in the story, though the editorial staff probably does make a decision on whether or not to run a particular story sourced from the News Wires.

In this particular case, for Pakistani editors at least, the claims made in the story from the original source were pretty credible, since Pakistan has suspected and alleged Indian involvement in terrorism in Pakistan for a long time, given past experiences with India supporting terrorists in East Pakistan and Baluchistan.

Some of the released cables (real ones) also have Karzai openly admitting to sheltering the most wanted Baluch terrorist leaders, to both US and UN officials, along with, as the Guardian pointed out, claims of continued Indian support for terrorists in Baluchistan sourced to British Intel (the UAE intelligence has also accused India of supporting the TTP).

Given the above, some of the Pakistani editors likely thought the report was credible, and ran it without verification, much like they and others do with reports sourced from the news wires and other Western papers.

There are other leaks that do imply that, and as far as 'alleging involvement in other nations' is concerned, the Western press hasn't exactly set a high bar in terms of providing credible evidence when vilifying Pakistan for 'supporting the Taliban and AQ'.


[

I understand what you are suggesting and I agree that it is very likely to have been what actually happened. Even the western media can and have made such mistakes before.

The only issue that bothers me is that while some papers have admitted their mistake and printed retractions, others are still adamantly sticking to their stories and are even coming up with editorials supporting their stories even after the leaks have been shown to be fake. I can still see the news been prominently displayed on the websites of some Pakistani publications. Do these people realize the irreparable damage they are doing to their reputation and that of the Pakistani Media establishment as a whole?

What you must realize is that media reports like these have very serious implications. We know that they are fake, but a lot of people who read them still think that they are real, because they only read Urdu newspapers. America even went to war with Iraq based on a lot of fabricated evidence. What if tomorrow the kid of some soldier killed in Baluchistan decides to avenge his father by blowing himself up outside an Indian or American embassy? It may seem unlikely, but I am positive that reports like these can be used by militants for recruitment. Or is that the whole idea in the first place? You may scoff at this suggestion, but this is the real worry of many people following these developments from outside Pakistan. The press is a very powerful tool and can influence people more than anything else. Even today, the pen is more powerful than the sword.