Mukhtar Ahmed Butt
Senior journalist Sohail Warraich, once known for his calm and analytical style, has suddenly landed in controversy. His recent apologies to different quarters have raised eyebrows, making many believe that he has compromised the very credibility he built over decades. In the process, he seems to have underestimated Field Marshal COAS Asim Munir, a figure who has shown political maturity and resilience despite criticism.
The larger issue is not confined to Warraich alone. Much of today’s journalism in Pakistan begins with “sources” and ends with “sources.” Anchors and analysts thrive on unverified information, selectively framing narratives, but now most of them stand exposed. Under normal circumstances journalists may have avoided backlash but they should never cross red line while dealing with the establishment.
In Pakistan, when politics sneezes, the media catches a cold-and Sohail Warraich is the latest example. His recent string of apologies has stirred debate not just about his personal credibility but about the pressures that define our journalism. A man once celebrated for his sharp political insights now finds himself apologizing for miscalculations. But the real story goes beyond Warraich: it exposes how deeply our media remains entangled with political currents, where anchors often echo power instead of challenging it.
Much of Pakistan’s media today operates less as an independent institution and more as an extension of political narratives. The reliance on “sources” has reduced many anchors to mere conduits of power, amplifying whispers rather than uncovering truths. When political winds shift, these voices are left scrambling, forced either into silence or into apologies like Warraich’s. The result is a journalism that appears reactive, shaped more by patronage and pressure than by principle-leaving the public skeptical of both the message and the messenger.The situation has grown more sensitive with the startling allegations leveled by property tycoon Malik Riaz. The silence in response has been deafening. No senior figure has directly denied the charges, suggesting that the power of such revelations is recognized, even feared, within both political and media circles. For the public, this silence raises more questions than it answers, widening the trust deficit between citizens and those who claim to inform them. What the Warraich episode underlines is the fragility of media credibility in Pakistan. When journalists align too closely with political patrons, their independence erodes, and so does their ability to speak truth to power. Instead, they become caught in the crossfire-exposed when alliances shift and embarrassed when narratives collapse. In this sense, Warraich’s fall from grace is less about personal misjudgment and more about a systemic crisis in journalism. Yet it would be unfair to lay the blame solely on individual anchors. The ecosystem of Pakistani politics thrives on such dependencies. Politicians, business tycoons, and power brokers often prefer a pliant media that amplifies their line. Journalists, in turn, rely on these connections to sustain influence and access. This cycle of dependency ensures that media remains an arena of political maneuvering rather than independent scrutiny.
The challenge now is whether journalism in Pakistan can break free from this cycle. Credibility cannot be rebuilt on apologies or half-truths. It requires a return to facts, investigation, and a distance from political patronage. The Warraich controversy, for all its drama, should serve as a warning bell-not just for one anchor but for the media industry as a whole. In the end, the lesson is simple but hard to practice: journalism cannot survive when it becomes hostage to power. Warraich’s apologies may fade from headlines, but the questions they raise about media’s role in Pakistan’s politics will linger far longer. Under normal circumstances journalists should be careful while quoting them as when it comes to rebuttals, there is no compromise they should never cross red line while dealing with the establishment. The outstanding feature of our establishment is they are polite decent and respectful when dealing with media that at times is wrongly interpreted. This should not be taken as a weakness but it is in built training of hospitality that sometimes is misunderstood. They deal electronic and print media through their spokesperson known as DG ISPR. It is known to everyone each and every word spoken is recorded and no ifs and buts.
