The storm over a supposed “interview” of Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Syed Asim Munir by journalist Sohail Warraich is a reminder of how fragile credibility in Pakistan’s media ecosystem has become. What was presented as reportage quickly collapsed under official scrutiny, with the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) categorically denying that the army chief had spoken to any journalist in Brussels. Instead, the ISPR clarified that the COAS merely attended a public event where hundreds of photographs were taken, and no political conversation—let alone talk of reconciliation with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)—took place.
This clarification is not a minor rebuttal. In Pakistan’s already charged political environment, narratives spread quickly and can have far-reaching implications. A single column, read by thousands, framed as an “exclusive insight” into the thinking of the military’s top leadership, can set off speculation about political compromises, institutional shifts, or looming deals. For this reason, accuracy and restraint are not optional for journalists; they are the very foundations of the profession.
The ISPR’s statement, which described Warraich’s writing as “inappropriate” and motivated by self-promotion, may sound harsh, but it also reflects the growing anxiety within state institutions over what they see as reckless journalism. The media, in turn, often complains of shrinking space and heavy-handed censorship. Both grievances can coexist. But one does not justify the other. A journalist’s first duty is to verify before publishing. When credibility is traded for clicks, ratings, or personal branding, the profession itself suffers.
At the same time, there is a need to avoid turning this controversy into a pretext for clamping down on critical voices. Warraich’s faux pas—if we accept the ISPR’s version—should not become the basis for blanket action against media groups. Institutions must recognize that credibility is a two-way street. Just as journalists must avoid exaggeration, state institutions must cultivate a culture of transparency and timely communication. Information vacuums are easily filled by speculation.
The Brussels fiasco should serve as a cautionary tale. For journalists, it underlines the need to balance narrative flair with factual grounding. For institutions, it is a reminder that silence breeds conjecture, and conjecture can spiral into “fake news.” Pakistan’s democratic future requires both a responsible press and accountable institutions. Without this balance, each controversy will only deepen public distrust rather than clarifying the truth.
