It is now apparent that the eight hours spent by a television channel in protesting against an armed attack on its anchorperson, Hamid Mir, is bound to change the future of independent (and rational) reporting in Pakistan. Rival television channels cashed in on the opportunity to feed on the slogans of patriotism. If it supposed that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was not involved in the attack and the version of Mir’s brother was incorrect, what is the evidence available with Mir’s brother to conclude the same? Similarly, if it is supposed that the ISI was involved somehow and the version of Mir’s brother was correct, how can Mir’s brother produce any evidence to support his version?Egoism is considered a phenomenon more prevalent in Pakistan’s rural areas where a villager kills or maims a fellow villager in the name of honour. Moreover, honour killings are also common in villages; even the heinous crime of rape is committed as a token of revenge for dishonour. It has been said that those eight hours dishonoured the name of institutions of national importance bearing a badge of honour. It is being demanded that, since honour has been hurt, the television channel should be banned from transmitting its telecast. The point is this: if the villager’s ego is censured and considered a source of conflict in rural Pakistan, what about institutional ego? If the television channel Mir belongs to was involved in anti-Pakistan activities and had been accepting donations from anti-Pakistan elements abroad, why was there no complaint filed with the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) providing proof of those activities? Why did the authorities keep on waiting for the Mir episode to take place as a prerequisite to filing any such complaint? It means that if Mir had not been attacked or if Mir’s brother had not levelled any allegation at the ISI, there would have been no such complaint lodged against the television channel. Mubashar Luqman, an anchorperson involved in the ‘media-gate’ scandal and now working for a private television channel showed documents against the television channel to which Mir belongs. No other anchorperson of repute and credibility was available to air those documents. Perhaps people like him are easy prey because they are vulnerable to exploitation. In return, the anchorperson will ask for some other favours and the process of scratching the back of each other will go on. To follow suit, more anchorpersons have jumped into the fray. The viewers must consider whether they require independent reporting or controlled reporting in the future from such television channels. Enter Imran Khan who, just after the attack on Mir, received the revelation (reportedly through Shireen Mazari) that his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), lost the general elections because the same television channel turned against his party and favoured the PML-N. If Khan’s allegation is correct, why did he not disclose it before the attack on Mir? Khan’s words are just rubbing salt into wounds. Khan is doing a great disservice to the television channel. Months before the elections, this writer wrote at least two pieces in these pages highlighting the proclivity of the youth employed in the media houses — of them the biggest employer was the same television channel — explicitly supporting the PTI. At that time, the anticipated risk was that the youth employed in these channels could launch an emotional move (which may also be not mature) to woo voters in favour of the PTI. The history of this country is full of pro-military establishment parties appearing to lap up immediate rewards but disappearing into the haze of time in the long run. Khan has to contemplate if his party is a new MMA in the making. The views of Shireen Mazari are well known. If Khan does not use his rational mind, the PTI will suffer more problems in the next elections. Another possibility may be that like Sheikh Rasheed, Khan is relying on ‘hidden hands’ to pave the way for the electoral victory of his party next time in Punjab and that too overwhelmingly. In the constituency (NA-122) in Lahore, where Khan lost the election to Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, the PTI voters came out in droves and cast their votes but mostly in the morning. After noon, the PML-N voters took their turn. Khan had not visited the slums of NA-122, why should the people inhabiting that constituency have voted for Khan? Similarly, Advocate Hamid Khan did not pay field visits to meet his voters who were mostly residing in the slums of his constituency (NA-125). The same was his attitude on the polling day. On the other hand, his rival candidate, Khawaja Saad Rafiq, banked on those voters and remained in the field even on the polling day to facilitate voters to visit the polling booths and cast votes in his favour. Shafqat Mehmood of the PTI (NA-126) paid field visits and convinced the voters of the reasons for casting voters in his favour. Consequently, he won the elections. The PML-N focused on the slums and won seats while Khan is blaming the television channel Mir belongs to for PTI’s electoral loss in Punjab. This is called barking up the wrong tree. Instead of capitalising on what happened in those eight hours, Khan should develop his own rapport with the voters in NA-122. The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com