The Press Institute of Pakistan in Lahore held a discussion on Tuesday on the difficult topic — in Pakistan — of “Role of the Press in defending National Interest”. It was quickly realised that “national interest” was a relative term and could not be defined as a static value in political science. It was however also mooted that “national interest” as defined by a government should not be supinely accepted. But the question is: should the media actually tell us what “national interest” is and should the media be the arbiter on the subject?Political scientists call national interest a “pseudo-theory”. French political scientist Raymond Aron said: “It is a formula vague to the point of being meaningless or a pseudo-theory”. Is Pakistan’s national interest embodied in Kashmir? Is it embodied in our anti-India-driven nationalism and if so should national interest be defined as an emotion? Is it our ideology which is based on inflexible doctrines? Whatever may be the final answer, should the media seek significant control over it and become embroiled in it? Instead of objective reporting, should it undertake “advocacy” in excess of its loyalty to those parts of the Constitution which have not been marred by unjust amendments? So far the closest anyone has come to a permanent definition of national interest is the national economy. It is non-emotional, non-ideological and non-partisan. Ignore it at your peril. *