Like a virulent infection, opinion journalism has played a toxic role in the political discourse in our country. Some seasoned journalists, acting in collusion, have brought down the ‘fourth pillar of the state’ to the abysmal level. Worse, juniors growing up in this unprofessional environment reckon that to be the industry standard. I am not a journalist by profession. I do not make money from my writings or depend financially on any organisation. My monetary autonomy, to a large extent, guarantees my ideological freedom. This freedom comes at a price though. Since I don’t have to abide by the unsaid rules of the community, my views may not be very well received. Let me elaborate. Not that we as a nation were ever united or perfect – we were divided from the day of our inception and endured a lot of initial hardships – but opinion journalism has set the whole country ablaze through its divisive rhetoric and explosive hyperbole. It has done the country a great disservice. I am not exonerating the politicians, civil servants or security institutions. The question, hence, I pose to myself is: can we call opinion journalism, journalism, at all? By brazenly supporting one party over the other and ignoring professional standards, do you not think many commentators claim the role of a prophet, the role to guide us, to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Who is honest and who is dishonest? Who is good for the country and who is bad? Importantly, since when has counselling fallen under their job description? Ask yourself: who grants them this authority? As far as I know, prophethood ended more than 1,400 years ago. And since they are not prophets, are they conmen or charlatans? In Pakistan, the so-called experts cross every line of decency, morality, neutrality, and professionalism I do understand that the problem is not limited to Pakistan. Those who live in the United States witness the ’tilt’, to put it mildly, of the Fox News in favour of the Republican Party, and that of the MSNBC on the side of the Democrats. Even CNN cannot call itself neutral anymore, although it kept its neutrality for years. But ever since Donald Trump entered politics, CNN has taken a position against him, some of which comes in response to the attacks on the media by the president. The New York Times and The Washington Post also cannot claim neutrality as their line against the president does not elude anyone. But allow me to put forward this question: has this helped the United States to grow stronger or made it more vulnerable? In Pakistan, the so-called experts cross every line of decency, morality, neutrality, and professionalism. On every channel every night, you will see journalists promoting one political view while discrediting the other, one group among them standing up against dictatorship to support the democratic process, the other fighting a war against corruption, one group adding a verse from the Quran or the Hadith in every other sentence, the other quoting the basic tenets of the Western electoral process. Sandwiched somewhere in between these two extremes lie the people of Pakistan, their minds bubbling with hate and intolerance after listening to the fiery comments, their tongues suffused with disdain ready to spit out the poison, their hearts hardened to entertain the idea of a different set of facts, and another layer of truth. The net result is that our divisions get deeper, differences grow wider, disagreements balloon up, intolerance rules in, and forbearance darts out. No matter what stance you take, I believe, whether you oppose the role of establishment in Pakistani politics, or you claim to stand up against financial embezzlement, the day you take a side, that day being a professional journalist you become a part of the problem and not the part of solution. It does not matter then if you are right or wrong. Good people, people I know who care for their country, people who were tortured, threatened or abused, people who eventually had to flee, write passionately against the role of the security institutions in the governance. Of course, they can write the way they feel, their personal suffering and dedication not to be undermined; however, their views have to be taken with a pinch of salt. They show us only one side of the picture. It cannot be considered as pure reporting, and it cannot be trusted completely. And if they cross a line of decency which some of them do online, their views need to be ignored completely as they fail to differentiate between personal motivation and professional requirements. The solution, if you ask me, hence, does not lie in how strongly you favour or oppose an issue; it lies in the role your job has defined for you, and whether or not you can stop your personal biases from creeping up in your reporting, which always has to be neutral, factual and unadulterated. The writer is a freelancer