Recently, there has been an explosion of coverage given to banned militant outfits and their leadership in the print and electronic media. This coverage is being given in the backdrop of the drawdown in Afghanistan, tensions with India and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP) offer for negotiations. In addition, these groups have been openly allowed to conduct their activities, such as the processions taken out by Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) on February 5 in major cities. The leadership of these banned outfits has been openly participating in television talk shows and has been issuing statements in newspapers. A few days ago, the pictures of the TTP’s press conference were displayed in almost every major newspaper, where its leadership had apparently offered to have negotiations with government. The statements made headlines in both the print and electronic media, if the image did not. One could not overlook the presence of Adnan Rashid, along with the TTP spokesman. The mentioned person was the prime convict in the assassination attempt on General Pervez Musharraf, and was last year set free in a jailbreak by the Taliban. Unfortunately, this detail remained unmentioned in most of the media coverage. Why are such organisations being awarded unabated media coverage and why are they being allowed and even facilitated to carry out their outreach activities? My understanding of the entire situation may seem pessimistic or even horrifying to some, but in my view, after a considerable time, these elements have finally achieved the outreach they have always wanted. Despite the laws and regulations, there is no implementation of the restrictions placed on the media coverage of these terrorist outfits. We have been able to shutdown the entire YouTube for months, but the activities of these groups on twitter and facebook are being ignored. They have been able to pick up on the inability of the state and the weakness of the media outlets for ratings to acquire public outreach. This is not a new phenomenon but rather the invigoration of an old trend, which started after every natural calamity in the last few years. Every militant outfit seemed to be the most generous entity in contributing towards relief work and prominent media coverage was given to them. In recent years, the formation of Difa-e-Pakistan Council, an amalgamation of banned outfits and political parties was also able to attract prominent media coverage. The coverage was to the extent where their processions and rallies were extensively reported, while the show-stopper was none other than Hafiz Saeed himself. Since then, Saeed has appeared on almost every major talk show and almost every renowned anchorperson has dedicated at least one programme for an exclusive interview of this ‘celebrity’. Similarly, statements by militant groups actively involved in attacks on security forces and terrorist acts are commonly accommodated in the print and electronic media. Another organisation, which has been openly operating under the very nose of the authorities, has been Hizbut-Tahrir (HuT). At the risk of repeating myself, this banned outfit has been allowed to carry out its activities with liberty and they have also held rallies, poster/pamphlet campaigns and organised various events throughout the country. This attention or fame has not only assisted these organisations in gathering funds, it also provides them with the opportunity to induct new recruits and acquire public sympathy. While the interior ministry is busy in shutting down mobile services and figuring out the best possible method of marginalising YouTube, these outfits are busy in undermining the security of this country. They prey upon our national and religious sentiments and our fear of the west, while disseminating their agenda of hatred and violence. The citizen is being exposed to the propaganda of these outfits and this is aiding their agenda of creating a favourable and sympathetic environment for their activities. Little do we realise that the real threat to our country and its citizens is not being presented by mobile phones or YouTube; rather, it is the proliferation of the agenda of such groups that is poisoning the minds of the populace, especially the youth. Unfortunately, the media does not seem to be fulfilling its responsibility towards its consumers. The media is supposed to exercise its independence with responsibility, but by giving coverage to such groups, it is not only a defiance of the legal constraints but also ignoring of the ethical standards towards their consumers. It is not necessary that this situation can be resolved only through the involvement of the state; rather, the media can exercise some control over this situation by adhering to journalistic and reporting standards. The real agenda of banned militant outfits is not negotiation or resistance against external threats; rather, their purpose has always been to create religious, sectarian and ethnic divides for personal benefits. It is due to the unfavourable circumstances that they have faced in recent years that they have modified their rhetoric to gain sympathy for their cause. They portray themselves to be the victims of underhanded tactics and claim to be the flag bearers of religious and national ideology, when the situation is quite the opposite. In fact, the media should be bringing the past record of these organisations into the limelight, which will also expose their true objectives to the public. If the government is unable to step in for developing or implementing a plausible strategy to curtail this menace, then it is the responsibility of the media to sensitise the public and to deny these groups the outreach they require. The writer is a development consultant. She tweets at @GulminaBilal and can be reached at coordinator@individualland.com