This will be my 10th year writing a weekly column for this newspaper. That means roughly 50 contributions each year coming to a total of about 500. At 1,000 words per article that comes to roughly 500,000 words — serious verbiage. Every few years I ask myself why I keep writing and, dear readers, I assure you it is not the money. There are many different types of writers who contribute ‘editorial content’ to different newspapers. Broadly speaking there are three types of contributors. First of course are the professionals who make a living from what they write. Many of these contribute to more than one publication and, over the years, have developed enough of a loyal readership that they actually expect to be paid a living wage or even better. Most ‘professional’ editorial contributors are not just opinion writers but also combine a significant amount of journalistic capability and reporting to embellish what they write. Many of them have ‘sources’ within the government or in the political world. As such they get the opinions of the ‘movers and the shakers’ out to the general public. Unfortunately, over a period of time, many of these writers start becoming a part of the very people they report about. The relationship becomes sufficiently so symbiotic that often the difference between ‘objective opinions’ and ‘planted’ news is hard to tell. The important point to remember is that journalists also have personal points of view. And when not reporting pure news they will tend to let their personal opinions colour what they write. That is fine as long as they are writing an opinion piece but when they conflate opinion with news then that becomes a problem. Equally important is the fact that newspapers are owned by business houses that often have a ‘bias’ as far as editorial content is concerned. The New York Times, for instance, is well known to be a ‘liberal’ newspaper while the Wall Street Journal is clearly ‘conservative’. However, both are expected to present news without any tilt or bias. The same is true of television channels. Fox News is well known to represent the conservative point of view while MSNBC is clearly a voice from the liberal-left. However, in Pakistan, our media has not evolved to the point where any news outlet can be reliably called liberal or conservative. Before the first martial law in Pakistan (1958), Progressive Papers Limited (Pakistan Times, Imroze and Lail-o-Nihar) was well known as a leftist publication house. However, after 30 years of martial law, the left virtually disappeared from Pakistan. Today, few major newspapers or media houses in Pakistan can be accused of an open liberal-left bias in their editorial policies, this newspaper perhaps being a rare exception. The reason why I bring up this discussion about the left and the right is to make the point that a few of our professional journalists represent a particular political point of view. At best, most are either identified as pro-establishment/army or anti-establishment/army. The only other relatively important dividing line might be that some journalists have an avowedly soft corner for Islamist movements, including the likes of the Pakistani Taliban, and those that do not. As a corollary it would then seem that physical violence against journalists most likely revolves around these two issues. Interestingly, during a visit to Pakistan some 20 odd years ago, at a private dinner where some working journalists were also present, I was told in so many words that, for reasons of personal safety, most journalists avoid writing anything against the army or religious extremists. So, putting aside the much ballyhooed ‘freedom of the press’ over the last decade, nothing much has really changed. Besides the professional journalists writing editorial comments, the next category is that of ‘self-styled’ experts. These are mostly retired army officers, retired bureaucrats and out-of-power politicians. An interesting observation is in order. Most of these were quite supportive of military dictators during their active professional and political lives but now all of them have seen the light and have become supporters of democracy. Not a single one of them, as far as I can remember, has ever done a public mea culpa about their own actions when they strolled like ‘giants’ through the corridors of power. As far as the ‘expertise’ of such commentators is concerned, it is mostly based on mutual discussions with former colleagues held usually in exclusive clubs. Yes, some members of this group might actually have read a few books concerning their self-proclaimed areas of expertise but I would be loath to suggest that any one of them is a true scholar. The final group of opinion writers are people like me. At best, we can be called dilettantes, devoid of either experience in government or politics. In my defence, the best I can say is that I restrict myself to commenting on general observations and news items that are available in the media. At least I have no ‘inside information’ to share with my readers and I have no high placed sources that confide in me. However, that is, in its own way, a blessing. What I write about are my personal opinions, which are probably shared by many ordinary people. So then, why have I been writing for all these years? Well, I suppose that for starters because they let me! More importantly is the reason that what I write often constitutes some mild ‘fun and games’ at the expense of those that seem to be powerful. As far as I am concerned, making fun of the powerful and the self-righteous is a moral obligation. For instance, how could anyone watch our ‘minister’ of the perpetual hair for even a few minutes on television without getting totally consumed by the fact that his hairstyle has not changed a bit over the last decade? The writer has practiced and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com