Geopolitical interests, ideological leanings, and editorial priorities often affect how international media interact with the countries they cover. In Pakistan, this relationship has become more and more one of misrepresentation, where telling only part of the story is more important than doing a thorough analysis. The Diplomat is one of the publications that has consistently portrayed Pakistan in a negative light. Its recent coverage suggests not just critical journalism, which is both necessary and right, but also a kind of narrative engineering that aims to change how people around the world think about Pakistan’s security institutions.
From March to May 2025, the publication’s obsession with Pakistan was especially clear. During that time, it published almost thirty articles about Balochistan in just eight weeks. This much coverage of one area, all focusing on state repression, human rights violations, and supposed counterterrorism overreach, shows that the reporting is part of a coordinated editorial campaign rather than natural reporting. The lack of variety in points of view, sources, and thematic framing suggests that there is a set agenda. Balochistan is a complicated and delicate place, but any responsible analysis must take into account the parts played by separatist violence, outside interference, and criminal networks that cross borders.
Instead, The Diplomat chose to blame Pakistan as a whole, which made the already complicated situation even harder for readers to understand
This background of biased reporting helps explain the magazine’s most recent mistake: an article published on December 11, 2025, that was false and inflammatory about Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. The article is a good example of how dangerous agenda-driven journalism can be, where the headline is more of an ideological statement than a summary of verified facts. The article makes a sensational claim that Pakistan’s security agencies “sold” Aafia Siddiqui to the United States. This claim falls apart when looked at closely. This kind of framing isn’t just careless; it’s meant to stir up anger instead of giving clarity.
The article says that US troops arrested Siddiqui in Afghanistan, questioned her there, and then convicted her for shooting and injuring an American interrogator. Even the people the publication cites, like Clive Stafford Smith and Muzammil Shah, agree that these are the basic facts of the case. But none of this stops The Diplomat from putting Pakistan at the center of a story where it doesn’t belong legally or practically.
This difference between what is true and how it is framed shows that the publication is willing to lie to make Pakistan look bad
A close look at the sources used in the article shows that The Diplomat’s approach is even more unbalanced. Stafford Smith, in particular, has a long history of working to help detainees who were connected to extremist groups, many of whom were held legally as part of international counterterrorism operations. It is wrong to present his advocacy-driven viewpoint as neutral expertise because it ignores the ideological background from which his claims come. Responsible journalism necessitates the contextualization of such perspectives rather than their uncritical elevation as authoritative testimony. The publication gives the impression that there is agreement when there isn’t by leaving out this context.
The story about Aafia Siddiqui has always been more complicated in Pakistan than foreign news outlets think. A small, politically motivated group sometimes makes her case more public, but most Pakistanis know what the law and security situation really is. Pakistanis don’t tend to romanticize people who are connected to extremist ideas or actions after decades of living with terrorism. The state is not legally, morally, or strategically required to bring back a person who was convicted in a foreign court of a violent crime.
What foreign commentators often mistake for silence or indifference is really a practical understanding of the country’s long fight against militancy
But magazines like The Diplomat keep bringing up the Aafia story, not because it has any new meaning, but because it is a useful way to weaken Pakistan’s security institutions. It fits in well with the magazine’s overall editorial direction, which is to show Pakistan as a uniquely oppressive state while ignoring the regional context of insurgency, cross-border militancy, and outside interference. It becomes clear that the pattern is there when stories are always framed to make people lose faith in the government’s efforts to fight terrorism.
This ongoing misrepresentation has repercussions. How people around the world see things affects diplomacy, development partnerships, and how well people understand how stable a region is. When media narratives are systematically distorted, they affect policy circles and academic discussions in ways that hurt states that are really facing security threats. The fight against terrorism in Pakistan has been long, expensive, and very important.
To simplify it to just blame is to forget about the sacrifices made by people, security guards, and communities all over the country
So, the blame lies not only with foreign publications but also with Pakistan’s own media. It needs to learn how to find, fight, and expose stories that are pushed by outside forces and are based on selective reporting. This necessitates stringent fact-checking, investigative examination, and the assurance to contest deceptive international reporting. Pakistan must not only react; it must also actively shape its own story based on facts, the law, and a clear strategy.
The Diplomat’s article about Aafia Siddiqui is not the only mistake. It is part of a pattern of biased framing that needs to be looked at closely. By pointing out the inconsistencies and flaws in the analysis of such reporting, Pakistan’s media and policymakers can help make sure that national security issues are understood through facts instead of made-up stories. The job isn’t just to protect people; it’s also important for keeping public discourse honest in a time when information warfare is getting more advanced.
