Complaint that the omission of a reference in a news bulletin to the presence of foreign forces in 
Pakistan amounted to a contravention of the Broadcasting Code not upheld. The Tribunal was not convinced that the broadcaster intentionally omitted to refer to the presence of American or other foreign forces in Pakistan. It was stated that the source was CNN, and in that sense there was no error as to what CNN reported. To infer an intentional distortion of the whole picture on the basis of the omission to add that there were also other (foreign) forces present in Pakistan, would not be the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the omission in the news broadcast. The intention could just as well have been to simply reiterate what CNN had said in its news item. Indeed, it may have sounded somewhat strange for KFM to have added a rider to the news item and its source. The Tribunal is, accordingly, not convinced that any form of “brainwashing” could be inferred from the omission, as contended by the Complainant.
The next question is whether KFM was not negligent in omitting a reference to the presence of other forces. The criterion against which KFM must be measured is that of the specialist. It is licensed as a broadcaster and a high degree of circumspection must constantly be displayed in the execution of its function as a conveyor of news. Would the reasonable specialist broadcaster have added that there are also other forces in Pakistan? Likely listeners to news broadcasts are generally well informed and would have understood the news item within the CNN context, and that the two movements mentioned were possible suspects in the reported bombing incident. The said listener would have been likely to foresee that there might also be other possibilities. A broadcaster is entitled to assume that its news listeners have a certain level of sophistication which entitles it to omit an obvious fact. The Tribunal, accordingly, came to the conclusion that although there was an omission in the news item, KFM was not negligent in having omitted the possible presence of other forces. Accordingly, although objectively there was an omission, KFM could not be held responsible in law for the omission, since it had not been negligent.
The Complaint was not upheld.