THE obituaries of news agencies have been written on many occasions over the past two decades.

First we were told we were slower than Twitter and that our global network of salaried journalists was redundant because every citizen was a journalist now.

Who needs to pay for ethically-produced fact-checked content when information from the source is flowing directly into our phones in real time?

We all remember the euphoria of the Twitter Revolution in Iran in 2009 and the Facebook follow-up Arab Spring (2010-2012). It was intoxicating to see the free flow of information on social networks from citizens on the front line.

THE obituaries of news agencies have been written on many occasions over the past two decades.

But we also all remember the brutal comedown. What happens when the autocrats shut down the internet or throw your citizens in jail? Who continues to document the story in Iran or Egypt or Syria for the outside world?

It turned out social media algorithms were not driven by a need to search for the truth.

Silicon Valley worked out it would make more money promoting anger and outrage. It also turned out bad actors could manipulate these algorithms to promote lies. Not surprisingly, untrained citizens were not equipped to help society navigate the pollution of our information ecosystem.

Wind forward another decade and we are here again as we are presented with another ‘news agency killer’, the utopian future of Artificial Intelligence.

ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or Grok can scan the world’s journalism output in seconds and spit out five juicy paragraphs to tell you about anything that’s going on in the world.

This is the so-called AI Overview — it is causing traffic to trusted journalism sites across the globe to crash and it rarely pays for the expensively-produced professional journalism it hoovers up.

And so again we are asked: why pay for your professional journalism when information is being deli­vered free in real time? Why waste money employing journalists to ga­­ther information that can be aggregated by our new chatbot friends?

Part of the answer lies in the little chatbot disclaimer which says the information in your AI overview may actually be wrong. Would you like your news with or without hallucinations?

Getting to the facts costs money, time, expertise and effort.

When a huge glacial collapse in late August triggered devastating flash floods along the Nepal-Tibet border leaving more than 1,300 people dead, AFP deployed a team of 11 journalists on the ground in remote parts of Nepal and India.

Within an hour of police confirmation of the first major flooding three of our journalists based in Kathmandu were on the road.

Prakash Mathema, Anup Ojha and Prabin Ranabhat are all Nepalese. They know the language, the terrain and the people. They carried expensive cameras and drone equipment.

One of our photographers made a 13-hour journey by motorbike and truck to reach the main disaster zone. He was then able to use his contacts to take an aid helicopter further into the disaster zone. His stunning drone images of destroyed villages were seen across the world.

In a catastrophe in remote areas of the planet, often there is no internet. It requires journalists to be on the ground, sometimes putting themselves in considerable personal danger, to bear witness to events.

It also requires journalists who know the country and can turn to a reliable source network. While part of our Nepal team headed to the mountains, the rest remained in Kathmandu to sift fact from rumour as stories of dead and missing emerged.

Many of the first reliable words and pictures published by the global media came from agencies such as AFP and our colleagues at Reuters and AP.

Our clients use the content without hesitation because they know it has been gathered in an ethically correct way according to the transparent charters and trust principles which guide the work of all our journalists.

They know that we have emp­lo­yed professional journalists to ga­­ther information and that we invest resources in training and expertise to ensure the people we send into harm’s way are well prepared.

Clients pay for the product bec­ause they understand quality news-gathering is not cheap. They also understand we work to the same ethical guidelines from every dateline on the planet. It makes no difference whether the content comes from Nepal or New York or Gaza, it bears the same stamp of quality.

On the other hand, making stuff up costs nothing. Side by side with real journalistic images from the Nepal disaster zone were reams of deep fake images showing artificially generated destroyed villages and bodies lined up for burial.

The tools that have given us AI Overviews have also given every human on the planet the capacity to create confusing and damaging false images that clog up our news feeds and often go viral on social media.

At AFP we employ over 100 journalists exclusively working to debunk and fact check this growing fake tide. Pushing back on lies and manipulation has become an essential journalistic complement to searching for the truth.

Defending truth and facts costs money and requires values. The international agencies’ global networks remain an essential part of the fabric of the global information system. They should be cherished, and defended.

The writer is Global News Director at Agence France Presse (AFP). This opinion piece was commissioned as part of the World News Day campaign — which falls on Sept 27 — highlighting the essential role of journalism in providing facts and clarity.

Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2026

While the impassioned speeches will not be enough to stop the violence against the Palestinian people, they do indicate that even some of Israel’s allies in the West are having a difficult time justifying its monstrous behaviour. French President Emmanuel Macron said the “spectacle” in Gaza should “shame us all”. He also highlighted the grim situation in the West Bank. Similarly, Turkish President Recep Erdogan termed Gaza an “inhumane … concentration camp”.

At a separate meeting on the two-state solution, Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar slammed the Israeli “machinery of occupation”. At the same event, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said “time is running out” for the two-state solution. Perhaps the outgoing UN head was being overly optimistic — Israel has done all possible to ensure a viable Palestinian state does not emerge.

Not too far from these meetings the Board of Peace was also holding a session, pledging $2.45bn for Gaza’s ‘recovery’. While the promise of these funds should be welcomed, the reality in the occupied Strip tempers any hopes for Gaza’s betterment. After all, since last year’s ceasefire Israel has murdered some 1,400 people in Gaza, mostly civilians, while Tel Aviv has refused to end its occupation of the Strip, even though Hamas agreed to give up its arms. Meanwhile, illegal settlements have exploded in the West Bank, with Jewish settlers growing more vicious in their attacks by the day. Therefore, throwing money at Gaza will do little if the Palestinians remain under siege, and the theft of their land continues.

If conscientious members of the international community are serious about their concern for Palestine, they must back their talk with action. Israel must be held to account for its genocidal violence in Gaza, while settlers in the West Bank should be punished for their occupation of Palestinian land, and frequent physical attacks on Arabs.

All illegal settlements need to be uprooted. Sadly, while calls for a two-state solution continue, the current Israeli regime — and whatever dispensation emerges after the coming elections in the Zionist state — will remain hell-bent on preventing a sovereign Palestinian state from emerging. Meanwhile, Israel’s most powerful foreign patron — the US — seems utterly uninterested in making Tel Aviv commit itself to the peace process. PR stunts under the Board of Peace are one thing; genuine pressure on Israel to end the occupation is another. Can the Palestinian people expect relief when such powerful actors remain committed to prolonging their suffering?

Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2026

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia intercepted six ballistic missiles fired by Yemen’s Houthis on Thursday after issuing warnings for several regions, including the holy city of Makkah.

The Saudi-led coalition supporting Yemen’s internationally recognised government said the missiles were intercepted before reaching targets in Taif and Yanbu, a key Red Sea area important for Saudi oil exports. It was not immediately clear whether the attacks caused any damage or casualties.

Saudi Civil Defence had earlier issued emergency alerts for several areas, including Makkah, Yanbu, Taif, Jeddah and Tabuk. The warnings were lifted mi­­nutes later. In recent weeks, similar ale­rts have often preceded Houthi attacks.

Coalition spokesman Turki al-Maliki said in posts on X that “escalations and violations by the terrorist Houthi militia will be dealt with firmly”.

The Houthis later claimed responsibility for attacks targeting Saudi military sites in Jazan province near the Yemeni border.

Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree said the group launched a barrage involving ballistic missiles and drones aimed at what he described as operations rooms, command centers, weapons depots, missile launch sites and military camps.

The latest attacks come as fighting has intensified inside Yemen between the Houthis and Saudi-backed government forces. At least 150 fighters from both sides were killed in the past 24 hours, according to an AFP tally based on sources from both factions.

At least 98 government forces and soldiers were killed, while the Houthis said at least 52 of their fighters were killed in clashes.

Many on both sides were also killed in clashes in the Kahboub Mountains and in areas between the Lahj and Taiz regions, as the Houthis seek to dominate the highlands overlooking Bab al-Mandab to protect newly seized territory.

The Riyadh-backed government’s forces had earlier repelled overnight attacks by the Houthis on a key supply route to Yemen’s third biggest city Taiz from the southern port city of Aden where the internationally recognised administration is based, sources said.

The Houthis have kept up pressure on government forces seeking to consolidate their power through a steep winding mountain pass. Known as Hejat al-Abd, the road is a lifeline for forces fighting on behalf of Yemen’s government, which has been hemmed in by the Houthis. The road is also critical for goods entering Taiz and its southern and western rural areas. It is the only route for residents seeking to travel abroad, with no commercial flights operating .

Seizing parts of the Taiz-Aden road could allow the Houthis to tighten their grip around Taiz and deal another blow to the government.

Meanwhile, the United Nations human rights chief expressed alarm Thursday over the growing civilian toll as the conflict worsens.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk said he was “appalled” by the situation, warning that civilians were suffering the consequences of the renewed fighting.

“As if the people of Yemen haven’t already endured enough misery, civilians are now bearing the brunt of this latest upsurge in fighting,” Turk said, adding that “civilians must never be targeted, and their protection must be the overriding priority”.

Turk’s office said at least 125 civilians had been killed or injured in Houthi attacks since the beginning of August.

Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2026

ISLAMABAD: The government will not fully disclose the assets of civil servants due to security concerns and will instead publish selected information by December this year to meet requirem­ents of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Finance Secretary Imdadullah Bosal told the National Assembly Stan­ding Committee on Finance and Revenue on Thursday.

However, parliamentarians questioned why full details would not be made public when politicians, including the president and prime minister, were required to disclose their assets. They questioned why public servants should be treated differently when parliamentarians and politicians were required to make full asset declarations.

Mr Bosal did not directly respond to the objection but said a lot of technical work had been undertaken by the Establishment Division and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR).

Under the mechanism, the FBR would assess the data and report its findings to the Establishment Division, which would have the power to initiate disciplinary action in case of any discrepancy. The fi­­nance secretary said civil servants’ asse­­ts would be declared under prescribed gui­delines but would not be published in full.

The government has already moved to digitise declarations of income and assets of all federal civil servants in BS-17 and above, replacing the existing manual submission process with a dedicated FBR online portal. The declarations will undergo risk-based verification, while selected non-sensitive information will be made public.

Soon afterwards, the Ministry of Fin­a­nce published on its website an office me­­morandum issued by the Establishment Division last week regarding the “digitisation of declaration of assets under Section 15-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973”.

According to the memorandum, the Establishment Division, in collaboration with the FBR, has launched a digitised system for the submission, verification and publication of declarations of income and assets under Section 15-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and Rule 12 of the Civil Servants (Conduct) Rules, 2026.

All officers in BS-17 and above are required to submit their declarations of income and assets for financial year 2025-26 through the dedicated FBR portal instead of the existing manual process. The deadline for digital filing has been set at Oct 30, 2026, in accordance with Rule 12(6) of the Civil Servants (Conduct) Rules, 2026.

Under the new mechanism, officers will first have to provide their name, designation, personal active email address, mobile number and CNIC to their respective cadre administrator for creation of an account on the FBR portal.

The cadre administrator will forward the officers’ details to the FBR, which will notify them about account creation through email, SMS or other prescribed means. Officers will then activate their accounts using their CNIC and a one-time password to set their own password.

Once logged in, officers will find a “Declaration” option on the FBR portal dashboard. By selecting this option, they will be required to enter the requisite information through subsequent screens, with the details specified in Annex-I of the Establishment Division’s memorandum.

The information submitted by officers will subsequently be subjected to risk-based verification checks by the FBR, which will communicate the results to the relevant cadre administrator.

Establishment Division said selected non-sensitive sections of the declarations would be published on the FBR website for information of the general public.

The declarations must be filed within the prescribed deadline, while any rectification of errors on the portal will be permissible up to Nov 30, 2026, subject to approval or authorisation of the cadre administrator concerned.

Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2026

The subcommittee, headed by Senator Dr Afnanullah Khan, will examine the alleged overcharging by Jazz and the regulatory action taken by the PTA in the matter.

The decision was taken following a heated debate between PTA officials and representatives of the Auditor General of Pakistan (AGP). Committee Chairperson Senator Palwasha Khan intervened to pacify the situation when the PTA chairman threatened to resign if any allegation of corruption was levelled against him.

Meanwhile, a Jazz spokesperson said the matter concerned two government entities and that Jazz would present its point of view if called before any relevant forum.

The matter relates to the audit of the PTA for 2024. The audit objection stated that the telecom regulator had allowed a 15 per cent tariff increase for Jazz against a permissible limit of 3pc. The audit also suggested seeking the opinion of the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) on the tariff policy.

PTA Chairman retired Maj Gen Hafeezur Rehman questioned the proposal, saying that if tariffs were to be decided by the CCP, the PTA should not be held responsible for ensuring quality of service. “Let them take the whole responsibility,” he said. He maintained that the regulator had acted with complete transparency in allowing the 15pc tariff increase for Jazz and offered to have the matter subjected to a forensic audit.

The PTA chairman categorically stated that he would resign if even one rupee of overcharging by the telecom operator was established in violation of the authority’s approved tariffs.

He explained that the PTA examined mobile packages before their launch and monitored compliance with the approved tariff structure. However, audit officials had raised certain queries regarding the matter.

Senator Palwasha Khan subsequently decided to constitute the subcommittee. It will examine the relevant tariff approvals, packages and billing details to determine whether customers were charged amounts beyond the rates approved by the regulator.

Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2026

A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui upheld the Islamabad High Court’s Jan 14, 2019, judgement, which had answered the tax references against DHA. Justice Siddiqui authored the judgement. The appeals arose from tax references filed in 2012.

DHA had filed returns for tax years 2005 to 2008, claiming exemption under Section 49(2) on the ground that it was a local authority. The returns were treated as assessment orders under Section 120.

Later, the Commissioner (Audit-II), LTU Islamabad, amended the assessments for 2005 to 2007, while the Additional Commissioner (Audit-II) amended the assessment for 2008 under Section 122(5A), treating them as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue on the ground that DHA did not fall within the expression “local authority”.

Before the Supreme Court, Syed Tanseer Tassaduq Bukhari argued that DHA was a statutory authority responsible for the development, planning, regulation and administration of its area, exercised public and local powers, and that the expression “local authority” should not be construed narrowly.

The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-II), LTU Islamabad, represented by ASC Rehan Seerat and AOR Tariq Aziz supported the high court judgement and argued that DHA lacked the essential legal attributes of a local authority.

Justice Siddiqui observed that the question was not whether DHA performed public or municipal functions within a defined area, but whether the nature and extent of its statutory powers satisfied the legal attributes of a “local authority” under Section 49(2).The court held that DHA’s case did not go beyond showing that it operated within a defined area and performed development, planning, regulation and administrative functions.

The court subsequently held that DHA was not entitled to the exemption.

Published in Dawn, September 25th, 2026

The walkout undersco­red the competing pressu­res facing Netanyahu, who is battling mounting criticism abroad over the Gaza conflict while campaigning for re-election at home ahead of an October 27 vote.

On Thursday, Netanyahu delivered a combative address inside the General Assembly, where dozens of delegations walked out as he began speaking.

The departing diplomats left large sections of the hall empty, creating a striking contrast with Netanyahu’s attempt to use the podium to present Israel’s case before the international community.

Netanyahu responded by accusing his critics of hypocrisy and calling them “moral cowards.”

He rejected allegations that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza, saying Israel had prevented rather than committed genocide. He defended the country’s military actions in Gaza and elsewhere in the region.

He also devoted a significant part of his speech to New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, calling him “the antisemitic mayor of New York” and accusing him of spreading what Netanyahu described as lies about Israel.

Mamdani, who had declined to join the street protests, responded after the speech.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu used his speech to repeat baseless lies meant to sanitise his genocide of Palestinians,” Mamdani said.

“No lie can change the fact that he remains the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Mamdani previously said New York City lacked the authority to enforce the ICC warrant against Netanyahu, arguing that the appropriate authorities should carry it out.

On Wednesday night, the mayor had hosted Palestinian families from Gaza at Gracie Mansion and planted an olive tree with them, saying: “May peace be our future.”

The two scenes — protesters confronting his government’s policies on the streets and diplomats leaving the hall during his address — turned Netanyahu’s brief visit to New York into a day of parallel confrontation.

Netanyahu’s stay had already been sharply shortened amid security concerns and expectations of protests. He arrived on Thursday morning, addressed the General Assembly and was scheduled to return to Israel the same evening rather than remain in New York overnight.

Outside the UN, Jewish and Muslim activists, Palestinian supporters, human-rights campaigners, progressive Jewish groups, politicians, artists and musicians took part in separate demonstrations across Manhattan. Their messages varied, but opposition to Netanyahu’s government and Israel’s conduct of the Gaza war brought many of them into the streets at the same time.

The protests also offered a visible glimpse of a generational shift in American attitudes toward Israel and Netanyahu. While support for Israel remains stronger among older Americans, younger Americans have become substantially more critical of the Israeli government.

A Pew Research Centre survey conducted in May found that only 18 per cent of Americans aged 18 to 29 had a favourable view of the Israeli government, compared with 47pc among those aged 65 and older. Among the youngest Americans, 58pc expressed a favourable view of Palestinians, compared with 47pc among those 65 and older.

That generational divide was visible on the streets of New York, where many of the demonstrators were young people, including students, activists, artists and younger politicians.

The largest direct action outside the UN was organised by Jewish Voice for Peace, whose New York chapter brought hundreds of protesters to First Avenue and 39th Street. Demonstrators wearing matching white T-shirts sat in the roadway, chanting against Netanyahu and calling for an end to US support for Israel.

For a while, protesters stood and sat in the street, linking arms and blocking traffic as police moved in to clear the roadway. The chants continued as officers began making arrests.

At least 30 people, including actors and politicians, were arrested in the initial action. Police later said more than 100 protesters had been taken into custody.

Among those detained were actors Susan Sarandon and Hannah Einbinder, congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier and City Council member Chi Ossé. Musicians Julien Baker and Lucy Dacus and actor Elliott Page were also among the prominent figures taking part in the protests.

Chelsea Manning, who joined the protest, said people outside government institutions needed ways to reject policies they regarded as imperialism, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

“We can’t be in there. This is the closest that we can get,” she said.

Manijeh Moradian, a university professor of Iranian and Jewish heritage who participated in the demonstration, said protesters had a responsibility to speak out against what was happening in Gaza with US support.

Jewish groups divided

The demonstrations also highlighted divisions within New York’s Jewish community.

Progressive Jewish organisations, including New York Jewish Agenda, T’ruah, J Street, New Jewish Narrative, New Israel Fund and Partners for Progressive Israel, held a separate protest at Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza near the UN.

“We are gathered here as American Jews, Israelis, New Yorkers, to say: You are not welcome here,” said Margo Hughes-Robinson, executive director of New York Jewish Agenda.

T’ruah, a rabbinic human-rights organisation, called for a ceasefire and accountability for alleged war crimes. The organisers described their rally as an alternative for Jewish New Yorkers who opposed Netanyahu’s policies while retaining concern for Israel and Jewish security.

They were confronted by pro-Netanyahu counter-protesters who blew whistles, used megaphones, chanted “Bibi”, and sang Israel’s national anthem.

On the other side, the ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist group Neturei Karta also demonstrated, arguing that opposition to Israel could not automatically be equated with antisemitism.

Elsewhere, Jewish and Muslim demonstrators marched together towards the UN, while Palestinian activists and other organisations joined the broader mobilisation against Netanyahu.

A city divided over Israel and Gaza

As police loaded detained protesters onto buses outside the UN, Netanyahu was speaking inside a building protected by heavy security. Outside, demonstrators sought to challenge the Israeli prime minister’s account of the Gaza war; inside, diplomats expressed their opposition by leaving the chamber.

The contrast was difficult to miss.

For several hours on Thursday, New York’s streets and the UN General Assembly hall became parallel stages for the same international argument — one expressed through demonstrations and arrests outside, the other through a diplomatic boycott inside.

And beneath both scenes was a changing American debate over Israel.