Web Desk: Pakistan’s opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) is facing questions about its social media strategy after party leaders Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Shaukat Yousafzai distanced themselves from overseas-based YouTubers, while posts attributed to the party’s official X account appeared to promote videos and political commentary by some of the same online personalities.
The apparent contradiction has prompted questions about how PTI manages its digital messaging, who decides which content appears on its official platforms and whether the party’s public position aligns with its online activity.
Images circulating on social media show posts dated Oct. 12, 14 and 17 that appear to feature videos and political commentary from various YouTubers. However, the images alone do not establish who authorised the posts or whether the party’s leadership directly approved them.
Yousafzai has criticised overseas-based YouTubers, accusing them of damaging PTI’s interests, while Gohar has also expressed distance from such online personalities.
Their remarks have raised questions about the party’s relationship with commentators who operate from abroad and frequently discuss Pakistani politics.
If PTI’s leadership considers certain commentators harmful to the party, critics may ask why their material appears on an official party platform. Conversely, if the party considers their commentary useful, it faces questions about the distinction between its public statements and its online promotion of their content.
The available material, however, does not establish whether the posts were shared under an official policy, by individual social media administrators or with the approval of senior leadership.
The dispute has also revived broader questions about who determines PTI’s social media strategy and controls the political messaging published through its official accounts.
Some social media users have raised sarcastic questions about whether the party’s direction is influenced by the Goldsmith family or foreign intelligence agencies, including Britain’s MI6 and the United States’ CIA.
Establishing who manages the account, who approves its posts and whether the content reflects an authorised party position would be necessary to resolve the questions surrounding its digital strategy.
The central issue is whether PTI’s leadership has a consistent policy on overseas-based political commentators and whether its official social media channels follow that policy.
The party could address the apparent discrepancy by clarifying its relationship with the YouTubers, explaining how material is selected for publication on its official accounts and identifying the process through which social media decisions are approved.
Until such clarification is provided, the contrast between the reported public statements by party leaders and the posts shown in the circulating images is likely to remain a point of debate over PTI’s communication strategy.
Read more: Post PTI: Ghost employees face action in Mardan as authorities examine departmental records
