There is a very fine line between staying credible and becoming ridiculous. But our favourite news agency has tottered over the edge after spinning itself dizzy.
It began with reporting Old Nyanyuk's "woes" as described in his delusional autobiography.
Apparently, Old Nyanyuk finds himself nursing a grudge against Anwar for making him look bad with his internationally publicised sodomy charges.
Now, this is rich, considering Anwar got himself imprisoned for a few years, had his reputation smeared, his eye bruised and bloodied, and his career in tatters.
The charges? The act of sodomy between two consenting adult males? How could that be anything but a personal matter??
Is it not convenient that those charges came at a critical moment when Old Nyanyuk found himself potentially ousted from office by a then strong contender?
With these charges being of such a private nature, could there really be impartial, unbiased rulings with untampered evidence?
The very act of imprisoning Anwar is criminal. And yet, they talk about joining the International Criminal Court.
Mongolian models have been blown up with C4 explosives and no one charged for the crime but two commandos with no clear motives - how could it even begin to be credible?
We have a monstrous record for deaths in custody. Citizens are dying in the brutal hands of the police, the very people supposed to be protecting them. It is truly shocking.
With our human rights record: abusing participants of street protests, tear-gassing them, spraying them with chemical laced water and beating them among other things, how could we as a nation be seen by the world as anything but overrun by despots?
This news agency either has a grim sense of humour or a severe lack of comprehension.