The fundamental job of media is to keep citizens informed and updated. Media is known as the “fourth estate” because the nature of its job allows it to play a key role in shaping public opinion and perception about various events and issues. Media have the potential to hold power structures accountable and provide a powerful check on governance. However, in times of war and conflict, media tend to discard this role and become one more player in the war arsenal of a nation, as a government needs to keep the morale of its citizens high.
Controlling the narrative is as critical as winning battles, as perception often dictates policy. That is why truth is the first casualty during war. The Indo-Pak conflict triggered by the Pahalgam terror attack finally ended with a ceasefire on May 10, following intense military exchanges. From a media perspective, the conflict highlighted a “war of perception” fought in newsrooms, social media, and at editorial desks. The media coverage, on both sides of the border, was characterised by sensationalism, hyper-nationalism and calculated disinformation campaigns. Fact-checkers like Zubair of Alt-News played an indispensable role in combating fake news and misinformation.
The conflict raised many questions from the “media perspective”. What is the responsibility of journalists during times of war? Are they supposed to embed with the armed forces and toe the official line? Will reporting the truth become “anti-national” if it reveals uncomfortable truths and facts regarding the course of the war? The Indo-Pak conflict demonstrated that modern wars extend beyond battlefields to the media sphere. No wonder, TV channels now resemble “war rooms” and journalists and TV anchors appear as “soldiers of war”. Is this healthy for the media ecosystem? The answer to this question may well decide your “hyper-national-levels” and perception around the “nation-first” requirement for being branded a patriot.
Live Reporting – Patriotism Over Precision
If the Indian mainstream media coverage of the conflict can be described in three words, they are: sensational, jingoistic, and exaggerated. Prominent news channels like Zee News, ABP News, Mathrubhumi, and DNA broadcast false reports, such as the Indian Navy’s INS Vikrant attacking Karachi Port or reaching Lahore. Claims of a military coup in Pakistan, including General Asim Munir’s resignation or detention, were propagated without credible evidence.Zee News Telugu falsely claimed Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif surrendered after drone strikes on his residence.
Many a time, Indian media used AI-generated videos, doctored images, and footage from unrelated conflicts (e.g., the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) or natural disasters, presenting them as evidence of Indian strikes. Right-wing commentators used the Pahalgam terror attack to target Indian Muslims and Kashmiris, amplifying hate speech and calls for economic boycotts. Communal rhetoric was used to the hilt to create communal hatred and polarisation.
The media from across the border also engaged in a calculated disinformation campaign. They amplified false claims of military successes, such as downing Indian jets or capturing an Indian pilot, Shivangi Singh, which were later retracted as “fake news” by their officials. Footage from a 2023 Israeli airstrike in Gaza was misrepresented as evidence of Pakistani military prowess, debunked by AFP fact-checkers. Pakistani social media was rife with viral posts claiming downed Indian drones or bombed Indian villages using recycled visuals from conflicts in Syria, Nepal, or Bangladesh.
Foreign Media Coverage: Nuanced but Selective
Foreign media outlets generally adopted a more nuanced tone compared to the sensationalism of Indian and Pakistani media. However, they had their own biases. For example, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardianfocused on the ceasefire’s geopolitical implications. They emphasised the significance of U.S. mediation. Headlines like “Trump announces ceasefire” and “US helped deliver an India-Pakistan ceasefire”downplayed the roles of the Indian and Pakistani leadership. The Guardian’s May 10 editorial warned of nuclear escalation. It noted America’s limited diplomatic capacity and China’s role in urging Pakistan to de-escalate. The BBC reported on U.S. backchannels, while the Guardian analysed regional dynamics. Some Western outlets, like the National Interest and Reuters, cited unverified U.S. and Pakistani sources claiming Pakistan downed Indian jets. Others suggested India’s response was aggressive and unjustified. They cited anonymous U.S. officials claiming Pakistani jets downed Indian aircraft, without corroborating evidence.
Al Jazeera faced accusations of bias from Indian observers for comparing India’s actions in Kashmir to Israel’s tactics in Palestine. Al Jazeera was blamed for framing India’s response as a diplomatic misstep. Russian and Chinese media, such as TASS and Global Times, relied heavily on Pakistani sources, with Global Times accused by India’s Beijing embassy of spreading disinformation. Chinese state media, including Global Times and Xinhua, echoed Pakistan’s claims, reflecting geopolitical alignments and strategic interests. Thus, the foreign media offered a clearer view of the conflict’s progress compared to the media from the sub-continent. However, it wasn’t completely unbiased and objective. Tones of ‘self-centredness’ and reflections of political alignment were visible in the tone and tenor of the coverage.
Busting Fake News
Social media platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram were weaponised by both nations for narrative control. AI-generated content, deepfakes, and out-of-context visuals were used for real-time psychological operations. However, Independent fact-checkers like Zubair of Alt-News and BOOM played a crucial role in debunking misinformation. Zubair exposed fabricated videos from both sides of the fence, claiming real airstrikes, which were recycled clips from older conflicts or video games.
Alt-News utilised cross-referencing timestamps, geolocation data, and historical visuals to counter disinformation.
It cannot be denied that Indian and Pakistani media succumbed to hyper-nationalism, and they resorted to tactical disinformation in a bid to win the war of narratives. But this resulted in ignoring the human cost of war and overlooking the voices who were the real victims and suffered the most.
As Edward R. Murrow once said, “To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful.”