The horrific terrorist attack that claimed the lives of 26 innocent tourists in Pahalgam, served as a sobering reminder of the region’s precarious security situation. Rather than addressing the root causes of the tragedy – such as glaring intelligence failures, security lapses, and the broader vulnerabilities that enabled the attack – Indian news channels, widely regarded as “yes-man of the establishment”, have mostly engaged in sensationalism.
From the moment news of the attack broke, these channels used provocative thumbnails, headlines and debate to create war frenzy as well as Hindu-Muslim binary. Channels used aggressive, emotionally charged language, with Republic TV focusing on global and strategic angles and Republic Bharat emphasising cultural and religious narratives (e.g., “Jihad” framing). Their thumbnails featured high-contrast visuals with bold text to maximise viewer engagement.
Rather than fostering critical inquiry, a large segment of the media quickly shifted the narrative toward exaggerated threat perceptions, presenting the attack as an existential crisis for the nation and a direct act of aggression by Pakistan. Predictably, the usual sensationalist voices amplified calls for military retaliation and diplomatic isolation of Pakistan, all while obscuring the pressing question: how could such an attack occur in a region purportedly under rigorous surveillance and military control?
War Hysteria: The Media’s Favourite Distraction
Several Indian news outlets, particularly those with a strong pro-government lean, began portraying the event as an act of war, eagerly framing it within the context of India’s ongoing conflict with Pakistan. Anchors screamed about “Pakistan-sponsored terrorism,” all but calling for a military response without any clear investigation or substantiated evidence. This war hysteria was, of course, not about ensuring accountability or resolving the root causes of the violence, but rather about creating an emotional reaction that serves to further entrench the divisive narrative of “us versus them.”
The fear-driven narrative of impending war served two key purposes for these media outlets:
First, it diverted attention from the incompetence of India’s own intelligence and security agencies, which had failed to prevent the attack despite years of warnings about such incidents in sensitive zones.
Second, it deflected from the glaring failures of the political leadership. It may be recalled that when the Mumbai terror attack happened in 2008, then union Home Minister Shivraj Patil resigned from the post on 30 November 2008, taking moral responsibility for the security lapse that led to the attacks.
In its media critique segment, Newslaundry analysedhow television news channels, particularly Republic TV, covered the Pahalgam attack.
The video, titled “Pahalgam Hamle Se UtheZarooriSawalAur Darbari Arnab Ka Hindu-Muslim Raag” (“Important Questions Raised by the Pahalgam Attack and Courtier Arnab’s Hindu-Muslim Tune”), scrutinises the communal framing adopted by some anchors, especially Arnab Goswami.
The critique highlights how certain anchors prioritised communal angles – specifically Hindu-Muslim rhetoric – over pressing issues such as security failures and accountability. This diversion, according to Newslaundry, dilutes public discourse and steers attention away from critical questions.
The segment condemns the mainstream media’s tendency to favour sensationalism over substantive, investigative reporting. It argues that following such a significant attack, the media should have interrogated lapses in intelligence and questioned the safety protocols for tourists in conflict-prone areas.
Viewers are urged to critically assess the narratives being presented. The video asserts that much of the media coverage turned into a communal spectacle, filled with polarising debates rather than facts or accountability.
Arnab Goswami is specifically criticised for consistently framing national tragedies through a communal lens, often without evidence. The segment mocks how certain anchors repeatedly default to inflammatory rhetoric during crises, which distorts the news agenda.
Manisha Pande, who anchors the segment, argues that some channels act less like independent media and more like propaganda outlets for the state. They create a false binary of nationalism versus anti-nationalism, labelling any government criticism as “anti-India”.
Important Questions Ignored: The video urges viewers to consider:
- Why was there no intelligence alert?
- Why was the area not secured properly?
- Are tourists being used as soft targets due to policy failures?
Satirical Tone: As always with TV Newsance, the tone is satirical and biting, using actual TV clips to expose the contrast between real journalism and theatrical news delivery.
- On media priorities:
“At a time when the country should be demanding answers about a terror attack, our TV anchors are busy yelling about Hindus and Muslims.”
- On communal coverage:
“For some anchors, it’s not a terrorist attack unless it fits their communal script.”
- On Republic TV and Arnab Goswami:
“Instead of journalism, we get a courtroom drama every night, and the accused are always the same –the ‘anti-nationals’.”
- What should be asked:
“Why were tourists taken to a conflict zone? Where was the intelligence failure? These are the real questions. But who’s asking them?”
Key Points
- The narrator suggests that April 22 may have been chosen deliberately due to:
Its proximity to upcoming elections.
Historical or religious significance that could stir communal sentiments.
“Terrorists don’t choose dates randomly. There’s almost always a message – political or ideological.”
- Media Distraction and Priorities:
Criticises Indian mainstream media for focusing on outrage instead of asking tough questions.
“Anchors were shouting about Pakistan within minutes, but no one asked how such a lapse happened under heavy security presence.”
- Government Accountability:
The video questions whether intelligence warnings were ignored or if tourists were deliberately sent into vulnerable zones for political optics.
“If security was tight and intelligence agencies were on alert, how did this happen? Someone must be held accountable.”
- Pattern of Attacks Before Elections:
Discusses how major attacks often precede general elections in India.
Suggests this may benefit certain political narratives.
“Every election year, the nation is shaken by violence. Coincidence? Maybe. But we need to examine the patterns.”
Take the example of a Zipline operator’s ‘Allahu Akbar’ chant moments before a deadly terrorist attack at Baisaran meadow on April 22. The incident was given communal colour by the channels. After investigation, the anti-terror agency NIA found the chant was a “natural reaction as it is practiced by Zipline operators”.
The Elephant in the Room: Accountability and Security Failures
While much of the media focused on inflammatory rhetoric – speculating about Pakistan’s involvement and invoking past wars – it largely ignored a more pressing concern: the failure of intelligence and security apparatus. Critical questions were left unasked, such as how militants managed to breach security, why no specific alerts were issued beforehand, and how tourists were allowed to enter and remain vulnerable in a region known for volatility.
Despite the fact that the attack occurred in an area under supposed high surveillance, media coverage offered little scrutiny of the glaring lapses in intelligence coordination and border security. There was minimal inquiry into the quality of intelligence gathering, the effectiveness of inter-agency communication, or the reasoning behind permitting tourist activity in high-risk zones amid known terror threats. The delayed response from authorities also went largely unquestioned.
Instead of holding institutions accountable, many newsrooms shifted focus toward chest-thumping narratives of national security, calling for retaliatory action while failing to investigate how such a breakdown in security was allowed to happen in the first place.
Deepening the Hindu-Muslim Divide
Following the incident, certain media outlets made a deliberate effort to inflame communal tensions – a deeply troubling aspect of their coverage. Instead of focusing on the facts or the broader national security implications, these channels repeatedly framed the incident through a Hindu-Muslim lens. The identity of the victims was selectively emphasised to provoke religious sentiment, disregarding the essential truth that they were Indian citizens first, irrespective of their faith.
Rather than offering sympathy to the victims’ families or demanding accountability from authorities, some anchors exploited the tragedy to deepen societal divisions. In their rush to sensationalise the event, these outlets chose polarisation over responsible journalism, seemingly driven by the belief that communal narratives attract higher viewership and ratings.
This approach not only hampers the collective fight against terrorism but also derails the public discourse. It shifts attention away from critical questions about governance, intelligence failures, and security preparedness. Instead of fostering unity and demanding solutions, such coverage fuels divisive rhetoric that serves as a smokescreen for institutional shortcomings.
Deflecting Attention from Modi and Amit Shah
While the media screamed about the attack’s supposed Pakistani origins, there was little to no focus on the government’s handling of the situation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah have been at the helm of national security for several years now, yet their leadership has faced increasing questions regarding the country’s preparedness for such attacks. Their apparent lack of accountability, especially in the face of repeated terror strikes, has often been met with silence by much of the mainstream media.
The decision to downplay discussions around the government’s actual role in ensuring national security reflects a deliberate strategy of deflection. The media’s avoidance of serious questions about the government’s responsibility, paired with a focus on anti-Pakistan rhetoric, made it easier to maintain the illusion of a government in control, despite glaring failures.
For example, one of its debates, Arnab Goswami alleged J&KChief Minister Omar Abdullah and the J&K police did nothing for safety of the tourists, one of the panellists from Kashmir tried to counter him by saying the J&K police come under the Union government, Goswami started yelling “Kalima, Kalima, Kalmia…”
A Call for Responsible Journalism
The country ought to have used the Pahalgam incident as a chance to come together, pose difficult questions, and insist on improved security measures. Rather, the sensation of distrust and instability has only grown as a result of the media’s polarising coverage of the event and its presentation of it as an act of war. The media holds democracy to account, but what about the media itself? This question has once again written largely on the Pahalgam attack.