In times of war and other crises, people want news by the minute, but during Op Sindoor some Indian TV channels went overboard, at times running reports of deep strikes by Indian forces without verification, especially on May 8.
Late evening, news anchors claimed Indian Navy had destroyed Karachi port, Indian Air Force had downed Pakistani jets, and their pilots had been captured, Pakistan’s PM had sought refuge in a bunker, and its army chief Asim Munir had been ousted in a coup. All of these claims eventually turned out to be false, and were picked up by major Western news organisations as a sign of decay in Indian TV journalism.
The Economist has described the disinformation on TV as a “culmination of decades of descent into inanity,” adding that “Indian television achieved the astonishing feat of making social media appear sane.” The New York Times says, “anchors and commentators became cheerleaders for war between two nuclear-armed states. Some well-known TV networks aired unverified information or even fabricated stories amid the burst of nationalistic fervor.”
India had made it clear that Op Sindoor was a nonescalatory strike intended to take out terrorist infrastructure without harming Pakistan’s civilian and military installations. However, the belligerence of news channels suggested something else. “Indians watching television thought their country was only moments away from annihilating Pakistan,” NYT says.
The Economist also took note of the commentary by panelists, “If news segments were merely outrageous, commentary was unhinged.” “One anchor demanded: ‘Set fire to Karachi, blow up the entire city.’ On another channel a former army officer called Iran’s foreign minister a ‘son of a pig’, triggering a minor diplomatic incident.” NYT points out that by pushing falsehoods, prominent news channels harm their audience and themselves: “When previously trusted sources become disinformation outlets, it’s a really large problem.” In The Economist’s view, “Disinformation about drone swarms and mass suicide attacks was amplified rather than squashed. Border communities — which bore the brunt of blackouts and drone attacks — were left groping for facts. The rest of the country was less vulnerable to bombs, but not to lies.”
But where TV news failed, newspapers remained true to their ethos of credibility. The Economist notes, “newspapers proved reliable” even though readers got their hands on them many hours after the “skirmishes” in the morning. That’s because the print media sticks to the old rule book of journalism and is also answerable for what it publishes. Every report is carefully fact-checked to safeguard credibility and reputation, built over decades and decades. Op Sindoor isn’t the first time newspapers have proven their credibility. Because processes of newsgathering and factchecking are sacrosanct. Seeing is believing, only if it’s in print.
Late evening, news anchors claimed Indian Navy had destroyed Karachi port, Indian Air Force had downed Pakistani jets, and their pilots had been captured, Pakistan’s PM had sought refuge in a bunker, and its army chief Asim Munir had been ousted in a coup. All of these claims eventually turned out to be false, and were picked up by major Western news organisations as a sign of decay in Indian TV journalism.
The Economist has described the disinformation on TV as a “culmination of decades of descent into inanity,” adding that “Indian television achieved the astonishing feat of making social media appear sane.” The New York Times says, “anchors and commentators became cheerleaders for war between two nuclear-armed states. Some well-known TV networks aired unverified information or even fabricated stories amid the burst of nationalistic fervor.”
India had made it clear that Op Sindoor was a nonescalatory strike intended to take out terrorist infrastructure without harming Pakistan’s civilian and military installations. However, the belligerence of news channels suggested something else. “Indians watching television thought their country was only moments away from annihilating Pakistan,” NYT says.
The Economist also took note of the commentary by panelists, “If news segments were merely outrageous, commentary was unhinged.” “One anchor demanded: ‘Set fire to Karachi, blow up the entire city.’ On another channel a former army officer called Iran’s foreign minister a ‘son of a pig’, triggering a minor diplomatic incident.” NYT points out that by pushing falsehoods, prominent news channels harm their audience and themselves: “When previously trusted sources become disinformation outlets, it’s a really large problem.” In The Economist’s view, “Disinformation about drone swarms and mass suicide attacks was amplified rather than squashed. Border communities — which bore the brunt of blackouts and drone attacks — were left groping for facts. The rest of the country was less vulnerable to bombs, but not to lies.”
But where TV news failed, newspapers remained true to their ethos of credibility. The Economist notes, “newspapers proved reliable” even though readers got their hands on them many hours after the “skirmishes” in the morning. That’s because the print media sticks to the old rule book of journalism and is also answerable for what it publishes. Every report is carefully fact-checked to safeguard credibility and reputation, built over decades and decades. Op Sindoor isn’t the first time newspapers have proven their credibility. Because processes of newsgathering and factchecking are sacrosanct. Seeing is believing, only if it’s in print.
You may also like
Tamil Nadu: Villagers celebrate centuries-old fishing festival at Kallandhiri village
Pakistan terrorists cannot hide behind claim that they are 'civilians': India
5 Classic Hairstyles for Indian Men That Never Go Out of Style
UK households warned to check on blackbirds when they enter your garden
PM Modi to meet CMs today after Operation Sindoor
