Lagatar24 Desk
New Delhi: On June 7, The Washington Post published a detailed exposé raising serious questions about the credibility, impartiality, and professional responsibility of Indian television media. The report revealed how, on the night of May 9, several leading Indian news channels aired fabricated reports of a coup and war-like situation in Pakistan — claims that turned out to be entirely false.
The allegations stem from how WhatsApp messages, unverified sources, and social media rumours were transformed into breaking news by prominent TV networks — without confirmation from the Indian Army or the government.
From WhatsApp Rumors to Prime-Time Fiction
The chain began when a journalist received a WhatsApp alert from India’s public broadcaster, Prasar Bharati, claiming that Pakistan’s army chief had been arrested and a coup was underway. Within minutes, the information spread on X (formerly Twitter), and within hours, mainstream TV channels broadcasted the story nationwide.
However, there was no coup. General Asim Munir remained in command and was later promoted to Field Marshal.
Channels like Times Now Navbharat, TV9 Bharatvarsh, Zee News, ABP News, NDTV, and Bharat Samachar carried unverified and exaggerated claims — including fake reports that:
Indian forces had entered Pakistan, The Pakistani PM had surrendered, Key Pakistani cities were destroyed.
To support these false claims, visuals from Gaza, Sudan, Philadelphia, and even video games were used. None of the channels responded to The Washington Post’s requests for comment.
The Larger Concern: Media’s Role in National Security Narratives
Former Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao described the media frenzy as the creation of a “parallel reality”—filled with hyper-nationalism and unverified victory narratives, filling a vacuum left by official silence.
Critics like Manisha Pande, editor at Newslaundry, called it “the most dangerous form of journalism” that has now spiraled “out of control.” She likened some newsrooms to “bad fiction writers with national broadcast licenses.”
Many reporters, speaking anonymously due to fear of retaliation, admitted they relied on:
Posts by pro-government influencers, Open-source intelligence accounts, Internal pressure to not be outdone in breaking “big” stories.
Disinformation as Strategy? Or Institutional Failure?
A senior Indian national security official, quoted anonymously, did not deny the use of intentional disinformation, stating:
“Sometimes, your own citizens become collateral damage in an information war. That’s the new face of warfare.”
While some military officers were asked to appear on panels and validate the reports, no formal confirmation was issued by India’s defence forces.
TV Newsrooms Under Pressure—and in Denial
Even as field reporters raised red flags, editorial desks went ahead with the stories. A hot mic moment on NDTV captured the internal chaos:
“You ask for updates, then blame us for getting them wrong!”
A rare moment of acknowledgment came when a TV Today anchor on Aaj Tak issued a mild apology:
“Despite our vigilance, the report was incomplete. We regret the error.”
But others stood firm. Times Now Navbharat anchor Sushant Sinha defended his coverage in an 8-minute monologue:
“Every channel made at least one mistake. But none of ours were against the country.”
A Damaging Reflection
As international embarrassment mounted, and India’s image as a credible democracy took a hit, only a handful of channels engaged in any public accountability or editorial correction.
Meanwhile, Pakistani media countered with its own propaganda, claiming Indian airstrikes on Afghanistan and damage to Indian military bases — a narrative led by Pakistan Army’s media wing.
Conclusion: Who Holds the Mic of Truth?
As The Washington Post concludes, the information vacuum created by government silence allowed TV anchors to hijack national discourse, often at the expense of truth.
India, a democracy with one of the largest and most linguistically diverse media ecosystems, must now face an uncomfortable question:
Can it still trust its prime-time news to inform, rather than inflame?
