Indo-Pak war: Journalism vs jingoism

Greek dramatist Aeschylus, who died in 456 BC, said, "In war, truth is the first casualty".

Later, in 1917, U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson, made the same observation by saying "The first casualty when war comes is truth."

In a parallel universe, where sanity isn't lost to jingoism and anchors aren't screeching war cries, the media on both sides of the border would attempt to act as a communication bridge and simmer down tensions in a volatile situation.

Unfortunately, the media landscape during the very recent conflict between India and Pakistan revealed the exact opposite. Journalism -- which should have served as a beacon of truth, context, and restraint -- instead descended into a pit of misinformation, war-mongering, and propaganda. The loudest voices were not those of facts, but of fury.

Truth, predictably, was the first casualty.

Good journalism relies on facts, not fiction. It questions authority, investigates claims, and seeks to present multiple perspectives. In times of conflict, when emotions are high and the stakes even higher, the media's responsibility is not to add fuel to the fire but to seek clarity and reduce misinformation. It must try to obtain both sides of the story, particularly when misreporting can trigger panic, miscalculation, and catastrophic escalation.

According to the Handbook on Conflict-Sensitive Journalism published by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, the media in conflict zones must build consensus, correct misconceptions, and humanize the "enemy." Yet during the recent India-Pakistan military confrontation, both countries' media establishments did the opposite -- actively spreading misinformation, dehumanising the other side, and amplifying state propaganda without scrutiny.

Now, let's us see how Indian media compromised the truth.  The incident of downing of fighter jets was totally absent in mainstream Indian media for 24 hours when the entire world was talking over the issue. The Hindu, reputed Daily posted it on its online but that was vanished later.

Following Pakistan's reported air raids and the confirmed downing of Indian jets on May 8, Indian mainstream media was quick to spin the narrative. Before facts could even be verified, television channels had launched their "Breaking News" marathons, complete with explosive visuals, patriotic music, and hashtags like #IndiaStrikesBack and #PakistanPayBack.

Several Indian outlets went so far as to report entirely fabricated victories. Made-up airstrikes, false claims of Pakistani casualties, and exaggerated narratives of Indian military dominance flooded TV screens and social media feeds. The tone was not investigative or cautious -- it was triumphalist, dismissive, and in some cases, disturbingly gleeful about the prospect of war.

This wasn't journalism; it was theatre.

Many media outlets appeared more interested in covering the loss of face associated with the downing of India's much-hyped Rafale fighter jet -- embroiled in domestic corruption scandals -- than in verifying what had actually occurred. Just as international reports were confirming the shooting down of Indian jets, a tidal wave of Indian media content aimed to save face: through exaggerated victories, rhetorical aggression, and a whitewashing of military setbacks.

It begs the question: was all this just about ratings? Maybe. But it is more likely part of a psychological operation to rally domestic support, distract from uncomfortable truths, and maintain political dominance. What was left behind was not just the truth, but credibility -- both domestically and in the eyes of the international community.

If Indian media was busy scripting imaginary victories, Pakistani media was busy crafting its own reality. Numerous fabricated claims made rounds on social media and state-friendly media platforms.

Several Pakistani social media accounts claimed that the Pakistan Army had intercepted an Indian drone in Gujranwala. The image circulated with the claim was exposed as fake by India's Press Information Bureau (PIB); it had been lifted from an unrelated, older event.

In another case, viral videos emerged claiming a Pakistani strike had destroyed a military base in Amritsar. These were soon debunked -- the footage in question was from a 2024 wildfire, and had nothing to do with the conflict.

Even old war footage was recycled. A 2019 video showing Pakistani soldiers raising a white flag to retrieve the bodies of fallen comrades was repackaged to claim it was Indian soldiers at the LoC doing the same. The aim? To portray weakness, humiliation, and moral victory -- not truth.

The Pakistani media's eagerness to push state narratives -- even when false -- was matched only by its failure to critically assess the cost of such disinformation. Instead of responsibly informing citizens and urging caution, the media whipped up nationalistic pride and falsely framed events to favour psychological dominance.

Pakistan, like India, has suffered from state-controlled narratives being echoed uncritically by most of its major media houses. This symbiotic relationship -- where the government uses the media for its propaganda goals, and the media rides the wave of nationalism for viewership -- creates a dangerous echo chamber.

Misreporting in wartime doesn't just distort public opinion -- it can kill. In an era of nuclear weapons, misinformation can lead to catastrophic decisions taken in the heat of public pressure. It reduces the space for diplomatic de-escalation and encourages tit-for-tat responses that can spiral out of control.

Additionally, both governments and media houses appear oblivious to the potential backlash when the truth eventually emerges. A public that has been fed a steady diet of triumphant lies will eventually realise it has been misled. This not only damages the credibility of the media but also weakens public trust in institutions and sows long-term cynicism.

The May 8-9 conflict is now etched as a textbook example of media failure during wartime. Yet, it must also serve as a wake-up call. Media in both countries must return to the foundational principles of journalism: to inform, not inflame; to verify, not amplify; and to speak truth to power, not echo it.

Journalists must ask: Whom do we serve -- the people or the powers that be? In war, the cost of getting it wrong is not limited to ratings or reputation. It is measured in lives, in lost opportunities for peace, and in hardened narratives that may take generations to undo.

Both Indian and Pakistani citizens deserve better. They deserve to be informed truthfully and responsibly, especially when their lives and futures may hang in the balance.

As Friedrich Naumann Foundation's Handbook on Conflict-Sensitive Reporting states, the media must be a force for clarity, peace-building, and empathy during conflicts. That begins with humanising the other side, not dehumanising them. It begins with seeking facts, not fabrications. And it begins with accepting that war is not a spectacle to be rated, but a tragedy to be avoided.

In this war of narratives, let us not forget that truth must never be collateral damage.

mirmostafiz@yahoo.com