India faced serious issues when a few top international media outlets shred objectivity in their reportage on terror, terrorist organizations, their handlers and financiers. Rohan Giri In the dense fog of war against terror unleashed by India after dastardly killing of 26 tourists in Pahalgam, several international media outlets rushed not to inform, but to build slanted opinion in sync with their agenda-based narratives. From manipulated assumptions to selective outrage, recent reportage by outlets like The Independent, Al Jazeera, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), The Guardian, The Washington Post and The New York Times raises serious questions not just about journalistic standards but the intent behind this slanted coverage of war on terror. Even global news agency like Reuters fell to prey to such narratives. Between May 7 – 11, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) jointly released evidence and detailed press briefings were held showing how India’s calibrated military actions were in direct response to a spate of cross-border terror attacks traced to Pakistan-based jihadi networks. Indian government provided satellite Intelligence, precision strike data and official press briefings were held. But, the international media houses chose to bury facts, ignore or sidestep India’s security concerns, campaign against terror and gave platform to unverifiable Pakistani military propaganda. One big question was the possible agenda these media houses peddled during the conflict? London-based The Independent carried articles in series on terror attacks, military retaliation by India and the two full days of conflict. One piece suggested that Pakistan shot down three Indian Rafale fighter jets. Reuters went a step further and put the number of fighter jets lost by India at five.  The New York Times even claimed that it had evidence. But then, what’s the basis for these dispatches? Well, an old hand at international news agencies averred that the story was blurted  out by American security establishment sleuths that reportedly kept a watch on India’s precision strikes that led to destruction of nine terrorist sites in Pakistan occupied Jammu Kashmir and deep within Pakistan where over 100 terrorists were neutralised. Another version was that Chinese Communist Party apparatus swung into action. Its agenda that apparently was pushed big time. As per these media analysts, China was keen to portray that its military aircraft and missiles in Pakistani armour shot down the Rafale fighter jets. Beijing’s possible intent was to establish its superiority in tactical and technological superiority in a complex war theatre. The word around was that China was simultaneously looking at testing its fighters capabilities and missiles power as against French Dassault built Rafales and Indian missiles. Well, one wonders on ethical part of media ecosystem that comes under close scrutiny in trying war situation. But then, lobbies with geo-political interests and corporates pushing their defence ware also played out. Unverified claims made by Pakistani military as part of its psychological offensive was taken as ‘fact based’ news copy without third-party verification or forensic satellite imagery. Interestingly enough, the big unanswered question was why several international media outlets failed to pass muster by for not juxtaposing India’s official version or basic checks done with South Block that houses defence ministry on Raisina Hill. A story on similar lines filed by The New York Times team in South Asia with screaming headlines that India lost jets. This is contrary to Indian army version that all aircraft returned safely to their base. If Pakistan had such decisive victories shooting down as many as five Indian jets and global media networks reported this as the ‘absolute truth’ where’s the evidence? Did Pakistan present wreckage or pilot log information? Was evidence sought either from US security establishment, Chinese peddlers or Pakistani machinery? Is this objective ‘war reporting’ or part of the larger misinformation campaign launched by Islamabad, its backers and cahoots? Another write up by Independent claimed that India used Israeli-origin Harop drones against Pakistan in a provocative act insinuating recklessness. Again, no proof was offered, no drone telemetry was shown and no assessment was provided of the Harop’s actual precision capabilities. Were these articles meant to inform the reader—or feed into a broader narrative that paints India as a trigger-happy aggressor, irrespective of facts? Al Jazeera went a step further. It aired emotional testimonies from locals in Muridke who disputed India’s intelligence that a mosque in the town had doubled up as a terror training camp. Civilians deserve to be heard in a war situation. But, why was it that these newsmen with huge track record failed to piece together Muridke’s well-documented history as headquarters of Lashkar-e-Taiba. This is not classified information—it is part of the 26/11 Mumbai terror ATF reports and independent research. Why suppress this reality? Who benefits from painting that Muridke was a “victim”? Moving to the next peddler, The Guardian published a humanizing profile of Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir, portraying him as a composed and stabilizing force. What got omitted in the process was Munir’s leadership of Pakistani military that intensified support to jihadist proxies under the guise of “strategic depth”—a doctrine responsible for decades of regional instability. Why romanticize military leadership in a country where elected civilian voices are repeatedly silenced and the army retained unchecked power? Why does The Guardian avoid similar puff pieces for India’s civilian leadership during crisis management? In another article, The Guardian casually reported India’s accusations that Pakistani drones had attacked Indian civilian and military sites. It framed this as part of a “tit-for-tat” cycle—effectively equating defensive action with terrorist provocation. But how can a country’s retaliation after civilian deaths be presented as escalation? Is there no difference between attacking civilians and targeting terror camps based on intelligence? Meanwhile, The Washington Post centered its story on the theme of “misinformation”—but blurred the lines between Pakistan’s unverifiable claims and India’s official statements backed by data and press briefings. Does Washington Post really believe a constitutional democracy’s formal briefings are on par with WhatsApp forwards and anonymous leaks pushed by a military-intelligence complex with a known