Fog of war or media smokescreen? When truth became a casualty in the Iran vs US-Israel conflict

Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on March 27, 2026

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2026/03/27/fog-of-war-or-media-smokescreen-when-truth-became-a-casualty-in-the-iran-vs-us-israel-conflict

 

The unprovoked attack by Israel and the US on Iran that began on February 28 shows no signs of abating at the time of writing. Instead, it has sucked the entire world into a time of uncertainty.

In this “fog of war”, the biggest crisis, as always, is reliable information. In India, we have experienced this several times, most recently when the government launched attacks on our neighbour Pakistan in May last year with Operation Sindoor. There are no independent sources of information. So, the media basically becomes a megaphone for whatever the government wants to convey. 

 

Any questioning is considered “anti-national”, and this democratic country has laws to deal with such people. Hence, even if there is no direct censorship, the media, especially television news, resorts to self-censorship at best or becomes part of the band of cheerleaders at worst, not just amplifying what the government wants conveyed but also dramatising and exaggerating it. 

In the current conflict in West Asia, the media is facing a greater challenge, especially Western media, as I wrote in my last column. It has a few reporters on the ground in Iran. It relies on other “sources” and casts doubt in different ways on any official pronouncement coming out of Iran.

In contrast, we are led to believe that reports on the destruction in Israel caused by Iranian missiles and drones are factual.

This article in Columbia Journalism Review gives us a different picture. It is particularly interesting because it reflects much of what is happening in the media in India, even when the country is not at war.

According to this article, Israeli military censors control all information coming out of that country. There is pre-censorship of reports about operations conducted by the Israeli military. And the media is expected to report only what is officially conveyed by the Israeli military command.

Here is one example of censorship that might seem obvious until you think about it: 

“The censor doesn’t acknowledge what it has censored but, at times, an observer can make educated guesses about the censor’s work. Take, for example, this piece published by Walla, an Israeli outlet, in August of 2025, during an earlier round of conflict with Iran. The article states that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office at the Kirya, a military headquarters in Tel Aviv, is unusable and requires renovations. The article mysteriously does not state what caused its sudden deterioration.”

The author also cites a 2024 analysis of Israeli media and reports that of around 20,000 articles submitted to Israeli censors, 1,600 were banned and 6,000 were partially censored.

Much like India, there is widespread self-censorship in the country’s media.  According to Gideon Levy, a columnist with the newspaper Haaretz and a critic of Israeli PM Netanyahu, most journalists are obeying the rules. 

To quote from the CJR article:

“Levy told me that military censorship has never been as effective in pushing the government line as the Israeli press’s self-censorship. ‘They are really serving like the PR people of the army,’ Levy said of Israeli journalists. These days, the fact that any piece of reporting was approved by the censor is presented ‘as if it’s a source of pride,’ he observed. ‘Which is pathetic.’ This form of self-censorship reached a peak, Levy said, during the war in Gaza. ‘You couldn’t see anything from Gaza in the Israeli media. Not the children, not the suffering. Nothing. They just didn’t cover Gaza.’ But ‘nobody asked the media not to show it’.”

That last sentence is the most troubling. When the media chooses not to show even that which it has not been specifically asked to show, and surely, in India, we can think of many parallels, as I have repeatedly highlighted in this space.

We are burdened today with an overload of information, not least because US President Donald Trump has mastered the art of always being in the news.  If he is not speaking to the media directly, he is posting on his social media platform, Truth Social.

The latest announcement of a five-day ‘pause’ in the war (although there was no ‘pause’ either of Israel striking places in Iran and continuing its efforts to eliminate Iran’s leadership, or of the Iranians hitting back) is a case in point. The media here and around the world have focused almost entirely on his post: Are the Iranians negotiating with the US, even though they say they are not? Or are the Americans bluffing? 

The average reader is left perplexed and essentially uninformed. Who do you believe? A president who uses social media to make important official announcements? Or the Iranians, whose announcements come from official platforms and who insist they are not negotiating with the US? And given the reality of censorship in Israel and Iran, how do you assess the extent of the damage in both countries during this war?  

A surprising admission during this time of misinformation overload came from Shashank Joshi, the defence editor of The Economist, a conservative magazine not known for sensationalism.

In a post on X, Joshi admitted that the story that Hamas had beheaded children during the attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, was not verified. 

He wrote: “Some of these reports have turned out to be untrue, and yes, I was wrong to be as confident in what was reported as first-hand evidence as I was, particularly given the fog of war in those initial post Oct 7th days.” 

And yet not only did The Economist carry the story, but many other Western media outlets did as well. It’s a story that refuses to die, with most recently Trump, in the context of the war on Iran, repeating that they (meaning the Iranians) beheaded babies. 

Stories like the one about Hamas beheading babies linger because the media that reported such a story do not bother to ensure that the verified version, which puts a lie to this claim, gets as much prominence. If the Western media, which makes such a big deal about publishing only “verified” news, had done due diligence in the immediate aftermath of October 7, surely such a false and terrible story would not have continued doing the rounds.

Unfortunately, the belated mea culpa by The Economist does not alter the damage that has already been done, as this false story has fed into the Islamophobia that continues to prevail around the world.  

For Western and Indian press, people are just footnotes in the performance of war

Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on March 12, 2026

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2026/03/12/for-western-and-indian-press-people-are-just-footnotes-in-the-performance-of-war

 

As I write this on March 12, we have entered the 13th day of the unprovoked war launched by Israel and the United States against Iran. Every day we are inundated with information, opinion, and visuals on this constantly developing war with no end in sight.

Yet, through all this information overload, what is missing is the story of the people who pay the price, the so-called “collateral damage”.

On the very first day of the coordinated strikes by Israel and the US on Iran, we heard news of the targeted strike in Tehran that killed not just Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and members of his family but several top military leaders as well.

Only later were there reports of the devastating strike on a primary school in the southern city of Minab in which an estimated 175 were killed, most of them girls between the ages of 7 and 11.  

This story ought to have been on the front pages of newspapers around the world alongside the killing of Iran’s top leadership. But it was relegated either to the bottom of the front page or an inside page.  

The treatment of what is clearly considered a war crime exemplifies, in many ways, the attitude of Western media about wars that are in lands away from their own frontiers.

Some days after this killing of children, the New York Times did its own forensic investigation and suggested that the school had been struck by a US missile, one of several that had targeted the base of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard close by. Other media organisations like CNN and Al Jazeera also conducted similar investigations and at the end of it, the consensus was that not only was it a US missile but specifically the long-range Tomahawk that struck the school. Yet the New York Times report does not emphasise that the majority of those killed were children.

Also, predictably, none of this information in the American mainstream media made a difference to the narrative of the US government, which either denied it (President Trump even suggested that it was Iran that targeted the school), or avoided an answer saying it was being investigated. The pictures and videos in these reports were quite damning.

For people following the war closely, it was only social media and some reports in the British press and independent digital news platforms like Drop Site that gave the full picture of that atrocity.

Verification or excuse?

Western mainstream media claims that they will not publish anything that they cannot independently verify. Yet routinely, the statements made by the Israeli defence ministry about casualties caused by attacks by Iran, for instance, and earlier during the still on-going military campaign by Israel on Gaza, the same media apparently did not feel this need to “independently” verify.

In fact, a look back at the coverage of the attack on Gaza by Israel since October 2023 shows repeatedly that much of the Western media routinely repeated what Israeli authorities put out. But information coming out of Gaza, such as the death toll including the number of children and women killed, was always qualified by phrases like “according to the Hamas-controlled health authorities”. For readers, perhaps this is not important. But what this clearly signifies is a doubt about the figures whereas the numbers put out by the other side are taken as credible.

Coming back to Minab, if a newspaper like The Guardian in the UK could access videos and photographs to bring home to people the gruesome outcome of this attack, it is inconceivable that other mainstream outlets in the US could not do the same.

The only conclusion one can come to is that the decision not to investigate the human tragedy in Minab was not because of the internet ban in Iran, but because the performance of war was considered more important than the human tragedy.

Think for a moment if on March 1, the front pages of the main newspapers and television channels in the US had carried the pictures of the destruction of the school, that included the colourful backpacks and little limbs of the dismembered girls strewn across the site, what would have been the reaction of the American public?

Or take the photograph that appeared a few days later, of graves being dug to bury these children, used on the front page of the Indian Express in India but not used prominently in major media outlets in the West. What would have been the reaction?

I ask because in the 1970s, at the height of the Vietnam war, it is generally acknowledged that one of the photographs that fuelled the anti-war sentiment in the US was that of a nine-year-old girl running away from her village on which the US-backed South Vietnamese forces had dropped a napalm bomb. Her clothes had been burned off, as was the skin on her back.  

That photograph, now remembered as the “Napalm girl”, repulsed people around the world. Incidentally, a recent documentary The Stringer has raised questions about the credit given for that photograph. It was generally accepted that it was Nick Ut of the Associated Press who took the photograph. Yet according to this investigative documentary, the credit should go to a local stringer.

Indian media’s problem

Often it is one photograph, or a detailed report on the human cost of war, that turns the tide during a war bringing home the reality that the real cost of war is always borne by ordinary people who had nothing to do with starting it.

Yet, it is almost a norm, including here in India, to cover war and conflict almost as if they are video war games or a “performance” as Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes in his column in Indian Express. There are reports about the armaments used like missiles, about successful “precision strikes” on specific targets and the damage. For example, the story of how Israel determined when to attack on Iran was reported in Financial Times and The Guardian, which detailed how Israel’s Mossad and the CIA became certain that top Iranian leaders would gather on Saturday. And now, much of the reporting is about oil supplies, the stock markets, the impact on the economies of various countries etc.

What remains mostly missing is the story of people. Take the instance of the Israeli strikes on the oil storage facilities in Tehran. The result was not just the huge fires that were visible all over the city but the black poisonous smoke that enveloped it, and the acid rain that fell on a city with an estimated population of 10 million. The long-term impact of this one strike on the air, water and soil in and around Tehran and how it will manifest in the health of people, especially the vulnerable, is yet to emerge.

Yet, this too was a story with barely any follow-up. In Western media, the visuals were provided by one reporter from CNN who got permission to report from Iran.  Otherwise, you had to depend again on independent sources or social media to tell you the full story such as this report in Drop Site. 

Only when this war ends will we be able to assess the real impact of Western media’s sanitised reporting on this war on the public in the US and elsewhere. But some general observations can be made even now.

One, that such reporting reminds us that a media that is corporatised, that caters to those who fund it, will decide what is newsworthy based on what they want. This has become a reality not just in the West but also in India.

Secondly, the emphasis on verifying independently has become a useful excuse to play down stories from places where the Western press does not have feet on the ground. Surely, enterprising journalists from Western media can find ways to get stories with the human angle. If such stories do not appear, there must be a reason beyond logistics and so-called verification.

Third, in every country, even those that claim their press is free, the political and social norms that dominate also determine to some extent how journalists report. Perhaps we cannot generalise about a “Western” filter of coverage of this war, but if today you contrast what appears on Western news channels with a network like Al Jazeera, that is based in the region, you can see the difference. 

What is worth noting also is that the Indian media is almost totally dependent today on reports from the Western media. Look at any newspaper over the last 13 days. All the reports on the war are attributed to Western news agencies or newspapers like the New York Times. In fact, it is surprising that Indian media does not use more stories from Al Jazeera that has correspondents in Iran.  

Let me end with this telling quote from the Columbia Journalism Review:

“In January, after the US invaded Venezuela, CJR wrote that a press focus on military maneuvers ‘seemed to come, disappointingly, at the expense of attention to the humanitarian cost of the attack.’ Reporters covering this new war will find, as they have in recent months, that ‘it’s difficult to get voices out of Iran,’ Mohamad Bazzi, the director of the Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies and an associate professor of journalism at New York University, told CJR the other day. NetBlocks, a global internet monitor, reported an ‘internet blackout’ in Iran on Sunday, with national connectivity at 1 percent. But journalists must navigate a moral blackout, too. In the days and weeks to come, as the Iranian people endure more hardship, it’s crucial that the press bear witness to their suffering. As de Pear put it, ‘The reporting of wars seems to have been inverted; what the powerful say and do is being reported first, and the killing of innocents is mentioned in passing, if at all.’”

Media can’t kill India’s colonial mindset if it bows before VIPs

 Broken News

Published in Newslaundry on February 27, 2026

Link: https://www.newslaundry.com/2026/02/27/media-cant-kill-indias-colonial-mindset-if-it-bows-before-vips

The coverage of the recently concluded India AI Summit 2026 in New Delhi tells you more about the status of mainstream media in India than any study or survey. It is also a commentary on how much ordinary Indians accept inconvenience as the norm when international summits are held. 

Glance at the front pages of newspapers during that week. All we saw were photographs of the Prime Minister inaugurating the meeting, with no one around him and yet headlines that spoke of “massive crowds”, the prime minister holding hands with the leading lights in the world of AI (including the awkward non-handholding by two rivals, Sam Altman of OpenAI and Dario Amodei of Anthropic), and more handholding with the world leaders who attended the summit.

It took social media to expose the controversy about Galgotias University, favoured by the government, promoting a robotic dog as their invention when it was actually made in China. This comment by Apoorvanand in Frontline places the controversy in a much-needed perspective. 

Writing about a “culture of managed untruths”, Apoorvanand writes: “We express outrage at Galgotias, yet for over a decade we have breathed an atmosphere saturated with official untruths. We are told that the Prime Minister’s falsehoods are not moral failings but ‘strategic compulsions.’ He must speak to them to mobilise the masses during elections; he must sustain them afterwards to keep ‘national morale’ aloft. The media and the faithful instruct us to ignore the literal word and instead appreciate the ‘intention’ – a supposedly noble desire to inspire the nation through fabrication.”

Such perspectives did not come through in the coverage of the summit where mainstream media stuck to the expected script, of how successful it was and of glowing statements made by visitors and the VIPs.

Only when the discomfort touched the ruling class was there coverage of some chaos at the summit. This was because seven Youth Congress members entered as visitors but then stripped off their shirts to protest the deals being made by the Prime Minister.

In any other functioning democracy, such a protest would not be considered anti-national.  People protest and the form of protest they choose is aimed at making the people they are protesting against uncomfortable. If they conformed to sitting in a quiet corner allocated by the government to hold a protest, how would they be noticed? The Youth Congress protest came as a surprise because in India, rarely do protests go beyond marches and holding placards.

Yet, the outrage, not just from the ruling party but even for those opposed to it was extraordinary.  The media, especially television, went full throttle criticising their favourite target, the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi for encouraging such a “naked” march (the men were not naked, they had only removed their shirts!). The Prime Minister too played up the “nakedness”. The criticism ranged from “not appropriate” to “imperilling the Republic’s image”. Given these reactions, the seven shirtless men made a bigger impact than they had probably anticipated. 

Only a few commentators, like Member of Parliament Manoj Kumar Jha made the valid point that “the choice of the protest site must be understood not as a lapse in judgement but as a calculated act of political communication; an attempt to amplify dissenting idea by inserting it into a space of maximum visibility.” 

And on the criticism that such a protest is embarrassing before an international audience, he points out: “A nation’s reputation is not built on the absence of dissent but on the robustness of its institutions and the openness of its public sphere. Democracies derive legitimacy precisely from their ability to accommodate protest without resorting to repression.” 

In any case, people from outside India who visited the AI summit were not embarrassed by the protest, given that in many Western democracies such performative protests are common.  Instead, what bothered them was what The Economist refers to as India’s “out of control…VIP culture”.

The magazine commented on how the venue of the AI Summit was cleared for the Prime Minister’s visit and how visitors were inconvenienced and had to contend with walking some distance to the venue just because a VIP chose that moment to visit. “There is no public infrastructure so important it cannot be disrupted for VIPs. Crucial roads across India’s already congested cities are routinely blocked to allow swift passage for public servants,” it stated.

And it concluded: “VIP culture is a marker of status. It operates on an ancient principle of India’s highly stratified society: that servant and master must never drink from the same glass, sit at the same table, pass through the same doorway or in any way appear as equals. For centuries that meant the master was supreme. The genius of India’s public ‘servants’ has been to reverse the hierarchy.”

Is it not ironic that when you have a government in power that is obsessing about getting rid of what it calls the “colonial mindset”, and is busy changing names and replacing statues (the latest being the removal of the bust of the architect of Rashtrapati Bhavan, Edward Lutyens and replacing it with the bust of India’s first Governor General, C Rajagopalachari), that it hasn’t occurred to anyone that this “VIP culture” is the new “colonial mindset” that Indians have accepted? 

Practically no media house raises questions about the need for the Prime Minister and even lesser dignitaries to travel with cavalcades that can go up to 66 fossil-fuel burning vehicles, blocking roads sometimes at peak hour, clearing public exhibitions like the AI Summit of all crowds for one person. How does this fit in with the concept of a democracy where the people elected are supposed to be “people’s representatives”?

Referring to the replacing of Lutyens’ bust in Rashtrapati Bhavan, Indian Express makes this relevant point that: “History’s burdens and inheritances are often intertwined and the path to decolonisation has to begin with an intellectual generosity. A mature republic can hold in the same frame both the courage of a statesman and the aesthetic bequest of a colonial architect, whose vision, however imperial its patronage, is an indelible part of India’s urban landscape.”

Also do read this oped by Sachi Satapathy in Deccan Herald that best sums up the irony of a country claiming it wants to end the “colonial mindset” while blindly accepting another: “The political class has written one set of laws for India and lives by another. The Constitution does not say ‘We, the Politicians.’ It says, ‘We, the People.’ Every road closed for a ministerial motorcade is an act of constitutional inversion – a daily declaration that the elected servant has become the permanent lord.”

India’s “colonial mindset”, however we choose to understand it, will not end as long as mainstream media continues to unquestioningly accept a “VIP culture” that ensures that these “permanent” lords get uncritical coverage.