Is establishing the truth a problem during a conflict?

Parallel to the recent escalation of military tensions between India and Pakistan, misinformation and disinformation surged online, making it increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish fact from fiction. Many media outlets published sensational stories riddled with unverified claims, and disseminated fake pictures and videos. Jingoism often drove the public response. Is establishing the truth a problem during a conflict? Nirupama Subramanian and Pratik Sinha discuss the question in a conversation moderated by Mandira Moddie. Edited excerpts:

- 

Are there any rules for reporting during times of military conflict? How do we balance national security implications versus the public's right to know?

Nirupama Subramanian: Indian media houses have not framed rules for coverage of conflicts. This is particularly sad given that independent India has had so many military conflicts with Pakistan and China. We have also had internal conflicts — Maoist insurgencies, secessionist movements, and the militancy in Kashmir, which has elements of war because of the cross-border nature of the violence. The only rules we have are the basic rules for journalism — your responsibility is to inform the public with accuracy, verify your information from the government and the adversary, and collect information from multiple sources. These are all ways to get as close to the truth as possible. In other words, this is what is meant by being objective. Many people understand objective to be the same as neutral. You can take sides and still be objective, right? And these are all pathways to that. Then, of course, the commitment to your viewers and readers that you don’t spread misinformation — at least not knowingly. You have to know the difference between propaganda and real (information). During a conflict, there is an element of national security — you're not supposed to give out troop movement. But during conflicts, especially in those that involve your own country versus another, these rules are the first casualty. In India, we have seen this loss of objectivity even when the government battles sections of its own citizens — in Kashmir or in the north-east or in the Maoist insurgency-hit States. Journalists become instruments through which the government wants to keep the national morale up. And they just drop their commitment of informing the public. Loyalty to the nation is demanded by the government. The danger is that this can also become loyalty to those in power.