1n One of the quality issues plaguing journalism today is, that in a technology enabled world, most editors are obsolete fossils, who have neither the mental or financial resources to verify stories. We had a broadsheet running concocted stories of a major Chinese occupation
2n in central ladakh basic due diligence from the editors would’ve ensured the correspondent would’ve been asked to provide proof of, or commit to a definition of the LAC. Second, stuff should have spent the basic 50-100 USD to get satellite confirmation of the story. They failed
3n on both counts the journalist then spent all his time, claiming the Galwan tragedy retrospectively validated his claims of an occupation & proceeded to shift the LAC at least 3 times. Then we had a story by a known terror sympathiser, claiming terrorists had come deep into
4n southern ladakh. A BJP councillor promptly went to the border and clicked a picture of him in territory that was meant to be 18 kilometres inside Chinese occupation. The story was never retracted, but after that nobody touched the story again. Then same paper ran a story of an
5n 18 kilometre ingress in northern Ladakh. Satellite imagery proved that all the Chinese structures there had come up during the UPA period 2006-2008. Again the story was silently buried. Then we had a known dunce - who’s a running joke even among her own brood - ran a story
6n on how the Chinese released waters to flood Indian soldiers during the fateful Galwan clash. Satellite imagery from 13.00 the next day along with moisture scans disproved the entire story. Not surprising because the same paper ran a Rafale story on “exclusive documents” that
7n were either deliberate forgeries at worst, or as is more likely grave editorial oversight given they forgot to examine the irregularly and strategically hidden file notings on the sides. Moral of the story? Lacking editorial standards, clulessness on technology & a throughly
8n unprofessional willingness to let their favourites run concocted crap without so much as a basic fact check or even minimal due diligence. These would be the same editors exhorting “standards” & “transparency” from others. Like they say, empty vessels make the most noise
Chinese not terrorists 😔
