The New York Times recently came under fire for its coverage of the Pahalgam Terror Attack in Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025, that claimed 26 tourists’ lives. The coverage was heavily criticised by the United States House Foreign Affairs Committee for describing the brutal attack as the work of ‘militants’. In its report, the NYT was blasted for mischaracterising the nature of the terror attack.
NYT framed the violence as “tourists gunned down,” noting that it was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who termed it a “terror attack.” The House Foreign Affairs Committee publicly rebuked the publication in a post on X and highlighted its misleading reports. “Hey, NYT, we fixed it for you. This was a TERRORIST ATTACK, plain and simple. Whether it’s India or Israel, when it comes to TERRORISM, the NYT is removed from reality,” the committee mocked.
Hey, @nytimes we fixed it for you. This was a TERRORIST ATTACK plain and simple.
Whether it’s India or Israel, when it comes to TERRORISM the NYT is removed from reality. pic.twitter.com/7PefEKMtdq
---Advertisement---— House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority (@HouseForeignGOP) April 23, 2025
Militant Vs Terrorist
The correction followed a heated debate on the distinction between ‘Militants’ and ‘Terrorists’. Militant refers to individuals or people who engage in violence and are often armed. Their actions represent a political, social, or ideological cause and they can be an ordinary civilian, residing within the country or even abroad. Their actions can sometimes include a specific or hidden objectives, such as to create a political reform or resistance.
Terrorist, on the other hand, are individual, group or organizations, who target civilians or non-combatants. They use violence, intimidation and are part of organizations which works towards achieving political, ideological, or religious goals. They kill common civilians to establish fear and coerce governments. A recent example was seen in the recent Pahalgam terror attack which claimed 26 innocent lives.
President Trump Condemns Pahalgam Attack
The controversy surrounding the American publication comes at a time when US President Trump called PM Modi and assured that the United States stands with India in its fight against terrorism and offered all possible support. In a post on X, Trump wrote, “Deeply disturbing news out of Kashmir. The United States stands strong with India against Terrorism. We pray for the souls of those lost, and for the recovery of the injured. Prime Minister Modi, and the incredible people of India, have our full support and deepest sympathies. Our hearts are with you all!”
“Double Standards“
The report has raised a very serious question regarding the motive behind the western media’s misleading content. The incident has sparked anger and frustration among netizens, while the experts and analysts described it as “double standards’. Additionally, it makes one think why NYT used misleading words like ‘militants’ when the responsibility for the brutal killing has already been claimed by the Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy outfit of Lashkar-e-Taiba.
“Legacy Media”
When the United Nations has itself recognised LeT as a terror organisation, why some western publications are using soft or neutral language to feature them. Notably, the US President had labelled this perceived biasness by such media as “legacy media.” Trump along with DOGE Head Elon Musk has taken on the legacy media houses in America from time to time. Their attempt to discredit it is channelled through micro-blogging platform X.
Is Western Media Trying To Whitewash Pakistan?
According to political analysts, the editorial language used in the NYT’s article tried to “whitewash Pakistan.” Following its reporting style, the publication was accused of clearing the Pahalgam Terror attack’s religious targeting. Many pointed out that the western media tried to push a narrative that undermined India’s sovereignty.
Meanwhile, critics argue that using words like ‘militants’, ‘gunmen’, ‘shooting, or ‘India-Administered Kashmir’ diminishes the ideological motive behind the brutal killings. Notably, the survivors of the Pahalgam attack have made it clear that they were asked to separate themselves based on religion before being executed by the terrorists. After such crystal clear details, why can’t the reporting be kept ‘plain’ and ‘simple’?
About Pahalgam Terror Attack
Total 26 tourists were killed and several were injured after terrorists opened fire on a group of tourists in the Baisaran area of Pahalgam on Tuesday. The barbaric incident sent shockwaves across India and around the world, with leaders condemning the attack. As per the latest reports, the responsibility for the brutal killing has been claimed by the Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy outfit of Lashkar-e-Taiba.
What Is TRF?
The TRF was banned by the Central Government in 2024, given its involvement in the recruitment of youth & terrorists through the online medium for furtherance of violent extremism. The group actively indulges in the infiltration of terrorists and smuggling weapons and drugs from Pakistan into Jammu and Kashmir. The terror organisation was formed in 2019 as an outfit proxy of the banned Pakistani Islamist Salafi jihadist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was involved in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks.
