'Western media pro-Pakistan, cannot be trusted': British expert blasts anti-India narrative on Op Sindoor

British political commentator David Vance has come down hard on Western media coverage of Operation Sindoor, calling it “absolutely atrocious and biased in favour of Pakistan” and accusing it of ignoring India's legitimate security concerns. "The operation was long overdue and it needed to happen. The operation has been pretty successful as best as I can understand," Vance said in an interview with ANI. "I think this was India striking a blow for civilisation, actually; it was a lot more than just a conflict with Pakistan. I consider Pakistan to be a failed state, a terrorist state, and a terrorist incubator. It was good that India moved against it."

Vance was especially critical of how Western outlets portrayed the conflict. "The Western media's coverage has been absolutely atrocious and biased in favour of Pakistan. It has ignored the obvious success that India had. I was disappointed that President Trump intervened and tried to get a ceasefire. There was no need for a ceasefire. Western media is unfair on so many things. It cannot be trusted. The BBC should be banned in India. It is so anti-India and pro-Pakistan."

Vance further warned of China's strategic designs in the region. "China operates Pakistan as a proxy in the region. So, China cannot be trusted in any regard, which is something I would have thought Donald Trump should have understood. And so it would be far better if Donald Trump understood that by supporting India, India is a bulwark for the West against China. So, the more we can help India against Pakistan, the better, because China has vested interests with Pakistan. And those interests don't coincide with India's best wishes. And I don't think they coincide with the West."

Echoing these concerns, documentary filmmaker Gajanan Khergamker said the coverage by global media giants such as CNN, The New York Times, BBC, and Reuters portrayed India as the aggressor. He noted that key context—like the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, where 26 Hindu tourists were killed—is often "glossed over."

"India's claim that the strikes targeted terror camps linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba is overshadowed by unverified reports of civilian deaths," Khergamker said. "This echoes similar patterns seen during the 2019 Balakot airstrike and the 2008 Mumbai attacks, where foreign media amplified Pakistan’s denials and marginalised India’s evidence."

He attributed this bias to Cold War-era strategic preferences where Pakistan was favoured as a Western ally. “This legacy persists through selective framing, reliance on Pakistan-based stringers with limited access, and an inclination to cast India’s actions—often calibrated to avoid nuclear escalation—as reckless,” Khergamker added. “Meanwhile, Pakistan’s failure to dismantle terror networks is rarely interrogated.”

While early coverage from CNN, NYT, and the Washington Post echoed Pakistan's narrative, that began to shift following the release of satellite imagery and open-source analysis. The New York Times acknowledged that "India appears to have had a clear edge" in its targeting of Pakistan's military infrastructure, saying the strikes "shifted from symbolic shows of force to attacks on each other’s defense capabilities." It confirmed visual damage to aircraft hangars at Bholari air base, calling the attacks "limited and precise in nature."

The Washington Post went further, citing satellite imagery showing that Indian strikes damaged six Pakistani airfields, including three hangars, two runways, and a pair of mobile air force buildings during Operation Sindoor.