How selective narratives and propaganda distort public opinion, conceal human-rights violations and undermine international Understanding
The rapid development of information technology during the 1980s and 1990s, followed by the digital revolution of the 2000s, transformed the world virtually into a global village.
News now travels across continents within seconds, creating unprecedented opportunities for awareness and public participation. Yet this technological progress has also magnified the influence of misinformation, sensationalism and politically motivated propaganda.
A free, independent and sceptical media is an essential pillar of a healthy society. Its responsibility is to communicate verified facts, scrutinise those in power, expose wrongdoing and promote informed public debate.
Unfortunately, when journalism is driven by ideological loyalties, sectarian prejudices or political interests, it can distort reality, damage reputations and manipulate public perceptions of entire nations and communities.
The danger lies not merely in publishing falsehoods but also in selectively presenting facts condemning one government relentlessly while overlooking comparable or more serious abuses by another.
Saudi Arabia: Military Strength, Diplomacy and Accountability
Saudi Arabia offers an important example of why countries should be assessed through a comprehensive examination of their conduct rather than a single narrative.
The 2018 killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul remains a grave human-rights controversy. A UN Special Rapporteur concluded that the killing constituted an extrajudicial execution for which the Saudi state was responsible.
The crime and the unresolved questions of accountability must not be minimised or dismissed. Eight years later, the case continues to feature in public discourse, particularly among sections of Muslim community in the Indian subcontinent, many of whom regard Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) as culpable, a charge he has denied.
A fair assessment should consider Saudi Arabia’s economic transformation, regional diplomacy, military capabilities and efforts to pursue negotiated solutions to conflicts. Under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), Saudi Arabia has undertaken ambitious programmes to diversify its economy, attract investment and expand social and economic opportunities. These developments deserve objective evaluation.
Saudi Arabia is also a major regional military power 25th in global ranking of 145 countries possessing substantial financial resources, modern aircraft, advanced weaponry and sophisticated defence systems.
Its military strength gives it considerable capacity to conduct operations, but for a responsible mature and civilised country diplomacy and a peaceful negotiated solution is the foremost priority.
During the recent US–Israel–Iran conflict, Saudi Arabia made sustained diplomatic efforts to persuade the United States to pursue a peaceful, negotiated settlement.
Riyadh also repeatedly assured Tehran that it doesn’t permit and would never allow its territory to be used by any country to launch attacks against Iran. Despite these assurances, Iran continued to launch drones and missiles at Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations, challenging their sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Following the initial attacks, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian acknowledged the situation and apologised to Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. Nevertheless, the attacks continued, raising serious questions about the credibility of Iran’s assurances and its commitment to regional peace and stability.
Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and the other affected countries, particularly Riyadh, demonstrated considerable restraint, prioritising regional stability over escalation.
Military Might and the Civilian Cost
The Saudi-led intervention in Yemen demonstrates the complex relationship between military superiority, political objectives and humanitarian responsibility. Houthi attacks against Saudi territory and other regional targets have raised serious concerns about security and sovereignty of SA. Today on Oct 10, 2026 when I am writing this article the Iran backed militant group Houthi, attacking the civilian infrastructure in Saudi Arabia killing innocent civilians.
A significant example of Saudi Arabia’s restraint came in 2018, when Saudi-led forces were reportedly approaching Sana’a, Yemen’s densely populated capital. A full-scale ground assault to capture the city risked causing extensive civilian casualties.
Under the instructions of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi forces reportedly withdrew shortly before reaching the capital to avert civilian bloodshed. This decision, if assessed in its full military and humanitarian context, illustrates the importance of prioritising civilian lives over immediate military gains.
The broader principle remains important: military superiority does not require the indiscriminate exercise of force. A powerful state can demonstrate strategic judgement by weighing the likely human cost of an operation against its military objectives.
Under international humanitarian law, even unintended civilian casualties may raise questions of legality if the applicable rules of distinction, proportionality and precaution are violated.
Iranian Regime
Since the 1979 Revolution, Iran has frequently presented its political system in the language of Islamic principles, revolutionary legitimacy and resistance to foreign domination.
However, the treatment of political opponents, prisoners and minorities must be judged against the universal principles of justice, due process and human dignity. These standards must apply equally to all governments, whether they claim secular, democratic, revolutionary or religious legitimacy.
Iran’s post-revolutionary history contains deeply troubling episodes that deserve sustained attention. In February 1979, revolutionary authorities executed several senior officials of the former monarchy, including Nematollah Nassiri, Mehdi Rahimi, Reza Naji and Manouchehr Khosrodad. The proceedings raised grave concerns about the absence of fair trials and basic legal safeguards.
Judge Sadegh Khalkhali, associated with the early revolutionary courts, became notorious for summary proceedings and severe sentences. Public executions and the extensive use of capital punishment subsequently became enduring features of Iran’s penal system, attracting repeated international criticism.
The 1988 Mass Executions
One of the darkest chapters occurred in 1988, when thousands of political prisoners were secretly executed following proceedings commonly associated with ad hoc death commissions.
The victims included members and supporters of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), as well as prisoners affiliated with leftist opposition groups. Many were subjected to brief interrogations without the safeguards of a fair judicial process.
Amnesty International has placed the minimum estimated death toll at approximately 5,000, although the precise number remains disputed. Many victims were buried in unmarked graves, and the continuing anguish of their families reflects the unresolved demand for truth, accountability and the disclosure of burial sites.
These events raise a fundamental question: can a government credibly claim to uphold religious justice while denying prisoners basic legal protections and concealing the fate of those it executes ? The same scrutiny must apply to Iran’s extensive use of capital punishment, including in drug-related cases. Neither religious authority nor national security can justify arbitrary executions or the denial of fundamental rights.
The Violent Suppression of Protests
The crackdown on protests in Iran in January 2026 provides a more recent and disturbing illustration of the consequences of unchecked state power.
Protests that began on 28 December 2025 over economic hardship and deteriorating living conditions spread across the country. As demonstrations intensified, Iranian security forces, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), used firearms and other force against protesters and bystanders.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented unlawful use of force, shootings and mass killings. Human Rights Watch reported on 16 January that thousands of protesters and bystanders were believed to have been killed, while restrictions on communications concealed the full scale of the violence. Amnesty International subsequently reported that Iran’s authorities had acknowledged 3,117 deaths during the unrest. While according to a number of independent International agencies the death toll was much higher than the figures accepted by the Iranian authorities.
The central issue is nevertheless unmistakable. A government has a duty to protect public safety, but it cannot treat peaceful dissent as a licence for lethal repression. The use of deadly force against unarmed protesters, arbitrary detention and attempts to conceal abuses demand independent investigation and accountability.
A state that claims to govern in the name of religion or justice must be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable and politically powerless citizens not merely by its rhetoric.
Media’s Double Standards
The examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran demonstrate why consistent standards are indispensable to responsible journalism. A commentator who highlights Saudi Arabia’s abuses while ignoring documented repression in Iran is applying a double standard.
This is particularly important for audiences in the Indian subcontinent, where religious sentiment and sectarian loyalties can make people susceptible to one-sided narratives about distant conflicts. Repeated misinformation can encourage uncritical admiration for governments or hostility towards entire communities.
Responsible journalism must distinguish verified facts from allegations, historical evidence from political interpretation and criticism of governments from prejudice against their populations.
Truth Must Prevail Over Propaganda
Ironically, the very people who condemn Saudi Arabia over the reported killing of a journalist, often appear willing to exonerate the Iranian regime for the mass killing of its own citizens on Iranian soil, despite reports of casualties running into the hundreds of thousands. Such selective outrage raises serious questions about the consistency and credibility of their commitment to human rights and justice.
Digital connectivity has made information readily available, but access to information does not guarantee understanding. When reporting becomes selective, sensationalist or dishonest, it can transform public opinion into an instrument of manipulation. The remedy is not to defend one government against criticism or to condemn another without qualification. It is to insist upon the same standards of evidence, fairness and accountability everywhere.
No country should be shielded from scrutiny because of its military power, religious identity, revolutionary history or diplomatic ambitions. Equally, no nation or community should be condemned through a distorted narrative that conceals relevant facts.
The true measure of responsible journalism is not its ability to manufacture admiration or hatred, but its commitment to truth, fairness, accountability and human dignity. When the media abandons these principles, it ceases to inform society and risks becoming an instrument of propaganda with consequences extending far beyond the newsroom.