'This was a terrorist attack': US House panel slams NYT's Kashmir coverage

NYT faces backlash from the US House Foreign Affairs Committee for calling terrorists 'militants' in its report on the Pahalgam attack that left 26 people dead

The New York Times (NYT) has come under fire from the United States House Foreign Affairs Committee over its coverage of the recent terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam, where 26 people were brutally gunned down after reportedly being asked to prove their allegiance to Islam. 

The United States House Foreign Affairs Committee, which oversees US foreign policy legislation and national security matters involving foreign countries, condemned the coverage for what it described as mischaracterising the nature of the attack.

 

The assault was claimed by The Resistance Front, a Pakistan-based terror outfit and a proxy of the UN-designated terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). However, The New York Times (NYT) reported the incident using the term “militants” in its headline, triggering sharp backlash for allegedly downplaying the nature of the attack. 

 

 

In its report, The New York Times referred to the violence as a “shooting,” noting that it was Prime Minister Narendra Modi who labelled it a “terror attack.” This framing drew immediate criticism.

 

The House Foreign Affairs Committee took to social media to publicly rebuke The New York Times for what it called misleading reportage. Sharing a screenshot of the original article, the Committee posted: “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 even shared a mock-up of the NYT headline with a correction, stating, “Hey, NYT, we fixed it for you.”

 

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

— House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority (@HouseForeignGOP) April 23, 2025

 

Terrorism vs militancy: Why the language matters

 

The debate centres around the distinction between “militants” and “terrorists.” While militancy typically refers to armed resistance or insurgency with domestic or political goals, terrorism implies the use of calculated violence, often supported externally, to instil fear and destabilise a nation.

 

India, in an official statement, said the Cabinet Committee on Security, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was briefed on the attack’s cross-border linkages. The government emphasised that the assault followed the successful conduct of elections in the Union Territory and was an attempt to derail economic growth and normalcy in the region.

 

“In the briefing to the Cabinet Committee on Security, the cross-border linkages of the terrorist attack were brought out,” the statement read. 

 

Double standards in Western media coverage?

 

Experts and analysts have repeatedly called out what they describe as “double standards” in Western media’s reporting on global conflicts — particularly in South Asia. While Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) is globally recognised as a terror organisation, including by the United Nations, its offshoots are still often described in Western publications using neutral or softened language.

 

A recurring criticism is the tendency of Western outlets, including The New York Times, to describe attacks in Kashmir as “shootings” or “militant actions,” whereas similar events in other regions are labelled unequivocally as terrorism.

 

US President Donald Trump had labelled such media as “legacy media” — a term now frequently used by analysts to highlight perceived bias.