On his Majesty’s Secret Service: How a Denial Diminished a Feel-Good Story
A single Bloomberg report was enough to trigger a brief but telling media spectacle; one that revealed how easily parts of the Indian news ecosystem slip from caution into chest-thumping certainty, and how reluctantly they walk back when facts intervene.
On the evening of February 4, a Bloomberg story set off an adrenaline rush across several patriotic news portals. The report claimed that India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval had told U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, during a meeting in September 2025, that India “cannot be bullied” in the context of a U.S.–India trade deal. The framing was irresistible: defiance, diplomacy, and a whiff of James Bond–style bravado
The Times of India’s online edition quickly picked up the report. Its headline neither attributed the claim clearly nor signalled caution through quotation marks. While the body of the report mentioned Bloomberg, the headline conveyed certainty. The next day, the New Delhi print edition of the paper republished the Bloomberg story on its Nation page. It was only a single-column item, albeit with a red headline, suggesting a degree of editorial caution unusual for a paper otherwise quick to amplify “positive” national stories.
Notably, The Indian Express and The Hindu stayed away from the story altogether. Whether through reporters checking with their sources in the foreign ministry or editors exercising restraint, both papers resisted the temptation to rehash an unverified assertion. One would like to believe that basic journalistic hygiene verification before amplification prevailed.
Among the papers that did carry the story, The Telegraph gave it the most prominence. It led its Nation page with a report based on Bloomberg, treating the claim at face value. Unlike The Times of India, The Telegraph did not even attribute the assertion in its headline, effectively owning the claim itself.
About twenty-four hours later came a dramatic turn. The Ministry of External Affairs formally rejected the Bloomberg report, stating that it had “absolutely no basis.” Bloomberg, for its part, said it had emailed questions to both the MEA and the Prime Minister’s Office before publishing. Why the Indian government chose not to respond before publication and instead waited until the report had circulated widely remains unclear. The result was predictable: by the time the denial came, the story had already taken flight online.
NDTV World, quoting Bloomberg, ran with the line that Doval had told Rubio India would not be bullied. Social media posts multiplied, confidently asserting that New Delhi had signalled it was prepared to wait out Donald Trump’s presidency rather than cave in to pressure. In Kerala, a right-wing portal embellished the Bloomberg report with sweeping claims of its own, drawing nearly 2.74 lakh views.
Online journalism added another layer of distortion. The Telegraph Online ran a headline suggesting that Doval had been sent to “rescue” U.S.–India ties. Yet the report itself opened with Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal’s remarks about protecting farmers; the purported rescue mission appeared only in the fifth paragraph. This disjunction offered a textbook example of the tension between immediacy and clickbait, where the headline chases attention while the copy follows chronology.
When the government denial finally arrived, some outlets did the right thing. The Telegraph Online reported the rejection plainly. PTI led with the denial. NDTV World also carried it. But in print, the response was far less visible.
The Times of India’s Delhi edition the next day carried two front pages, split across two separate sections. A prominent notice assured readers that both were “equally packed with news and analysis.” They were, but the government denial was nowhere to be easily found. If it was carried at all, it was buried. Readers are not meant to hunt for denials with a magnifying glass.
The Telegraph, which had given the story maximum play initially, did not carry the denial with comparable prominence the following day either. A correction or denial does not have to be the last word. A newspaper may still stand by its reporting. But hiding or downplaying a denial is not an ethical option.
Ironically, editors who unquestioningly amplified the Bloomberg report were soon treated to a public lecture on fake news from Sudhir Chaudhary, no less, speaking on Doordarshan. Few things could be more humiliating for newsrooms than being schooled on credibility by figures they otherwise disdain.
Is there any point in continuing to call this out? The answer lies in the readers themselves. On the very first night the Bloomberg report appeared online, the top comments on The Times of India’s website were sharply sceptical. One reader called it “politically paid news.” Another noted the lack of clarity on the deal despite the triumphalist coverage. Readers, it turns out, often know when they are being taken for granted.
Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond, was himself a journalist. In the film GoldenEye, M memorably tells Bond: “Unlike the American government, we prefer not to get our bad news from CNN.” There is a lesson here for Indian newsrooms too especially those that, in this episode, ended up getting their “bad news” from Doordarshan.
Scepticism, among journalists and readers alike, remains the only real antidote. For the sake of those sceptics, the shouting must go on.
Watch the video presentation of this article with audio and slides here:
