🎭 OpIndia vs. LiveLaw: How Misinformation Got Exposed! 🕵️♀️❌
- MediaFx
- Dec 11, 2024
- 2 min read
TL;DR: OpIndia’s Editor-in-Chief, Nupur Sharma, accused #LiveLaw of spreading misinformation about a Supreme Court hearing involving activist Sharjeel Imam. However, LiveLaw’s Managing Editor, Manu Sebastian, debunked the claims, exposing OpIndia’s misrepresentation of facts. The fiasco has sparked demands for a public apology and raised concerns over the spread of fake news.
The "Fact-Check" That Backfired 🤦♀️
On October 22, OpIndia published a “fact-check” accusing LiveLaw of deliberately misleading the public about a Supreme Court hearing involving Sharjeel Imam.
OpIndia claimed:
The case LiveLaw tweeted about wasn’t related to the Delhi Riots conspiracy.
The hearing wasn’t before Justices Bela Trivedi and SC Sharma, as mentioned in LiveLaw’s post.
But LiveLaw quickly fact-checked the fact-checker, revealing that two petitions by Sharjeel Imam were listed that day:
Consolidation of FIRs, cited by OpIndia.
A bail plea in the Delhi riots case, which LiveLaw accurately reported.
Manu Sebastian called OpIndia’s report “ridiculous and laughable,” accusing the platform of twisting facts to attack LiveLaw’s credibility.
OpIndia’s Revisions: Doubling Down or Damage Control? 🔄
After Sebastian’s rebuttal, OpIndia updated its story but stuck to its narrative. Changes included:
New headline: From "LiveLaw spreads fake news" to "LiveLaw misrepresents Sharjeel Imam hearing."
An acknowledgment that a petition was listed before Justice Bela Trivedi—but with accusations that LiveLaw didn’t clarify it was a “fresh petition.”
Sebastian dismissed these changes as “eyewash,” saying:
“My head started spinning reading their response. This is a matter of public record anyone can verify with a Ctrl+F!”
Why This Matters 🌐
Targeted Misinformation:This isn’t the first time OpIndia has targeted LiveLaw, a platform renowned for its legal reporting. Sebastian stated, “This was a serious allegation that claimed we reported on something that didn’t happen.”
Erosion of Trust:Cases like this highlight how selective truth-telling can sow confusion, especially when credible institutions are attacked.
Fake News Battle:With misinformation rampant, ensuring fact-checkers and journalists aren’t discredited by false claims is critical for public trust.
What Happens Next? 🛡️
LiveLaw has demanded:
A public apology from OpIndia.
Withdrawal of the contentious article.
If ignored, they plan to pursue legal remedies.
Your Take? 🗣️
Do incidents like this make you question the credibility of fact-checking platforms? Should platforms spreading misinformation face stricter accountability? Let us know in the comments!
