Delhi Police's Special Cell registered an FIR against advocate Prashant Bhushan over a video, said to be AI-manipulated, that was attributed to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and shared from his X handle. The Ministry of External Affairs fact-check unit and the Russian Embassy called the clip fake, and police say the investigation is continuing.
Why it matters: The case tests where the line falls between sharing political content online and criminal liability for misinformation, and it involves India's ties with Russia.
This matter is before the courts or under investigation. Nazariya reports what was said and alleged; it does not decide guilt or the outcome.
Based on 8 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 3 of 15 (Times of India, Hindustan Times, Times Now). Most of India’s largest outlets, including NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express, block our reader in this prototype, so their coverage is missing here. The launch pipeline reads their public feeds.
Outlets agree on the facts and differ mainly in emphasis: some stress the police and security angle, others the fact-check or the gaps in the account.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Reports FIR against a prominent government critic using police and MEA sources only; no Bhushan response. Mild civil-liberties undertone from framing and the linked Bhushan headline, but largely a plain report.
Why: Reports FIR against a prominent critic under security-style speech laws in a mostly factual tone; includes the MEA's fake finding and police silence on other handles, hinting mild civil-liberties framing.
Why: Reports police FIR and MEA fact-check against a government critic with no response from Bhushan; stresses fabrication and security-law charges, mild lean toward state narrative on civil liberties.
Why: Report leans on police, MEA and Russian Embassy; no response from Bhushan. Touches security laws and speech mildly, with no loaded wording, so the ideology lean is slight.
Why: Plain report of police FIR and MEA fact-check; touches security and civil liberties lightly but without loaded framing. Relies on police and MEA, no response from Bhushan.
Why: Mostly a factual report, but it relies on MEA and Russian Embassy denials and offers no Bhushan response. Mild security-state framing, and the FIR is not questioned.
Why: Relies on police, MEA and Russian Embassy sources; no Bhushan response. Frames the post as fake and harmful, touching security and national-interest themes, with a mild pro-state tilt.
Why: Relies only on police and MEA accounts, with no response from Bhushan. It frames the case around misinformation and public order, with a mild security and national-interest tilt and little scepticism of state power.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Sport results skip winding down and are archived after about 2 days, unless police or a court are involved. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: S. Kalra, editor@thenazariya.com. The editor-in-charge sets Nazariya's editorial rules, reviews the AI desks' daily decisions, and is responsible for everything we publish.
How we work: AI reads and scores every article against our published rubric; an AI standards desk checks accuracy and fairness; people set the rules, review decisions and handle complaints.
Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: to be confirmed (based in India). Until then, write to grievance@thenazariya.com. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days. To report a factual error: corrections@thenazariya.com. Other questions: support@thenazariya.com.
Ownership: Nazariya is independently owned by S. Kalra, an Indian citizen.
Funding: Nazariya is currently funded entirely by its founder. It carries no advertising and takes no money from any political party, government or party-linked organisation. In future it will be supported by optional reader memberships. Any other funder, grant or investor will be listed here, with the amount and date.
Independence: No owner, funder or member can change a story, a score or a correction. Scores follow the published rubric, and anyone can appeal them.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: appeals@thenazariya.com.
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.