Since the split in 1947, wars have been waged between India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir. There have been many skirmishes, scuffles, rampages, threats, airstrikes, and escalations in addition to open military conflict, particularly following the end of the war in 1999. The Middle East and South Asia's bloodiest conflict with the longest history is said to be the Kashmir dispute. In her book "Kashmir: A Tragedy of Errors," author Tavleen Singh names national and regional media as one of the key agents in the continuation of the Kashmir Conflict, in addition to numerous other justifications.

According to scholars, as people rely on the media for news and information, they (the media) have a significant impact on how people think about and perceive numerous disputes, conflicts between nations, groups, and individuals, as well as other international issues. Conflicting parties employ the media for their wartime propaganda since they are fully aware of this truth.

Studies have revealed that the media in both countries over-reports war and bloodshed, while reporting on the Kashmir Conflict. They also show that Kashmiris, who are the real parties and victims, are not taken into account, that India and Pakistan hold the supreme positions in the conflict, that only  military aspects of the conflict are reported, that similarities between the two sides are not taken into account, and that, in the end, violent means are valued over peaceful ones. Given that media coverage has a substantial impact on public policies, and shapes people's perceptions, it is important to subject media content to rigorous analysis. Both Pakistan and India have vibrant media landscapes, with print media playing a particularly important role in daily life.

Numerous studies have been done on how the Kashmir Conflict was covered by Indian, Pakistani, and worldwide media. Using "Partial Journalism" as a methodological technique, Danish Gadda contrasted the local media in Kashmir with the national newspapers of India. The author contends that the national media ignores the conflicting voices from Kashmir Valley in order to support the Indian official narrative.

‘Truth became the first causality as media content was engineered from the power corridors to suit a particular ideology’ .

The majority of the reporting on the events in Kashmir focuses mainly on simply reporting on state sources and news releases from the armed forces, omitting to inform the audience about the general dissatisfaction among Kashmiris against the Indian government. These reasons, for instance, are illustrated by one well-known case. Large-scale flooding from an overflowing Jhelum river devastated Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian-administrated Kashmir, in 2014. Over 280 people died as a result of the tragic and fatal accident, which also ravaged the area's infrastructure. The media coverage that followed was quite illuminating regarding the aforementioned narratives. The Indian air force, partially charged with the rescue and clean-up operations, began airlifting journalists so that they could take aerial photographs of the disaster area, according to a Kashmiri journalist, “ only [under the condition that they] produced a story favoring the army and the air force, and covering their relief efforts as their principal story”. As the journalist mentioned in Khalid’s review of the event explained, “it seemed that they [media outlets from New Delhi] were reporting for the military and not for the flood victims”.

The overt demagogy found in some Indian media sites and the factual inaccuracies traditionally associated with the term "fake news" are not what stand out when one examines how the mainstream international media has covered the Kashmir conflict. It is an unofficial narrative that supports the idea that an illegal Indian occupation is in charge of a deteriorating situation that has never been worse. This informal narrative also contributes to the obfuscation of important aspects of the conflict that are equally deserving of media attention as the actions of the Indian security forces. [4]As Barkha Dutt, an award-winning Indian journalist, explained in a Washington Post column where she treated this very issue, foreign media has relied on “ sweeping generalizations and a complete absence of historicity and context” in a lot of their reporting on Kashmir. She argued that western media outlets often, especially in light of the 2019 revocation of article 370, paint the picture that the situation has never been worse. She pointed to examples of outlets like Business Insider covering the communications blackout imposed by India in Kashmir as if it was something new, where in reality, the same had happened several times before after infamous militants had been killed in 2016.

While it may be true and an important part of the story, foreign media frequently concentrate their reporting on telling the tale of a harsh occupation by Indian security forces while omitting crucial details. For instance, during the August riots, numerous media reports claimed that the Indian military was capturing and torturing children. However, global media did not adequately disclose that many of those minors were being used as human shields by terrorists from the Lashkar-e-Taliban, who are backed by Pakistan.

In her article titled "Role of Peace Journalism in Indo-Pak Relation: A case study of Aman Ki Aasha"[5] , Hafsa Khalid argues that the instability in this region, brought on by the two countries' unresolving conflict, has stoked fears of an impending nuclear conflict, with the warmongering media feeding the flames. She makes reference to how both nations' media have failed to create a peaceful climate in the region and asserts that Peace Journalism is the only solution to the concern over coming conflict and instability. Only objective, unbiased, and peace-oriented media, according to Khalid, can help redeem the tense political relationship into the forgotten history of Hindu-Muslim unity and fill the political and communication gaps, allowing the people of the two nations to hear each other's cry for peace.