Good journalism requires good hygiene. That means you have to write clean copy and provide the audience with a clear picture of the events you report. You have to cut out all the frills, the speculation, the ‘extras’—which might make your reporting more lively and interesting to read, but don’t always give readers accurate, factual, verified information.
When you’re reporting on something as devastating, sensitive—and immediate—as the Air India-171 crash last month, it is crucial to remember the value of good journalism, amid the endless theories on the reasons for the accident.
This Readers Editor column considers ThePrint’s approach to its reporting on AI-171 and the subsequent preliminary findings of the investigation by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AIBB) released on 12 July 2025.
ThePrint’s coverage was descriptive but factual and based on reliable sources. When you go through the articles or watch the videos, you will notice that the reporters are being selective in their choice of words. After reading or watching most of the reporting, I’d say it was more careful than colourful.
The day of crash
The afternoon of 12 June was just another normal day at ThePrint. I remember that it was a Thursday because I was at ThePrint’s office in New Delhi for my weekly meeting with colleagues. It was fairly quiet as afternoons go, with reporters out on assignments, and those in the office staring at the computer monitors or mobile phones.
Suddenly, it came to life. I saw people rush to watch the television monitors, and as I joined them, I beheld a sea of serious faces around me. The AI-171 had crash-landed at Ahmedabad airport.
Nisheeth Upadhyay, Editor News Operations, realised it was huge. “Whenever a commercial flight crashes it is a huge deal. We knew this was a big story.”
The immediate response was to put out a ‘Breaking News’ story with the little information available.
Next was to check Flightradar24.com for an accurate reading of the flight’s movements up to its fall to the ground.
Since I don’t work on the editorial side of operations at ThePrint, I began to feel a little redundant, and in people’s way. So, I sat on the sidelines and watched.
A quick edit meeting was convened and everyone present in the office came together to suggest immediate story ideas. “We felt, instinctively, that we should report the news as it came through and could be confirmed, but also do stories that added value,” Upadhyay said. “From the moment it happened, there was so much noise in the media and social media—everyone was playing expert.
“At ThePrint, we were clear: Be sensitive, give the information, don’t analyse—just plain, simple facts and information that can be confirmed. No conjecture.’’
The difficulty that arose was the lack of access to the facts of the accident—or to any immediate information from the site of the crash in Ahmedabad—ThePrint doesn’t have its own correspondent in the Gujarat capital.
In stepped, Rama Lakshmi, Editor, Opinion and Ground Reports, and her team to fill the void. “We had to keep reader interest going,” said Lakshmi. She also had previous experience covering airplane crashes, which helped. “I put on my reporter’s cap and looked for different angles to the story until our reporters reached the accident spot,’’ she added.
The reporters in the Delhi Ground Reports team filed reports on past history and the context of the incident. From other commercial flight crashes in India and Air India’s current fleet of aircraft, accounts of survivors in Ahmedabad, stories of people who suffered in similar plan crashes, to another sole survivor of an air crash, the revamp of Ahmedabad runway, and the last social media post of some victims—these were some of the early stories put out by ThePrint.
Interviewing victims & tackling misinformation
The most pressing concern was to get on-ground reporting from Ahmedabad. ThePrint’s nearest reporting team was in Mumbai. “We were unsure of flights taking off from Mumbai and being able to land in Ahmedabad,” recalled Manasi Phadke, Deputy Editor based in Mumbai, who reached the city the next morning.
Luckily, the Delhi-Ahmedabad evening flight was on schedule, so National Photo editor Praveen Jain and Senior Correspondent Krishan Murari flew out. “I have covered earlier air crashes—Charkhi Dadri, for example. So I knew what it was like on the ground,” said Jain.
In 1996, a midair collision between two commercial aircraft over Charkhi Dadri outside Delhi killed 349 people.
Krishan Murari had never reported on an air crash or any accident of this proportion. He’d reported on Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam terrorist attack in May. AI-171 presented a different challenge.
“After Operation Sindoor, coming to this, I realised you need a completely different kind of vocabulary. You have to be far more sensitive. I’d call it compassionate journalism,” he said.
Praveen Jain and Krishan Murari reached Ahmedabad within 12 hours of the crash and visited the site, the hospital, and the mortuary. “It was very hot outside, and even inside, the temperature was higher than it should have been. There was an overwhelming smell of the charred bodies,” Murari added.
Together, they filed a number of stories over the next few days. Here are some of them:
Air India crash: All 4 hostel buildings of BJ Medical College emptied amid site investigation
Manasi Phadke found the lack of official information to be one of the major stumbling blocks in her first few days of reporting. “The media was the least important for them, so we had to source information wherever we could,’’ she said, “We had to be very careful, not speculate.”
So, she had to piece together information. Here are some of the stories she filed:
11 DNA matches 48 hrs after Air India crash: Process of releasing victims’ bodies to families begins
The crash, the rescue & aftermath—Inside the first 36 hours at ground zero of Air India crash
Behind the scenes of Gujarat’s Air India crash response—4 IAS officers, 36 DNA experts & 230 teams
Phadke, Jain and Murari turned to doctors, workers, and the families of the victims.
“Families presented a challenge, a lot of them were angry. You can’t just walk up to them and say, “Kya hua?”.
“We had to be sensitive—I didn’t use the camera immediately—I waited till they were at ease,” recalled Praveen Jain. As far as possible, he tried to click pictures from a distance. Even, then, one family member of a victim scolded him for taking pictures and Jain immediately apologised.
Phadke said she had to make people feel comfortable before they spoke. Some like to speak – “I am still in touch with at least one relative,” she said, adding, “You have to talk around the subject, be conversational.”
Also read: Inside ThePrint’s mailbox—readers bring us praise, critique, and everything in between
Unpacking investigation report
Back in Delhi, Bismee Taskin, Principal Correspondent, was keeping an eye out for government communications. “My job was to get in touch with the DGCA, the civil aviation ministry. To confirm information, verify it with at least two reliable sources,” she explained.
She was also in touch with former pilots of Air India. When the preliminary report was released on 12 July, she reported it. “Preliminary report is like an FIR,” said Taskin, “No conclusions should be based on it. You have to wait till the final report for probable cause.”
Taskin’s stories, therefore, were straightforward, simply putting out what the report stated. Have a look:
Throughout the last month and a half, victims’ families, aviation experts and the average reader want to know what brought the aircraft down? Why did it crash? There are so many technical details to it—and a lay person, with no understanding of them was prey to various theories doing the rounds.
Nisheeth Upadhyay is, in his own words, an “aviation nut’’. Thus, it was possible for him to understand the complex (mal)functioning of an aircraft and to explain it in simple language. “I was very careful not to act as an authority on the subject, just to describe what we knew had happened and to explain,’’ he said, “No aviation experting.’’
On the preliminary report, which led to so much speculation and finger-pointing to pilot error in some foreign news media such as the Wall Street Journal, Upadhyay said only the final report mattered: “There is not enough evidence to attribute blame. And so, ThePrint’s line was that—there’s not enough information to reach a conclusion.”
I would recommend you watch his videos: they are clear, concise, and to the point, factual—without unnecessary opinion or speculation. I know I learned a great deal from them.
The common thread in ThePrint’s reporting—from the ground and Delhi—was to keep it simple, stick to verified facts and attribute views clearly.
I have one suggestion newsrooms like ThePrint could consider: After tough assignments in the field, reporters may need some assistance in dealing with the traumas they witness. It can be overwhelming, especially for young reporters. Counselling is one option, and a few days’ leave may help them cope better.
Shailaja Bajpai is ThePrint’s Readers’ Editor. Please write in with your views and complaints to readers.editor@theprint.in
(Edited by Ratan Priya)