In an article published on May 9, OpIndia claimed that a 15-year-old boy Rohit was sacrificed in a mosque in Bihar’s Gopalganj. Our investigation found that the story was false. Gopalganj police has also filed an FIR against the outlet for publishing a fabricated report. On May 19, OpIndia’s CEO Rahul Roushan penned an article on his platform expressing concern that his editors are being targeted for the story and claimed that the only place where the editors were at fault was believing the statements of the victim’s father. In this report, we will show that even this statement is untrue and how OpIndia promoted false claims one report after the other despite evidence saying otherwise. In its updated story published on May 17, OpIndia presented only part of the statement given by Rohit’s father, Rajesh Jaiswal. This was the part where he spoke of the sacrifice in a mosque. However, a few days later Rajesh clarified that he did not state this as a matter of fact but speculation. OpIndia shared the interactions it had with Rajesh on May 9 and May 14. He talked about the ‘mosque sacrifice’ claim on May 9. On May 14, he said that these were just suspicions he had in his mind. Two points are to be noted here — First, OpIndia did not present the complete audio of its interaction with the victim’s father. It was uploaded in bits and pieces. In the video itself the outlet wrote, “We are only uploading the relevant portion.” However, which statement is necessary and which isn’t cannot be determined by the party accused of publishing false information. Second, how many times did OpIndia speak with the victim’s father between May 9 and May 14? The outlet wrote at least 5-6 articles during this time. Did Rajesh always claim that Rohit was murdered in a mosque? Did he ever make the claim after May 9? Was this the basis for OpIndia to declare the postmortem report false? There is no clarity on any of these questions. What should have been the appropriate course of action? OpIndia should have asked Rajesh his reasons for bringing up ‘mosque’ in his conversation. The outlet published a grieving father’s speculations as a matter of fact. This is not only irresponsible journalism but unethical because the story was capable of sparking communal tensions. Had OpIndia referred to the FIR filed by Rajesh, spoken to the local police and paid heed to the postmortem report, there is no way that the story would’ve seen the light of day with the ‘sacrificed in a mosque’ angle. The outlet should have also questioned Rajesh about why he did not mention the mosque claim on the FIR? OpIndia strives to establish itself as a fact-checking website however the outlet was miles away from ‘facts’ in its reportage on the Gopalganj case. Maybe because this was an opportunity to further the right-wing propaganda it openly espouses. We had observed similar propaganda in OpIndia’s coverage of IB staffer Ankit Sharma’s murder during communal riots in Delhi. It claimed that Sharma’s dead body had 400 knife wounds and that he was stabbed continuously for 4-6 hours. All of this was false. The postmortem report mentioned the presence of 13 wounds on Sharma’s dead body however the propaganda had already reached such heights that the country’s home minister presented the false information on record. Alt News had spoken with Rajesh Jaiswal during our investigation of OpIndia’s false story. This was a man in shock and grief of losing his child. His state of mind was such that he was looking for answers in every corner. He wanted no stone left unturned to find the truth behind Rohit’s death. At no point during our interaction with him did Rajesh claim that his son was sacrificed in a mosque. In fact, he completely denied that the incident had any Hindu-Muslim angle. After OpIndia’s story blaming a grieving father for giving false information, we again contacted Rajesh. He told us that the police is investigating the case. He sounded more hopeful than the last time. “It is a good thing that the SHO has been suspended. We are no longer averse to going back to the village and staying in our house. But that house has too many memories of Rohit — memories that scare the other children. We cannot return yet,” he said. We informed him that he was being blamed for taking a one-eighty on his earlier statements to which he responded that he doesn’t remember everything that he said. “No one can understand my mental state. The condition of a man who lost a young child. Even if we assume that he died of drowning, why didn’t the other kids come and inform us? What was the need to keep it from us? Why did they hide Rohit’s clothes?” His questions were reasonable. “No one can bring back my son but the truth will surely unfold,” he said.