Earlier this month, Reuters published results of a poll it conducted between June 19 and July 21 on India's unemployment situation. Based on four questions posed to 50 economists in July, Reuters reported that 'official jobless data is not accurate', and suggested India's true unemployment rate could be significantly higher than what official sources indicate.

Within 24 hours of its release, PIB issued a detailed response, arguing that the Reuters article 'suffers from a lack of statistical foundation and relies on unverifiable perceptions rather than data-driven evidence'. It    labelled it as misleading.

While healthy disagreement is vital for a functioning democracy, it can also leave ordinary citizens uncertain about which sources to trust and how to interpret competing narratives. As a country, we can all benefit from reflecting on how to raise the quality of such discourse. In the Reuters unemployment data report case, let us consider how key actors - media, participating economists and GoI - might approach these conversations in ways that prioritise constructive engagement.

A story like this conducted by a media outlet with global reach and respect reflects India's growing global relevance. Yet, one doesn't have to be a defender of GoI to see the partisan nature of its survey. For instance, it asked, 'Are the government's unemployment data accurate?' with only two options: 'yes' or 'no'. Survey methodologists would point out that this is a leading question. It's worded in a way that guides the respondent toward a particular answer. A more neutral framing - like 'How would you characterise the government's unemployment data?' with a wider range of options - would have yielded more accurate insights.

Moreover, while some economists expressed concern about definitional issues in labour force measurement (e.g., threshold for considering someone 'employed'), these were interpreted as criticisms of the data itself. In fact, the economists were telling Reuters that the inaccuracy stems from the definition, not from the data, a crucial distinction the report fails to mention.

There are already several high-quality analyses of India's labour market. ICRIER's India Jobs and Occupation Tracker (I-JOT), for instance, finds that GoI-NSSO's Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) tracks trends in employment reasonably well. Similarly, Azim Premji University's Centre for Sustainable Employment's 'The State of Working India' annual report conducts detailed analysis using PLFS data, indicating a level of confidence in its overall integrity.

Media outlets must consider partnering with domain experts, investing in stronger research capacity, tightening their editorial process, and opting for fewer clickbait headlines in favour of more robust journalism. Such steps would help ensure that critical reporting is also constructive and well-founded.

The response rate to the Reuters poll - 83% - is impressively high. It's heartening to see economists actively participating in polls, rather than administering one. That said, experts participating in the Reuters survey should have declined if they don't have a good understanding of India's labour market and follow PLFS closely. Moreover, they must consider how their responses could be misinterpreted in public discourse. Greater caution and context in framing critiques can ensure that legitimate concerns are not misconstrued.

GoI has made important strides in strengthening its global image and credibility. Understandably, it wishes to counter narratives it sees as misrepresenting its efforts. But not all criticisms require rebuttals. An overly swift or forceful response can amplify an issue that may otherwise have faded from public attention.

A more effective strategy may be to engage in dialogue, rather than to public contestation. For example, inviting the Reuters team to discuss their findings with senior officials - such as the CEA or secretary of MoSPI - would demonstrate openness and confidence. Exposing sloppiness would compel such reportage to be more objective in the future.

Governments in East Asia like in China, South Korea and Vietnam have often adopted a long-view approach, addressing external critiques through delicate diplomacy rather than public rebuttals. India could take a page from this playbook, tailoring it to its own domestic context.

Finally, it's essential that public institutions and personalities uphold their responsibility to promote accurate, balanced and timely information. This means calling out misinformation and poor-quality analysis wherever it originates, and defending credible work with equal vigour.

Public trust in economic data is a national asset. Safeguarding it requires a commitment to transparency, mutual respect and continuous improvement from all sides. With thoughtful engagement, we can turn moments of contention into opportunities for dialogue. In doing so, the right of every Indian to access objective, reliable and credible economic information can be upheld.

The writer is former director-CE, ICRIER