The India–China border clash in Galwan Valley in June 2020, the first deadly skirmish between the two Asian giants in the Himalayan border area in over four decades, highlighted the need to examine the notion of ‘authenticity’ in journalistic practices. Information from such remotely located, sparsely populated and not well-demarcated international land borders has limited sources, restricted to official sources with their narrative. Geopolitical goals and ambitions embolden narratives of nationalism in the media, and these often challenge the notion and understanding of authenticity in journalism. The Indian press, contrary to the state-owned Chinese press, is diverse and confrontational, where narratives of nationalism are differentially interpreted, embedded and realised. This article examines how authenticity has become a variable, rather than a constant, in conflict reporting of the Sino-Indian border clash and how authenticity is interpreted similarly or differently in conflict journalism. The article reports qualitative textual analysis of two leading English-language newspapers: The Times of India and The Hindu and two mainstream regional-language newspapers: Amar Ujala (Hindi) and Anandabazar Patrika (Bengali), to evaluate how representations of information function in conflict reporting and recontextualise (and thus change or modify the meaning of) that which they represent, and with what political and cultural implications.