Why do Indians Resent The Coverage of Modi
by The Western Media Houses Like CNN, The Economist, BBC et al?
The Free Speech And The Anger
With the Internet, and therefore freedom of speech not quite well developed or developed in the
controlled print alone, Indian English media feasted on stories criticising Modi for more than 10 years.
Although as an episode, 2002 Gujarat riots dint go unnoticed in the West during the cyberspace's
infancy, coinciding with it becoming an adult and as surprising as a socialist bud blossoming in the
capitalist space, the feast metamorphosed into a 'starter' in the West when Modi started his ascent for
the PMs office. Suddenly, almost parallel to Modi wave gripping India and almost as exponentially as
the share market reacting to a story, fear factor (Modi will divide India) grips the mighty CNN,
Business Insider, BBC, The Economist etc. With the freedom of expression not only being free but as
easy as pressing a button - akin to 'times have changed' - the mighty houses have had to take a fair
share of their Indian reader's ire.
Get out of the "Fear of the Unknown". This article is a pure junk as the west is envious of India now.
Says Latha Reacting to Sunni Handal's post on CNN
It is completely biased and INSULT to people of India Screams Virat
'..such crap' says VR to There's A Dark Side To The Prime Minister Who Just Won India's Election By
A Huge Landslide
Another says 'Stop peddling this trashy lies CNN' to Will Modi be India's Putin?
But Why Are The Indians Angry?
Unexplained by racism (Many reporters are of Indian origin); what makes them vilify these
internationally recognised depended media houses? Are these just emotional outbursts or have the
Western media houses crossed the mark offered by media ethics and freedom of expression?
Almost aired by the overcrowding of UK airways by the English non trusting non-English state's TVs
(Al Jajeera, RT, French TV etc.) that have chosen to offer their own perspectives, the ideal of neutral
journalism is yet to be achieved. In the Indian/BJP context, this is said because of the following
With all inferences relying on data and data on source, intentional or unintentional choice of wrong
source or disregard of the right source gives a wrong conclusion. Sadly this seems to be the case with
the Western media, at least in relation to its recent reporting on Modi/BJP/India.
Showing trust on some people's views but not on Indian judiciary, all articles harp on Modi's guilt on
2002 Gujarat riots. As if the goal was to create fear, the main mantra appears to be 'Modi will divide
India'. The scaremongering thus initiated, almost like a Hollywood plot, its substantiation alone is
made a goal. While anything that boosts this is given credence, anything that doesn't is either
disregarded or modified to fit in. Untouched by irrelevance, 'Let's move on' or 'Let bygones be
bygones' history is excavated and modified as necessary. Even 'mythology' is dragged in.
With them being used as a vote bank, changing demography and causing local resentment that at times
bursts into riots, Illegal immigration is a greater problem for India than for UK and USA. With Hindus
being persecuted and even being grossly reduced in numbers in Bangladesh and
Pakistan, it accepts them as refugees. Far from being anti-Muslim, having a tradition of accepting
persecuted groups like Jews and Zoroastrians, tradition tracing BJP will accept the persecuted Pakistani
Ahmadiyya Muslims, and even add 'Guest is like a deity'. Disregarding that fact but twisting Modi's
anti-illegal immigrant election rhetoric into anti-Muslim view, the scribe tries to substantiate the goal
And when Modi shows a pro Muslims stance by touching the feet of 104 years old Muslim, almost as a win
by any means, David Danelo of CNN accuses him of aligning with Netaji - the feared Indian revolutionary!!
The man quoting and praising Gandhi is disregarded. To substantiate the mantra by maligning RSS, he digs
into what he, possibly, considers mythology, and brings in erroneous historical facts about Gandhi and the
Mahabharata. Coming back to the present, he commits the same mistake as The Economist does with the
'puppy' remark of Modi. As if showing a desperate move, merging past and present, he even drags today's
businessman's view on history's Netaji.
And when a virtually unknown BJP member said something about sending Pakistan backed Modi opposing
Muslims who regard Pakistan as 'holy' to Pakistan, it was misquoted as him saying 'Modi opposing Muslims
should go to Pakistan'.
The list goes on .. Next
Raise the vol to listen to the
lady airing awe @ the SINGLE author encyclopedia
WOMEN’S POWER: ITS PAST, ITS PRESENT, ITS FUTURE: FEMOCRACY
* Why are there
* Why are there