You’ve probably heard the expression “half-full” or “half-empty” used to describe how people tend to focus on either the positive or negative aspects of a situation. Extrapolating this comparison, I regret to state that most Indian-American journalists and American media outlets’ coverage of reporting on India not only sees the glass half empty but also sees fingerprints all over the glass. Not only do they cover mostly negative news about India, but they also cover half the truth
Amol Parth recently undertook an in-depth review of more than 3,000 India-related articles carried by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time, and The Guardian. In his report, “An Analysis of Global Media Coverage of Events in India,” he found a consistent pattern of emphasizing political controversies in India with sensational headlines and keywords. This has resulted in a negative feedback loop from India-centric controversies, which has created a perverse incentive for Indian-origin journalists and writers to contribute to global media outlets.
Knowing the fact that popular American media like the New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN always talk negatively about India, Indian-American journalists write only negative news about India so they get published in these media. India’s Minister of External Affairs, S. Jaishankar, recently spoke out against the “biased” coverage of American media, calling out several outlets for their angled coverage of several issues and matters pertaining to India.
External Affairs Minister Jaishankar said it best when he said, “My point is that there are biases; there are really efforts to determine… Look, the more India goes its way and the people who believe that they were the custodians and the shapers of India lose ground in India, the more actually, some of these debaters are going to come outside.” Unfortunately, this is a truth that Indian-Americans often have to grapple with. American media often write only the dark side about India, focusing on terrorism and conflict.
It doesn’t matter what faith the person who’s killed belongs to; if there is a terrorist incident, it gets reported and sensationalized. Indian soldiers, Indian policemen, people working for the government, and citizens going about their business can lose their lives, but these stories do not make as many headlines as other stories do. It’s a sad reality that media coverage shapes opinions and perceptions.
We must remember that it is important to express our opinions and share them with others. We must also take the time to educate ourselves and others on what is right and wrong. External Affairs Minister Jaishankar said it best again when he said, “We should not let it go. We should contest it. We should educate. We should shape the narrative. This is a competitive world. We need to get our messages out. That is my message to you.”
Op-eds in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Gulf News, The Guardian, and others are mostly written by Modi-hating Indians like Rana Ayyub and Swati Chaturvedi.
The Washington Post has access to a number of think tanks within a 2-km radius of their K Street headquarters, such as the Heritage Foundation with Jeff Smith, Carnegie with Ashley Tellis, the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) with Dhruva Jaishankar, the Stimson Center with Sameer Lalwani, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) with Richard Rossow.
Despite having access to these think tanks and their experts, The Washington Post’s go-to interpreter of India is Rana Ayyub. This is likely because few outside the policy circle have heard of the other experts, and their precision and nuance are for the technically minded. Notably, the Supreme Court rejected her book, Gujarat Files: Anatomy of a Cover-Up.
Furthermore, foreign journalists in Delhi are influenced by the likes of Rana Ayyub, Arundhati Roy, and Pankaj Mishra, who validate their pre-existing views. This is due to the social dynamics of Delhi, where white people slot themselves into a social strata that would be well outside their station back home.
Negative news about India is more exciting and sells more copies of the newspaper.
Recent studies reveal a higher likelihood of publishing negative news about India compared to positive news. In fact, a recent survey conducted by the Centre for Media Studies found that “negative news about India is more than twice as likely to be published as positive news.” This trend is also seen on social media platforms, where negative news about India has been shown to be more likely to be shared than positive news.
Journalists and editors alike have noticed this trend. Indian-American journalist Manish Vyas said, “Negative news about India is more likely to be picked up by international media outlets compared to positive news.” Similarly, a prominent newspaper editor noted that “negative news about India is more likely to be clicked on by readers, thus driving up website traffic and resulting in higher sales of print editions.” It appears that negative news about India is more appealing to the public and, therefore, more likely to be published and shared.
Indian-American journalists are not balanced.
When Fareed Zakaria, a renowned Indian-American journalist, released his report on the state of India, the author’s opinion of him changed drastically. The author wondered if his Muslim background affected his journalistic objectivity, as his writing appeared biased against India. What Zakaria failed to recognize was that India is home to a vibrant democracy and people of many different religious backgrounds who live in peace and harmony. Furthermore, Zakaria has never actually visited India, which may have affected his perspective of the country.
Unfortunately, Zakaria’s report was filled with false and baseless claims that were quickly debunked by the Indian government. One such claim was about India’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which was misrepresented in the media and blown out of proportion. The CAA allows certain persecuted minorities from certain countries to gain citizenship in India, but it does not take away anyone’s citizenship rights or discriminate based on religion. However, this fact is being ignored as organizations like CAIR are attempting to instill fear in the minds of Hindus that their religious freedom is in danger. This could lead to hateful treatment towards Hindus in the future.
In conclusion, it is clear that Zakaria’s report on India was not balanced or objective. He failed to understand the full scope of India’s history, culture, and diversity and instead chose to focus on one aspect that would make for a more exciting story.
Ashley Rindsberg on the New York Times, covering India
The New York Times’ coverage of India has often been orientalist and portrayed India as a backward place characterized by nationalism, violence, and sexual assault. In one of her articles, Ashley Rindsberg quotes “Death is the only truth” as she watches India’s funeral pyres burn. While the statistics of cases in India are a fraction of what the US or Western Europe experiences, the New York Times’ coverage of China is different from its coverage of India. For example, headlines such as “Why India’s farmers fight to save a broken system,” “Under Modi, a Hindu nationalist surge has further divided India,” “What the rape and murder of a child reveal about Modi’s India,” and “India’s battered free press” all portray India in a negative light.
Ashley Rindsberg is trying to understand why there is a difference in the coverage of China and India. She is examining how the media can use their reporting to shape our opinions on foreign countries and cultures. In doing so, she is shedding light on how we, as readers, form our own narratives based on the news we consume.
This trend is likely to continue as India’s significance as a subject of global media interest is expected to rise even further, with India all set to assume the presidency of the G20 in December. With such a wide array of potential stories, Indian-origin writers and reporters are likely to find it difficult to remain impartial and focus on both sides of the story.
The real reason for the American media to bash India
A recent report examined the digital readership growth of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time, and The Guardian outlets in India between 2019 and 2021. This report found a strong correlation between viewership spikes in India and controversial topics. The NYT saw its readership decline globally by 8 percent, but its Indian readership rose by 22 percent during this period. Similarly, Time, which carried controversial cover stories on India during this period, saw a rise in readership of 50 percent in India. Even the BBC saw nearly five-fold growth in India over its global growth on the back of its highly provocative reportage on the riots in Delhi and COVID-19 deaths in India.
Clearly, American media outlets are using sensational stories and negative coverage to attract Indian audiences. This is a smart marketing strategy, but it is also detrimental to the true representation of India and its people. Instead of perpetuating stereotypes, it is important for these outlets to provide balanced news coverage that accurately portrays India and its people.
