Introduction

Is the global media truly impartial or simply a tool for one-sided representation?

The Case of India: A Global Perspective

For understanding how the global media can be partial, especially when it comes to complex issues like public health emergencies and international conflicts, one must examine the ownership and reporting styles of various international media outlets. This article delves into the Indian context, exploring how foreign media's portrayal of India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Kashmir conflict reflects a biased and often distorted reality.

Global Media and the Indian COVID-19 Pandemic Response

The global media's coverage of India's COVID-19 response has been marked by a stark divide in tone and perspective. International outlets like the Guardian, Washington Post, New York Times, Guardian, Time, Economist, and Daily Mail have employed a variety of descriptors to criticize the Narendra Modi government's actions. Some of these headlines include:

"Stunningly reckless decisions." A tsunami of public health disaster. Unavoidable preventable deaths. Covid hell. A moment of reckoning. Out of touch approach.

These descriptions suggest a negative outlook on the government's handling of the crisis. However, the response to these critiques varies widely. On one hand, they acknowledge the government's declaration of victory at the World Economic Forum, where Modi stated that India had 'saved humanity from a big disaster by containing corona effectively.' On the other hand, they argue that India's handling, particularly the second wave, was the result of reckless decisions that prioritized political image over public health.

The differing perspectives often come across as an attempt to fit India into a predetermined narrative rather than providing a balanced view. For instance, The Economist criticizes Modi's 'slowness' and 'lack of anticipation,' while the Guardian points to 'overconfidence' and the Washington Post blames a series of 'reckless decisions.' It is this bias that raises questions about the impartiality of global media.

The Indian Perspective: The Kashmir Conflict

Global media's coverage of the Kashmir conflict is another clear example of one-sided reporting. Media outlets such as the Guardian, London Times, and New York Times often frame the issue within the contexts of human rights and the right to self-determination, focusing solely on the plight of the local population. However, these same outlets often ignore the rights and perspectives of security forces and Hindu communities affected by the conflict.

The issue is further exacerbated by the media's tendency to create hype around particular events, such as the Bhima Koregaon case, where minorities are frequently highlighted. This selective reporting can lead to a skewed understanding of the conflict and its broader implications.

Conclusion: Media Bias and the Need for Balance

While media outlets are not inherently biased, they often echo a preconceived narrative that can distort the realities of countries like India. This bias is not limited to negative portrayals; positive developments can be distorted or ignored as well. For a truly impartial and balanced representation of events, it is essential to engage with the perspectives of all stakeholders and avoid the selective reporting that often characterizes global media coverage.

In the Indian context, this means paying heed to the full spectrum of public opinion and voices, from government officials to local populations. Only then can we hope to achieve a better understanding of the challenges and successes faced by India in its complex and dynamic society.