News reports and commentaries published in elite American and West European newspapers and magazines these past six years about India have been lopsided, to put it euphemistically. Since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, with Narendra Modi elected as the Prime Minister, the thumping of war drums in these newspapers and magazines, as well as on radio and TV, has been continuous. With the BJP labeled and identified as a “Hindu nationalist party,” and Modi characterized as a chest-thumping Hindu hegemon, it is all but evident, except to the blind and the left-leaning ideologues that the “Western” world is out to shame, blame, tar and feather, and demonize the BJP and Narendra Modi in particular and Hindus and Hinduism in general in their bid to intervene in Indian affairs, post-colonial fashion, and shape India as they wish to see it. This strategic, sustained, deliberate campaign of vilification has been carried out with the help and support of those in India who have supped at the Congress Party trough for seven decades, and who have otherwise been fattened by state largesse. Helping fuel this agenda are the very many fundamentalist Christian and Muslim activists and political leaders who get monetary and moral support from their American/European and Gulf backers. Instigating this further are the Left/Marxist forces in India who are in bed with Chinese actors and benefactors. If this sounds like some far-fetched conspiracy theory, then it also goes to show how inured many people are to the depth of the rot in the political state of affairs in India, and the depth of the roots in the Indian soil of these anti-Indian/non-Indian forces. In this report we will focus mainly on reporting and commentaries appearing in The New York Times, the so-called “newspaper of record,” which has been the most persistent and systematic in training its guns on Modi, the BJP, Hindus, and Hinduism.

During the ten years (2004-2014) of Congress Party rule the American media in particular and Western media in general were quiet about Indian affairs, except for the low-intensity anti-Hindu background noises orchestrated by media and academic activists. As the BJP began to garner public support and romped home to victory in May 2014 the American elite media (for example, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio) considered the win a serious challenge to and concern for India’s well-being and India’s commitment to liberalism, secularism, and democratic ideals and values. Echoing some of India’s opposition parties, established academics writing in English, and India’s English media the Western media elites began to characterize the BJP and Narendra Modi as threats to democracy, as representatives of “majority Hindus,” as “Hindu nationalists,” and as spearheading a movement to dismantle India’s “secular traditions” and marginalize its minorities: Muslims and Christians, especially, as well as anyone who could be put together in the “secular/progressive” basket – Dalits, women, the LGBTQ community, regional political parties that have dynastic, caste-based leaders, South Indian “Dravidian” parties, and the Communist/Marxist parties. Not included in this basket were Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, or anyone who had voted in support of the BJP though the large, activist, militant Sikh groups, many openly demanding a Khalistan nation, have been both prominent in Canadian and American politics as well as in British affairs getting a lot of media space and political wiggle-room.

Expressing Our Concerns about a Biased Media

In a series of articles on the popular media outlet, Medium.com, with the catchy title, “Today in Hinduphobia,” Vamsee Juluri, a professor of media studies at the University of San Francisco, began noting the trend of targeting and labeling Hindus as a dangerous, sectarian, illiberal majority. He also noted that Hindu icons, deities, philosophy, ways of living and being, and cultural treasures were being misappropriated, mocked, or demonized.

Similarly, Indu Viswanathan, a former investment banker who switched to teaching/education, began to note the dominant media narratives about India, Hindus, and Hinduism. In one article (September 2019) she noted how the publicly funded National Public Radio’s (NPR) correspondent in India tweeted an abusive anti-Hindu message, and NPR “responded tepidly”. A petition she posted about Hindu-Americans’ concerns over NPR’s reporting garnered a large response. Analyzing NPR’s listeners’ response she found that about 44% of those who signed the petition were concerned about NPR’s bias against Hindus, about 25% wanted “fair and balanced reporting on Hinduism and issues related to Hindus,” and about 22% of the signatories expressed concerns about “Hinduphobia” in the media.

In fact, I began tracking the American elite media’s representation of the BJP in the late 1990s, when the BJP first formed a coalition government in 1998 and was in power till 2004, and began tracking media coverage again after the BJP formed a government in 2014 (Rao 2003, 2018a, 20018b, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d, 2020e). I have also begun investigating Western media coverage, especially the coverage by the “venerable” New York Times, which I will summarize in this article. While there is some new Western reporting on the dangerous tilt to the left and biased reporting of events in Britain (Daisley, June 2020) and the silencing of voices in The New York Times (Taibbi, June 2020), we have to be more systematic in our own work and analyses of Western media coverage of India and consider the following to argue that media coverage by the so-called “liberal” Western media is inherently, programmatically, and overtly anti-India, anti-Hindu, and anti-Hinduism. We need a battalion of academics, activists, and journalists to mine the copious coverage by a Western “anti-Hindu” media that pays very well and commandeers a small army of Indian writers, academics and activists to carry out their political agendas. What should serious scholarship and analyses of the Western media focus on?

1.Whether the material offered to readers/viewers/listeners are wide-ranging in terms of Indian subject matter

2.Whether the range of materials offered provide alternative perspectives in terms of the range of opinions – giving voice to non-Hindus, Hindus, and neutral observers

3.Whether the material is overtly and systematically critical of Hindu concerns and aspirations

4.Whether the material has been selectively distilled to mask non-Hindu actors’ criminal, anti-state, anti-Hindu actions and words and to highlight Hindu actors’ actions and words

5.Whether there is selective quoting of expert/lay sources to project Hindus as bad/evil/racist and non-Hindus as good/benign/liberal

6.Whether the language used in the reports and commentaries provoke hostility, animus, fear, and hate against Hindus and India

To do such content analyses, we need people trained to do close reading of reports and commentaries, and who can use effective theoretical tools to unpack and shine light on Western media discourse.

How Can We Do That? Some Pointers

The media can and do set agendas. McCombs and Shaw said so in 1972 pointing out that the “mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of items on their news agendas to the public agenda” (McCombs, 1994, p. 4). But their theory had to be tested to show that public priorities lag behind the media agenda, which was supported by Funkhouser’s research (1973). Then came the next question: who are most influenced, and how have their ideas about the world shaped by the media agenda? Scholars focused on those who have a high “need for orientation,” or whose “index of curiosity” is high. By the 1990s, the old adage that “the media aren’t very successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about” (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks, 2015) had been discarded and academics concluded that the media indeed influence the way we think by “framing” -- through the selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration of certain news and views. Also, more importantly, the discovery that the media “may not only tell us what to think about, they also may tell us how and what to think about, it, and perhaps even what to do about it” (McCombs, 1997).

The MacBride Commission report – Many Voices, One World (1980) – and the Hamid Mowlana report for the UNESCO -- International Flow of Information: A Global Report and Analysis (1985) – allow us to understand the fascination of the West with the rest (other), and how the uneven flow of information, and unfair, incomplete, and authoritative narratives and analyses of others that shapes our understanding of the world.

The question now is whether we do really need a theory or theories to explain and understand this anti-Hindu bias of newspapers like the NYT and Western media. Some have argued that we should do away with theory, especially literary theory, because the attempts at objectivity and validity claims in literary interpretation are fools’ errands. Similarly, we can find weaknesses in economic, political, psychological, or sociological theories: when it comes to social scientists wanting to imitate those working in the hard sciences we can wonder why so many people are engaged in proposing their shaky and unreliable theories. Theories are basically systematic hunches about why we human beings do this or that or how social and political organizations can achieve this or something else. We can, however, point out that theories can be considered as nets, lenses, and maps to capture, explore, or describe human behavior and therefore allow us to read, watch, and listen to more carefully to what is offered by the media.

Thus, when it comes to understanding Western coverage of Indian and Hindu matters and what specifically drives the anti-Hindu narratives, theorizing could help us to discover and map the fault lines; understand the nature of the lies, the exaggerations, the prevarication, and the cherry-picking; zoom in on images, headlines, and authorial ideologies; and weave nets to sift reportorial bias from verifiable facts. Readers can follow more on these matters here. If we do so, we can offer support for our claim that the so-called “liberal” Western media are anti-Hindu, anti-BJP, anti-Hinduism ideological mills seeking to remake and shape India in their own ideological, imperialist light.

By labeling the BJP as a “Hindu Nationalist Party”, or supporters of the BJP as “right wing Hindu nationalists” the media creates a binary which implies that every Indian citizen who voted for the BJP is a Hindu nationalist, regardless of whether he or she is a Hindu or a nationalist (however we define nationalism – good, bad, or neutral). Opposed to this constructed identity is the identity of all those others who did not vote for this party -- who apparently are not “Hindu nationalists” regardless of their religious, political, and ideological beliefs. These representations tend to over-simplify and reduce the complex identities of Indians into essentialized categories. We need not go here into the manufactured or inconclusive binaries suggested by many about the difference between patriotism (perceived to be good) and nationalism (proclaimed to be bad). A simplistically constructed binary of “Congress Party, or any other Indian political party except the BJP is secular” and the “BJP is a Hindu nationalist party” does not pay attention to the complexity of issues existing in Indian society, politics, and nation, and the ideological nature of the attacks against Hindus and Hinduism carried out for long by leaders and parties proclaiming to be “liberal” and “secular”.

Methodology/Data

To allege that The New York Times is biased against the BJP, Hindus, and Hinduism, we need data to support that allegation. The data reported here was gathered through a search of the ProQuest database at the university I teach. For the three-year period I chose (January 2017 to October 2019), I used the search terms “India, Hindu”, “India, Muslim”, and the table below offers the number of news/commentary items that included the specific terms. Beyond the first 100-125 items on the “India, Hindu” search the relevance of the reports started to diminish, and beyond the first 50-75 items on the “India, Muslim” search we had a similar result.

In studying headlines, we can start with one that appeared in The New York Times on March 23, 1999 as an example of its inherent anti-Hindu bias, and that the NYT’s bias is not of just recent vintage. The headline read thus: “Shiva vs. Jesus: Hindus Burn Homes of Christians”. The provocative headline, approved at different levels of copy editing at the newspaper, we can surmise, did not appear there by accident. In this context, is it possible to imagine The New York Times using provocative headlines in different contexts such as these?

·Mohammed vs. Jesus: Muslims slit Christians’ throats

·Jesus vs. Yahweh: Christian Slaughters Jews in Synagogue

·Mohammed vs. Parvati: Muslims rape Hindu women

As reporters/commentators construct certain representations of individuals, peoples, groups, and events over time, these representations become part of the political and cultural discourse about those individuals, peoples, groups, and events. So, reading headlines carefully is the first step in unpacking and revealing a media outlet’s prejudices.

Below, I present a short summary of headlines appearing in The New York Times’ editorials and op-ed articles over the past three years. For a more exhaustive list, readers can check my articles appearing on Medium.com:

Sample Headlines – The New York Times – January 1, 2017 to October 31, 2019 

Date Published	Headline	Editorial/Op-ed/Report
Jan 9, 2017	Narendra Modi’s Crackdown on Civil Society in India    n  His government is choking the finances of civil society groups working with the most vulnerable Indians.	Op-ed by Rohini Mohan
Jan 26, 2017	Vaunted Literary Festival Gets Jolt from India's Far Right	Article by Ellen Barry
Apr 05, 2017	Hindu Cow Vigilantes in Rajasthan, India, Beat Muslim to Death	Report by Suhasini Raj
Apr 17, 2017	Anatomy of a lynching	Op-ed by Aatish Taseer
Apr 24, 2017	India’s New Face    n  India’s Hindu nationalists are pushing hard to turn the country into an exclusionary Hindu nation.	Op-ed by Hartosh Singh Bal
June 29, 2017	Toll from Vigilante Mobs Rises, and India Begins to Recoil	Report by Ellen Barry
July 12, 2017	Firebrand Hindu Cleric Ascends India’s Political Ladder	Report by Ellen Barry, Suhasini Raj
July 13, 2017	Anti-Muslim Venom Fuels Rise to Power in India	Article by Ellen Barry, Suhasini Raj
May 30, 2018	India’s Embattled Democracy Institutions from the judiciary to the media have been corroded during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s four years in power.	Op-ed, Hartosh Singh Bal
July 21, 2018	Far-Right Politics in India’s Year of the Lynch Mob	Report, by Jeffrey Gettleman, Hari Kumar
July 29, 2018	Baba Ramdev’s Holy War    n  The Indian swami helped bring Hindu nationalists to power as he built his multibillion-dollar business empire. But is his pious traditionalism a mask for darker forces?	Article, by Robert Worth
October 24, 2018	Angry Mobs at an Indian Temple Ignore Orders to Admit Women	Report by Kai Schultz
Apr 11, 2019	Under Modi, a Hindu Nationalist Surge Has Further Divided India	Article by Jeffrey Gettleman, Kai Schultz, Suhasini Raj, Hari Kumar
May 21, 2019	The Rise of Modi: India’s Rightward Turn	Editorial
May 23, 2019	How Narendra Modi Seduced India With Envy and Hate	Op-ed by Pankaj Mishra
Jun 10, 2019	Indian Court Convicts 6 Hindus in Rape and Murder of Muslim Girl, 8	Report by Kai Schultz
Jun 25, 2019	Forced to Chant Hindu Slogans, Muslim Man Is Beaten to Death in India	Report by Suhasini Raj, Rod Nordland
Aug 06, 2019	Hindu-Led India Puts Clamp on Muslim Kashmir (Also published under the title, “In Kashmir Move, Critics Say, Modi is Trying to Make India a Hindu Nation”)	Report by Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj, Kai Schultz, Hari Kumar
Aug 08, 2019	India Tempts Fate in Kashmir	Editorial

 

In the list above, we see the following: “Hindu,” “Hindu nationalists,” “Hindu cow vigilantes,” “Hindu group,” “Hindu revival,” “Hindu coalition,” “Hindu cleric” – all of them in negative terms. Christians and Muslims, when they get mention, are portrayed as victims of Hindu violence, Hindu nationalist agendas, and Hindu aggression. Each of the items listed above can be dissected for choice of words/metaphors/allusions, and what is sought to be highlighted, and who is cast as victim and who is cast as the criminal/perpetrator. Each of these items can also be dissected for factual accuracy/inaccuracy/incompleteness, and who have been given voice with what intent. If each of the reports then is analyzed, we can reveal further the level of bias and the extent of prejudice in NYT’s coverage of Indian news.

In the Indian Constitution, Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech and expression as one of six freedoms. However, freedom of speech and expression is subject to restrictions under subclause (2), whereby this freedom can be restricted for reasons of protecting the “sovereignty and integrity of the nation, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, preserving decency, preserving morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence". The Indian media have a self-imposed rule, therefore, to preserve “public order” and they will not mention the religious identities of people involved in rioting, criminal acts, etc. But Western media reporting deliberately breaks that rule seeking to blame Hindus and present Muslims and Christians as victims; use provocative headlines; and present partisan, biased reporting as “truths”.  

For example, the term “lynching” has gained coinage over the past few years in India to highlight mob violence, whereas “lynching” in the American context had a particular, centuries-old, horrific, community if not state-sanctioned vigilante action by Whites against Blacks, with the latter hanged from trees, dragged down streets, shot at willfully, raped, and brutalized. However, using that term in the Indian context where punishment is meted out to anyone the village/community residents suspect – of child kidnappings, killing of a child/person/cow in a traffic accident, witchcraft, cattle theft, etc., is a deliberate ploy to equate American-style “lynching” to Indian community and village response to an immediate threat or a crime, and because many of these villages cannot access the police or the criminal justice system easily or quickly. Therefore, the term “lynching” that is used specifically in the instance of Hindus beating up Muslims for cattle theft is new and deliberate (OpIndia, July 2017).

Next, in the list above there is a deliberate play on words in the headline “Baba Ramdev’s Holy War,” where the Islamic and Christian concept of holy wars have provocatively and deliberately been foisted on Hindus and a Hindu yoga master who made yoga popular by bringing it to the Indian masses, without religious discrimination: Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, and Muslims have all attended Baba Ramdev’s massive public yoga classes.

The editorials label, demonize, mock, scold, shame, advice, lecture, berate, and hector: the target always is the Hindu and Hinduism, or the BJP/Modi. There is no nuance and no space is offered for India’s peculiar situation of being splintered into three parts and two nations in 1947, with the splinters on the West and East being majority Muslim nations that have rid themselves of its Hindu minority either through violence and oppression or through laws that discriminate against Hindus. Pakistan’s Hindus in 1947 made up about 20 percent of the population (Shringla, 2019). Now it is less than two percent and shrinking dangerously fast. Bangladesh had a 30 percent Hindu population in 1947, and about 22 percent in 1951, and now Hindus have shrunk to about eight percent. Bangladesh is now nearly 91 percent majority Muslim.

India’s Hindu majority are denied the rights that India’s minorities are generously offered. For example, the Indian Constitution gives protections under Articles 25-30 to the minority which are not made available to the majority (Sai Deepak, 2020). Hindus cannot run their own religious institutions, nor their schools, while Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and every other group in India that claims minority status can. It would not be imaginable, for example, that Christians in the United States would be deprived the right to manage their churches or run their own schools but Muslims, Hindus, and Jews were given the right to manage their own places of worship and manage their schools, and whatever is collected in churches as offerings by parishioners is redirected by the government to help religious minorities – from salaries to priests and clerics to travel grants to visit the Haj to scholarships to minority Hindu students.  This is the status in India, which has never been reported or commented on in any of the editorials, reports, op-ed pieces in The New York Times.          

“Cow Vigilantism”

Among the headlines listed above are those which refer to “Hindu vigilantes” who “lynched” Muslims because they were either transporting cattle to the slaughterhouses or because they were allegedly caught with beef in their kitchens. However, media scholar/observer Vamsee Juluri (2019) points out the following:

Western news media has also completely ignored the killing of several Hindus, including Dalit Hindus, by Muslim criminals and lynch mobs in recent years, even while promoting a fear campaign about an alleged Hindu “cow vigilante” epidemic in India based on dubious data provided by a supposed research outfit that has now actually ceased operations presumably because of its inability to justify its false claims any longer. None of the major Western media, including the Washington Post, New York Times, BBC, or even Netflix’s Hasan Minhaj, who have directly or indirectly referred to this dubious source for their reports about alleged religious violence over cows by Hindus against Muslims, have acknowledged that they may have erred in relying on this source.

The selective data collected and distributed by sources in India and consumed by Western media has been documented by Sharma (2018), and the silence of Western media about Muslim attacks on Hindus has been tweeted by an Indian academic, Prof. Anand Ranganathan, who lists 250 incidents in which Muslims attacked Hindus – lynching, raping, burning temples, destroying property and business -- over a period of two years – 2017-2018.  

In May 2018 the Indian Ambassador to the US, Navtej Sarna, told reporters that the “American mainstream media continue to present an inaccurate portrait of India, overplaying stories about caste and dowry issues and overlooking the bigger picture”. He said little had changed in the attitudes of and reporting by American media despite his four-year effort as India’s minister of press and information at the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C. (Haniffa, 2018).

The New York Times seeks to balance its opinion page commentary by giving space to their right/conservative columnists like Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and David Brooks. However, in their coverage of India, and in their commentaries on India both in the editorials and reports, and on the op-ed pages, no space is offered to those who have a different story to tell about India, Hindus, Hinduism, the threats that India faces from monopolistic/monotheistic religions, from dangerous neighbors who seek to destroy India “by a thousand cuts” (Chellaney, 2006), and from threats within by extremist Maoist/communist/Marxist forces or those who wish to Balkanize India by dividing it along religious, linguistic, regional and other divisions.

A quick survey by this writer of some top editors, commentators, government experts, and academics in India, who have different views and opinions on Indian matters than the ones published by The New York Times indicated that none of them have been contacted by the NYT for their opinions on events, ideas, and people, nor have they been invited to write op-eds or commentaries for these news outlets. We may consider this as political bias – with the NYT politically left and considering the BJP and its supporters as leaning right. However, as Inden (1990/2000) points out, “A genuine critique of Orientalism does not revolve around the question of prejudice or bias, of the like or dislike of the people and cultures…, or of a lack either of objectivity or of empathy. Emotions, attitudes, and values are, to be sure, an important part of orientalist discourse, but they are not coterminous with the structure of ideas that constitutes orientalism or with the relationship of dominance embedded in the structure” (p. 38).

The NYT’s editorial board seeks to impose their version of the truth and their ideas of India on the world by demonizing and mischaracterizing a large majority of Indians who voted for the BJP government, and by using specific tropes and metaphors to present Hindus, Hinduism, and Hindu concerns in a manner similar to what the British colonists did in their reports about India and its people. We can surmise the editors’ and correspondents’ worldviews and their objectives based on what they publish, what they report, and who they publish, and who they restrict. By using the theoretical lenses used to study other colonial enterprises elsewhere we can evaluate the content of not just The New York Times but all of Western media.

It is time to train a battalion of media scholars.

References:

Chellaney, B. (May 5, 2006). “Death by a Thousand Cuts”, The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114677778818844140

Daisley, S. (June 13, 2020). The Brexitland soap opera of The New York Times. Spectator, https://spectator.us/brexitland-soap-opera-new-york-times/

Dugger, C. W. (March 23, 1999). “Shiva vs. Jesus: Hindus Burn Homes of Christians”, The New York Times.

Funkhouser, R. (1973). “The Issues of the Sixties: Am Exploratory Study in the Dynamics of Public Opinion”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 62-75.

Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G.  (2015). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Haniffa, A. (May 16, 2018). “Envoy Navtej Sarna slams media for its portrayal of India,” India Abroad, https://www.indiaabroad.com/diplomacy/envoy-navtej-sarna-slams-media-for-its-portrayal-of-india/article_18d16766-5964-11e8-b1f5-63d501ce2b0b.html

Inden, R. B. (1990/2000). Imagining India. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.  

Juluri, V. (October 28, 2019). “Austere Religious Scholars” and How the New York Times Covered Terrorist Attacks on India 1993-2008. Medium.com, https://medium.com/@vamseejuluri/today-in-hinduphobia-october-28-2019-austere-religious-scholars-and-how-the-new-york-times-e5a595b774c1

Krishnan, A. (November 24, 2018). “China is buying good press across the world, one paid journalist at a time,” The Print, https://theprint.in/opinion/china-is-paying-foreign-journalists-including-from-india-to-report-from-beijing/154013/

McCombs, M (1994). “News Influences on our Pictures of the World,” in Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, Jennings, B. & Zillman, D (eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McCombs, M. (1997). “New Frontiers in Agenda Setting: Agendas of Attributes and Frames”. Mass Communication Review, 24, 32-52.

Mowlana, H. (1985). International flow of information: A global report and analysis. Paris: UNESCO

OpIndia (July 02, 2017). “Data vs Data: Is India Really ‘Lynchistan’?”, https://www.opindia.com/2017/07/data-vs-data-is-india-really-lynchistan/

Rao, R.N. (2003). “Assessing an Indian Government: The New York Times’ and the Washington Post’s Editorials on India, 1998-2000,” Paper presented at the Annual South Asia Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 

Rao, R.N. (2018a). “Assuming Authority: The New York Times Speaks Over India – January 2014-December 2017,” Columbus State University Faculty Research Conference, November 07, 2018.

Rao, R. N. (2018b). “Covering” India (2010-2015): The New York Times’ India Agenda” presented on the panel, “Playing the Game of Name, Voice, Trust: Who Matters and What Matters in a Post-Western but Still Eurocentric World”, National Communication Association, November 10, 2018.

Rao, R. N. (2020a). “Covering India (2017-2019): The Elite American Media’s India Agenda,” Paper presented at the ASDP 25th Annual Conference -- Understanding Asia, Asian Understandings: Perspectives Past and Present – March 6, 2020, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Rao, R. N. (2020b). “The New York Times’ Attempts to Tar Hindus, Bring down an Indian Government”. Medium, March 21, 2020, https://medium.com/@rameshrao_89399/the-new-york-times-attempts-to-tar-hindus-bring-down-an-indian-government-fed397708cd9

Rao, R. N. (2020c). “Methods of Misinformation/Propaganda: The NYT’s Attempts to Tar Hindus,” Medium (April 1, 2020), https://medium.com/@rameshrao_89399/methods-of-disinformation-the-nyts-attempts-to-tar-hindus-208be04904c2

Rao, R. N. (2020d). “The New York Times wants to stick it to the Hindus, go soft on Christians,” Medium (April 13, 2020). https://medium.com/@rameshrao_89399/the-new-york-times-wants-to-stick-it-to-the-hindus-go-soft-on-christians-e9b30e161915

Rao, R. N. (2020e). “Understanding the New York Times’ anti-Hindu Bias,” Medium (May 28, 2020), https://medium.com/@rameshrao_89399/understanding-the-new-york-times-anti-hindu-bias-107cb17aab72

Sai Deepak, J. (May 29, 2020). “Divided by Religion,” Open, https://openthemagazine.com/columns/divided-by-religion/

Sharma, S. G. (November 14, 2018). “Selective Data on Communal Violence in India: IndiaSpend, English Media Have a Lot to Answer for”, Swarajya, https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/selective-data-on-communal-violence-in-india-indiaspend-english-media-has-a-lot-to-answer-for

Shringla, H. V. (September 20, 2019). “India is making Kashmir stronger,” The New York Times, p. A27.

Taibbi, M. (June 12, 2020). The American Press is Destroying Itself. Substack, https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself

The MacBride Commission (1980). Many voices, One world. UNESCO

Viswanathan, I (September 25, 2019). “We’re Only Human”, Medium.com, https://medium.com/swlh/were-only-human-50c588ac3fd5 

Tags :

• Media65
• Intellectual Freedom65

• Share on Social Media

• Follow us on Social Media