Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cavell.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!alberta!cavell!prasad
From: prasad@cavell.UUCP (Prasad Srirangapatna)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Re: India and the Media
Message-ID: <376@cavell.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Mar-85 18:13:29 EST
Article-I.D.: cavell.376
Posted: Wed Mar  6 18:13:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Mar-85 04:13:57 EST
References: <2440@hplabsc.UUCP> <197@gitpyr.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
Lines: 59

> > [Kumar @ HP Labs]
> > India as a country does not figure too prominently in the news
> > media in the United States, but when it does, it is more often
> > depicted as a poor, hot, overcrowded, undernourished, ex-British
> > colony, rather than the new, emerging nation that it is.  
> 
> Sounds unsubstantiated to me. American media does not exactly kiss the feet
> of India, but then again why should they. In general they are quite truthful
> and more objective than Indian media is of America.
> 
> > Few of my American-born friends are free from the stereotype of India 
> > that the media cultivates.  
> 
> Why single out India? Ditto for ALL other countries, England included. So
> whats your gripe? Wash out the brains of these poor demented Americans? Have
> you cared to think about what the general Indian thinks about the (big baad)
> West? 
> 
Sub: Western Media coverage of Indian Events.

This with reference to some impassioned views on the subject of media (in
particular TV) coverage given to the Third World (in particular India) on this
net news group.

While the proponents of the "free and fair" western media and its critics and
detractors both have a valid argument, up to a point.

On the one hand, it is clearly true that a country geographically as large, 
politically as important, and technologically as rich in manpower as India,
does not get the kind of western media attention  that it deserves. Even much
smaller and apparently less "significant" countries seem to get much wider and
more importantly, more frequent coverage. Examples include Korea, Vietnam and
Cambodia and Afghanistan (in Asia), Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran (in the
Middle East) and Nicaragua, El Salvador etc. (in Central America). There are
several reasons for this state of affairs. Countries are perceived as being
important for economic, geo-political, military and strategic reasons. India,
located as it is, neighbouring two giants of the Second World (?) is not only
somewhat overshadowed politically and militarily but also perceived (with some
justification) as being "aligned" with, if not part of, the Soviet block.
Our own political leaders of recent times have done little, if anything,
to correct this impression, and indeed, to cast a more "idependent" profile in
international affairs.

The consequences of this combination of misconception and neglect by the media,
however, are quite clear. The average American (or Canadian) seems to exhibit
an appalling ignorance of India and things Indian. What coverage there is
(disaster, natural and man-made; accidents etc.) only reinforces a biased and
myopic view of India and Indian affairs.

On the other hand, I believe the media here has much to commend it. I suppose
it can be responsive to public reaction (which is more than can be said of
broadcast media elsewhere) and it is up to us, as unofficial Ambassadors of our
country, to try and change media perceptions. There is no use adopting a
cynical attitude of one extreme or another - that the media is irrationally
biased against India or that everything back home is so bad that it deserves
the bad media it getts. Let us have a balanced and rational approach which might
prove illuminating and effective.

Prasad Srirangapatna / 6 mar 85