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