A recent article published by “The Economist” has ignited a debate over the quality and nature of Indian media’s coverage of foreign affairs. In the piece titled “What India’s foreign-news coverage says about its worldview,” the publication characterized Indian media’s foreign affairs reporting as “stunningly ill-informed and hyperpartisan.” The article went on to call on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to take note of this coverage, expressing concerns that it could potentially fuel hostility towards the world.
However, the article itself has faced criticism from many Indian journalists and media outlets. Some have labeled it as “arrogant” and “patronizing,” taking issue with what they perceive as an outsider’s judgment of Indian media’s coverage. Critics argue that the assessment lacks nuance and a deep understanding of the intricacies of the Indian media landscape.
This disagreement highlights the ongoing tension between media outlets and their critics, particularly in an era of globalization where information flows across borders and perspectives clash. The relationship between media coverage and public perception is complex, and this incident underscores the broader debate about how media influences public opinion and shapes international perceptions of a country’s stance on global affairs.
It’s worth noting that this isn’t the first time that Indian media’s coverage of foreign affairs has come under scrutiny. The Newslaundry, in a previous article titled “Why is Modi getting such bad international press?”, also discussed the negative international coverage of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the criticism aimed at the Indian media.
In conclusion, the critique by “The Economist” of Indian media’s foreign affairs coverage has sparked a heated conversation within India’s journalistic community. The divergent viewpoints highlight the challenges of assessing media coverage through a global lens and raise broader questions about the role of media in shaping public opinion on international matters.
