Why does BBC publish more negative news about India? Why do BBC and some of the western broadcasting agencies focus mostly on publishing the negative side of India?
Same question popped in my mind, twice.I am not an avid reader but these two incidents caught my interests.Airing of the Nirbhaya's documentary a.k.a "India's Daughter" despite objection from Indian government.Recent documentary about Snake Charmer community. Though documentary was in right spirit but its promotion on their twitter handle clearly stereotyped Indians as snake charmers.Thinking about them I can come only to one conclusion."Just good business"They are not here to do charity. They may not be anti-indian but they are not pro-indian either. They will produce a content that is bound to grab eyeballs however controversial the subject may be. Leslee Udwin's controversial interview of one of the accused in Nirbhaya incident despite repeated objection from ministry is tip of the iceberg. The movie supposedly shows the entire Nirbhaya incident from perspectives of the convicted rapists and the aggrieved parents. The interview supposedly is enough to formulate a wrong view of the country.People might have different views regarding this subject but I think that the documentary undermined Indian reputation on large scale and should have been directed keeping in mind the influence and impression it would have globally.It was a great shock to me when I read a comment relating to this incident in a post that was discussing "racial discrimination prevalent in Australlia".In the post an Indian guy had shared his own experience about how he was subjected to racial discrimination there, to which a Taiwanese national had replied (and i quote)..." I prefer an Australlian racist over Indian Rapist any day".
Do Americans know that their media is propaganda even though it does not operate as centralized as it is in China or North Korea?
This is spoken like someone who has, at best, a superficial understanding of the American media. American media is not propaganda, and to say so shows an ignorance of what that means. There is no "government" media, and (while this might come as an unbelievable shock to people who come from nations where this isn't the case) no news agency is obligated to follow an official line. The media is such a discordant cacophony that many Americans blame it for "dividing" the nation. Your characterization that they all follow the same narrative is....off-base. What narrative is that? That America isn't the root of all evil; that annexing the Crimea is largely bad; that ISIS sucks; or that maybe democracy is generally a good idea? Because I don't know anything else which the American media agrees on. Our most watched news channel, Fox News, takes every opportunity it can to sh!t on the present administration, and does so with relish. Our major magazines and newspapers certainly don't all agree. Perhaps you could be more specific. What non-issues do you think are being made into bigger deals than they should? Which topics do you feel are cherry picked?
Why are the US and the UK fond of publishing propaganda of other countries?
In order for the US & UK to sell the products of capatilism and "free market society" they must brainwash their citizens into believing their lives are so much better to promote spending on cheap drugs, cheap consumables & ingrained class superiority (the rich are wiser, more moral & "deserve their wealth). The others must seem poor and backwards in order to justify foreign invasions and using them as cheap labor.
Should the media be prosecuted for publishing lies and misinformation?
Define ‘misinform’ and ‘lies’ first. Is something factually inaccurate or simply a matter of perspective? Did someone deliberately insert falsehoods to promote an agenda, innocently quote false information believing it to be real, or were they simply selective in choosing whose point of view to convey?One person’s lies is another’s lead story on the 6 o’clock report. We have seen with the rise of Fox News (and its leftish counterpart, MSNBC) networks with a deliberate agenda for swaying popular opinion. In other words, propaganda. Should they be punished? Probably, but by whom? It’s not illegal to express bias in your reporting, provided you’re not defaming someone. And then defamation is not a crime, it’s a civil offense that has to be litigated and is difficult to prove.There are people out there who believe the New York Times is a left-wing cabal controlled by George Soros with help from George Clooney. (Most of them watch Fox News.) Should the Times be prosecuted?The biggest punishment is the loss of your credibility. That used to count for more than it does today. These days there are thousands of “news” web sites that are simply propaganda machines with loyal followings who operate on the philosophy that it’s not a lie as long as they can convince somebody to believe it. I see them quoted to support virtually any position, no matter how wingnuttish, often on Facebook.Welcome to 21st century media.
Why is the Israeli media allowed to broadcast anti-American sentiment?
If you look at Jpost's website, their hate filled propaganda is littered with articles bashing America for one thing or another. If any American newspaper were to publish an article even remotely critical of Israel, the Israel lobby would be up in arms. Israel's ambassador might even intervene like Michael Oren did with the 60 Minutes story about Palestinian Christians. So why aren't any organizations in Israel giving the Israeli media a hard time about posting anti-American articles just like American Jewish organizations bully critics of Israel in the American media?
Does the Western world have the equivalent of propaganda like the communist world does?
Yes, and you've been fooled if you don't think so. The US government has seen to it that anything out of line is Communism in the minds of its people. Treating people kindly? Communism. Wanting to help refugees? Communist. While you won't see it as much on the rest of the west, you'll still find many hating Communism and Socialism, because thats what the Government told them to do, because they heard all of the terrible things the USSR did and how the West was utterly innocent, just hard working folk who didn't do anything, and just like the USSR, unsavoury parts of history, and terrible crimes are covered up.Throughout the Cold War, both the West and East were subject to extreme propaganda. The message was clear as day with both: Fall out of line, and you're with the other side. Now, I am not excusing the actions of the Soviet Union. They commited war crimes, opressed their people, and many other things I could go on about. I'm merely pointing out the West was not innocent of these same crimes the USSR committed. Both set up puppet regimes, and both cracked down on the slightest hint of disloyalty.
How can we be sure of honest journalism if even Internet media can be suspected of propaganda?
Internet media has always been suspect. There has never been any verifiable way to know that internet media was ever honest. It is only recently that a substantial percentage of the internet consuming populace has even suspecte$ that there was a problem. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the population is also lacking in the skills to find sources and even methodologies to verify the truth of most anything that they consume as media from most any source. Thus, we may well be on a potentially ‘final’ downward cycle in the ‘ascent’ of mankind. Remember, most media sources, even those given us by schools and churches are slanted. Most of use may refuse to believe that fact but by verifying who the writers and publishers were and what political or other aims they might have had based on their historical contexts deriving their aims can be made very transparent. But again, those skills may be beyond some and and the very thought of questioning authority may be an anesthesia to others. So as I suggested, we may be in a downward cycle; at least for the near term. Or as some one once put it, John Barleycorn must die…
Why is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei so insane?
It's all propaganda. I stopped following the news for a long time. Remember when America was scared that Saddam would use his weapons on them? How did that turn out? Now America's imaginary enemy is Iran . Iran doesn't have the technology nor the support (other Muslim countries hate them and I doubt Russia would back them up on this one) to start a war with the Americans. It's all propaganda. I think you really need to speak Persian to understand what their leaders are truly saying. I won't trust the Western media because they don't speak Persian and they'll just publish a few lies. Edit: I can't comment, but I'm not saying that Persians support him. All I'm saying is Persian is a foreign language and it's spoken by very few Westerners (Obviously Iranians living in the West are probably the only one to speak it). How can you be so sure that what people are saying in a foreign language is properly translated? How can you be so sure that what he said is true at all if you don't speak Persian? I have met atheist Iranians and obviously they hate everything about the Islamic regime. I asked them if Ahmedinjad really said that he wants to destroy Israel and even those atheists told me that it was mistranslated and that the Western media put words in his mouth. You can't really assume that Khameini declared war on the US if you're not even sure if what he said was A) Properly translated B) If he even said those things. Edit: Iran also hasn't started a war in nearly 600 years. America went on the offensive 4 times in a span of 35 years (Vietnam, First Gulf War Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq). I would give Iran the benefit of the doubt looking at their history in wars.