Do we have govt owned newspapers like other countries have?

[Mr.J]

Thanks for letting me know that BBC does those programs. But, this is just the BBC. How about Al Jazeera? Can they make programs on how there is rampant abuse of Asian workers in UAE without getting jailed or worse? How about NYT or WaPo run programs on the USA showing how there is a huge gun shooting problem there or about their health care etc? Usa looks like an undeveloped country judging by the replies i see on reddit on how much the people get shafted by the companies operating there. But their newspapers paint that country as the greatest thing on Earth.

1. Why the hell are you talking about Al Jazeera? Do you want India to be like Saudi? If yes, then don't worry. BJP is doing a great job of regressing our country. And if you want something like Al Jazeera in India then Republic, Zee, Sudarshan has got you covered. You'd never hear anything negative about the country or the government there. Only negative news will be about states without BJP government.

2. NYT and WaPo both have written multiple articles about lax gun laws, mass shootings, health care and many other problems in USA. From where are you getting the impression that these news outlets don't write about problems in USA. Did you even looked up by yourself? I can give you dozens of links about these topic and many others. And why are you obsessing about these two in particular? Why don't you talk about Fox News (or rather Faux News)? If you want a major corporation ignoring problems in USA (and blaming everything on liberals, marxists, communists, and or immigrants) then that's the place you should be looking at.

3. You're talking about US redditors? Most of them are ignorant of how privileged they are. They're not comparing USA to India or Saudi or whatever. They're looking at European countries and comparing USA against that. USA is still miles better than India when in many different aspects.

 

[jiith77]

I'm watching how all these news orgs toe the govts line when it comes to Ukraine. No diversity of opinion there.

Bbc isn't known to toe the government line. They were against uk for wmd issue. In fact they refused to back down. They are no wion.

The problem with Ukraine is that their opinions are largely one sided. There are no neutral opinions from the west on this one. Decades of portraying Russia as a boogeyman has rentered them incapable of any other opinions. Putins track record also doesn't help. Afterall the journalists are also part of their society

 

[Mr.J]

Bbc isn't known to toe the government line. They were against uk for wmd issue. In fact they refused to back down. They are no wion.

The problem with Ukraine is that their opinions are largely one sided. There are no neutral opinions from the west on this one. Decades of portraying Russia as a boogeyman has rentered them incapable of any other opinions. Putins track record also doesn't help. Afterall the journalists are also part of their society

What do you mean by neutral opinion when it comes to Ukraine? It's a country under invasion. Do you want journalists to uncritically accept propaganda by invaders?

No one is portraying Russia as boogeyman. Russian government is doing a fine job of it on their own. Or have you forgotten or just don't even know how many opponents and critics of Putin have been assassinated in the last two decades?

If anything this war has shown despite Russia's chest-thumping and covert operations, their army is in shambles and run by incompetent and corrupt people. Only thing rest of the world is should be worried about is Russia has nukes and a paranoid idiot controlling them.

 

[jiith77]

What do you mean by neutral opinion when it comes to Ukraine? It's a country under invasion. Do you want journalists to uncritically accept propaganda by invaders?

No one is portraying Russia as boogeyman. Russian government is doing a fine job of it on their own. Or have you forgotten or just don't even know how many opponents and critics of Putin have been assassinated in the last two decades?

If anything this war has shown despite Russia's chest-thumping and covert operations, their army is in shambles and run by incompetent and corrupt people. Only thing rest of the world is should be worried about is Russia has nukes and a paranoid idiot controlling

Neutral opinion w.r.t the moral high ground the west esp US is claiming in the war. The west has encouraged the events as well.
it is a war they wanted and they are asking the rest of the world to foot the bill. They have no right to selectively ask not to do business with Russia when it is against our interests.

 

[Mr.J]

Neutral opinion w.r.t the moral high ground the west esp US is claiming in the war. The west has encouraged the events as well.
it is a war they wanted and they are asking the rest of the world to foot the bill. They have no right to selectively ask not to do business with Russia when it is against our interests.

Can you give examples of media claiming 'moral ground of the west'? Or the proof of the claim that this is a war that 'The West' wanted? Is pointing out atrocities committed by Russia means media is somehow absolving 'The West'?

No one wanted this war other than Putin. If 'The West' wanted the war, there was a perfect opportunity in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. 'The West' and rest of the world did absolutely nothing then when people were suffering.

And what other topics you want neutral opinions on? 2008 Mumbai attacks? Kargil War? Climate Change? Holocaust?

 

[adder]

Can you give examples of media claiming 'moral ground of the west'? Or the proof of the claim that this is a war that 'The West' wanted? Is pointing out atrocities committed by Russia means media is somehow absolving 'The West'?

Just check ukraine thread plenty of examples, post 146

Last week grid infrastructure attack by Russian forces. You all so what the headline was by west.

Yet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/belgrade052599.htm

Lets not forget the shock and awe campaign in Iraq. Where western journalist frothing at the arrival missiles at Iraq infrastructure. Cnn now has a HD version in youtube, 2hrs of voice free destruction filmed.

Fox too.

No one wanted this war other than Putin. If 'The West' wanted the war, there was a perfect opportunity in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. 'The West' and rest of the world did absolutely nothing then when people were suffering.

And what other topics you want neutral opinions on? 2008 Mumbai attacks? Kargil War? Climate Change? Holocaust?

Putin was the last person who wanted war, thr DPR people wanted to join russian back in 2014. They held a referendum way back in 2014. But he didn't allow them, instead he wanted the Minsk agreement to work.
All putin ever asked was to stop nato expansion, before that he asked whether he could join nato.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/06/putin-says-why-not-to-russia-joining-nato/c1973032-c10f-4bff-9174-8cae673790cd/

Another article written in 2001, putin wanted to join nato. But bush and Clinton wanted to expand nato right upto ukraine but didn't allow russia.

U.S.-Russia Relations After September 11, 2001

Putin's pro-American plan was not simply tactical. Putin's policies of support after September 11, including his agreement to an American military presence in Central Asia, represented a significant shift in Russian foreign policy. The potential for breakthrough - for a fundamentally new and...

carnegieendowment.org

When did relation ship between US and putin go south. It happened after bush signed into law nato expansion in 2007 to include georgia and ukraine.

Even the former US ambassador to russia said that in Moscow, even putins sharpest critics and opponents consider the nato expansion to ukraine as the redline.

In case you don't know history

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Western leaders gave multiple assurances against NATO expansion to Gorbachev in 1990-1991 according to declassified American, Russian, British, Germans documents

nsarchive.gwu.edu

Would US be happy with Russia placing nukes in Cuba, Venezuela etc.

Oh wait the US threatened to nuke them if they didn't remove the missiles in Cuba. But why did the USSR place the missiles in Cuba in the first place. Its because uknown to the world US had already placed nukes in turkey and italy close to their Ussr border ukraine. In a tit for tat soviets places nuke capable missiles in Cuba.

 

[blr_p]

Bbc isn't known to toe the government line. They were against uk for wmd issue. In fact they refused to back down. They are no wion.

The problem with Ukraine is that their opinions are largely one sided. There are no neutral opinions from the west on this one. Decades of portraying Russia as a boogeyman has rentered them incapable of any other opinions. Putins track record also doesn't help. Afterall the journalists are also part of their society

Many things are happening. There is a lot of hype and fear mongering not to mention disinformation. That last bit has the specific purpose to delay a coalescing of public opposition to state policy. If everybody runs around like headless chickens then the state is safe.

It's not possible to absorb passively just by reading. It takes monitoring which is what forums are good for. Now you become the content creator instead of mere consumer.

 

[terence_fdes]

Well, well ...... WELL
I am both shocked, amused and surprised that topics of this kind TOO get discussed on TE

In all my years of being on TE - I never dug deep to venture what ALL (besides TECH) that also is discussed .... maybe, my bad. ...
and of course it's not that I would wish to STOP or advocate the curtailing of any TOPIC on TE.....
BUT is this the right forum!!

The header Do we have Govt Owned newspapers like other Countries Have is itself a sad misnomer - IS THIS WHAT WE REALLY WANT!

Now, If this is the task of any Govt - then WE HAVE FAILED MISERABLY
- How else can we defend ourselves on what the world bodies judge us
- WE AT AT THE BOTTOM RUNG ON SO MANY GLOBAL INDICES -on matters of literacy, freedom of speech, hunger, poverty, standard of living, rape, child abuse, hygiene, womens rights and so on

FYI: Every media or business outlet in India Today - Print, Television, Film Actors, Authors, Comedians, Poets, Cartoonists, educational institutions, law and justice (courts too) are totally subjugated to the dictates of the centre - IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE BOSS - U WILL BE F*CUKD!

Well - think also about NRI's (surely, anyone had a right to go abroad) - BUT THEN - Why do so many of them then badmouth whats happening in India - that it's citizens still crap & defecate (Shit) in the Open with total freedom, that they fart and burp with gay abandon (our historical behaviour) & live in cities and towns where there are no proper civic amenities and there is corruption everywhere.... etc etc

Prima Facie: Consider these FACTS
1. DO WE THINK THAT TRUE JOURNALISM REALLY EXISTS IN INDIA ANYMORE TODAY! (except for a few fringe outfits - online or on you tube etc)

2. As being the Worlds Largest Democracy with a population over over 1.3 billion
ARE WE NOT ASHAMED THAT OUR LEADER HAS NOT ONCE (In his entire Political Career) DARED TO FACE AN OPEN PUBLIC/ PRESS DIRECT INTERVIEW
- Have we sold our Voting Rights into a submission of SILENCE
- How can we co-exist with a Leader/ CEO / Admin / - WHO CURTAILS MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION - and Who is totally unwilling to dialogue, discuss or debate on any topic of our concerns.
- Is Democracy still alive in India when all signs of a dictatorship & totalitarianism are visible all around us.

3. Where even my simple food / eating / dressing rights have been curtailed & criminalized in India today by the MOB of rabid fundamentalists (who have all forgotten that for centuries India NEVER imposed these draconian rules at all).

4. To Question all this itself is a Crime and one gets labelled as an "anti nationalist" by the blinded souls.

FYI: I have no one-sided political beliefs (to follow any one political party) or any rigid ideology of being a democrat or a liberal or rightist or leftist or fundamentalist or revisionist or religionist - simply because it defeats the very purpose of my existence - TO ALWAYS SEEK THE TRUTH in every breadth of my existence.

We have reached a sad & sorry state of affairs in India today (and which will continue till at least 2034)

Let us not anger at what the WORLD PRESS reports about our state of affairs - WE HAVE OURSELVES TO BLAME.

 

[blr_p]

Let us not anger at what the WORLD PRESS reports about our state of affairs - WE HAVE OURSELVES TO BLAME.

I'll let you have your point of view but this self-blame is being exploited and used against us. Also, I don't believe people that leave here reflexively bad mouth us because that would be compromising themselves. The ones that do are a minority if they aren't doing it for motivated reasons.

Info ops are launched at us on a regular basis within the country. Are you aware of this? It's the reason for the extra scrutiny of foreign funding NGOs get. Whose interests are being served when they agitate?

Some employee dispute at an iPhone factory gets blown up and bloggers in Canada of all places are talking about it. What is the message there? Don't do business in India.

The Kudankulam protests ensured a nuclear power station never got built there. why? because it was Russian and others lost the deal.

Farmers protest and we get celebrities who likely couldn't find Punjab on a map but with millions of followers, one tweet gets mentioned everywhere.

What are we doing to counter is the question? On the surface, it does not seem like much but if you get into that mindset you will miss the times when it does matter.

A SMALL ACT OF DEFIANCE

It is now time to tell the truth. We were forced to grow up in a synthetically created bubble of self-loathing, perceived inferiority and constant reminders that we, as a nation and as a people, we…

majorgauravarya.wordpress.com

 

[chetansha]

We have media houses indirectly owned by ruling party.

 

[blr_p]

That is already the case in many states

on a local level the benefits are apparent but at a national level and outwards facing not so much

 

[jiith77]

No one wanted this war other than Putin. If 'The West' wanted the war, there was a perfect opportunity in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. 'The West' and rest of the world did absolutely nothing then when people were suffering.

Russia had made it clear that Ukraine joining nato would lead to this long back.

Zelenskyy became Ukraine president with the major poll promise of ending the issues with Russia. This is as recent as 2019. And he anyways threatens to join Russia. On whose mandate?

As far as US doing nothing, it has interfered many times and it has not many times. Never has 'people suffering ' been the deciding factor. It has also been instrumental in 'people suffering ' without invading.

And regarding climate change, kargil war etc..if there are any other angles, it should be discussed.

 

[Mr.J]

Russia had made it clear that Ukraine joining nato would lead to this long back.

Why is that a legitimate reason for invasion? Why does Russia gets to dictate another countries policies?

And Ukraine had not even applied for NATO membership when Russia invaded them. They applied for it seven months after the invasion started.

You're just ingesting Russian propaganda and somehow thinking those are valid arguments for this war.

 

[adder]

Why is that a legitimate reason for invasion? Why does Russia gets to dictate another countries policies?

And Ukraine had not even applied for NATO membership when Russia invaded them. They applied for it seven months after the invasion started.

You're just ingesting Russian propaganda and somehow thinking those are valid arguments for this war.

Why doesn't US allow other countries to not buy russian arms, CAATSA. US doesnt even allow countries to trade in barter system(venz-iran) infact steals the oil.

Indoneasia was forced to buy western aircrafts instead of expanding its SU30MK fleet.

Who is US to dictate other countries policy of CUBA, Kosova/serbia, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Venezuela, Syria.

Entire list

United States involvement in regime change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also below link, US Monroe doctrine explained straight from Bernie sanders, one of the most liberal person in capital hill.

The U.S. uses double standards in International Affairs: Sanders | MR Online

“Russia, like the U.S., has an interest in the security policies of its neighbors. Recognizing this fact is not a sign of weakness, but of an understanding," Senator Bernie Sanders pointed out.

mronline.org

Why does russia fear NATO in its borders, its because the anti missile defense system placed closer to russian borders can take out the Heavy ICBM in boost stage, the much much faster interceptor missile has virtually surrounded russia whether in land based system located in Poland or the Aegis equipped warships in Black sea or the air launched nukes stored in Turkey.

So russia is denied even to do a retaliatory strike from nuclear attack from Nato.

 

[jiith77]

Why is that a legitimate reason for invasion? Why does Russia gets to dictate another countries policies?

And Ukraine had not even applied for NATO membership when Russia invaded them. They applied for it seven months after the invasion started.

You're just ingesting Russian propaganda and somehow thinking those are valid arguments for this war.

All pre war western sources gave the news that zelenskyy wanted to join nato. It was regular mainstream news. Everyone knew the war was going to happen on that count. Apparently people quoting the main news 8 months ago are the ones who are buying propaganda and getting brainwashed.

Ukraine will persist with NATO goal, Zelenskiy says as receives Scholz

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday his country would continue to seek membership of the NATO transatlantic military alliance despite pressure to cede that aspiration to avoid war with Russia.

www.reuters.com

 

[Mr.J]

All pre war western sources gave the news that zelenskyy wanted to join nato. It was regular mainstream news. Everyone knew the war was going to happen on that count. Apparently people quoting the main news 8 months ago are the ones who are buying propaganda and getting brainwashed.

Ukraine will persist with NATO goal, Zelenskiy says as receives Scholz

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday his country would continue to seek membership of the NATO transatlantic military alliance despite pressure to cede that aspiration to avoid war with Russia.

www.reuters.com

Ok. And?

Why the hell Ukraine joining NATO justifies Russian invading them? Would it be OK if Pakistan attacked us after our country gets permanent UN seat? Or if China invaded Taiwan for similar reasons?

Why does Russia gets to dictate what Ukraine shouldn't do?

And is this victim blaming limited to Ukraine or are you also blaming Iranian women, citizens of Hong Kong, and Uyghurs in China as well for the situation they are in?

 

[blr_p]

Russia had made it clear that Ukraine joining nato would lead to this long back.

Putin issued an ultimatum to NATO in Dec 2021 that NATO expansion would be halted and an understanding given that Ukraine would be neutral, or else. He wanted to negotiate a non-aggression pact with NATO. That was refused.

The primary issue always has been the collective security of Europe, hanging fire since 1991. NATO cannot seek security at the expense of Russia. To appreciate this understand how Russia thinks about buffers. It's a huge country. We have troops on our two borders, Russia cannot afford to do this everywhere so it goes for buffers.

What purpose did the former Warsaw Pact countries serve? a buffer to Russia's west
What is the Soviet Union? a buffer around Russia
Why sell Alaska to the US in the 19th century? a buffer to Russia's far east, keeping the Brits from meddling via Canada

Put this into an Indian context. India & China are millennia-old civilisations with zero historical grievances because they were never neighbours. Tibet was the buffer in between. When Tibet gets swallowed up by China, within a decade India is at war with China. If you want to decrease the chance of conflict between China & India in the future then restore Tibet as a buffer.

The SU goes away, that's one buffer gone. The Warsaw pact is dissolved, and another buffer is gone.

Can they remain neutral? No, they will join NATO. In effect serve as a buffer for the other side now. The expansion will continue whether Russia likes it or not.

What do you do to deter future encirclement or 'string of pearls' in our parlance? Launch operations that will demonstrate your power at the expense of NATO.

Zelenskyy became Ukraine president with the major poll promise of ending the issues with Russia. This is as recent as 2019. And he anyways threatens to join Russia. On whose mandate?

Can you believe he entered into their constitution that Ukraine will join NATO !!! This obligates every future Ukrainian govt to seek NATO membership.

 

[blr_p]

I was thinking that this govt is not liked by deep states in other countries because it is strong. A foreign minister makes statements that create doubts about India's ideological commitment.

So any negative publicity should target the govt as well. If that govt could be made to lose in 2024 and be replaced by one weaker due to coalition compulsions nothing like it.

If India is on some hunger index, then what was the govt doing exporting food is one angle of attack. There will be more as the elections approach.

Currently, India has the most users on facebook. Could a campaign be fashioned using facebook as the vector?

Govt can't ban facebook as too many people are on it

 

[jiith77]

Putin issued an ultimatum to NATO in Dec 2021 that NATO expansion would be halted and an understanding given that Ukraine would be neutral, or else. He wanted to negotiate a non-aggression pact with NATO. That was refused.

Thats just the latest. Years back he made it very clear that joining NATO is an existential threat for them and they have no choice if it comes to that. It is very plain that any country that can react will do so

I was thinking that this govt is not liked by deep states in other countries. A foreign minister makes statements that create doubts about India's ideological commitment.

So any negative publicity should target the govt as well. If that govt could be made to lose in 2024 and be replaced by one weaker due to coalition compulsions nothing like it.

If India is on some hunger index, then what was the govt doing exporting food is one angle of attack. There will be more as the elections approach.

Currently, India has the most users on facebook. Could a campaign be fashioned using facebook as the vector?

Govt can't ban facebook as too many people are on it

Considering that we are not west and that we are not ready to completely jump to their side, treatment of India has been pretty good. Beyond that there is no targeted attack. Elections are the only effective time to attack government policies. Otherwise there is no pointing being a democracy and having elections.

I am no fan of strong mandates. Its naive to think politicians ( except a handful) anywhere are here to do greater good to humanity. The mandate only helps them to get away with what they want.

End of the day we are a major economy and a possible counterweight to China. Dont think working against us is in interest of western deep states.

 

[Mr.J]

End of the day we are a major economy and a possible counterweight to China. Dont think working against us is in interest of western deep states.

Nice. More Joe Rogan/Faux News vocabulary. What's the difference between western 'deep' state and western 'shallow' state?