Thursday, May 31, 2007
The Hindu and itz anti-Hindu bias
I guess anybody who has some interest in Indian MSM will know that The Hindu is a paper that is left-leaning and biased towards the left's version of secularism (which Advani has superbly called as pseudo-secularism). If you delve a bit deep into the psyche of these people, you will also notice that they also support anything that can divide the Hindu society - be it by projecting the likes of Udit Raj has the foremost Dalid leader of India, or giving front-page coverage for the mass Dalit conversion or getting over-eager in nailing the Narendra Modi Govt.
This week I noticed two more instances of The Hindu's biased reporting.
In itz editorial on May-29, Hindu asks for a political president this time. The reason:
There is a consensus among those who have the numbers to settle the occupancy of the Rashtrapati Bhavan that the next President of India must have, in addition to personal integrity, a political background, impeccable secular credentials, a fine sense of constitutional balance, and a conception of the constitutional presidency in a parliamentary form of government that scrupulously avoids over-reach.
What a contrived way of mentioning that the next President should be from Congress! It looks like an apology for Congress' machinations to have itz own nominee as the President, so that he can aid them during the next general elections. Along with it, if he agrees with them to impose Article 356 on a couple of BJP-ruled states, that will definitely not harm the Congress.
The editorial looks like written in the mouth-piece of an UPA magazine. If Abdul Kalam has been a good president, why not another apolitical president again? And of course, no criticizing the Left for not supporting Abdul Kalam the last time.....after all, for The Hindu, the left is above criticisms!
Yesterday's Hindu paper carried an article on a youth beaten by lawyers in full public view. This news appeared in lot of other newspapers as well as TV channels. However, the only other newspapers that reported it with the jaundiced view that Hindu reported it were Sahara Samay (can I call it a newspaper) and TOI.
Now, did the person get tortured because he was a Dalit? No, because it was because of a domestic dispute. The lawyer will beat him is related to him - which means he is also a Dalit. So, why should the headline say "Dalit tortured"?
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
You are visitor number since May 1, 2005