People say that Press/Media should be one thing that should stay completely impartial. But I am aghast at the way Financial Times (strangely the Business Newspaper that I admire the most) reports with bias, specially when it comes to Indian Business News (and I am 100% sure that my Chinese friends will have the same comment too).
Last week, there was a news item on the first page of FT Hong Kong, which read "Hyundai Motors to shift part of its operations to Europe"(I am not quoting here but the essence was the same). The content was more appalling that with foreign car companies considering India as a hub for their global operations, the recent strike in the Chennai, Tamil Nadu unit of Hyundai Motors has further tarnished the country's corporate image.
What the f&#* is this? Does a small strike actually tarnish the country's image at the same extent as it would have actually done when the news was considered worthy enough to be published on the front page of FT. The same news article mentioned about other incidents like Tata Nano factory was forced to close down because of labour unrest in West Bengal or the murder (yes murder) of the CEO of an Italian automotive company in the northern Indian city of Noida. The correspondent said that these incidents are to have a deep and long lasting impact on India's claim of having a free market economy.
My question, is it really the case? Should these incidents be touted as worthy and important incidents to really harm India's image? Why anytime when we have news which may be reported but not be given too much importance is given so much importance by FT? Why? In the past one year, at least 3 Indian students were murdered in the US. Then should we say that these incidents dent US image as the favourable destination for many Indian students? Absolutely not! one or two incidents like this (I share my sincere grief towards the family members of these students who have lost their beloved ones) does not dent US image at all. Does the FT or WSJ represent this news with the same intensity? If FT or WSJ says that the news that we report is to do with the world of business, then, even the Indian students' murder or today's news of an Indian student being beaten almost to death and robbed thereof by some rowdies in Australia, has long term impact on the business world of the respective countries. Knowing the fact that a lot of Indian students studying in US or outside India take jobs there only and become a part of the new system and new order, knowing that a lot of Indian born and American/British/Europe/Australian educated students take jobs in that country and even rise to the top (Vikram Pandit of Citi, Arun Sarin of Vodafone, Indra Nooyi of Pepsi, are just a few) the murder of students should also be a news item worthy to be reported as the Hyundai factory shutdown news item is. If the former is not reported, then why is later? Why the double standards?
Same was the case during Satyam fiasco when the fourth largest Indian IT services provider USD1 billion scandal broke out. The FT carried half page front page news for this and followed it up with countless editorials, opinions from their journalists/external parties for days to come saying that this incident will dent India's image as an outsourcing destination. The kind of publicity and coverage that FT gave to Satyam's scandal, I wonder why it didn’t give same amount to USD50 bn plus Madoff scandal or closer home, the 'so called' scandal by RBS, Northern Rock, etc which guzzled billions of dollars of taxpayers money to pay hefty bonuses and salary to their chiefs and also to sponsor the shit called Newcastle United or Williams F1 team. Mind blowing this is. When World Bank came out with a list of suspects that it believed worked in an unethical manner by offering either a bribe or a near equivalent of a bribe in getting outsourcing contracts, FT again carried the news, about India's 3rd largest IT services company, Wipro, with same intensity and gave an amazing coverage. Mind you all, this was a list of just suspects and no solid proof was there. Three factors here must be considered:
1) Wipro was just one of the probably 11 global suspects but only Wipro's name was mentioned(the others were from Europe and the US);
2)Rules of World Bank on gifts had changed in the interim and under the changed rules, what was not considered a bribe earlier, started to be considered as a bribe. Strange!!!
3)Wirpo still got its name cleared after some time from the World Bank, but the FT didn’t care to even cover that news. Why? If you report the news of malpractice then also report the news of the accomplice getting absolved from any wrong doing.
4)Finally, considering Wipro was at fault, why was only Wipro mentioned? Why not also the officials or the World Bank mentioned who had taken that bribe. I believe both the bribe payer and the accepter are equal partners in crime.
These and many incidents have really shown that the Western media is not unbiased at all in many aspects when it comes to reporting or creating a hype about the news (especially anything bad) in the same manner when it comes to India/China (I guess with China it is the same). This trend has increased in the recent times. I believe this is mostly to cover-up the shit in their own backyard rather than anything else. Isn't it so people?
No comments:
Post a Comment