You must Sign In to post a response.
  • Category: Miscellaneous

    Credibility of the Media

    We have trouble in distinguishing credible news sources from unreliable one. This is because we are very much fluent in social media and very sensitive about what we find there. We can't question the freedom of the internet.

    Main stream media also no longer credible now. Journalists are covering the news to their own opinion on their own views. Reporters are becoming lawyers and judges and delivering the verdicts according to their own will. I think, Sensitive issues concerning the internal security and international relations should not be discussed in public.

    In India, we have many political parties and each one having their own news channels to propagate their own agenda. Information coming from those channels are not trustworthy.

    What is your say?
  • #598831
    Yes Indian media is highly biased and are even controlled by a political party or group and thus they tow the interest of ruling party or particular party and in the melee we are being denied the real news. Media should be a bridge between the people and the government and vice versa. But here the media is showing only positive things of government and never showing the problems really faced by the people. Some media has the habit of padding the news the whole day on irrelevant content and thus the very name of news channel has been relegated to the dustbin. Sick of watching such channels.
    K Mohan
    'Idhuvum Kadandhu Pogum "
    Even this challenging situation would ease

  • #598851
    Our media is always give more importance to their rating than the credibility of the news. Every channel will have an affiliation of a political party or a group and try to telecast the news for their benefit. Actually media should be a watch dog and see that unwanted things happening will be highlighted. Thus they can be useful to the society. But the journalists are trying to make money by threatening the evil forces and protecting their interest. This is causing a real problem. No longer they are reliable.
    But there are some channels which will maintain certain norms and avoid giving fake news. I think we have to watch those channels only try to encourage them.

    always confident

  • #598853
    The main stream media of the country is not only biased but also anti-national. Besides these two aspects, our media can also resort to misinformation and disinformation campaign. They can also black out any information/news, which are not in favour of their devilish agenda.
    Non-violence is the greatest Dharma; So too is all righteous violence.

  • #598869
    I do agree that most of the mainstream media is biased. They rant and make people hear their opinion. It is a ploy to up their TRPs, for whatever it is worth. In all this, factual reporting is lost. Media loses its credibility when it starts taking sides. The media's job is not to choose between two evils, but to report things as they unfold on the ground. Good or bad, it all needs to be told.

    I read an interesting article yesterday that made an interesting observation of how the media uses the same tone and the same force in condemning what is happening at the border and what is happening in the Peter Mukerjea case. It has actually become a 'tamasha' there is hardly any intelligent debate to watch on television. Shouting and ranting, well that is histrionics, not news.

    Partha has levied a very serious charge on the media, calling it anti-national, which actually amounts to treason. My view is that the term has been trivialised and is being used to describe anyone with an opinion. There are laws I guess that define anti-nationalism.

    "A love affair with knowledge will never end in heartbreak" - Michael Garrett Marino

  • #598886
    Credibility of media is certainly at stake. There are apprehensions about role of media which point out towards interference by the politicians, patronage by the Government and even opportunism on the part of some TV channels. It cannot be generalised but is quite visible at times. Discussion on some of the channels are quite disgusting. The conscious effort of some of the anchors results in the change in the direction of discussion the way they want. Some of them even forget their roles and are seen behaving like other participants. A few are seen even reprimanding the participants. And a few try to cut others viewpoint in between if these are not seen as per their planned direction. Of late, I have minimised watching such discussions.

    "Semper Sursum"

  • #598914
    After the death of Kashmiri terrorist Burhan Wani last year, many so-called media intellectuals almost wept over this terrorist's death. They even questioned the Army about the necessity of killing a grenade-throwing terrorist! They almost eulogised Burhan Wani. They also fanned insurgency by their reckless comments. This is, without any iota of doubt, an anti-national activity.
    Similarly, last month, Major Leetul Gogoi of 3 Rashtriya Rifles, saved many lives when he, instead of shooting the stone-pelters, tied a stone-pelter in front of his jeep and rescued the officials who went for the election work. Instead of praising Major Gogoi, the anti-national media-men and women baye for his blood and sought his punishment. Fortunately, today we have come to know that Major Gogoi has been named for COAS recommendation.
    These are two examples of anti-national activities of our media-people.

    Non-violence is the greatest Dharma; So too is all righteous violence.

  • #599067
    The credibility of the media has been compromised decades ago, if one were to believe a Wikileaks report dating to the late 70's. It was saying that the top media people of many newspapers of that time were persuaded to portray news with a prejudice, all for a few dollars and 'foreign education' for their children. There is a whole list of media and people posted there. If this was the situation 40 years ago, wonder how it is now!

    Our main media houses today are tied up with the fake-news-producers of the west. Dig into their websites and you'll find their affiliations. So nowadays when we read about something, we are to understand that something happened in regard to whatever was the topic. As for the contents of the news item, we cannot be sure whether what is said is true or not, until we search around from other sources and local people on the ground.

    Even the latest 'terror attack in Manchester, UK, it shows several gaps in the story. Apparently terror attacks in the west never breaks up bodies to pieces and scatter them all over the place, never cause major damage, and the official cameras which could record the happenings seem to disappear, only fuzzy low quality recordings are available for public to see, and the attacker almost always leaves his ID or passport in the scene of crime (they are fire proof, bullet proof and have a magical aura of protection around them). Only bumbling actors pretending to be victims/witnesses giving interviews to major media outlets inadvertently mess up their words to expose the gol-maal going on to deceive people to change their mindsets. Compare this to bomb blasts in other countries like ours, Pakistan, Iraq, Indonesia,Uganda, etc., it shows the raw mess and gory details and leaves no doubt from the pictures and camera recordings about the reality of the blast.

    So if one wants to get correct info, then he has to look around and double check from alternate sources. It is extra work, but unfortunately that how it is now.

  • Sign In to post your comments