Views on Kashmir
For this week's blog post, I thought it would be interesting to look at one recent event related to Kashmir, and how differently two groups view that same issue. The event in question is a phone call on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 between the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, and Kashmiri separatist leader, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. In this phone call, the foreign minister told Farooq that Pakistan would hold Kashmir Day on February 5 in order to protest human rights violations in Kashmir by the Indian government.
The first source, Greater Kashmir, is an English language newspaper published in Srinagar, the summer capital of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Reading the article about this phone call, it is immediately obvious of the bias of this source. A majority of the article is devoted to quotes from Farooq, with no reporting about the Indian response or view about this matter.
The second source, India Today, at first glance seems relatively neutral about this incident. However, a few clues give away a definite bias. Once it has finished detailing the contents of the phone call, it also talks about the Indian government's response; in which they refer to Pakistan as "duplicitous". It also reiterates the Indian position that what takes place in the state of Jammu and Kashmir is an internal matter, and that Pakistan shouldn't be interfering. This reveals this source's pro-Indian tilt.
Take a look at both of the articles below and see if you can spot any more signs of bias. When reading any source, it is very important you consider what the views of the author are.
Links:
[1] https://greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/pakistan-a-party-to-kashmir-dispute-qureshi-s-phone-call-shouldn-t-irk-goi-mirwaiz/311255.html
[2] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistan-will-observe-kashmir-day-on-feb-5-mirwaiz-umar-farooq-says-pak-foreign-minister-told-him-1442580-2019-01-30
The first source, Greater Kashmir, is an English language newspaper published in Srinagar, the summer capital of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Reading the article about this phone call, it is immediately obvious of the bias of this source. A majority of the article is devoted to quotes from Farooq, with no reporting about the Indian response or view about this matter.
The second source, India Today, at first glance seems relatively neutral about this incident. However, a few clues give away a definite bias. Once it has finished detailing the contents of the phone call, it also talks about the Indian government's response; in which they refer to Pakistan as "duplicitous". It also reiterates the Indian position that what takes place in the state of Jammu and Kashmir is an internal matter, and that Pakistan shouldn't be interfering. This reveals this source's pro-Indian tilt.
Take a look at both of the articles below and see if you can spot any more signs of bias. When reading any source, it is very important you consider what the views of the author are.
Links:
[1] https://greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/pakistan-a-party-to-kashmir-dispute-qureshi-s-phone-call-shouldn-t-irk-goi-mirwaiz/311255.html
[2] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pakistan-will-observe-kashmir-day-on-feb-5-mirwaiz-umar-farooq-says-pak-foreign-minister-told-him-1442580-2019-01-30
Dear chairs,
ReplyDeleteCertainly, the nuances in tone and choice of detail are carefully crafted based on the political views of each news organization. Especially interesting is the description of Indian policies in the last paragraph of the article from India Today, which closely reflects the Simla Agreement's bilateral discussion terms. I almost feel like I'm reading a page from the Indian government's website about policies in Jammu and Kashmir. The description of the phone call in that article also portrays Mirwaiz and Qureshi as secretive, almost as if they are conniving a devious plan. On the other hand, the Greater Kashmir report barely touches on Indian action and selects quotes from Mirwaiz that depict him as a human rights advocate.
Personally, my partner and I have been trying to obtain information from less biased, third-party groups like BBC, CFR, and human rights organizations like Amnesty, but these sources often report casualties rather than analyze politics. Perhaps delving into politics would be an infringement of the nonpartisan view that these news outlets have been taking on the Kashmir issue, but third-party analysis definitely seems less biased than publications like the ones you have provided to us in this blog post.
Thank you for sharing these articles!
Noah Guillermo