India is a democracy, yes, with a flourishing media, but the
areas where Indian journalism differs from Western journalism fascinates me.
Take, for example, this article that ran in the March 3 edition of The Hindu, “Gujarat riot victims still awaiting justice: Amnesty.” It mentions that Amnesty International found that most of the victims of the riots that took place a decade ago still haven’t received compensation for lost homes, and warns that those living in transit camps are in danger of being evicted. Ten years ago, 2,000 people were killed in the riots, and today 21,000 people are still in transit camps.
What doesn’t the article mention? That the riots were perpetrated by Hindus against Muslims. Not once are the words “Hindus” or “Muslims” mentioned. Why in the world would the newspaper leave out such a crucial fact?
My main guess is that everyone already knows the facts and they don’t feel the need to repeat it. The paper had just run a larger article prior. But I still find that strange. At least say the riot was racially charged!
Take, for example, this article that ran in the March 3 edition of The Hindu, “Gujarat riot victims still awaiting justice: Amnesty.” It mentions that Amnesty International found that most of the victims of the riots that took place a decade ago still haven’t received compensation for lost homes, and warns that those living in transit camps are in danger of being evicted. Ten years ago, 2,000 people were killed in the riots, and today 21,000 people are still in transit camps.
What doesn’t the article mention? That the riots were perpetrated by Hindus against Muslims. Not once are the words “Hindus” or “Muslims” mentioned. Why in the world would the newspaper leave out such a crucial fact?
My main guess is that everyone already knows the facts and they don’t feel the need to repeat it. The paper had just run a larger article prior. But I still find that strange. At least say the riot was racially charged!
No comments:
Post a Comment