3 ms·

What is the message you think is being pushed, and by whom?

dyauspitr 2y ago
Probably media against Modi’s right wing/auth government. I’m generally opposed to the Modi government but Jammu and Kashmir is on the largest infrastructure building spree since independence. Dozens of railway lines and roads are currently being built eg. USBRL, Zojila, the lite metro, massive hydroelectric plants on the Chenab etc.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
  Mm. But fascists, authoritarians and populists get things done, because of alignment, obedience and because they have less regard for legitimate objections or the law. I think if you could separate out what Modi has done for India's national pride and infrastructure from what he's doing to the rule of law, and have the former without the latter, everyone would be happy. (You can make this point about almost any very populist leader)
ImJamal 2y ago
Not who you are responding to, but Merriam Webster has the definition of "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person". A news article is spreading information so it meets that criteria. The article is critical of Modi and his government to the point you could argue it is attempting to injury him (a person), his government (an institution) and his ideology (a cause). Seems like it is textbook propaganda. Of course, pretty much any political news story would count as propaganda.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
  > Of course, pretty much any political news story would count as propaganda. Based on the standard you are suggesting, yes. But not based on the Merriam-Webster definition you're quoting. Criticism -- even the harshest criticism -- is not inherently for the purpose of injury.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    According to Merriam Webster's definition of injury: "hurt, damage, or loss sustained". Do you think this article is not attempting to damage the reputation of Modi? Dictionary.com has an interesting definition "Law. any wrong or violation of the rights, property, reputation, etc., of another for which legal action to recover damages may be made." Seems like it could possibly apply since there is an attempt to damage Modi's reputation. Do you really think Vox, a left leaning news outlet, is not intending to harm the reputation of Modi, a right leaning politician?
    - ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
      If you are a notable person and I have video of you kicking a puppy, and I publish it because you are a notable person and kicking a puppy is wrong, what would damage your reputation is kicking a puppy. Not me publishing it. This act of expanding the definition of propaganda to include the simple publication of harsh critical journalism is unbecoming.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        If nobody knows you kicked the puppy, then your reputation has not been harmed by you kicking the puppy. Once it becomes public, then your reputation has been harmed. I'm a bit confused how you think doing something that nobody knows about could cause reputational damage? To be clear I am not blaming the media for causing the reputational harm in this situation. The blame falls on the person who kicked the puppy, but it doesn't change the fact there was no damage until it was published. I think the problem we are having is we are starting with different core assumptions about propaganda. I believe it is neutral and can be used for good or bad purposes. You appear to believe it is always bad.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
123yawaworht456 2y ago
- the message being pushed is "India is le bad. sic 'em!" - it is being pushed by the usual suspects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinio... - the reason for the push is India's neutral stance on the oh so important outbreak of tribal warfare happening half a world away in Eastern Europe. there was a whole barrage of negative hit pieces about India at some point in the past two years, right after their public refusal to stop buying Russian oil or something. I assume something similar happened recently.
- ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
  Concern about the way Modi governs India is in no way as new as the Ukraine conflict; that's a simple bad faith argument. I have no idea what supports or does not support your CIA argument, but concern about Modi is newer even than concern about the rise of the BJP and Hindu nationalism. And that concern isn't just international.
  - 123yawaworht456 2y ago
    the media paid no attention to that for years. and then suddenly, there was a whole barrage all at once.
    - ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
      This is quite simply untrue. At least in the UK, criticism of Modi has been pretty regular and it is quite distinct from criticism of India (it's very often written with at least some reference to our historical involvement in the problems Modi exploits.) Do a google news search for 'narendra modi site:www.theguardian.com' for example, sort by date, and you will see stories going back to at least 2019, and that is just the 30 pages result limit. Do an advanced date search, key in a range, and you can easily find criticism of Modi's populism and the BJP's Hindu nationalism going back to 2010. There are more than 40 pages of articles on The Guardian's site for the subject of Modi alone: https://www.theguardian.com/world/narendra-modi?page=40 https://www.theguardian.com/world/narendra-modi?page=40 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/17/narendra-modi-india-violence-elections https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/17/narendra-modi-... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/narendra-modi-extremism-india https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/narend... Here's an article from 2010 talking about Modi's involvement in riots in Gujarat when he was governor there: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/28/gujarat-narendra-modi-massacre-inquiry-india https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/28/gujarat-narend... Here's an article from 2003: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/18/india.uk https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/18/india.uk I don't think I need provide more evidence? In the USA, criticism of Modi admittedly is pretty spotty, but that's more to do with the abject failure of US journalism to consider anything beyond its borders until there's an easily quantified or enumerated crisis. But I am fairly sure if you pick a US newspaper and do a similar search you will find similar criticism.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Probably media against Modi’s right wing/auth government. I’m generally opposed to the Modi government but Jammu and Kashmir is on the largest infrastructure building spree since independence. Dozens of railway lines and roads are currently being built eg. USBRL, Zojila, the lite metro, massive hydroelectric plants on the Chenab etc.

ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
Mm. But fascists, authoritarians and populists get things done, because of alignment, obedience and because they have less regard for legitimate objections or the law. I think if you could separate out what Modi has done for India's national pride and infrastructure from what he's doing to the rule of law, and have the former without the latter, everyone would be happy. (You can make this point about almost any very populist leader)

ImJamal 2y ago

Not who you are responding to, but Merriam Webster has the definition of "the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person". A news article is spreading information so it meets that criteria. The article is critical of Modi and his government to the point you could argue it is attempting to injury him (a person), his government (an institution) and his ideology (a cause). Seems like it is textbook propaganda. Of course, pretty much any political news story would count as propaganda.

ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
> Of course, pretty much any political news story would count as propaganda. Based on the standard you are suggesting, yes. But not based on the Merriam-Webster definition you're quoting. Criticism -- even the harshest criticism -- is not inherently for the purpose of injury.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  According to Merriam Webster's definition of injury: "hurt, damage, or loss sustained". Do you think this article is not attempting to damage the reputation of Modi? Dictionary.com has an interesting definition "Law. any wrong or violation of the rights, property, reputation, etc., of another for which legal action to recover damages may be made." Seems like it could possibly apply since there is an attempt to damage Modi's reputation. Do you really think Vox, a left leaning news outlet, is not intending to harm the reputation of Modi, a right leaning politician?
  - ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
    If you are a notable person and I have video of you kicking a puppy, and I publish it because you are a notable person and kicking a puppy is wrong, what would damage your reputation is kicking a puppy. Not me publishing it. This act of expanding the definition of propaganda to include the simple publication of harsh critical journalism is unbecoming.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      If nobody knows you kicked the puppy, then your reputation has not been harmed by you kicking the puppy. Once it becomes public, then your reputation has been harmed. I'm a bit confused how you think doing something that nobody knows about could cause reputational damage? To be clear I am not blaming the media for causing the reputational harm in this situation. The blame falls on the person who kicked the puppy, but it doesn't change the fact there was no damage until it was published. I think the problem we are having is we are starting with different core assumptions about propaganda. I believe it is neutral and can be used for good or bad purposes. You appear to believe it is always bad.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

123yawaworht456 2y ago

- the message being pushed is "India is le bad. sic 'em!" - it is being pushed by the usual suspects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinio... - the reason for the push is India's neutral stance on the oh so important outbreak of tribal warfare happening half a world away in Eastern Europe. there was a whole barrage of negative hit pieces about India at some point in the past two years, right after their public refusal to stop buying Russian oil or something. I assume something similar happened recently.

ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
Concern about the way Modi governs India is in no way as new as the Ukraine conflict; that's a simple bad faith argument. I have no idea what supports or does not support your CIA argument, but concern about Modi is newer even than concern about the rise of the BJP and Hindu nationalism. And that concern isn't just international.
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  the media paid no attention to that for years. and then suddenly, there was a whole barrage all at once.
  - ecjhdnc2025 2y ago
    This is quite simply untrue. At least in the UK, criticism of Modi has been pretty regular and it is quite distinct from criticism of India (it's very often written with at least some reference to our historical involvement in the problems Modi exploits.) Do a google news search for 'narendra modi site:www.theguardian.com' for example, sort by date, and you will see stories going back to at least 2019, and that is just the 30 pages result limit. Do an advanced date search, key in a range, and you can easily find criticism of Modi's populism and the BJP's Hindu nationalism going back to 2010. There are more than 40 pages of articles on The Guardian's site for the subject of Modi alone: https://www.theguardian.com/world/narendra-modi?page=40 https://www.theguardian.com/world/narendra-modi?page=40 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/17/narendra-modi-india-violence-elections https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/17/narendra-modi-... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/narendra-modi-extremism-india https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/narend... Here's an article from 2010 talking about Modi's involvement in riots in Gujarat when he was governor there: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/28/gujarat-narendra-modi-massacre-inquiry-india https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/28/gujarat-narend... Here's an article from 2003: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/18/india.uk https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/aug/18/india.uk I don't think I need provide more evidence? In the USA, criticism of Modi admittedly is pretty spotty, but that's more to do with the abject failure of US journalism to consider anything beyond its borders until there's an easily quantified or enumerated crisis. But I am fairly sure if you pick a US newspaper and do a similar search you will find similar criticism.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]