Addressing Western Media Bias
From the very day of the brutal killing of 26 Hindu tourists in Kashmir on April 22, reporting in much of the Western media—including The New York Times, Reuters, The Guardian, AFP, and others—has been strikingly biased. Their coverage lacked urgency, clarity, and outrage. Most refrained from directly condemning the massacre as an act of terrorism. Even Western governments reacted slowly and cautiously, initially expressing mere sympathy. It was only after strong and persistent reactions from India that the term “terrorism” appeared in official statements.
Was this hesitation deliberate? Was it the result of an unspoken alignment with narratives pushed by Pakistan—despite these same governments often portraying themselves as allies of India?
This pattern is not new. Similar responses followed the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the Uri incident, and the Pulwama bombing. The tone is always measured, the condemnation delayed or diluted. Why this persistent ambiguity when it comes to acts of terror linked to Pakistan?
One reason may lie in historical biases. British foreign policy, for example, has long carried a post-colonial sympathy toward Muslims in South Asia—despite the alarming rise of jihadist ideologies in Pakistan. France often mirrors the UK’s stance, although it ought to form its own judgments. Even during the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, France remained shamefully silent.
The United States, wielding the most global influence, presents a paradox. While today’s U.S. administration is arguably more India-friendly—politically, diplomatically, and economically—its leading media outlets, especially The New York Times and The Washington Post, continue to maintain a distinctly anti-India editorial slant. India has offered open access to foreign media, yet the coverage remains skewed. Two years ago, The New York Times even published a job posting in Delhi explicitly seeking journalists critical of India and Prime Minister Modi. Unsurprisingly, most selected were ideologically aligned and openly anti-India. Their reporting often favours a pro-Pakistan narrative, even in situations of clear aggression—such as the recent drone and missile exchange following the massacre of tourists by Pakistan-trained terrorists.
The irony is sharp: to jihadist extremists in Pakistan, Americans are just as much “kafir” as Indians are. Appeasing such forces through distorted coverage or soft language only emboldens them.
To Western media: think carefully before you assign, hire, or publish. Bias does not protect you. It erodes your credibility—and emboldens those who wish harm upon all open societies.
