Why does foreign media target India, Modi and the Hindus?
What drives the foreign media such as the New York Times (NYT) to consistently run a malicious campaign to tarnish Hindus, Modi, and India? Why Muslim lynching gets highlighted but not Hindu lynching? Why is Modi demonized? Do revenue considerations override journalism ethics?
We can answer these questions by examining the business model of foreign media companies.
Media companies may be fully government-funded as in China, or partially government-funded as is Australia’s ABC or fully privately funded like the NYT. In NYT like companies, the objective is revenue maximization and therein lies the secret of the skewed coverage.
X-raying the NYT
Adolph Ochs, son of German-Jewish immigrants, established the NYT, a company incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. The Adolph Ochs family trust holds approximately 90% of the stocks giving it the ability to elect ‘’70% of the Board of Directors and to direct the outcome of any matter………’’ (NYT’s Annual Report 2019 -AR- p.96). In 2019, NYT had total revenue of USD 1.81 billion, of which, subscriptions contributed 60%, advertising 29% and other sources 11% (AR, p.24). By manipulating subscription-holders/advertisers, interest groups can make the NYT bend. Who are these interest groups? Why do they hate India/Modi/Hindus and how do they manipulate revenue providers?
The interest groups
China and Pakistan are obvious players as India fought wars with both. China is interested in containing India’s rise as a counter-weight. The Modi and Trump bonhomie worry China, prompting it to influence media and government lobbyists in countries of strategic importance such as the US to undermine India’s image and simultaneously, boost its own image using Trump’s friends and foes.
Pakistan (used to Nehru- Gandhi legacy), failed to counter Modi diplomatically. In Balacot, Article 370, CAA, for example, barring China and Pakistan, the world supported Modi. India also influenced the FATF action against Pakistan. To damage India’s image globally Pakistan funded CAA violence through an extremist organization. The BJP and the RSS also became the target. Narratives such as ‘’Hindu fundamentalist’’ or ‘’ Muslim genocide’’ were created to whitewash Pakistan’s globally maligned image as an Islamic terrorism hub.
In targeting Modi personally, besides Pakistan, domestic opposition parties have an interest. They tried to malign him domestically and internationally for over 12 years when he was Gujarat Chief Minister and even after his ascension to the Prime Ministership (remember Cambridge Analytica?). But politically astute Modi could overcome such machinations successfully.
Pakistan is an Islamic country and naturally hates the Hindus. In addition, missionaries and Marxist guided by proselytizing and ideological agenda hate Hindus. The evangelical players became active in international and American politics, especially after the 1970s. The Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential (UIA), a unique, experimental research network, notes ‘’incitement to religious hatred on an international or national level …..[is] aimed at maintaining political control in the hands of a religious elite against other religions…It may use all kinds of propaganda media. It may cause war, terrorism, rioting, and violence, and mask injustices and inequalities, exploitation and atrocities, inducing apathy and alienation through ignorance’’. Ordinary people fall prey to such misinformation. The Encyclopedia Britannica notes ‘’these groups most work through the mass media….some of the larger or more affluent interest groups around the world make use of advertising and public relations’’.
Accordingly, inimical countries, domestic opposition parties including Marxists and proselytizing religions are the interest groups. We now examine the strategies they follow.
The modus operandi
Malicious propaganda can be initiated by the government or by non-government. ‘’Mass media may be used to influence or manipulate public opinion in favor of a political ideal or government policies. Such governmental ‘information’, official or unofficial, may be false or misleading. It may intensify conflict and intolerance, and lead to war or to terrorist activities. It may strengthen government control, dictatorship and repression, inequality, injustice, and exploitation. It may create confusion or induce apathy, conformism, fear, cultural stagnation and alienation through ignorance. Non-governmental propaganda may emanate from opposition political parties, ideological groups, or from business interests’’ notes the UIA.
The strategies used to push malicious campaigns include, for example, influencing subscribers and advertisers, using lobbyists, the lever of business interests, and using opinion leaders. An inherent ideological bias may also exist.
Influencing advertisers and subscribers
The UIA noted that globally ‘’expenditure on advertising was approximately $64 billion a year. More than half of this was spent in the USA, but several other countries — the UK, France, Germany, Japan, and Canada — accounted for over one billion dollars each…’’. It is no secret that China influences advertisers. The UIA further notes ‘’the dependence of the mass media on advertising is also growing; few newspapers in the world of private enterprise could survive without it. As for radio and television, advertising provides virtually the sole revenue for the privately-owned broadcasting companies which are dominant in the USA and in Latin America and is an important source of financing in various other countries’’. To gain advertisements, it is not unusual for media agencies to fudge subscriber numbers. By manipulating subscriptions and advertisements, that is, the revenue sources, interest groups can easily arm-twist media.
The circulation data shows that only about 9% of US population subscribes to the NYT. The possibility of China and Pakistan buying digital subscriptions so as to influence coverage in media cannot be ruled out given the anonymity involved in digital subscriptions. The subscription could be a façade to pay a media company to dictate content. ‘Digital circulation is more difficult to gauge…. the highest-circulation daily papers in the U.S. — The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post — have in recent years not fully reported their digital circulation to the Alliance for Audited Media (AAM), the group that audits the circulation figures of many of the largest North American newspapers and other publications’’. The NYTs AR notes that digital subscribers rose from 799K in (2014) to 3.4 million (2019). But self-reporting can be fudged. Furthermore, it will be hard to detect the hand of Chinese and Pakistani secret service in digital subscriptions, unless an insider spills the beans.
Using lobbyist
It is an open secret that Pakistan and China use lobbyists. In the recent COVID19, for example, China tried to influence Wisconsin State Senate to pass a resolution praising Chinese efforts in containing Coronavirus. It would be a lot easier to arm-twist a corporate entity like the NYT. Pakistan uses lobbyists to cultivate senators in the US and other countries, for example, Bernie Saunders or UK’s Corbyn.
Retaliatory actions
China can also use retaliatory measures against journalists of US media houses.
Using a lever of business interests
Firms including media firms, in the Western world, vie with each other to enter and remain in the Chinese market. Zhao (2004:203) notes ‘’with their continuing demonstration of willingness to please the Chinese leadership, from dropping the BBC World Service from Star TV’s China service to the termination of a contract to publish former British Governor Chris Patten’s critical book on China, and the public statement by James Murdoch that Falun Gong is indeed a dangerous cult, a position that happens to be in line with that of the Chinese authorities, the Murdoch’s have made themselves acceptable business partners for the Chinese state. This sets a model for other transnational media conglomerates, all of which have much to gain in the Chinese media market’’. Furthermore, Zhao (2004:207) states ‘’today’s CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN are different from yesteryear’s CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN. When Dan Rather reported from Tiananmen Square in 1989, he was not working for the media conglomerate Viacom. Nor was ABC part of Disney and CNN part of AOL-Time Warner. Now all the major US television networks have become subsidiaries of media conglomerates with business interests in China’’. To protect business interests, owners toe the China line.
Using opinion leaders
The Encyclopedia Britannica notes ‘’opinion leaders play a major role in defining popular issues and in influencing individual opinions regarding them. [They] can turn a relatively unknown problem into a national issue if they decide to call attention to it in the media’’. The above interest groups use them, for example, Suzanne Arundhati Roy to further their objectives.
Inherent bias
The media could be manned by people who have certain ideological inclinations. Bolt summarised his accusation against the ABC Australia thus: ‘’not just biased. It is a massive organ of state media, strangling private voices and imposing a Leftist orthodoxy‘’. Leftists typically swarm every establishment that can be used for propaganda including the media. The NYT, with a 34% trust-level, is a typical left-liberal media establishment reports Pew Research. Even among the left-liberal cohort that it caters to, only about 62% trust NYT. In the right-wing, the NYT trust percentage drops to 50%.
Why cannot India use the above techniques?
Counter-measures
As Rusciano, notes international propaganda is used to shape world opinion ‘’which actors must heed in the international arena, or risk isolation as a nation”, for example, slashing of aid to Pakistan. Modi is ignoring malicious international propaganda tactics for three reasons. First, hardly 10% of Indians know English and the minuscule who read it also has access to local sources. Indian voters are not influenced by canards of International media. It may actually work to Modi’s advantage as it would further consolidate his vote bank. Secondly, he is focussing on the government to government relations. Third, he is aware of the interest groups behind the information war and their motivations as spelled out above.
Influencing subscribers and advertisers
China, as a communist country, can easily use strong-arm tactics. It is not possible for India — a democratic country. India focusses on governmental-level relationship rather than in media-manipulation.
Using lobbyists
India has considerably reduced such expenses and does lobbying strategically. India’s lobbying is focussed at the governmental-level. Globally, Modi’s personal stature is rock-solid, having bagged highest civilian awards from many, including Muslim, countries.
Retaliatory actions
Again, democracy and freedom prevent India from using such means.
Using a lever of business interest
India would be reluctant. For example, as a free country, despite twitter taking an anti-India stance on many occasions, India never considered banning freedom of expression.
Opinion makers
This lobby could be countered easily. This author, for example, provided a rebuttal of Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Martha Nussbaum on ABC Australia.
Conclusion
Opinion formation is a complex process. As ‘’psychological makeup, personal circumstances, and external influences all play a role in the formation of each person’s opinions’, it is difficult to predict how public opinion on an issue will take shape’’. The tactics used by foreign media at the behest of interest groups may eventually boomerang as they lose credibility.
Everything in the West is dollar-driven. In the money game, media companies that are long on journalism ideals and short on money get shut out of the media market (Lee 1999). Consequently, to expect journalism ethics from the NYT is foolhardy. The ethics-related sermon is for inclusion in corporate mission statements not for use in practice!
The likes of NYT are under a delusion that keeping up the pressure on Modi, demonizing Hindus and India would somehow make them relent. Such campaigning is going since the 2002 Gujarat riots but actually helped consolidate Hindu votes further. Modi continues to shine as a world leader. The WHO showered praise for India’s COVID19 strategies. India is now providing medical aid to the US, among others.
It seems living under a delusion makes the NYT happy. Hindus would gladly accord that liberty. After all, Hindus are taught to pray for the happiness of the entire human race (sarvepi sukhino santu) so why would they deprive the NYT and ilk of their delusion-driven happiness?
References
Lee, C. 1999. Power, Money, and Media: Communication Patterns and Bureaucratic Control in Cultural China. North Western University Press. USA.
Zhao, Y., 2004. The state, the market, and media control in China. Who owns the media, pp.179–212.
