sankar@Shasta.ARPA (11/01/85)
I agre wholeheartedly with Bajwa in that the Indian press did not cover the Punjab crisis properly, and possibly gave a convoluted image to the Indian public. But at the same time, I wholeheartedly disagree with Bajwa that one should start relying more on news from other non-Indian sources. I do not know much about A.P. so I will not comment on that. But Bajwa mentioned 60 minutes in his first long message. I will not comment on the Punjab issue, but I tend to agree that the truth lies "somewhere in between" as Bajwa pointed out. However, there are many things I know about India, and have seen the way these things have been reported in Indian newspapers and in U.S. news media. Examples are bride burning and Bhopal, amongst many other things. At least in these cases, I would anyday prefer to trust the Indian newspapers than the T.V.(and certainly not 60 minutes). My impression has been that the U.S. newsmedia, being private, are more interested in attracting their customer's attention by giving spicy news rather than realistic news, especially in world affairs. I have found Indian newspapers far more reliable, even for other news items like world affairs involving countries other than the U.S. and India. Conclusion: Whatever Mr. Bajwa says about the Indian press, and regardless of all the good things he has to say for the U.S. newsmedia, I still prefer Indian newspapers, even if they have not covered the Pujab crisis properly. Even if the reporters were sent out of Punjab during the crisis period, they still have had and will have ample opportunity to come up with stories which are more realistic now. I am willing to wager that for every weakness of the Indian press, one can come up with an even greater weakness of the U.S. newsmedia in reporting matters relating to Indian affairs. Sriram.