which websites, news agensices would come under "Accepatble" ??

[PeaceForAll]

---

---

This is a specific question for all the members here. In case of a debate going on, almost all the times the link or source is discredited simply because it has been picked up from certain news agencies which the other side does not believe in.

Can we have a sort of agreement so that there is no derailment of the debates?

Are all Muslim reporters un-trustworthy for Indians and are all Hindu writers un trustworthy for Muslims? (Surely thats not the case!!)

[WebMaster]

It really depends on the author and his motives. The Hindu, Rediff, India Times are largely dependent on Hinduvata type authors and their audience is the same.. which enjoy full bashing and continuous trolling.

[ironman]

It really depends on the author and his motives. The Hindu, Rediff, India Times are largely dependent on Hinduvata type authors and their audience is the same.. which enjoy full bashing and continuous trolling.

I disagree with your opinion on "The Hindu". If you judged by its name you are wrong this is 'considered' as a left oriented news paper.

I am posting some of its editorials of various issues. If you have time please look at it.

REDUCE NUCLEAR RISK WITH PAKISTAN
THAT NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the hands of India and Pakistan have made the region a much more dangerous place is in the nature of an axiom that only advocates of the discredited doctrine of deterrence will bother to contest. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, instruments of genocide. In India, democratic opinion has always regarded such weapons with horror. However, subsequent to the Pokhran and Chagai explosions of mid-1998, there has been a concerted effort by the so-called strategic affairs community and by influential sections of the political establishment to legitimise, even glorify, nuclear weapons as acceptable means of achieving regional and global power. The sophisms of deterrence theory and false claims made to the effect that nuclear bombs are political weapons meant not for use but for self-defence and national empowerment have been recruited to the job of inuring public opinion to the real implications of producing, stockpiling, inducting and deploying these weapons of mass destruction. Until Pokhran-II, official Indian policy ranged itself firmly against the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. That position was subverted by a bizarre South Asian variant: a `minimum credible nuclear deterrent' not backed by any coherent doctrinal elaboration. An extraordinarily hawkish nuclear doctrine was drafted only to be left on hold; nobody knows what India's nuclear doctrine amounts to in practice. A fallout from Pokhran was that India's voice was virtually silenced on issues of global nuclear disarmament. Indeed its establishment became a late convert to the discriminatory global nuclear bargain, going so far as to welcome the National Missile Defence and Theatre Missile Defence proposals of the United States. There was also dubious posturing: India's nuclear weapons, it was claimed against the evidence, were not Pakistan-centric.

The new Congress-led Government in New Delhi is yet to indicate its nuclear doctrine. However, the Common Minimum Programme adopted by the United Progressive Alliance promises that while "maintaining a credible nuclear weapons programme," the Government will evolve "demonstrable and verifiable confidence-building measures with its nuclear neighbours" and, on the international stage, "assume a leadership role in promoting universal nuclear disarmament and working for a nuclear weapons-free world." Against this background, External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh's informal advocacy of a "common nuclear doctrine" to be worked out among India, Pakistan and China holds much appeal; so far as the first two neighbours are concerned, it looks like an idea whose time may have come. The first ever official meeting between Indian and Pakistani experts to discuss nuclear confidence building measures, which opens in New Delhi today, provides an opportunity to identify common ground and work on a practical agenda to reduce nuclear risk in South Asia. In this connection, an article by M.V. Ramana and R. Rajaraman, both physicists, published on the editorial page of The Hindu (June 4, 2004) made two eminently sensible recommendations that "do not compromise national security in any real sense." The first is that the Indian Government should offer not to deploy nuclear weapons. The second is that it should stop installing early warning systems that clearly, in the specific South Asian context where the response time is dangerously short, increase the risk of accidental or unauthorised nuclear war. These two positive elements could constitute the basis of a common nuclear doctrine with Pakistan — and prove far more credible, as confidence building measures, than repetitions of the `no-first-use' mantra that has virtually no practical value. But a red herring must be got out of the way: the quest for some kind of nuclear parity with China, which is in a different league and poses no strategic threat of any kind — any more than nuclear weapons in the hands of the United States, the United Kingdom, France or Russia threaten India.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/22/stor...2254770800.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/04/stor...0455320800.htm
http://www.thehindu.com/2009/06/16/s...1655290800.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2004/11/13/stor...1307231000.htm
http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/19/stor...1952671000.htm

[Vassnti]

This is a specific question for all the members here. In case of a debate going on, almost all the times the link or source is discredited simply because it has been picked up from certain news agencies which the other side does not believe in.

Can we have a sort of agreement so that there is no derailment of the debates?

Are all Muslim reporters un-trustworthy for Indians and are all Hindu writers un trustworthy for Muslims? (Surely thats not the case!!)

A nice idea but the best defence when you cant argue the facts is to shoot the messenger.
Every country has some biased reporters and or newspapers but you will never convince the fanatics that the garbage they print is not gods truth, so sadly they will also never agree with the majority on what is resonable or acceptable even if the majority could agree.

[dk33]

What sources are valid?

Ones that use concrete references and evidence as a basis for whatever position they want to espouse.

A ToI or Hindu claim that Pakistani state support for the Mumbai attacks existed, without providing clear evidence supporting that claim, is just as invalid as an Ahmed Quraishi claim that India is supporting some of the Taliban factions, without presenting an clear evidence supporting that claim.

I think readers need to be a little more intelligent about what exactly the media says, and what it uses to support its position.

And it's not just about the Indian and Pakistani media - why should the NYT or WaPO claims in their stories be taken at face value without any clear evidence substantiating their positions?

[PeaceForAll]

then how can a valid debate exist btween an Indian an Pakistani in this forum if both claim sources from their respective coutries? Can we agree on some legitimate and impartial news agencies that can be quoted and the moderators agree that these are impartial.

Then based on this acceptance from the moderators these news agencies can be quoted in a debate and the "shooting of the messenger if message cant be shot" can be minimised!!!

Could the mods please take a note of this in pursuance with anchoring this forum where they have provided a very good platform for a healthy debate?

[ironman]

then how can a valid debate exist btween an Indian an Pakistani in this forum if both claim sources from their respective coutries? Can we agree on some legitimate and impartial news agencies that can be quoted and the moderators agree that these are impartial.

Then based on this acceptance from the moderators these news agencies can be quoted in a debate and the "shooting of the messenger if message cant be shot" can be minimised!!!

Could the mods please take a note of this in pursuance with anchoring this forum where they have provided a very good platform for a healthy debate?

I think you completely missed. we generally debates upon 'validity of sources' here..that too in a 'healthy' manner.

[Nemesis]

It really depends on the author and his motives. The Hindu, Rediff, India Times are largely dependent on Hinduvata type authors and their audience is the same.. which enjoy full bashing and continuous trolling.

Times of India is a right wing paper. Please don't criticize "The Hindu" just because of its name. It is a left wing newspaper and the very anti-thesis of Hindutva news. Some loonies disparage it calling it a "communist mouthpiece". Of all the newspapers in India, "The Hindu" is probably the most unbiased.

Are all Muslim reporters un-trustworthy for Indians and are all Hindu writers un trustworthy for Muslims? (Surely thats not the case!!)

Well that's rubbish. A lot of Indian journalists are muslim, do we Indians not trust them? This is more of a India-Pakistan thing rather than a Hindu-Muslim thing.

[fateh71]

I don't think any source can be taken as valid or invalid at all times. One will have to use judgement in all cases.

I think its fair to discard all opinion pieces on blogs, thats a bit too much.

[PeaceForAll]

yes.. even i believe we should discard taking sources from blogs.. they are more of opinions...

[BSF]

From my humble experience here in the forum

If it is CNN/BBC saying anything bad about China/Pakistan....it is not acceptable as they are owned by Mossad/CIA/RAW.


If it is any one saying bad about India or even if it is some dumb nitwits blog site....it is acceptable

[shravan]

I don't trust any news agencies. Everyone has a propaganda.

I confirm the news from two or three different sources.
----------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20generals.html

[wtf]

A ToI or Hindu claim that Pakistani state support for the Mumbai attacks existed, without providing clear evidence supporting that claim, is just as invalid as an Ahmed Quraishi claim that India is supporting some of the Taliban factions, without presenting an clear evidence supporting that claim.

Please don't put Times of India and Hindu together. I used to read Times of India, Hindu and Indian Express at some point.

Here is how I'd describe them

1)Times of India - Sensational news articles.Sometimes they get lucky and are the first to break stories. But most of the reason anybody buys this paper is for the pictures and the "City Edition" where they have gossip about what happened at the local parties/pubs.
Do not trust the editorials -- They once actually put up an advertisement inviting people to place products as part of editorials etc. The policy might have changed, but I still don't trust them.

2) Indian Express - Sensational news articles. But also has a reputation for honesty (mainly from past). They were one of the rare papers to stand up during Indian Emergency and to take on Reliance group and their influence in government.
Has a lot more news content compared to Times of India and slightly less amount of opinion.

3) The Hindu - Despite its name it has nothing to do with Hinduism . The name is a leftover from pre-independence times. Very popular in South India. For many, the morning does not start without a cup of filter-coffeee, a masala Dosa and the Hindu.
My complaint with the paper is that it does not report anything until it is absolutely sure of what is going on. Rarely gets things wrong, but mostly because they won't publish anything until everyone else has published the story and fixed the errors in the original.
I have talked to a few reporters from the paper both in India and US, and they are the typical old-school reporters with strong beliefs about right & wrong and the role of newspapers.

4) Financial Times/ Economic times - In my opinion these papers have the highest content of news and the lowest amount of opinion pieces. This is what I started reading regularly even though I did not have much to do with stock market.

5) The Mint - Basically Indian edition of Wall Street Journal. The News corporation connection (Star TV, Fox news) makes me slightly suspicious of the paper. But so far Wall Street Journal in the US has not shown a rightist bias (other than the libertarian bias it already had)

[wtf]

same here...
these channels have their own set agendas.. and CNN works for CIA, BBC for MI6 MI5 , zee works for RAW and Geo works for Jews ( i know its not true but thats wat i think )

Funny!

Here is the other view. (Most) British people think that BBC is there to criticize the British government (They watch the local BBC channels more often than international ones that we see).

(Some) Indians think Zee TV has some sort of underworld connection -especially since no one knows where the initial funding came from.

From living in the US, I think CNN is very boring. Can't comment on
Geo TV.

[wtf]

---

---

Continuing on what I think of Indian media ...

Rediff has a split personality. Many stories are rightist, but they also have authors from extreme left. In effect I think they have zero editorial control with all sort of biases in their stories.

The good thing with rediff is that they actually send reporters to events instead of relying on press agencies. They are also the first to report a whole lot of stories . So I'd say trust their stories, but not their opinion pieces.