Are they telling it like it is?
Tibet-China coverage--Part I. The Hindu and the Indian Express were narrower in their breadth of coverage and less inclined to give all sides of the story.
Monitored by SEVANTI NINAN with SHAYONI SARKAR and TENZIN PALDON
Newspapers report the truth as they choose to see it. A classic example of this has been the coverage of the Tibetan protests in Lhasa and elsewhere, and the Chinese and international response to them. The Hoot looked at four Indian newspapers over three weeks (from March 15, the day after the Lhasa protests sparked violence to April 7) to see how extensive and multi-dimensional the coverage was. The Times of India and the Hindustan Times offered both extensive and balanced coverage, HT providing a wider gamut of perspectives, and the Times of India more voluminous coverage.
The Hindu and the Indian Express were narrower in their breadth of coverage and less inclined to give all sides of the story. The Indian Express as is its wont, had feisty headlines a fairly strong pro-Tibet line, and fewer stories overall because it did not waste newsprint on other dimensions of the story. The Hindu was reticent, it had less than 50 per cent of the number of items on this story found in the Times of India. It was also the only paper not to have a story on Tibet every single day in the three weeks covered. There were three days when it had no coverage at all. It was the only paper with a discernable pro-China line.
This was a developing story with many facets, and in the second part of this analysis we will look at which paper did the best job of covering all the angles. Here, we look at the ways in which this became a story shaped by the media, where the protagonists were projected as aggressor or victim, depending on the predilection of the newspaper.
Seeing it differently
Our study found that comparing headlines across papers on specific days is telling. Thus, On March 16, The Hindustan Times said of India¿s diplomatic stance: "India frowns on stir, expresses distress." The Times of India said, "India breaks silence." Indian Express: "Bending over backwards to please China." The Hindu said nothing. On this day, HT and TOI had six stories each. The Indian Express had three. The Hindu had none.
On March 17 the contrast in perspectives is self evident.
Hindustan Times: "Unrest spreads to Sichuan."
TOI: "Lhasa lockdown, violence continues."
Indian Express: "Beijing declares ¿peoples war¿, troops pour into Lhasa"
Hindu: Lhasa returns to normal
On March 19 when the Chinese premier blamed the Dalai Lama, the Hindu had a three column story on page one. The Hindustan Times had two column story on page 16, with a 6 column headline. The Times of India chose not to headline this point, the story which carried it was on page 11. And the Indian Express had a three column story on page 15.
Who was calling the shots as the face-off escalated? Well, the answer depends who you read. Thus,
Hindustan Times: "Dalai Lama keen to talk to China at neutral venue."
Times of India: "Dali says ready to meet China prez."
Hindu: "China asks Dalai Lama to create conditions for talks."
Indian Express: "US wants China, Dalai Lama to talk." (March 21).
The disruption of the Olympic torch ceremony in Greece saw The Hindustan Times do three stories on it, the Times of India two, the Hindu and Express none. What is news for some is evidently not news for others. (March 25) The next day, the Hindu said, "China blasts bid to disrupt Olympic torch relay." None of the other three had that story. But when on the 28th March Tibetan monks disrupted the international media¿s visit to Lhasa, the reverse was true: HT, TOI and Express carried that report, the Hindu did not.
On the 3rd April the Hindu had an edit page lead article, "How China sees the Dalai Lama and his Cause." It offered insights which had not been available to Indian readers till then.
But on the 5th April when fresh violence broke out in Tibet, the Hindu did not report it. HT and TOI did.
Taking a Stand
There were seven editorials during this period, three each in HT, TOI and IE, one in The Hindu. The most unequivocal one was in The Hindu, on March 26, titled, "The question of Tibet." It began with a strong, graphic statement on the extent of violence by Tibetans in Lhasa, it took on critics of China¿s handling, and then it looked at the options before China, and why these could not allow it to concede the level of autonomy the Dalai Lama was demanding. It ended by scolding New Delhi for allowing too much latitude to the Dalai Lama and his followers for their political activities on Indian soil. The Hindu¿s single edit was substantially longer than the two edits each which the other papers wrote. It did not however waste much space on what Indian interests might dictate, as a course of action.
The Indian Express was equally unequivocal, but its stand was diametrically opposite to that of the Hindu. Both its editorials (on March 29 and April 5) related to the Olympic Torch and urged India not to behave as though China¿s interests were the same as India¿s. It reminded India that democracies must allow peaceful protests on their soil.
The Times of India urged China to talk to the Dalai Lama, and urged India to stand up to Chinese threats and ensure that "Beijing respects the differences between the political systems in the two countries."
The Hindustan Times focused on Indian interests in both its editorials, reminding India that there was an Indian territory angle to Beijing¿s attempts to make Tibet an integral part of China. It advised deepening Sino-Indian relations through economic engagement.
Editorials apart, the language used indicated the paper¿s stand. Were Tibetans in Lhasa "protesters" as the three other papers usually described them, or were they "¿rioters", as the Hindu suggested in its editorial? It went on to describe them as violent, ransacking mobs. Headlines in the Hindustan Times , Times of India and the Indian Express used the words repression, crackdown, crush to describe Chinese actions. The strenuous efforts by Tibetans at different location across the globes to stop the passage of the Olympic Torch were always described in these newspapers as "disruptions."
Finally, the comparisons invoked to describe a situation also tell you where the writer or paper¿s sympathies lie. Is the Tibetan struggle comparable to a resistance movement, or an insurgency? If Barkha Dutt harked back to Tiananmen Square while writing on Tibet (March 28, Hindustan Times), a writer in the Hindu (former diplomat M K Bhadrakumar) thought Tibetan activists in Dharmsala recalled images of the Mujahideen. "Western photographers eagerly caught the excited Tibetan youth on camera — handsome young men with flowing hair and headbands who would look exotic like the wild Afghan mujahideen did at one time on the television screens in the drawing rooms in Europe and America." (March 28)
(The Hindu Business Line which belongs to the same publication group published an opinion piece on March 26 where too the writer invoked a comparison with the Hizbul Mujahideen. "Surely, they do not want China to queer India¿s pitch by giving asylum to some Hizbul Mujahideen leader on its side of the border, or declare its backing of an independent Bodoland?"( B S Raghavan, "Unravelling the Tibetan imbroglio", March 26)
Meanwhile the Tiananmen Square comparison was used by others over these three weeks. In the New Indian Express of March 29 while reporting a Friends of Tibet meeting in Kerala, quoting a speaker, and in a correspondent¿s report in the Times of India on March 16.
Another TOI correspondent compared the Chinese "imposing" on Tibet to what they were doing in Myanmar. An editorial in TOI early in the monitoring period suggested meanwhile, that if China were to use force to suppress the protests, it would be taking a cue the junta in Myanmar.
The other comparison made in suggesting an approach to dealing with the issue came in the Indian Express which picked up from Malcolm Rifkind¿s ¿Tibet: try the Hong Kong solution¿ reprinted in The Times, London, on March 21, under the headline, "Let Tibet go the Hong Kong way, and China will also benefit."
Observations on the media angle
The Hindu¿s Readers Editor did not refer to discontent in the readership over the paper¿s Tibet-China coverage, in his column of March 31, though it was evident by then. He did however devote considerable space to it the following fortnight (April 14), quoting from readers¿ complaints, making observations of his own and giving the chief editor space to respond. He conceded that the paper¿s coverage lacked balance, and that there was a surprising absence of letters to the Editor on the issue.
The Times of India carried a long, documented piece on how adept Tibetans in India have become at managing the media. ("The monk who sold a story" April 1st.) "Few groups can match the Tibetans¿ ability to network, make friends and milk the friendship. Years of living in exile, in an undying hope of returning to their homeland one day, has taught the refugees the power of perseverance. And also the art of telling their side of the story. The Tibetans skillfully supply the media with gory tales and images of Chinese aggression whose authenticity cannot be verified independently."
Link to Part II--What would have missed if you had read only one newspaper?
