Interesting cultural difference between the US and India

[Recursion]

This came out of a conversation I was having with a local Maharashtra representative, and it taught me a lot.

In India, the idea of a newspaper "endorsing" a candidate for office is so far off the radar that they don't know what to make of it (the journalists I asked about it got all fussy and said, "but, they're journalists!" I said, "Yeah, but we're talking about editorial lines." "Editors are still journalists!&quot

In India, a political endorsement would be considered, wildy, wildly inappropriate, so wildly that it's not even technically illegal; people literally haven't thought of news outlets doing that.

Is this a worse or better situation? I'm not sure.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

1. Overt endorsements are fine, it's covert support that I disapprove of.

The Daily Telegraph, while right-wing, is a respectable publication. I disagree with it's editorial stances, but that's its choice and mine.

It's the news sources that push an agenda I disagree with while claiming to be "fair and balanced" that I have a problem with.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. So do they achieve some magical neutrality?

Or do they promote covertly? Do they give equal coverage to all? Do some candidates go without any coverage while others get plenty? Do you find that word and image choices are utterly without editorial weight?

[randome]

3. "Is this a worse or better situation?" Maybe a little of both.

Word of mouth can be a better way to select a leader. But in a country as large and populous as India, I would think 'word of mouth' to opt for hundreds of different candidates, thereby diluting the popular vote.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[LWolf]

4. Better.

I want "news" to be information without spin. If I need to know what someone thinks about that news, I'll ask.