World looks at India more positively - BBC survey 2011

Discussion in 'Foreign Relations' started by Rahul92, Mar 10, 2011.

  1. Rahul92

    Rahul92 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    748
    WASHINGTON: Mark Twain and Max Mueller were captivated by India. Winston Churchill and Richard Nixon disdained her. In a far more complex 21st century environment, India continues to evoke mixed reactions across the world, although it is gradually increasing positive views from the international community even as it jostles for influence with key players such as United States and China.

    A BBC World Service Country Rating Poll of 27 countries conducted with the University of Maryland shows India rated a 42% "mainly positive" view of its influence in 2010-2011, a 6% improvement over the previous year, with 29% "mainly negative". China rated 44-38 and the United States 49-31 in a poll that was topped by Germany 62-15, UK and Canada 57-12. The poll results released this week involved 28,619 citizens in major urban areas of 27 countries.

    The broadly positive numbers for India masks a complex picture of country-by-country views that has ebbed and flowed with geo-political and economic developments. Of 27 countries polled, 17 lean positive towards India, four lean negative, and six are divided. Countries where there was a mainly negative view of India's influence include (not unexpectedly) Pakistan, and unexpectedly, Philippines, France and Spain. China and Australia were among the countries which are divided about India.

    Although Americans and British still lean largely positive (56% and 50%, respectively), the poll showed their views of India's influence in world affairs have deteriorated over the past year, with negative ratings increasing sharply in both countries (29%, up 11 points in the US, 35%, up 19 points in the UK). The same trend is observed in Australia, where negative views are up 18 points compared to 2010, and Australian opinion shifted from being positive in 2010 to divided in 2011 (44% vs 45%).

    Italy is the most favourable country towards India in Europe. More than six in ten (61%) lean positive, a 19-point rise since 2010. India also increased its positive views significantly in Turkey, South Korea and Nigeria. Even in China, the positive views of India went up from 29% in 2010 to 40% this year.

    While most countries, including the United States and China, improved their positive view across the world, the three most negatively viewed countries saw their average ratings go from bad to worse, including Iran (59% negative, up 3 points since 2010), North Korea (55%, up 6 points), and Pakistan (56%, up 5 points).

    Pakistan is having a particularly dismal time. Of the 27 countries polled in 2011, 23 lean negative towards Pakistan, three lean positive, and one is divided. Even China, Pakistan's much-vaunted ally, moved from being divided about Pakistan to leaning negative. While there was an increase in favorable ratings of seven points (37%), negative ratings grew by 13 points (47%).

    A number of countries with clearly unfavorable leanings towards Pakistan have become even more negative, including the US (75%, up from 58%) and Australia (74%, up from 54%). Negative views of Pakistan in the United Kingdom jumped 24 points to 68%, and in Canada they increased by 18 points (67%). Turkey is the only country which has a positive view of Pakistan.

    Views of the US continued their overall improvement in 2011, confirming the trend seen in 2010. Of the 27 countries surveyed, 18 hold positive views, seven hold negative views, and two are divided. In Asia, a majority of Chinese is now holding negative views (53%, up 9 points), and although views improved a bit in Pakistan, they are still largely negative overall (16% vs 46%).



    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...India-more-positively/articleshow/7667312.cms
     
  2.  
  3. kickok1975

    kickok1975 Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,538
    Likes Received:
    350
    I think majority Indian will have negative view on China even China's view on India is divided with 40% positive. It's a surprise that Phillippines, France and Spain are 3 of 4 most negative viewer to India. It's no surprise US, UK will have more negative view on India along with India's development.

    This survey does tell a lot about India in other people's eye and worth Indian people to think about.
     
  4. Rahul92

    Rahul92 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,622
    Likes Received:
    748
    In Asia, a majority of Chinese is now holding negative views (53%, up 9 points), and although views improved a bit in Pakistan, they are still largely negative overall (16% vs 46%). Well At least leave pakistan now guys
     
  5. p2prada

    p2prada Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    10,233
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Holy Hell
    Funny how my view's never included in these so called "surveys."
     
  6. arya

    arya Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,312
    Likes Received:
    340
    well sorry to say but fact if you dont support pakistan against india then we have no problem whit you


    there is not a single signal that china want good realtion with us

    china and india are two gowing power if conflict take place then we have to ready for loss for both nation

    we want good realtion with china but china should take steps to make confidence
     
  7. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    1,799
    BBC!! LMAO..Do i need to say more? British Brainwashing corporation can pull any statics from it ass and manufacture any poll from the grass root, i am sure they could have even picked the people who they wanted to ask! I cant stand that channel,the way they always chest thump the word "British" British Scientist invented this and that but of it is any other country they fail to mention the name of the country or just dont cover it. Its tribalistic flag ship at its best.
     
  8. Nonynon

    Nonynon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    15
    BBC IS CRAP! Whatever they say, don't buy it! They manipulate viewers, twist survey results and tell half truths.
    You can find more reliable sources in the N.Korea paper then in that brainwashing industry.
     
  9. gogbot

    gogbot Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    937
    Likes Received:
    116
    I am posting this against my better judgment , but WTF hasv you guys been smoking.

    Guess what all the new's services issue propaganda , issue opinions mixed in with the news.
    eXception being the onion network.

    but i have been watching the BBC for years , and i can't find one sustained instance to justify what your talking.

    Its better new than all the dumbed down crap in the US , and all the un-credible BS in India.

    Honestly speaking all political reports gets skewed and that is unavailable.

    But BBS does good work with non-politcal reporting and that should be recognized.
    And i have yet to find better documentaries then those made by the BBC.
     
  10. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,248
    Likes Received:
    1,863
    and the only reason for that was the 1962 event otherwise it would have been very positive
     
  11. Nonynon

    Nonynon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ok then, here's an example for Bias articles about Israel which i heard about recently, more where that came from (I also heard there are some about India but I don't watch enough BBC to confirm that myself with examples):
    The story is about how 2 Palestinian terrorists managed to get into a Israeli settler family's home then murder by knife the sleeping parents, 11 and 4 year old sleeping sons then the 1 month old baby. Two other children in the family managed to be unnoticed by the terrorists and survived, another one survived by being outside the house when the terrorists came in. This happened 2 days ago.
    Fatah later took responsibility for the terrorist attack saying "Warriors squad infiltrated the settlement of Itamar, was able to enter into a house and killed the community who was at home. The action is a response to the ongoing Israeli aggression against our Palestinian people".
    Such brave 'Warriors'... Gotta love making peace with Fatah.

    here's the article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12721170

    The topic on the main page said "Israel hunts 'Palestinian killer'". No indication to anything new for the biased anti Israel, pro Palestinian average BBC reader. And this is about as far as the average reader will go. Those that will go ahead and into the article will read the headline "Palestinian 'kills five Israelis' in West Bank". Again, no indication to the fact children had just been murdered.
    Later you read the subtitle "Israeli troops have launched a manhunt after five members of a Jewish settler family were killed in the West Bank". Most readers don't read the main body of the article so here we go, most people who read the article would not know anything about children being murdered. You can say they hinted about it when they said it was family members but the average reader doesn't make that math on his own and certainly would not assume such young ages for the murdered.
    Later, there's an excuse to the killing:
    "International law
    The Itamar settlement was the target of a previous attack, in 2002, in which five Israelis were killed and several injured in an attack by a Palestinian gunman.
    US-brokered peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians stalled last year over the issue of Israeli settlement building.
    Palestinians have refused all direct contact with Israel until construction is frozen.
    Nearly half a million Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
    They are held to be illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this."
    So there we go, murdering that family with the children was understandable... (I'm not going to get into how right that BBC statement is)

    For such a small country like ours those numbers are enough to mark this a major terrorist attack. I'll compare the amount of the Jewish Israeli population (that means -the Arab Israelis) to the Indian population to show you how much those numbers are horrifying to us: you would get 1069 Indians murdered, 3/5 of them small children and babies.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  12. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    I read the article but I still do not see why it is biased. Whatever you wrote does not in anyway prove that this article is biased. Am I missing something?

    Your claim in red above is false because below is a quote directly from the article, the link of which you have provided.

     
  13. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    Hardly surprising, considering one of their citizens has infiltrated the highest levels of Indian government.


    Confirms the already well-established truism that China has no "bonds of friendship" with Pakistan, but is merely using it as a (forgive the uncouth term) geopolitical condom.
     
  14. Nonynon

    Nonynon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    15
    The Bias part is that whenever Israel strikes Gaza targets its all over BBC but when Israeli kids get murdered BBC kind of looks away, not making anything big out of this while its a major terrorist attack in a proportion not seen for a long time now. And also BBC 'forget' to mention Fatah is responsible for this... But they say Israel is to blame for lack of peace with the Palestinians...
    And again there's the last part, justifying the murder. Or atleast making it understandable.
    What I said about lack of explanation was in the titles. As I also said, most people don't read the body of the articles but only the headlines and subtitles so the fact they put the information only in the main body of the article makes a lot less people know about it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  15. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Are you referring to the last paragraph? That paragraph mentions the fact that Israel disagrees with International Law. You need to keep in mind that Britain contributed a lot towards the creation of Israel, hence the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is a state owned news agency of Britain, reserves the right to speak in favour of as well as against the official position of Britain, including Britain's stands, past and present, vis-à-vis Israel and its actions. They have been critical of Britain itself in the past. The following two links will prove that.

    BBC critical of Britain (British Foreign Policy):
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12349205
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239

    Every story has multiple sides to it. An article, however, can have only one title. However, there are subtitles, and can be devoted to bolster and counter an argument (see the links above). Neutrality is maintained by using words and phrases such as, but not limited to, 'alleged', 'was reported', 'on conditions of anonymity' etc.. This is part of professional journalism and BBC has been doing an excellent job of it. I trust BBC and I will buy it anyday.

    There articles (the links of which I have provided) prove that BBC makes a sincere effort to remain unbiased and I simply do not agree with, albeit respect, your statement below:

    A friendly advice on your choice of words:
    Kindly note that a certain kind of post evokes a certain kind of response. The response you got (below) is a reaction to what you posted (above). Posts like this are often a source of heated debates that end up in non-sequiturs, ad hominem attacks and rhetoric, thus degrading the quality of a thread.

    Further commentary on, and historical significance to, British practises:
    Have you read William Shakespeare? In many of his plays, there are mentions of the court jester or page boy or the motley fool. Apparently, they are supposed to be the clown for the entertainment of the court. However, the underlying fact is that they serve the purpose of 'self-criticism' and it is believed that these men were typically wiser than the King himself. This is the reason why the British always cherished their ability to absorb self-criticism. BBC today is doing the same job, except, that they do not entertain the courtiers of the British Royal Families.

    P.S.: Off-topic discussions are not toelrated in DFI beyond a certain threshold. However, if you want to present your views for or against any number of news agencies, please visit and post here: Thread: Journalists, Media Channels and their agenda.

    -Regards-
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  16. gogbot

    gogbot Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    937
    Likes Received:
    116
    Are all the facts reported ?
    Yes

    Was there a bias ?
    Maybe , possible so.
    But it is not being misreported , all the facts have been presented. And they were not half truths.

    Nothing of the sort for you to say the N-korea paper is better.

    You find me case of facts being mis-reported , information not being reported or fake story being reported.
    Otherwise you have no case.
     
  17. Nonynon

    Nonynon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    246
    Likes Received:
    15
    Its presented in a way to remind the reader why the terror attack was done. In a baby murder case i just don't agree the murderers should be given anything.

    I'm not blaming anything on Britain, I have little against Britain today, only BBC. Btw the British Empire contributed more against the creation of Israel then Saudi Arabia did but that's another story.

    What BBC says about Britain is one thing, what I care is how my country is demonized constantly in BBC. As I said, i can give more examples.

    Sorry if that was the outcome, it wasn't what I had in mind. I guess i got a little angry when I read the BBC report at the time.

    I have no problem with media critics but what BBC does is more then that, its a one sided bias against Israel. In fact, I have never seen any BBC article presenting Israel in a good light. So what is the average BBC reader supposed to think of my country?

    Ok, noted.

    It presented the facts in a manner that would decrease the proportion of the terror attack to the average reader. Also, it didn't say anything about Fatah taking responsibility for the attack, an important fact.


    I was exaggerating, i know how the N-Korean paper is like.

    I guess if i bring new articles I'll need to do that on another topic but sadly I have to go now so I'll do that some other time.

    Edit: ah another fact I forget to mention is that BBC didn't tell about the celebrations going on in Gaza about the success of the murder.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011

Share This Page