BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN MEDIA MONITORING |03/09/2017
Indian cartoons poked as much fun at us as at China and questioned our foreign policy. But China’s cartoons were consistently sneering of India and loyal to the state
BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN REGIONAL MEDIA |26/08/2017
The media in Pakistan and West Asia gave wide coverage to the landmark ruling but recognition was tempered by suspicion of the BJP's intentions.
BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN MEDIA PRACTICE |17/07/2017
According to four papers, it was 'pretty good’. Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran’s coverage was positive while Express and ET were less so - but only slightly.
BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN MEDIA MONITORING |28/06/2017
A farmers’ agitation that turned violent resulting in six deaths in Mandsaur, MP, prompted a detailed analysis in both the Nai Dunia and the Indian Express
BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN MEDIA MONITORING |10/06/2017
Coverage of the issue in two publications which focus on Indian Muslims suffered from omissions and contradictions.
BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN MEDIA BUSINESS |10/05/2017
Latest data released by ABC on May 8, 2017 highlighted continuing growth of print media, but other data suggests that future growth of print will be slower than other media.
BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN MEDIA MONITORING |03/05/2017
The media stood by the ‘’national interest” of their respective countries instead of critically examining the case
BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN REGIONAL MEDIA |05/04/2017
While the English press focused on abattoirs and anti-Romeo squads, reporting in the Hindi press ranged across a wide canvas of pressing issues.
BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN MEDIA MONITORING |25/02/2017
Of all the parties in the UP election, the BJP received more coverage in Amar Ujala and Dainik Jagran, mainly because it had more star campaigners.
BY ANKITA PANDEY| IN MEDIA MONITORING |25/02/2017
Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala were pretty balanced but one striking failure was putting tough questions to politicians on behalf of their readers
Subscribe To The Newsletter
The back story of the huge apology notice published by the Hindustan Times on September 18 (see this Hoot brief) is to be found in the record of sittings of the Privileges Committee of the Lok Sabha. The apology was published three days after the last sitting to which the editor of HT was summoned. The notice given by  Andhra Pradesh MP Jithender Reddy was taken up five times by the Committee  between July end and September 15. This too has fed into the wide ranging speculation over the reason for the resignation of the current editor of the paper, Aparisim Ghosh.                       

Did it really take the Hindustan Times almost six months to figure out that it had got the figures on the attendance  in Parliament of certain MPs, wrong? Or is there more to why it carried a front page apology covering half the page on September 18? It said, "In the edition of March 24, 2017, we had, because of a technical glitch, erroneously reported the attendance in Parliament of certain MPs. Below are the accurate figures. Hindustan Times offers an unconditional apology, and deeply regrets any offence or inconvenience caused." Of the seven MPs whom it said had 100 per cent attendance  not one had it, the paper listed six other names for this statistic. And the list of those whom it said had the worst attendance in Parliament is headed by Abhijeet Mukherjee, the former President's son, who in fact has a figure of 97 per cent attendance.                                    

View More

The Washington Post  is rolling out Talk  a new commenting system that will allow the paper to better engage with readers who comment on its stories and help promote civil conversations. The software was developed by the Coral Project, a collaboration between The Post, the NYT and Mozilla, funded by a grant from the  Knight Foundation. The Post will integrate Talk with ModBot, its AI-powered comment moderation technology.                                                                         

Propublica has built a  Facebook bot which is a tiny computer program that automatically converses with you over Facebook Messenger to determine you experiences with reporting hate speech on Facebook. Its says its objective is to learn more about Facebook’s secret censorship rules and what the social media determines is hate speech. (Nieman Lab)                                       
View More