Are newspapers always objective in their reporting, giving their readers all the perspectives  so that the readers can developed an informed opinion of their own? The Hoot, based in New Delhi, looked at four Indian newspapers, the Times of India, the Hindustan Times, the Hindu, and the Indian Express, from March 15 to April 7 to examine the coverage on the Tibetan protests in Lhasa and other places and the Chinese and international response.

The Hoot found that the Hindu and Indian Express were "narrower in their breadth of coverage and less inclined to give all sides of the story." The Indian Express had catchy headlines that supported Tibet, but did not cover other aspects of the story. The Hindu had less than half of the number of items on this story than the Times of India and was the only paper that did not have a story on Tibet everyday and that had a pro-China headline.

The four papers also shaped each story differently, evident on the March 17 headlines: Hindustan Times: "Unrest spreads to Sichuan.", Times Of India: "Lhasa lockdown, violence continues.", Indian Express: "Beijing declares  'peoples war', troops pour into Lhasa", and the Hindu: Lhasa returns to normal.

Examining the bias in each paper through their editorials, the Hoot found that The Hindu was "the most unequivocal one."  On March 26, they ran a story called "The question of Tibet," which included a statement on the violence by Tibetans in Lhasa, critics of China's handling, and a look at China's options. The story concluded with a negative slant toward New Delhi for giving the Dalai Lama and his followers too much freedom for their political activities in India. The Hindu also described the Tibetans as "rioters," while the other three papers called them "protesters."

The Indian Express was also explicit in its stance, by writing that democracies must allow peaceful protests on their soil in their Olympic Torch editorials on March 29 and April 5.

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 highlighted India's interests by reminding its readers that the conflict was taking place on Indian ground. It recommended "deepening Sino-Indian relations through economic engagement."

On April 14, The Hindu's readers editor acknowledged that the paper's coverage lacked balance, and "that there was a surprising absence of letters to the Editor on the issue," according to the Hoot. He quoted from readers' complaints on the type and amount of coverage on the issue, wrote his own thoughts on the situation, and gave the chief editor space to respond.

The Hoot also found that what is newsworthy for some, is not for others. For example, The Hindustan Times had three stories on the disruption of the Olympic torch ceremony in Greece on March 25, while the Times of India had two. The Hindu and Indian Express chose not to cover this incident.

A survey conducted earlier this year found that 70.8% of the respondents believed that stories were "sensationalized" by the media and that 57.1% felt there were "many obstacles to practicing value-based journalism. All news stories have an angle, but should newspapers be completely objective or should newspapers have strong opinions? "

Source: The Hoot through AMF