The media is always full of blatant lies when it has ulterior motives. The Armenian genocide was ignored forever. The Serbian genocide during WWII had entries in all 'reputable' encyclopaedia (incl. Britannica) in the 80s, but thereafter it went completely unmentioned in later editions. The Hindu genocide in Bangladesh is <i>never ever</i> mentioned in all those 'religious tolerance' sites that now list even the Armenian one. Why oh why could this be.
No one in any western country has any idea of the scale of murder and terror inflicted on the various South American nations' populations under dictators that the US put in place. They make sure no one does.
Reuters and AAP will write what they write. People have to make up their own minds. The problem is, people outside of Godhra (and India), only get to see what the media tells them. The media thrives on the fact that the rest of the world is not present at any incident that is being reported on, and so people have to rely on the media to tell them the facts of the case. They'll not realise it's a blatant lie like we do, only because incidents in their own backyards are not generally fictionalised.
Bits of truth + bits of lies = media. It's really a great recipe.
No one in any western country has any idea of the scale of murder and terror inflicted on the various South American nations' populations under dictators that the US put in place. They make sure no one does.
Reuters and AAP will write what they write. People have to make up their own minds. The problem is, people outside of Godhra (and India), only get to see what the media tells them. The media thrives on the fact that the rest of the world is not present at any incident that is being reported on, and so people have to rely on the media to tell them the facts of the case. They'll not realise it's a blatant lie like we do, only because incidents in their own backyards are not generally fictionalised.
Bits of truth + bits of lies = media. It's really a great recipe.