Category: Media

Google’s recent pivot toward AI-driven search has sent shockwaves through the digital news media industry, accelerating an already alarming decline in web traffic and ad revenues. News outlets that once relied heavily on search engine referrals are now grappling with the consequences of AI features that provide users with direct answers, bypassing the need to click through to original sources.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, Google’s latest AI-powered search tools—including the controversial AI Overviews and its chatbot-like AI Mode—are rapidly changing how people consume information. Instead of directing users to original news websites, these tools summarize or answer queries directly, causing a steep drop in referral traffic. This shift is cutting off news publishers from vital streams of ad revenue and paid subscriptions.

For many in digital media, this is not just a technological evolution—it is an existential crisis. News publications, already battered by the internet’s transformation of the media business model, are now being further destabilized by the emergence of AI-generated search results that remove the incentive for users to visit the source.

The impact has been staggering. According to the Wall Street Journal, Business Insider experienced a dramatic 55 percent drop in search traffic between April 2022 and April 2025. In response, the company laid off around 21 percent of its staff in May. Business Insider CEO Barbara Peng stated that the company had to “endure extreme traffic drops outside of our control.”

As digital outlets scramble to respond, opinions are divided over the right course of action. Nicholas Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic, acknowledged the challenge ahead: “Google is shifting from being a search engine to an answer engine,” he told the WSJ. “We have to develop new strategies.”

While some media companies are exploring new approaches to adapt to the AI age, others are turning to the courts. The New York Times has taken a more aggressive stance, filing a lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft, accusing them of copyright infringement for allegedly using its content to train AI models without permission or compensation.

This legal pushback stems from a growing sense of frustration among publishers, many of whom believe that their original content is being exploited by AI firms. The rise of AI-enhanced search, especially on platforms as dominant as Google, is deepening this rift. As AI tools increasingly scrape and repackage content, the underlying business model of journalism—producing high-quality content supported by traffic and advertising—is becoming harder to sustain.

Ironically, Google is also facing disruption from the very technology it is embracing. Earlier this year, Apple executive Eddy Cue revealed during a federal court hearing that Google search traffic through the Safari browser had declined for the first time in two decades. The decline signals that even Google’s long-standing grip on search could be weakening as AI changes the digital landscape.

Google, however, disputes this claim. The company insists that the total number of searches continues to rise. Still, it is pressing forward with its AI ambitions. “This is the moment that propels us forward in our ability to achieve our mission and really deliver a transformed search experience for users,” said Nick Fox, Google’s head of knowledge and information, in an interview with Adweek.

Yet this “transformed” search experience could spell disaster for the very media ecosystem that supports it. Google’s AI-generated summaries and direct answers are built on top of news content, data, and analysis produced by professional journalists. If those journalists lose the financial incentive to create, the source of this information may begin to dry up.

This feedback loop is dangerous. As Google increasingly relies on AI to curate and summarize content, it may be undermining the creators of that content to such a degree that future search results become filled with AI-generated information with no grounding in original reporting. In the worst case, this could devolve into what critics describe as an “incestuous swamp of AI-generated nonsense.”

Research has shown that Google’s AI Overviews tend to favor large, established news outlets. While this may provide some cushion to major players in the industry, it leaves smaller, independent publishers struggling for relevance. This disparity threatens to create an even more uneven playing field, where only the most powerful media brands can survive the AI era.

In light of these developments, the media industry is being forced to explore alternative revenue models. Traditional sources of income like ad revenue from web traffic and subscriptions may no longer be enough. As AI-driven tools erode the relationship between readers and original content creators, media companies must find new ways to sustain their operations and maintain journalistic integrity.

Legal disputes are likely to intensify as publishers push back against what they see as unauthorized use of their copyrighted materials. The question of whether AI companies can freely use scraped content from the open web without compensation remains unresolved and is at the heart of ongoing litigation and policy debates.

Danielle Coffey, CEO of the trade association News/Media Alliance, offered a scathing critique of Google’s new AI Mode in a statement last month. “Links were the last redeeming quality of search that gave publishers traffic and revenue,” she said. “Now Google just takes content by force and uses it with no return, the definition of theft.”

Her comments reflect the growing anger in the publishing world, where many feel that tech companies have taken advantage of journalistic labor without giving anything back. The sentiment underscores the urgency for regulatory and structural changes that can balance innovation with fair compensation for content creators.

As the digital media and tech worlds collide, the stakes could not be higher. If newsrooms continue to lose revenue, the quality and quantity of news content will inevitably suffer. This not only affects the financial health of media companies but also poses a broader threat to an informed public and a functioning democracy.

Google’s embrace of AI in its search engine may be a leap forward in technology, but it also represents a step backward for many in the media industry. The outcome of this transformation will likely depend on how well publishers, regulators, and tech companies can navigate the complex ethical, legal, and economic challenges now confronting the information ecosystem.

In the meantime, journalists and media leaders are left grappling with a rapidly shifting landscape, trying to reinvent their strategies while holding onto the core principles that define quality journalism. Whether they succeed will help determine the future of the news—and the future of search itself.

We were warned. The latest wave of cyberattacks powered by artificial intelligence is so advanced that traditional methods of detecting fraud may no longer be sufficient. In the past 24 hours alone, warnings have been issued to Gmail and Outlook users, cautioning them that malicious emails are now so convincingly crafted they appear flawless. Meanwhile, voice calls that sound like they’re from familiar contacts may, in fact, be deceptive traps.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has raised a serious alarm following the emergence of “an ongoing malicious text and voice messaging campaign.” This attack strategy utilizes fake text and voice messages that seem to originate from “senior U.S. officials,” and has managed to deceive many targets. These include “current or former senior U.S. federal or state government officials and their contacts,” making the threat especially severe and far-reaching.

In response, the FBI has delivered a clear message: “If you receive a message claiming to be from a senior U.S. official, do not assume it is authentic.” The primary intent behind these attacks is to lure recipients into clicking links disguised as legitimate communications, ultimately stealing login credentials and sensitive data.

According to Max Gannon of Cofense, “it is important to note that threat actors can also spoof known phone numbers of trusted organizations or people, adding an extra layer of deception to the attack.” He further noted that “threat actors are increasingly turning to AI to execute phishing attacks, making these scams more convincing and nearly indistinguishable.”

The FBI’s latest advisory expands upon their ongoing series of alerts related to the rapidly growing use of AI in cybercrime. People are urged to “verify the identity of the person calling you or sending text or voice messages” before engaging, no matter how familiar the communication may seem.

While checking email addresses, phone numbers, and website links is still advised, the truth is that AI-generated scams have become so accurate that typical mistakes and oddities are increasingly rare. Digital clones can now create replicas that are virtually perfect.

The FBI also encourages people to watch for subtle flaws in digital content. These could include “distorted hands or feet, unrealistic facial features, indistinct or irregular faces, unrealistic accessories such as glasses or jewelry, inaccurate shadows, watermarks, voice call lag time, voice matching, and unnatural movements.”

Voice cloning presents a similar challenge. The agency advises listening carefully to verbal communication. “Listen closely to the tone and word choice to distinguish between a legitimate phone call or voice message from a known contact and AI-generated voice cloning, as they can sound nearly identical.”

Still, the FBI concedes that “AI-generated content has advanced to the point that it is often difficult to identify.” In such cases, common sense becomes the best defense. One should ask: Is this a call or message I would logically expect? Am I being urged to take an action that benefits a scammer or a cybercriminal? What could their motive be?

As Ryan Sherstobitoff from SecurityScorecard advises, “to mitigate these risks, individuals must adopt a heightened sense of skepticism towards unsolicited communications, especially those requesting sensitive information or urging immediate action.”

The danger often escalates when these texts, calls, or voice messages include a link. Clicking on such a link could result in stolen credentials or the unintentional installation of malware. The FBI stresses, “Do not click on any links in an email or text message until you independently confirm the sender’s identity.” The agency also warns to “never open an email attachment, click on links in messages, or download applications at the request of or from someone you have not verified.”

ESET cybersecurity specialist Jake Moore also weighed in following the FBI’s warning. He stated, “it’s vital people think with a clear head before responding to messages from unknown sources claiming to be someone they know.” Moore pointed out that with the “newer, impressive and evolving technology, it is understandable why people are quicker to let down their guard and assume that seeing is believing.” He added, “Deepfake technology is now at an incredible level which can even produce flawless videos and audio clips cleverly designed to manipulate victims.”

A timely report from Help Net Security underscores Moore’s concerns. The report warns people not to “assume anything is real just because it looks or sounds convincing.” It adds, “Remember the saying, seeing is believing? We can’t even say that anymore. As long as people rely on what they see and hear as evidence, these attacks will be both effective and difficult to detect.”

In a striking coincidence, Reality Defender published a deepfake security guide just three days before the FBI’s latest public advisory. The guide emphasizes that “deepfake threats targeting communications don’t behave like traditional cyberattacks… Instead, they exploit trust.” It also cautions that “a cloned voice can pass legacy voice biometric systems. A fake video call can impersonate a company executive with enough accuracy to trigger a wire transfer or password reset.”

Moore offered practical guidance on how to avoid falling victim to these AI-driven attacks. “To protect yourself from smishing scams and deepfake content avoid clicking on links in unexpected or suspicious text messages — especially those that create a sense of urgency, even when it looks or sounds like the real deal,” he said. “Never share personal or financial information via text messages and always verify via trusted communication channels.”

The growing sophistication of these cyber threats calls for a shift in how we approach digital trust. No longer can we rely solely on familiar visuals, voices, or communication formats to determine authenticity. The line between real and fake has been blurred by AI tools capable of generating nearly undetectable impersonations.

In summary, the era of easily spotting phishing scams and suspicious messages may be over. As the FBI and cybersecurity experts warn, skepticism and independent verification must become standard practice. With AI-generated messages becoming indistinguishable from authentic ones, people must exercise caution, remain vigilant, and always verify identities through known, reliable methods before taking any action.

Pope Leo XIV made a powerful appeal on Monday for the release of journalists imprisoned around the world, stressing the vital importance of free speech and a free press. Addressing thousands of media professionals gathered in Rome to cover his historic election as the first American pope, Leo underscored his commitment to press freedom during his first meeting with members of the general public.

The newly elected pontiff, a 69-year-old Augustinian missionary, received a warm standing ovation as he entered the Vatican auditorium. His appearance marked his initial public engagement following the 24-hour conclave that resulted in his election last week.

In his remarks, Pope Leo emphasized the moral responsibility of journalists to use their words to promote peace, oppose violence, and amplify the voices of the marginalized. Speaking with clarity and conviction, he expressed solidarity with reporters who have been jailed for their efforts to uncover and share the truth.

“The church recognises in these witnesses — I am thinking of those who report on war even at the cost of their lives — the courage of those who defend dignity, justice and the right of people to be informed, because only informed individuals can make free choices,” he stated, earning renewed applause from the crowd.

He added, “The suffering of these imprisoned journalists challenges the conscience of nations and the international community, calling on all of us to safeguard the precious gift of free speech and of the press.”

Leo began his speech with a few words in English, injecting a touch of humor by joking that the audience’s response at the end of his address would mean more than the initial ovation he received upon arrival. He then transitioned to Italian to convey his main message, expressing appreciation for the press’s coverage of the papal transition.

He urged the assembled journalists to embrace their role as communicators of peace, emphasizing the immense power of words in shaping the world. “Peace begins with each one of us: in the way we look at others, listen to others and speak about others,” he said. “In this sense, the way we communicate is of fundamental importance: we must say ‘no’ to the war of words and images, we must reject the paradigm of war.”

The Pope’s words carried a strong appeal for ethical journalism and the peaceful use of media in a time when conflict and misinformation continue to threaten societal stability. He highlighted the importance of communication that builds understanding rather than division.

Following his brief but impactful address, Pope Leo took time to interact with those seated near the front. He greeted several journalists personally and walked down the central aisle of the audience hall, shaking hands with many attendees. He signed autographs and even posed for selfies, offering a down-to-earth touch to the otherwise formal occasion.

Some journalists later shared snippets of their private conversations with the pope, revealing that discussions are underway for Leo to visit Turkey. The planned trip would commemorate the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicea, the first ecumenical council in Christianity and a significant milestone in Catholic-Orthodox relations.

There were also moments of light-hearted interaction. A few reporters offered to play tennis with the pope or organize a charity doubles match. Known for being an avid tennis player, Leo responded with a laugh, “But we can’t invite Sinner,” a joking reference to Jannik Sinner, the world’s top-ranked tennis player who was competing nearby at the Italian Open.

The event echoed a similar gathering in 2013 when Pope Francis addressed journalists following his election as the first Latin American pope. At that time, Francis explained his choice of name, inspired by St. Francis of Assisi, and shared his vision for “a church which is poor and for the poor!”

Over the course of his 12-year papacy, Pope Francis frequently spoke about the importance of journalism and its essential role in society. As recently as January, Francis made his own appeal for the release of imprisoned journalists during a Holy Year event focused on the media.

Pope Leo’s message on Monday reinforced that tradition, but with a renewed urgency and personal touch shaped by his background as a missionary and his American roots. His call for ethical journalism and protection of press freedom resonated deeply in a room filled with professionals who often risk their safety to report the truth.

The audience hall was packed with some 6,000 journalists who had traveled to Rome from around the globe to cover Leo’s unexpected election. Many in attendance viewed the pontiff’s address as a bold and welcome affirmation of the importance of their work at a time when journalists face increasing threats, censorship, and persecution in many countries.

By focusing on the theme of peaceful communication and the plight of imprisoned reporters, Pope Leo drew a clear line connecting the Church’s values with the need for transparency, justice, and access to information. His remarks were widely seen as a call to action not only for political leaders and the international community, but also for media organizations and individuals who shape public discourse.

In a time marked by war, political instability, and digital misinformation, Leo’s message served as both a blessing and a challenge. The Pope urged journalists not just to report on the world’s problems but to serve as beacons of integrity and compassion in their storytelling.

This historic first public appearance offered a glimpse of Pope Leo XIV’s priorities and leadership style. Grounded in faith but attentive to the challenges of the modern world, he used his platform to champion a free and ethical press, appealing to both conscience and courage.

As the Vatican prepares for the potential trip to Turkey and Leo begins to shape the direction of his papacy, Monday’s speech stands as a strong opening chapter. It reminded the world that the Church remains committed to truth, justice, and the people who fight to uphold them.

With warmth, humor, and unwavering resolve, Pope Leo XIV has made it clear that his pontificate will stand firmly in defense of the freedom of speech and the press—a message that, like the journalists he addressed, will echo far beyond the walls of the Vatican.

After sustained criticism regarding its initial coverage of the Pahalgam massacre, The New York Times has for the first time labeled the attackers as “terrorists” in a headline, marking a clear shift in its editorial stance. This change comes as India launched Operation Sindoor, a precision military operation targeting terrorist camps situated in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

The revised front-page headline on the NYT website now reads, “India Strikes Pakistan Two Weeks After Terrorist Attack in Kashmir.” This is a significant departure from earlier language used by the publication, which typically described such attackers as “militants” or “gunmen.” The altered terminology follows increasing pressure from Indian commentators, diaspora communities, and American lawmakers who argued that the original reporting understated the brutal nature of the April 22 massacre in Jammu and Kashmir’s Baisaran Valley. That attack claimed the lives of 26 civilians, including 25 Indian tourists and one Nepali citizen.

Even though the headline has been revised, criticism of the NYT persists. Many observers have taken issue with the continued use of terms such as “Indian-administered Kashmir” and “Indian-controlled side of Kashmir” within the article itself. Critics argue this wording reflects a Pakistani point of view and fails to acknowledge Jammu and Kashmir as an inseparable part of India. This choice of language, they contend, reinforces an international narrative that undermines India’s sovereignty over the region.

In its coverage of India’s military response, the NYT did note that the Indian government stated it had targeted “only known terror camps.” The report also highlighted that the strikes were described by Indian officials as “measured, responsible and designed to be non-escalatory.” The article further included statements from Indian authorities claiming that the action was based on concrete evidence linking Pakistan-based terrorists to the Pahalgam massacre.

This apparent shift in editorial tone by The New York Times follows sharp backlash over its initial headline, which read, “At Least 24 Tourists Gunned Down by Militants in Kashmir.” This phrasing triggered significant outrage across social media platforms, particularly when the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee criticized the terminology publicly. The committee reposted the headline with the word “militants” crossed out and “terrorists” written boldly in red.

In its post on X (formerly Twitter), the committee wrote, “Hey, @nytimes, we fixed it for you. This was a TERRORIST ATTACK plain and simple. Whether it’s India or Israel, when it comes to TERRORISM, the NYT is removed from reality.” The comment underscored the frustration of many who believe the international media often fails to label acts of terrorism accurately, especially when the victims are from countries like India.

The reaction was not confined to social media alone. According to sources, American officials and Indian diplomats alike privately raised concerns about the NYT’s portrayal of the massacre. They suggested that describing the brutal killings as a “shooting incident” rather than a terrorist attack did a grave injustice to the victims and skewed the global perception of the threat posed by cross-border terrorism.

Indian officials maintain that Operation Sindoor is a direct and proportionate response to the Pahalgam killings, and that it was carried out with restraint to avoid broader escalation. The military action was designed to send a clear message to terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan and PoK without pushing the situation into a full-blown conflict.

Despite the efforts of The New York Times to revise its language, media analysts and Indian observers continue to scrutinize the global press for how it presents stories involving terrorism in South Asia. Many feel that selective language choices not only shape global opinion but also impact international policymaking and diplomatic relations.

The use of euphemisms like “gunmen” or “militants” is seen by some critics as an attempt to soften the blow of atrocities that should be unequivocally described as terrorism. They argue that this selective framing can create a perception of moral ambiguity where there should be none. In the case of the Pahalgam massacre, where innocent tourists were deliberately targeted, the expectation was that global media outlets would not hesitate to call it an act of terrorism.

Meanwhile, Indian voices across the world have taken to social platforms and opinion columns to call out what they see as a pattern of underreporting or misreporting acts of terror when the victims are Indian. The Indian diaspora in the United States has been particularly vocal, with several advocacy groups organizing campaigns to challenge what they describe as media bias and narrative dilution.

Diplomatic circles are also closely watching how global media outlets report on India’s response to terrorism. While some international reports have highlighted India’s emphasis on restraint and precision, others have raised concerns about potential regional escalation. Indian officials have repeatedly stated that the objective of Operation Sindoor is to target terror infrastructure without provoking a broader confrontation.

“We acted based on specific intelligence and aimed only at terrorist facilities,” one Indian official was quoted as saying in the NYT article. “This is not about escalation—it’s about justice and deterrence.”

In India, there is a growing belief that the international community, including its media, must take a stronger and more consistent stand against terrorism, regardless of where it occurs. For many Indians, the Pahalgam attack was a stark reminder of the ongoing threat posed by cross-border terrorism, and the muted initial international response added to their frustration.

Although The New York Times has now used the word “terrorist” in its headline, critics argue that such changes are often reactive and too little, too late. The pressure that finally led to this editorial adjustment did not come from within the publication’s own standards of reporting, but from outside voices demanding accuracy and fairness.

As India continues to carry out what it describes as “targeted, proportionate” strikes against terror groups, the spotlight remains not just on military and diplomatic developments but also on how media outlets narrate such events. The global perception of terrorism—and the resolve to confront it—depends greatly on how stories are told, what words are used, and whose voices are amplified.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the NYT headline highlights the power of language in shaping international understanding. For victims and their families, recognition of their suffering in accurate and unambiguous terms is a crucial step toward justice and global solidarity against terrorism.

A Collaboration of Innovators and Thought Leaders

Dr. BK Kishore, a distinguished medical expert, researcher, and Global Unity Ambassador for the Indian Community, has reached a new milestone by co-authoring a book with Kevin Harrington, one of the original investors from Shark Tank. The book features contributions from 16 thought leaders, innovators, and entrepreneurs, each writing a chapter on topics aligned with their expertise and passion.

Exploring the Long Road to Medical Breakthroughs

Dr. Kishore’s chapter, “The Path to Cures is a Long One,” delves into the complex journey of medical discoveries and innovations. He highlights the perseverance, scientific rigor, and dedication required to transform groundbreaking treatments from research to reality. His insights aim to educate and inspire professionals in medical research, healthcare, and entrepreneurship.

Kevin Harrington’s Vision for Knowledge-Sharing

Renowned entrepreneur and investor Kevin Harrington has long championed innovation. Through his initiative of co-authoring books with industry experts, he provides a platform for professionals to share their expertise and reach a global audience. His books act as a bridge between business minds, thought leaders, and aspiring innovators.

Dr. Kishore’s Gratitude for the Opportunity

Expressing his appreciation for being part of the project, Dr. Kishore stated, “It is truly an honor to collaborate with Kevin Harrington and a group of exceptional co-authors. The experience has been both inspiring and enriching. Kevin’s vision of promoting innovative ideas and fostering entrepreneurial spirit is something I deeply admire. I feel fortunate to have been invited to contribute to this book.”

A Global Platform for Indian Professionals

Dr. Kishore’s participation in this book reinforces his commitment to knowledge-sharing while showcasing the contributions of Indian professionals on a global stage. His role as a Global Unity Ambassador further strengthens his mission of fostering collaboration, education, and growth across diverse communities.

An Inspirational Resource for Future Innovators

This achievement marks another milestone in Dr. Kishore’s illustrious career. The book is expected to serve as an inspiration for entrepreneurs, business leaders, and professionals across various industries, encouraging innovation and perseverance in their respective fields.

Google is pushing back against efforts by other major technology companies to place the responsibility of age verification on app stores, contending that both app stores and developers should share the burden of enhancing child safety.

In a blog post published on Wednesday, Google criticized what it described as “concerning legislation” in Utah. The state recently became the first in the U.S. to pass a law requiring app stores to verify users’ ages and obtain parental consent before allowing minors to download applications.

“The bill requires app stores to share if a user is a kid or teenager with all app developers (effectively millions of individual companies) without parental consent or rules on how the information is used,” said Kareem Ghanem, Google’s director of public policy.

According to Ghanem, such a requirement poses serious privacy and security risks. “That raises real privacy and safety risks, like the potential for bad actors to sell the data or use it for other nefarious purposes,” he warned.

Google maintains that the level of data sharing mandated by the legislation is excessive. The company argues that the bill would ultimately relieve social media platforms of their responsibility to ensure that minors only see age-appropriate content.

Additionally, Google expressed concerns that requiring parental consent could interfere with how parents choose to supervise their children and could even restrict teenagers’ access to essential services such as navigation apps.

The bill now awaits a decision from Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R). If signed into law, most of its provisions would take effect on May 7.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has backed the legislation, along with social media platforms X and Snap. These companies argue that app stores should be responsible for verifying children’s ages rather than the individual platforms themselves.

However, Google has been advocating for an alternative approach—one that ensures “appropriate user consent” while also reducing the amount of sensitive data exposed.

The company has proposed a system where an “age signal” would be shared only with user or parental consent and only with developers of apps that could pose risks to minors.

“By just sharing with developers who need the information to deliver age-appropriate experiences, and only sharing the minimum amount of data needed to provide an age signal, it reduces the risk of sensitive information being shared broadly,” Ghanem explained.

Google argues that app developers are best suited to determine when age verification is necessary, as they have the most knowledge about their applications.

“Because developers know their apps best, they are best positioned to determine when and where an age-gate might be beneficial to their users, and that may evolve over time, which is another reason why a one-size-fits-all approach won’t adequately protect kids,” the company stated.

Under Google’s proposed framework, app stores would only provide “industry standard age assurances” to developers who require age-based restrictions. The company also suggested creating a centralized dashboard that would allow parents to manage their children’s digital experiences.

Google reaffirmed its commitment to child safety by reiterating its support for banning personalized advertisements targeted at users under the age of 18.

When asked about Google’s position, Meta’s senior public affairs manager Jamie Radice defended the Utah legislation and emphasized the need for app stores to take on a more significant role in online child safety.

“Parents across the country are calling for app stores to do more to keep children safe online, and 14 US states and federal lawmakers have introduced legislation that responds to their concerns,” Radice stated.

She acknowledged Google’s willingness to share age-related data with developers but questioned how the company would determine which applications should receive such information.

“We welcome Google’s concession that they can share age information with app developers, and we agree this should be done in a privacy-preserving manner. But with millions of apps on Google’s app store, and more added every day, it’s unclear how they’ll determine which apps are eligible to receive this data,” Radice said.

Apple, which operates one of the largest app stores alongside Google, has also opposed Utah’s legislation.

Earlier this month, Apple introduced a new “age assurance” technology that allows parents to select their child’s age range instead of providing an exact birth date when setting up child accounts.

Saurabh Dwivedi, Editor-in-Chief of The Lallan Top, was recognized by the Foundation of Indian-Americans (FIA) New England on February 16 for his remarkable contributions to journalism. The event, held in Quincy, Boston, served as a tribute to the renowned Indian journalist and his impactful work in the field.

During the event, Dwivedi announced the launch of his latest initiative, Pragyan, a platform aimed at supporting research scholars and fostering collaborative scholarly work. His commitment to intellectual growth was further highlighted when he shared a list of 20 essential books that have deeply influenced both his personal and professional journey.

Expressing gratitude for the recognition, Dwivedi emphasized the crucial role of media in bridging cultures and communities. He also acknowledged the contributions of the Indian diaspora in shaping global discussions and perspectives.

The event was organized under the leadership of FIA New England’s President Abhishek Singh, Vice President Rakesh Kavsari, Secretary Amol Penshanwar, and executives Anand Sharma, Manisha Kumar, and Sanjiv Tripathi. They extended a warm welcome to Dwivedi and honored him with a traditional shawl and a token of appreciation, recognizing his dedication to truth and quality journalism.

Speaking at the event, Singh praised Dwivedi’s transformative work, stating, “Mr. Dwivedi’s work at The Lallan Top has not only reshaped Indian journalism but has also made a profound impact globally, giving voice to the voiceless and tackling critical issues with compassion and depth.”

The gathering brought together members from diverse Indian-American communities, including representatives from Sankalp and Marathi Mandal. Among them was Sonali Jadhav, President of Marathi Mandal, accompanied by core team members Sandeep Jadhav and Vicky Jadhav, all of whom attended to honor the occasion.

The event also saw the presence of distinguished guests from across the country, such as Vikash Deshpande and Krishna Gudipati from Washington, D.C., and Ravi Kumar from New York. Local community members, including Vinay Prashad, Sunny, and Ishwar, were also in attendance.

As the event concluded, heartfelt gratitude was expressed by Rahul Gholap and Neeraj, who highlighted the significance of the gathering in strengthening bonds within the Indian-American community.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday provided interim protection from arrest to podcaster-influencer Ranveer Allahbadia in connection with FIRs filed against him for remarks made on a YouTube show.

However, a Bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh imposed strict conditions, including a prohibition on Allahbadia and his associates from airing any content on social media until further orders.

Additionally, the Supreme Court sought the assistance of the Attorney General of India in the next hearing to address the “vacuum” in the regulation of online content.

While the court’s relief prevents Allahbadia’s immediate arrest, the imposition of a gag order raises concerns regarding free speech. This restriction contradicts a previous Supreme Court ruling, which held that such a condition could have a “chilling effect on the freedom of speech.”

Petitioner’s Plea for Protection

Allahbadia had approached the Supreme Court seeking to merge multiple FIRs filed against him and requesting an interim order preventing his arrest.

Effectively, this request was similar to an anticipatory bail plea, which is commonly filed under Article 32 of the Constitution to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and prevent arbitrary police action.

The practice of registering multiple FIRs in different locations for the same alleged offense has been recognized in numerous cases as a constraint on personal liberty.

Courts generally consolidate such FIRs or allow proceedings to continue under just one, staying the others to prevent the accused from being required to appear in multiple courts. Ultimately, even if convicted, the accused would serve a common sentence rather than consecutive ones.

Supreme Court’s Gag Order on Ranveer Allahbadia

The Supreme Court stayed FIRs filed against Allahbadia in Jaipur and Guwahati and also restrained the registration of any future FIRs based on the same allegations. It further permitted him to approach the police for protection in case of any threats.

However, the court imposed two key conditions: first, Allahbadia was required to surrender his passport to prevent him from leaving the country; second, it directed that “he or his associates shall not air any show on YouTube or any other audio/video visual mode of communication till further orders.”

Conditions for Bail

Under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the High Court or the Court of Sessions may grant conditional bail, depending on the circumstances of the case.

For instance, requiring an accused to deposit their passport is a measure to mitigate the risk of flight. Bail may also involve a substantial monetary bond to ensure that the accused cooperates with the investigation. Another frequent requirement is for the accused to report periodically to a designated police officer.

In some cases, courts have imposed stringent bail conditions, such as sharing a live Google Maps location or residing in a specific locality. In a 2023 case, where an accused was required to deposit an excessive sum of money to obtain bail, the Supreme Court criticized the practice, stating that imposing such conditions was akin to “selling bail.”

“How many times have you stood in the Supreme Court and High Court objecting to such onerous conditions? How can we start selling bail like this?” a Bench led by Justice Ravindra Bhat had remarked.

Despite the range of bail conditions imposed in various cases, a gag order as a prerequisite for interim relief is unusual. Such an order constitutes a form of prior restraint—where speech or expression is prohibited before it takes place.

Indian legal precedent generally prohibits the state from enacting prior restraint laws. In hate speech cases, courts may prohibit the accused from making similar statements, but such restrictions are usually narrowly defined to avoid excessive interference with free speech.

Previous Supreme Court Ruling on Gag Orders

In 2022, while granting bail to Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench led by Justice D Y Chandrachud rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s request to bar him from tweeting while out on bail.

“Merely because the complaints… arise from posts that were made by him on a social media platform, a blanket anticipatory order preventing him from tweeting cannot be made. A blanket order directing the petitioner to not express his opinion—an opinion that he is rightfully entitled to hold…—would be disproportionate to the purpose of imposing conditions on bail. The imposition of such a condition would tantamount to a gag order against the petitioner. Gag orders have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech,” the court observed.

The court further emphasized that Zubair needed access to social media as a medium of communication for his profession, stating that a gag order would “amount to an unjustified violation of the freedom of speech and expression, and the freedom to practice his profession.”

In our increasingly digital age, handwriting seems to be fading into obscurity, particularly among Generation Z, those born between the late 1990s and early 2010s. This generational shift raises questions about the future of communication and cognitive development. A recent study from the University of Stavanger has shed light on this phenomenon, revealing that nearly 40% of Gen Z are losing proficiency in handwritten communication—a skill that has been a cornerstone of human interaction for over 5,500 years.

The Impact of Technology

The dominance of digital technology has profoundly altered how we communicate. Platforms such as WhatsApp and Instagram promote rapid, concise exchanges using abbreviations and emojis, making traditional handwriting less common among younger people. Whether for schoolwork or professional tasks, keyboards and touchscreens have become the norm, leading to a decline in the need for pen-and-paper skills.

Experts suggest that Generation Z could become the first generation to miss out on mastering functional handwriting entirely. This trend isn’t merely about convenience; it signals deeper changes in how we process information and connect with one another. As digital communication takes precedence, the personalized nature of handwritten notes is gradually disappearing.

The Cognitive Importance of Handwriting

Handwriting plays a crucial role in brain development, engaging areas of the brain in ways that typing cannot. Studies show that handwriting is closely linked to key cognitive functions such as memory retention and comprehension. Unlike typing, writing by hand requires fine motor skills and sustained focus, which reinforces learning and improves mental agility.

However, reports from universities and Turkish newspaper Türkiye Todayindicate that many Gen Z students find handwritten tasks daunting. These students often struggle to produce legible or coherent handwriting due to lack of practice. According to the reports, they feel “bewildered” when asked to write neatly, resulting in scribbles that are hard to decipher.

What Educators Observe

Professor NedretKiliceri has observed that many college students today lack even basic handwriting proficiency. She notes a preference for brief, disjointed sentences that resemble social media posts more than well-structured paragraphs. “It’s increasingly common to see students arrive at university without pens,” she explains, emphasizing their reliance on keyboards for note-taking and assignments.

The influence of social media further compounds this issue. Platforms like Twitter, which prioritize brevity and immediacy, shape how young people communicate not only online but also in person. This trend towards short, fragmented expression has a lasting impact on their ability to write thoughtfully and at length.

Broader Implications for Communication

The decline in handwriting skills extends beyond personal notes and letters, influencing how Generation Z perceives and interacts with the world. Handwriting has historically been associated with deliberate, meaningful communication, standing in stark contrast to the hurried, impersonal nature of digital texts.

The question arises: can Generation Z balance their digital lifestyles with the preservation of handwriting, an age-old skill integral to cultural heritage? The answer to this question will shape the future of global communication and cultural understanding.

Blending Old and New

As this transitional period continues, it becomes vital for educators, parents, and policymakers to find ways to integrate digital fluency with traditional skills like handwriting. Incorporating both into educational frameworks could ensure that future generations retain essential cognitive abilities while adapting to technological advancements.

Revisiting the importance of handwriting may also inspire a renewed appreciation for its role in fostering deeper human connections, even as we navigate an increasingly digital landscape.

Google is advancing its efforts to bridge the privacy and security gap between Android and iPhone ecosystems. In a surprising move, the tech giant is reportedly developing a new feature for Gmail’s two billion users that could fundamentally change how email is used and protected from spam and unwanted contact.

Apple’s “Hide My Email” feature allows users to mask their personal email addresses, protecting them from data brokers who compile and sell email lists. These lists fuel spam and telemarketing campaigns, which have become a persistent nuisance. Google appears to be taking a similar route. According to Android Authority, “Gmail is an absolute champ at filtering out spam, but every time you share your email with someone even a little bit shady, do you feel like you’re playing with fire and risking a whole bunch of unwanted contact? Google may just have a solution in the works, at least by the looks of our latest teardown.”

Apple’s “Hide My Email” provides users with randomly generated email addresses that forward messages to their primary inbox. Apple explains, “With Hide My Email, you can generate unique, random email addresses that forward to your personal email account, so you don’t have to share your real email address when filling out forms or signing up for newsletters on the web, or when sending email.” This feature integrates seamlessly with Apple’s Mail and Safari apps, allowing users to send emails directly from these masked addresses and effortlessly generate aliases when prompted to input an email in Safari forms.

Google’s take on this concept, reportedly called “Shielded Email,” was uncovered during a teardown of the latest Google Play Services APK version 24.45.33. Android Authority revealed, “Upon cracking it open, we found a whole boatload of strings referencing and in support of something called ‘Shielded Email.’” This feature would enable the creation of single-use or limited-use email aliases that forward emails to a primary Gmail account. While similar to Apple’s feature, Google seems to be focusing on integrating Shielded Email into Android apps that request email addresses, indicating its specific application in the Play Services ecosystem.

Although Shielded Email could potentially expand beyond Gmail, its full functionality will likely be limited to Gmail accounts, where Google retains direct control over its implementation. This approach mirrors Apple’s strategy with iCloud but adapts it for the Android environment. Such a feature could greatly benefit the majority of Android users, who often rely on Gmail as their primary email service.

The potential addition of Shielded Email aligns with Google’s ongoing security updates, such as real-time threat detection and spam call warnings. If successful, Shielded Email could enhance Android’s privacy standards, much like Apple’s Hide My Email has done for iOS users. “This is a laudable move on Google’s part, and if it catches on as Apple’s Hide My Email has done, then it is a huge improvement for Android users, most of which will have one or more Gmail addresses associated with their accounts,” noted Android Authority.

Further details about Shielded Email hint at its possible integration with Android’s autofill system and the Google Password Manager. As 9to5Google observed, “The experience looks to be integrated with Android’s autofill and presumably the Google Password Manager… It remains to be seen whether Google will charge for Shielded Email. Besides encouraging people to sign up for Google One, making it paid could be a way to make sure functionality isn’t abused.” A subscription-based model for Shielded Email might follow Apple’s approach of bundling Hide My Email with iCloud+ services, creating an additional revenue stream while preventing misuse.

Despite its potential, questions remain about the rollout timeline and accessibility of this feature. Google has a history of launching new updates on its Pixel devices first, which could delay availability for other Android users. This has been a concern for Samsung users, who often wait longer to receive the latest Android features.

The introduction of Shielded Email underscores Google’s commitment to narrowing the privacy and security gap with Apple. The ongoing rivalry between the two companies continues to push innovations that benefit users on both platforms. However, Android users will be watching closely to see how quickly Shielded Email is deployed and how extensively it is supported across different devices.

With Shielded Email on the horizon, Gmail’s robust spam-filtering capabilities may soon be complemented by an added layer of privacy. If successfully implemented, this feature could mark a significant milestone in Android’s journey toward achieving parity with Apple in terms of privacy and security.

The FBI has recently issued a warning about a rising cyber threat where hackers manage to bypass multifactor authentication (MFA) to gain access to email accounts. Even with MFA in place, cybercriminals find ways to breach accounts by luring users into clicking on phishing links or visiting suspicious sites, allowing malicious software to infiltrate their devices.

These attacks capitalize on “cookie theft.” Unlike the well-known tracking cookies often seen in privacy debates, these are “session cookies” or “Remember-Me cookies” designed to store user credentials. Their primary function is to save login information, ensuring users do not need to repeatedly log in each time they access a website or account. This specific type of cookie has become a significant target for hackers, as it provides access without needing a username, password, or MFA.

The primary focus of these attacks is on widely-used email platforms, including Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, and AOL. However, the threat is not limited to email alone. Cookie theft has also impacted shopping sites and financial platforms, although financial accounts typically have more extensive protection mechanisms in place to prevent unauthorized access. While financial sites often keep MFA out of session cookies, hackers frequently turn to other methods to obtain live codes necessary for access.

“Many users across the web are victimized by cookie theft malware,” Google stated, highlighting the scope of the problem. The company describes these security cookies as “fundamental to the modern web… due to their powerful utility,” which unfortunately also makes them a valuable target for cybercriminals. According to Google, this problem is “getting worse,” as criminals refine their methods for stealing these valuable cookies.

The FBI’s explanation underscores how cybercriminals exploit these cookies. “Typically, this type of cookie is generated when a user clicks the ‘Remember this device’ checkbox when logging in to a website,” they explain. When a hacker obtains the Remember-Me cookie from a recent login, they can impersonate the user and access their account without requiring the user’s credentials or multifactor authentication.

Concerns about cookie theft have been amplified in recent news, with tech companies like Google developing countermeasures to prevent these attacks. The latest initiatives focus on linking cookies specifically to individual devices and applications, making stolen cookies ineffective if used on other devices. Despite these advancements, the prevention methods are still in their early stages, and cookie theft remains a major vulnerability for internet users.

In their warning, the FBI cautions that cybercriminals are increasingly “focused on stealing Remember-Me cookies and using them as their preferred way of accessing a victim’s email.” To mitigate risks, the FBI recommends several protective measures:

1. Clear Cookies Regularly: Remove cookies from your internet browser to minimize the risk of stolen credentials.
2. Be Cautious with “Remember Me” Options: Weigh the convenience of using the “Remember Me” feature against the risk it could pose if the session cookie is compromised.
3. Avoid Suspicious Links and Websites: Steer clear of questionable sites and links, as they often serve as entry points for malicious software. Ensuring a secure (HTTPS) connection can also help safeguard your data during internet sessions.
4. Monitor Recent Device Logins: Regularly check the device login history in account settings to spot any unauthorized activity and address potential breaches immediately.

In the event users suspect they have been targeted by this or any other form of cybercrime, the FBI advises reporting incidents to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) via www.ic3.gov.

Mangaluru, Oct 3, 2024: The Indian Catholic Press Association (ICPA) has called on Christian journalists to imbibe the Gandhian values of truth, nonviolence and justice in reporting.

“The deliberations made us realize how untruth, injustice and violence have permeated every section of society, and the media play a significant role in this painful reality,” bemoaned the final statement of the association’s 29th annual assembly.

The October 1-2 assembly in the southern Indian port city of Mangaluru observed that the press in India has abdicated its responsibility or are being throttled.

The statement, presented by human rights activist Jesuit Father Cedric Prakash, observed that in the 2024 edition of the World Press Freedom Index India ranked 159 among 180 nations.

“In view of the Article 19 of our Constitution which guarantees every citizen the Freedom of Speech and Expression, we the members of the ICPA pledge to do all we can to internalize, actualize and promote the Gandhian values of journalism,” the statement said.

The convention brought together media professionals, senior journalists, priests, nuns, journalism students and social workers to discuss the vital role of Christian journalists in promoting truth, justice, and non-violence.

Bishop Peter Paul Saldanha of Mangalore, who opened the assembly on October 1, emphasized Christian journalists’ crucial role in upholding truth and non-violence.

“Media is the fourth pillar of democracy in India and it is the conscience keeper of society, where Christian journalists should stand for non-violence and truth, uplifting society,” the prelate asserted.

Bishop Saldanha lamented attempts to suppress the truth but asserted that truth alone will prevail in the end.

Bishop Henry D’Souza of Bellary, ecclesiastical advisor to the association, underlined the role and responsibilities of a Catholic journalist in India, at a time when news and views are presented at the interest of media owners.

“Gandhian journalism, upholding truth, justice and non-violence” was the theme of the event that coincided with the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, which is now observed as the International Day of Nonviolence.

Retired High Court judge H.N. Nagamohan Das of the Karnataka High Court, who addressed the gathering, stressed the crucial role of journalists in promoting constitutional awareness, citing Gandhi’s publications as an example.

“Journalists should particularly embody the Gandhian principles in their daily lives, emphasizing non-violence as the only path to world peace,” he added.

Justice Das also highlighted some alarming statistics on nearly 50 million cases pending across Indian courts, with the Supreme Court disposing of 70,000 cases annually, and asserted that legal illiteracy is “a staring reality” among educated Indians, who commit most crimes.

He also expressed concern over the distortion of facts and spreading of falsehoods by those in power and the general public.

“Gandhi believed that non-violence is not a sign of weakness but a strength, and it’s the responsibility of journalists to spread this message,” said the judge who asserted that everyone has a right to know the right news.

Experts like Purushothama Bilimale, H S Anupama, writer and activist and Father Prakash presented Gandhian understanding of truth , nonviolence and justice and the challenges faced by journalists in presenting news.

A message from Tushar Gandhi, Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson, to the ICPA assembly was read out by Capuchin Father Suresh Mathew, the association’s secretary.

The highlight of the assembly was the ICPA national Awards ceremony which honored Shaison P Ouseph, filmmaker and director of “Face of the Faceless,” Vinayak Nirmal, motivation writer, and Father Antony Pancras, the editor of New Leader.

Karnataka Legislative Assembly speaker U.T. Khader, who handed over the awards. emphasized the crucial role of the press as democracy’s watchdog, stressing its immense responsibility.

The event was hosted by the Mangalore diocese and Raknno (Guardian), the diocesan weekly, led by its editor Father Rupesh Madtha.

The Vatican has unveiled the theme for the 2025 World Communications Day: “Share the Hope in Your Hearts with Gentleness” (cf. 1 Peter 3:15-16). This theme, drawn from the First Letter of Saint Peter, addresses a significant issue in today’s communication landscape—shifting away from aggressive discourse toward one rooted in dialogue and compassion. In an era where public communication frequently appears dominated by hostility and conflict, this message comes as a plea for more humane interactions.

A Call for Gentleness in an Era of Aggression

Today’s communication platforms, from social media to talk shows, seem driven by a mentality focused on winning at any cost. This aggressive tone has seeped into the fabric of public life, often manifesting as personal attacks and heated confrontations that divide rather than unite. In response, the Vatican’s 2025 World Communications Day theme calls for a “disarmament” of communication, advocating for conversations free of hostility and aimed at fostering understanding.

The Vatican emphasized that communication must move away from competition and domination. As stated in the press release, the goal of conversations should not be to land blows but to build bridges. It is no longer acceptable for discourse to serve as a battleground where participants try to overpower each other; instead, the focus should be on gentleness, which brings people together. The upcoming event will encourage gentleness as a vital tool for cultivating a culture of dialogue and unity.

Hope Rooted in Christ and Community

For Christians, the concept of hope is central to their faith. The 2025 theme reinforces that Christian hope is not just an abstract idea but a reflection of Christ himself. The Vatican reminds believers that this hope is not a solitary pursuit but one grounded in community. The Christian message of hope should be lived out authentically, in a way that resonates with others and brings them closer to understanding the promise of Jesus.

“When we speak of Christian hope, we cannot separate it from the community that lives the message of Jesus so authentically that it reveals the hope it embodies,” the Vatican’s statement explained. This idea underscores that hope, communicated with humility and gentleness, has the potential to break through the noise of divisive rhetoric. Hope can inspire genuine dialogue and healing when delivered with a spirit of kindness and empathy.

An Invitation to Engage with Empathy

The theme of World Communications Day 2025 is especially relevant in today’s polarized world, where opinions are becoming more entrenched and divided. Social media, once hailed as a tool to bring people closer, often exacerbates these divisions. The Vatican’s emphasis on hope and gentleness directly challenges this trend, advocating for a more responsible and empathetic approach to communication.

By encouraging people to share the hope within their hearts, the Church is calling both Christians and the wider public to reconsider how they engage with others, both in person and online. It is an invitation to pause before reacting with anger, to listen carefully, and to respond with empathy rather than aggression. This message transcends religious boundaries, as the principles of gentleness, empathy, and understanding are fundamental to building a peaceful and united society.

A Day of Reflection on Communication for Unity

Scheduled to take place on the Feast of the Ascension in 2025, World Communications Day offers an opportunity for individuals, organizations, and media outlets to reflect on their role in shaping public discourse. The event is expected to include discussions, workshops, and sermons focusing on how communication can either harm or heal. It will encourage media professionals and the public alike to consider the power of their words and the impact they have on others.

The Vatican’s goal for this day is to remind the world that communication is not merely about expressing opinions but about fostering understanding and reconciliation. “It is about creating the conditions for dialogue,” the Vatican emphasized, stressing that communication should work toward unity rather than perpetuate conflict.

Bringing Hope into the Digital Age

As technology continues to evolve, the nature of communication has transformed as well. The Vatican’s message for 2025 directly addresses the challenges of the digital age, where the pace of information often outstrips our ability to process it thoughtfully. In the fast-moving world of social media, where outrage tends to draw more attention than reason, the call to “share hope with gentleness” takes on new urgency.

This year’s World Communications Day theme serves as a reminder that even in the hyper-connected digital landscape, there is room for thoughtful, compassionate communication. It challenges individuals to reconsider how they engage online, advocating for platforms to be used not as arenas for hostility but as spaces where hope and gentleness can prevail, and where dialogue can thrive.

A Future of Hopeful Dialogue

Looking ahead to World Communications Day 2025, the Vatican’s vision extends beyond addressing the immediate issues in media today. The goal is to inspire a long-term transformation in the way people communicate with one another. By focusing on hope, gentleness, and community, the Church is promoting a model of communication that extends beyond words. This model aims to heal divisions and create a culture in which every voice is heard with respect.

In a world increasingly defined by polarization, the 2025 World Communications Day theme serves as a powerful reminder that communication is not just about speaking—it is also about listening, understanding, and sharing hope. The Vatican’s message challenges people across all platforms to communicate with a gentleness that fosters unity, building a more compassionate and empathetic society.

In closing, as public discourse grows more aggressive and divisive, the Vatican’s message for World Communications Day in 2025 calls for a vital shift. The theme “Share the Hope in Your Hearts with Gentleness” offers a timely and necessary call to action. It urges everyone, from individuals to media organizations, to reevaluate how they communicate, prioritizing gentleness, hope, and empathy as tools for healing and dialogue. As we look toward the future, the Vatican’s emphasis on these values invites us to build a more understanding and united world.

In an incident that has raised concerns about press freedom, the National Press Club issued a statement detailing the events that took place during an interview involving journalist Rohit Sharma and Sam Pitroda, Chair of the India Overseas Congress. The interview, which occurred at a Dallas hotel, took an unexpected turn when audience members, including the staff of Indian politician Rahul Gandhi, intervened during the final question, leading to an alarming violation of the journalist’s rights.

According to the statement, the situation escalated when members of Gandhi’s team forcefully interrupted the interview. They not only objected to the line of questioning but also physically seized Sharma’s phone and proceeded to delete the recordings he had made of the conversation. This sudden and aggressive interference disrupted the entire interview process, prompting widespread criticism from journalists and political figures alike.

Pitroda, who was reportedly unaware of the events as they transpired, later offered an apology for the incident. His apology came in the wake of growing outrage, although it did little to quell the dissatisfaction of those who witnessed the violation of journalistic integrity. Gandhi himself addressed a similar question during another event, but by that time, the damage had already been done in terms of the fallout from the earlier incident.

The National Press Club was quick to condemn the actions of Gandhi’s staff, particularly the overreach of security personnel who interfered with the interview. The organization highlighted the importance of protecting press freedom, emphasizing that what occurred was not merely an overstep but a clear infringement of Sharma’s First Amendment rights. “Security overstepped by interfering with the interview, violating Sharma’s First Amendment rights,” the National Press Club said in its statement.

The incident has triggered a broader discussion on the state of press freedom and the importance of safeguarding journalists’ rights, particularly in scenarios involving prominent political figures. Among the notable voices expressing concern was U.S. Democratic Representative Ro Khanna, who took to social media to voice his outrage over the actions of Gandhi’s team. Khanna, a representative from California, did not mince words in his criticism, describing the actions of Gandhi’s staff as an attack on press freedom.

“It’s unethical and a betrayal of free speech for handlers to have snatched his phone, shoved him, and deleted his recordings,” Khanna wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter), echoing the sentiments of many who viewed the incident as a blatant violation of press freedoms. His post quickly gained traction, adding further momentum to the calls for accountability and transparency regarding what had transpired.

Khanna’s words were echoed by many within the Indian American community, including National Press Club President Emily Wilkins. Wilkins joined the growing chorus of voices condemning the actions of Gandhi’s staff, calling for a thorough investigation into the incident and holding those responsible accountable.

In a strong statement, Wilkins said, “The security team had no right or standing to take Sharma’s phone from him or delete content.” She emphasized that the actions taken during an on-the-record interview were entirely inappropriate, further underscoring the serious implications of this violation of press freedom. Wilkins’ call for accountability underscored the importance of protecting journalists, particularly when covering high-profile political figures and events.

The incident has continued to generate attention, especially within the Indian American community, where leaders have called for stronger measures to ensure that such incidents do not occur again. Indian American Representative Shri Thanedar was one of the first political figures to react publicly, expressing his outrage at the treatment of the journalist. In a statement on X, he wrote, “Such attack on a member of press is totally unacceptable,” marking yet another instance of the growing discontent surrounding the incident.

Ajay Bhutoria, a well-known leader within the Indian American community, also joined the ranks of those condemning the actions of Gandhi’s staff. Bhutoria did not hold back in his statement, where he expressed deep concern over what had transpired, particularly the physical handling of Sharma and the confiscation of his phone. “I unequivocally condemn the assault on Rohit Sharma,” Bhutoria said in his official statement, signaling the seriousness with which he viewed the incident.

Bhutoria further elaborated on the broader implications of the event, linking it to the importance of preserving democratic values and ensuring that the media remains independent and free from intimidation. “A free and independent media is the backbone of any democracy, and the mistreatment of a journalist for asking a question is an attack on press freedom,” Bhutoria said, adding that the U.S. Department of Justice should launch a thorough investigation into the matter.

Bhutoria’s statement went beyond mere condemnation; he called for legal consequences for those responsible for the assault. “I urge the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate this matter thoroughly and ensure that those responsible are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” he added, highlighting the need for justice and accountability in the wake of this press freedom violation.

As the investigation into the incident unfolds, the Indian American community has rallied in support of Sharma and in defense of democratic principles. Bhutoria urged unity within the community, calling for collective action to ensure that such violations of journalistic freedom are addressed swiftly and effectively. “No one should be subjected to intimidation or violence for simply doing their job,” he concluded, emphasizing the role of the media as a cornerstone of democratic societies.

This incident has not only put the spotlight on the actions of Rahul Gandhi’s team but has also prompted a broader conversation about the state of press freedom in the face of political power. The physical intervention by Gandhi’s staff in response to a journalist’s question has drawn widespread criticism and raised serious concerns about the treatment of the press, particularly in settings involving high-profile political figures.

As calls for justice and accountability continue to mount, the spotlight remains firmly on the actions taken by Gandhi’s staff during the interview. The fallout from the incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of protecting press freedom, ensuring that journalists can do their job without fear of intimidation or retribution. How this incident will shape future interactions between the media and political figures remains to be seen, but the message from journalists, lawmakers, and community leaders is clear: violations of press freedom cannot and will not be tolerated.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy is advocating for a mandatory warning label on social media platforms to alert users about the potential mental health risks for adolescents. In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Murthy emphasized the necessity of a surgeon general’s warning label, akin to those found on tobacco and alcohol products. He pointed out that research indicates such labels on tobacco products have effectively raised awareness and influenced user behavior.

“It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms, stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents,” Murthy wrote.

He further clarified that congressional action would be needed to implement this requirement, which would serve as a constant reminder to both parents and adolescents that the safety of social media has not been confirmed.

“A surgeon general’s warning label, which requires congressional action, would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe,” he added.

Murthy acknowledged that a warning label alone is insufficient to make social media platforms safer for young people. He referred to an advisory he issued last year, which highlighted the role of social media in the youth mental health crisis. In that advisory, he urged policymakers, platforms, and the public to follow his recommendations to improve the safety of social media for adolescents.

Murthy called for legislative action from Congress to protect young people from online harassment, abuse, and exploitation, as well as from exposure to extreme violence and sexual content. He also stressed the importance of social media companies sharing their data with the public and permitting independent safety audits.

Moreover, Murthy advised schools and parents to establish phone-free environments, particularly during meals, before bedtime, and at social events. He suggested that parents should delay allowing their children to use social media until they have completed middle school and encouraged them to collaborate with other families to create common rules.

“These harms are not a failure of willpower and parenting; they are the consequence of unleashing powerful technology without adequate safety measures, transparency or accountability,” he wrote.

Murthy’s call for action highlights the growing concern over the impact of social media on young people’s mental health. He believes that by implementing these measures, society can better protect adolescents from the negative effects of social media.

Global publishing house Maneesh Media has recently launched its latest compilation, 50 Under 50: Young and Aspiring Indo-Canadians in Toronto amid great fanfare. A resounding success, this exceptional book was presented to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at his visit earlier this week to BAPS temple in Toronto, followed by a gala event held in the honor of all remarkable achievements of dynamic young Indo-Canadians featured in the book.

The grand event, on 30 June 2023 at the Courtyard by Marriott in Brampton, was held under the auspices of chief guest H.E. Sanjay Kumar Verma, the High Commissioner of India to Canada; guest of honor Hon’ble Apoorva Srivastava, the Consulate General of India; and distinguished guests, the illustrious Dr. Vaikuntam Iyer Lakshmanan, recently bestowed with Order of Canada; Dr. Sankar DasGupta, the Co-Founder & CEO of Electrovaya and Adjunct Professor at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Lalita Malhotra, an eminent obstetrician and philanthropist from Prince Albert; Chandra Arya, Member of Parliament – Nepean; and Colin Carrie, Member of Parliament – Oshawa also graced the occasion with their presence along with other dignitaries like business leaders Kuldeep Sharma, Chairman & CEO of Crown Group of Hotels, and Norton Kothari, Chairman – Kothari Group.

MP Arya said, “As a growing community in Canada, with over two-million strong Indians, I believe we play an integral role in shaping the present and future of this county. With the global technology-based economy, you young achievers are positive role models for your peers and for generations to come.”

Hon’ble Apoorva Srivastava said that it was a privilege to be present on such a momentous occasion and added, “Today, we celebrate these 50 young individuals who have made India and Canada proud. But let us also acknowledge their families as their support has been instrumental in their success. The featured individuals in this book will continue to inspire the younger generation and make a lasting impact.”

H.E. Sanjay Kumar Verma echoed Srivastava’s sentiments. “It’s not just your individual journey that is being acknowledged but that of your entire family. Many of you have pursued professional excellence without seeking recognition, making both the Indo-Canadian community and both countries proud.”

Other dignitaries that spoke at the gala evening included Dr Vaikuntam Iyer Lakshmanan and Dr. Lalita Malhotra. Dr Lakshmanan paid a glowing tribute to the 50 individuals who he said had accomplished much more at 50 that he had in his 83 years. Dr. Malhotra highlighted the importance of healthcare and education in India and Canada and lauded the technological advancements in both nations in this regard. She added, “However, in both healthcare and education, the human factor is essential. While intelligence and artificial intelligence have their place, I, as a physician, believe that human touch and eye contact are essential. We must decipher moments not just in black or white, but also in shades of grey.”

The man of innovation, Dr. Sankar DasGupta said, “In science, aerodynamics signifies forward motion, and similarly, we look at these 50 achievers, who will inspire and propel others forward.” Indeed, the 50 visionaries, featured in 50 Under 50: Young and Aspiring Indo-Canadians, are true inspirations and icons, who are redefining success and making significant contributions to Canada’s growth and its multicultural fabric.

These narratives chronicle the remarkable odysseys of these exceptional individuals, bridging their ancestral homes in India to a new land, igniting a flame of motivation for future generations.

Maneesh Media’s Chairman Chandmal Kumawat said, “We at Maneesh Media understand the profound impact of inspiration and motivation on the lives of individuals. With a firm belief in uplifting our nation and its people, especially the young generation, Maneesh Media aims to inspire through the extraordinary success stories of those, who have triumphed over immense challenges.”

About Maneesh Media

Founded in 1999 in Jaipur, India, Maneesh Media has expanded its operations to Canada and the US. As a distinguished book publishing house, it specializes in capturing the intricacies of the Indian diaspora, weaving inspiring narratives that Connect Beyond Boundaries. Maneesh Media’s vision is rooted in fostering heart-to-heart communication and bridging gaps, enabling a global bond. With a global presence and esteemed reputation, it is recognized for its exclusive publications and has had the privilege of collaborating with illustrious figures who have added to our glory, including accomplished industrialists, influential politicians and distinguished leaders.

(RNS) — The format of a segment that aired last month on India’s Republic News Service, commenting on a recent documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s alleged role in a massacre of Muslims two decades ago, would have been familiar to American cable news viewers: The talking heads in Zoomlike boxes were arrayed around the show’s host, Arnab Goswami, dapper in a suit and fashionable glasses, as he excoriated Modi’s critics for “attempting to spread misinformation by willfully spreading falsehoods.”

The increasingly authoritarian Modi government’s latest proposal is a fact checking unit that will strike social media content deemed ‘fake or misleading,’ causing fears that the scope of government censorship on news organizations is expanding.

The segment, spurred by a local nongovernmental organization’s lawsuit against the BBC, the documentary’s producer, was titled, “BBC Gets Notice over PM Modi Documentary: A Lesson For Western Media?”

Under Modi, however, India’s TV news channels have readily followed the lead of their American counterparts, devoting hours of prime-time coverage to politicized coverage. Republic is not alone in adopting a Hindu nationalist line, in accord with Modi’s policies. Minorities are depicted as causing problems for the broader population and facts are twisted to fit the narrative.Hate speech is so pervasive on TV news that India’s Supreme Court said in September 2022 that it was poisoning the fabric of the country and needed to be regulated.

The Modi government, on the other hand, is rarely criticized, and anchors, like Goswami, go out of their way to condemn anyone who does so.

Seema Chisti, editor of one of India’s most prominent independent news websites, The Wire, told Religion News Service, “All values cherished by journalists, of either journalism or even basic democracy and accountability, have been pushed aside in the current environment.”

Since Modi came to power in 2014, press freedom has taken a turn for the worse, with India slipping to 161 out of 180 countries in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index report compiled by Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders. In 2016 India ranked 133rd.

In this March 7, 2021, file photo, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses a public rally ahead of West Bengal state elections in Kolkata, India. (AP Photo/Bikas Das, File)

News organizations and journalists critical of the government have seen raids on their offices and homes by income-tax authorities, including the New Delhi offices of the BBC after the release of the documentary. Other journalists have been arrested under colonial-era sedition laws.

More recently, the Modi government has proposed setting up a fact checking unit that will force social media platforms to take down content deemed to be “fake or misleading.” Many journalists have expressed concerns that it would expand the scope of government censorship on news organizations.

News organizations have pulled back on their reporting as a result and even cut reporting staff. Hartosh Singh Bal, editor of The Caravan magazine, one of the few publications that has continued to report despite harassment from the government, said that in India today, “There is no mainstream media that is independent.”

Modi himself avoids talking to the press and has held no news conferences since taking office. He instead communicates directly with the public via statements and announcements on social media platforms such as Twitter. The government often uses its posts to troll and abuse journalists, particularly minority and women journalists. Access to government functionaries has been completely cut off for those media outlets not considered favorable to the government.

Indian media do not enjoy the kind of protections afforded the press in the West. Kalyani Chadha, an associate professor of journalism at Northwestern University’s Medill School, explained that unlike in the U.S., where the First Amendment grants an absolute freedom of the press, “the Indian Constitution has a more qualified framework.”

The media are also financially susceptible to government control, as outlets rely heavily on advertising revenue from the government. What that means is that, in a way, the media in India are subsidized by the government, explains Chadha.

Under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution that came into force in 1950, press rights were accorded as part of free speech guarantees. That was amended a year later to include “reasonable” restrictions, which included national security concerns. This has allowed governments in the past to muzzle the press. In the most infamous case, then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi clamped down on the media in 1975, arresting hundreds of journalists.

Successive governments have used these restrictions in their own way. Abhinandan Sekhri, co-founder and CEO of Newslaundry, an independent news website, said he faced several roadblocks with the Manmohan Singh regime, which preceded Modi. “No government is fond of a truly independent media.”

Adding to the challenges is the increasing corporatization of media as well as shrinking profits and ownership changes. In 2014, India’s largest company, Reliance Industries, owned by billionaire Mukesh Ambani, took over one of India’s largest media companies, Network18 Media, which co-owns CNN-IBN with Warner Bros., and other channels.

More recently, Gautam Adani, India’s richest man, acquired a majority share in the TV news network NDTV that was long respected for its balanced journalism. Many senior journalists were forced to leave.

But Modi has put the most pressure on television; though he avoids meeting the press, he seems to realize that no politician can exist without television. He also uses it to reach his supporters directly. Sandeep Bhushan, a television journalist and author of “The Indian Newsroom,” said Modi knows the power of the medium and weighs his attire and even his demeanor carefully when appearing on TV. “He knows the camera is a performance driven medium,” said Bhushan, “and he also knows that previous governments have lost elections as a result of media coverage.”

Modi’s friends in television, whether wealthy media barons or popular hosts, know that Modi’s message can deliver viewers. As in the U.S., they have been complicit in muddying the concepts of objectivity and truth in televised journalism.

The result is what some journalists say is the worst period for press freedoms in memory, and by implication for freedom in the country as a whole. “We claim to be a democracy but the ability to express views in the media has taken a big hit,” said Chisti, whose news organization has faced difficulties with the Modi government. “Media is the only institution that can be a check on the government and tell people clearly all that is going wrong or the government is getting wrong, but it has been muzzled. Any sort of government criticism can lead to a vicious backlash.”

News media across the globe, operating under both authoritarian and democratic systems, are constantly subjected to fierce assaults and political interference.

“Press freedom serves as the bedrock of democracy and justice, providing us with the information we need to form opinions and challenge authority. However, press freedom is under siege worldwide,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on World Press Freedom Day, May 3. Journalists and media personnel face direct threats both online and offline as they conduct their crucial work, enduring routine harassment, intimidation, detention, and imprisonment.

In 2022, a staggering 67 media workers lost their lives – a 50% increase compared to the previous year. The UN reports that nearly three-quarters of female journalists have encountered online violence, while one in four has faced physical threats. Additionally, non-physical attacks are on the rise, such as defamation lawsuits aimed at undermining media organizations’ legitimate right to free expression.

Last week, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) introduced Reporters Shield, an innovative membership program designed to safeguard journalists worldwide who report in the public interest from defamation lawsuits and legal intimidation. Established by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice as a U.S.-based nonprofit organization, Reporters Shield is hailed as a “first-of-its-kind global program that defends investigative reporting around the world from legal threats intended to muzzle critical voices.”

USAID, which boasts an extensive history of nurturing independent media globally, intends to collaborate with Congress to allocate up to $9 million in seed funding for this groundbreaking initiative supporting media outside the United States, as stated in a May 2 press release. According to a statement released last week by USAID, investigative journalists and civil society organizations that report in the public interest increasingly face lawsuits aimed at silencing and harassing them by burdening them with the expenses and time associated with legal defense until they abandon their stories or go out of business entirely.

Reporters Shield aims to mitigate risks by offering training, pre-publication review, and funding for legal representation to combat lawsuits and other legal actions meant to intimidate and financially strain journalists. To maintain sustainability, member organizations participating in Reporters Shield will pay reasonable annual fees based on various factors, such as the outlet’s location and annual story output.

Membership in Reporters Shield requires organizations to be legally registered, focus primarily on news, public interest, and/or investigative reporting; publish in print and/or online; maintain non-profit status or transparent ownership; remain independent from political, commercial, or other undue influence; and adhere to professional editorial standards with editorial independence. Reporters Shield is accepting applications globally and will review them in phases, with some regions receiving benefits in the coming months and others added later this year and in 2024. Organizations interested in applying can visit reporters-shield.org for more information.

Reporters Shield’s development has been supported by pro bono legal assistance from law firms Proskauer, Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. Mandeep S. Tiwana, Chief Programmes Officer at CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations (CSOs), remarked that media freedoms are facing challenging times due to disinformation, attacks on civic space, deepening authoritarianism, populism, and oligarchic wealth consolidation.

Investigative journalists and civil society activists are finding it increasingly dangerous and costly to expose serious human rights violations and high-level corruption. “This initiative comes at a critical time when few companies are willing to sign the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) pledge, and cunning politicians are undermining the independence of judiciaries,” Tiwana declared.

According to Global Citizen’s Anti-SLAPP pledge, SLAPPs are not a legitimate business strategy. Functioning democratic societies respect freedom of expression, allowing everyone to express their views without fear. Lawsuits and legal tactics aimed at silencing civil organizations and human rights defenders harm societies and companies alike. Companies that stifle free expression limit their ability to manage risk related to operations and global supply chains.

Committed to operating in societies where people can exercise fundamental rights, Global Citizen pledges to define SLAPPs as lawsuits and legal tactics designed to silence critics and abridge citizens’ rights; refrain from engaging in SLAPPs against human rights and environmental defenders and supporting civil society organizations; recognize the crucial role of civil society organizations and human rights defenders in creating a profitable business environment; and encourage partners and suppliers within their value chain to abstain from engaging in SLAPPs to suppress legitimate activism.

Asia Society is pleased to announce that the 2023 Osborn Elliott Prize for Excellence in Journalism on Asia is being awarded to Sue-Lin Wong and David Rennie of The Economist for their China coverage. The $10,000 cash award is presented annually by an independent jury to the best example of journalism about Asia during the previous calendar year.

In announcing the award, the Osborn Elliott Prize Jury issued the following statement: “We are pleased to award the 2023 Osborn Elliott Prize to The Economist’s Sue-Lin Wong and David Rennie for their deeply reported, engagingly accessible coverage of China. In an eight-part podcast, ‘The Prince,’ Wong explained how Xi Jinping skillfully navigated his way to power, drawing on the personal history and circumstances that shaped his world. Rennie’s definitive primer on what Xi’s rising, sometimes righteous, often resentful Communist Party-led China wants offers insight into looming geopolitical and economic challenges.”

“Rennie and Wong recognize China’s many recent historical achievements, but also have experienced the limits of life under Xi. Wong, who also poignantly reports on how Beijing has shorn once-freewheeling Hong Kong of its autonomy, has had to leave the city. Rennie, who writes about Xi’s drive for absolute command of society, spent nearly two years separated from his wife and child by China’s draconian COVID lockdowns.”

The two will be honored at an awards ceremony and discussion at Asia Society in New York, on Tuesday, June 6.

Sue-Lin Wong is The Economist’s South-East Asia correspondent. She was previously China correspondent and host of “The Prince”, a podcast about Xi Jinping. Prior to joining The Economist, she was South China correspondent at the Financial Times covering politics, business and technology in Hong Kong and mainland southern China. Before that, she was a correspondent at Reuters with beats including the Chinese economy and North Korea. She opened the Shenzhen bureaus of the Financial Times and Reuters. She is a graduate of the Australian National University.

David Rennie is Beijing bureau chief of The Economist. He is the author of its weekly “Chaguan” column on China and co-host of the “Drum Tower” podcast. He joined The Economist in 2007. From 2007-10 he was the EU correspondent and “Charlemagne” columnist, based in Brussels. From 2010-12 he was British political editor and “Bagehot” columnist, in London. In the summer of 2012 he moved to Washington DC. He was “Lexington” columnist 2012-17, and Washington bureau chief 2013-18. In May 2018 he moved to China as Beijing bureau chief, launching “Chaguan” that year. He has written special reports for The Economist on China and the world order, on the China-U.S. relationship, on Hispanics in America, and on the enlargement of the EU to take in formerly communist countries.

Previously, he was on the foreign staff of the Daily Telegraph, with postings in Sydney, Beijing, Washington DC and Brussels. From 2006 until he joined The Economist he was also a contributing editor to the Spectator. He is a contributing panelist on the “1A” program on NPR/WAMU. He is a graduate of Cambridge University.

The Jury praised a number of other entries this year. Their citations follow:

“Uditha Jayasinghe and Devjyot Ghoshal of Reuters, reporting from Sri Lanka, dispassionately captured the country’s tragic descent into economic crisis, as a nepotistic government made a series of bad decisions that left farmers without fertilizer, hospitals without life-saving drugs, and petrol stations without fuel. They then covered the massive protests that eventually overturned the government, leading to a China vs. India rivalry for influence that emerged in the revolution’s wake.”

“Nikkei Asia’s Cheng Ting-Fang and Lauly Li, two of the world’s most knowledgeable tech reporters, delivered an extraordinarily detailed package of coverage that demonstrated the futility of efforts to shorten and nationalize semiconductor supply chains, a critical national-security and economic question for many countries.”

“The People’s Archive, from India, published a detailed, important look at the difficulties many of the 200 million Indians living in Uttar Pradesh have accessing healthcare, often because of reasons of caste or socioeconomic status.”

The jury for the Osborn Elliott Prize is chaired by Marcus Brauchli, managing partner of North Base Media and the former top editor of both The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. Jurors for the 2023 prize are: Barbara Demick, journalist, author, and 2006 Osborn Elliott Prize winner; Dorinda Elliott, Executive Director of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University and formerly with Newsweek; Nisid Hajari, author, member of the Bloomberg editorial board and a former top editor at Newsweek; and Norman Pearlstine, media executive and advisor and former top editor at the Los Angeles Times, Time Inc., and The Wall Street Journal.

The Osborn Elliott Prize for Excellence in Journalism on Asia, affectionately referred to as the “Oz Prize,” honors the late Osborn Elliott, legendary journalist, author and former editor-in-chief of Newsweek. Elliott was a leading figure in the field of journalism who became one of the earliest practitioners of “civic journalism”—the deliberate focusing of the journalistic enterprise on urgent issues of public policy.

Find out more about the Oz Prize at AsiaSociety.org/OzPrize.

India’s ranking has fallen to 161 in the World Press Freedom Index-2023 in the list 180 countries. It is for the second year India is slipping in the ranking. According to the report by global media watchdog Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) alias Reporters without Borders, India is down 11 points in the index this year. The situation has gone from “problematic’’ to ‘very bad’ in three countries, including India and Tajikistan, it added.

World Press Freedom Index 2023 is revealed by the overseer of Media Industry, Reporters Without Borders (RSF). This is the 21st edition of the annual report, according to which, Norway acquired the topmost position whereas the lowest was North Korea. Norway has a self-regulated press and it is for the 7th time that this Northern European Country remained dominant.

Reporters Without Borders is a non-profit organisation that examined 180 nations across the world and highlighted their working conditions in terms of Journalism and Mass Media. India has shown a disheartening performance in the index as it got a poor global score of 36.62.

In its annual report, the Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF) assessed the state of freedom for media countries. In 2021, India’s ranking was 150, down from a ranking of 142 on the press freedom index. The report also stated that violence against journalists, the politically partisan media and the concentration of media ownership all demonstrate that press freedom is in crisis in the world’s largest democracy.

The RSF released the report on Wednesday with details of media freedom collected from across 180 countries. Pakistan is ranked at 150, seven points up, while Nepal is at 95. Sri Lanka is up 11 points at 135, while Myanmar at 173 has moved 3 points higher. The report has stated that the Indian media landscape is like India itself–huge and densely populated–and has more than 1,00,000 newspapers including 36,000 weeklies, and 380 TV channels.

“Originally a product of the anti-colonial movement, the India press sued to be seen as fairly progressive, but things changed radically when Narendra Modi became prime minister and engineered a spectacular rapprochement between his party, the BJP and the big families dominating the media.”

In 2022, India reached the 150th rank and now it lost 11 positions to get down to 161 which is quite bad for the journalism environment. RSS is of the view that the situation is worse than it seems. The organisation evaluated the situation as “very serious” in 31 countries and “difficult” in 42.

Not only this, the status of the press is termed as “problematic” across 55 nations and “good” or “satisfactory” in 52. Only 3 out of 10 nations reveal satisfactory results in the worldwide record of 2023.

The report said that Mukesh Ambani owns more than 70 media outlets across India that are followed by at least 800 million Indians. “Indian journalists who are too critical of the government are subjected to all-out harassment and attack campaigns”, the report stated.

It further said: “At the national level, the Central government has seen that it can exploit this to impose its own narrative, and is now spending more than 130 billion rupees a year on ads in the print and online media alone.”

The list focuses on the quality of the mass media environment around the globe which has declined in the past few years. It explains disturbances and changes that are simultaneously occurring in the Media Industry. These revolutions can be social, political and technological considering today’s scenario.

World Press Freedom Day was held on May 03 (Wednesday) this year and the report of the global rankings was also published on the same day. India got the 161st position out of all 180 countries that were given global scores as well.

Renowned Indian American media personality, Parveen Chopra’s new wellness and spirituality magazine was launched in a ceremony hosted by the Indian Consulate in New York on January 21, 2023.

The new venture, Lotus in the Mud, offers insights and inspiration for people to be healthy, happy and peaceful, a news release noted. The online site, alotusinthemud.com offers insights and inspiration for people to be healthy, happy and peaceful, according to a press release from Chopra, who explained that the name, ‘Lotus in the mud’ is a key concept in Hinduism and Buddhism, signifying that one may get caught up in problems, but that people have an inherent capability to emerge in full bloom.

At the launch event, India’s Consul General Randhir Jaiswal called the initiative “another slice of India in America promoting wellness through yoga, right food habits, etc, and which people should benefit from.”

Consul General Randhir Jaiswal unveiled the website during the ceremony, describing it as “another slice of India in America promoting wellness through yoga, right food habits, etc, and which people should benefit from.”

Chopra said Lotus In The Mud carried the collective wisdom  of many like-minded writers, experts and advisers. “We tap the world’s religious and spiritual traditions for wisdom as well as modern medical and scientific research to present content for people to be fully productive and successful and yet be healthy, happy and centered,” he explained.

Subjects covered on the site range from ‘The big questions of life as answered by Hinduism, ‘The 4 happy hormones and how to boost them’, ‘Practical uses of faith – a Zoroastrian perspective’, and ‘Beware  the frozen food convenience’ etc. It also offers short meditations,  personality quizzes and space for visitors to share their experiences of healing and personal/spiritual growth.

Guest speakers at the event included Nitin Ajmera, chairman of the Parliament of the World’s Religions; Arvind Vora, founder of Shanti Fund that promotes Mahatma Gandhi’s ideals among school children in Long Island, NY; Reverend Tom Goodhue, emeritus Executive Director of Long Island Council of Churches; and Dr Bhaswati Bhattacharya, author of the bestselling book Everyday Ayurveda.

Chopra’s biography describes him as a trained teacher of meditation, founder of  Life Positive, India’s first body-mind-spirit magazine from New Delhi in 1996. In the United States, he has edited The South Asian Times for more than a decade and One World Under God interfaith journal. The web magazine is published by American Center for Wellness & Spirituality Inc, a non-profit established by Chopra.

The Lotus launch at the Consulate followed felicitation of The South Asian Times (TSAT) Person of the Year 2022, Anil Bansal, former president of the Federation of Indian Associations NYNJCT.

The Indian Government led by the Hindu nationalist Party, Bharatiya Janata Party has informed the Delhi High Court that Angad Singh, a US-based journalist with Vice News, has been blacklisted despite being an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holder.

On December 7, 2022, a bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh had directed the Central government to file a response in a suit filed by Singh against his deportation from Delhi to New York in August last year. He has also challenged the refusal to grant him a Special Permit.

Appearing for the Centre, advocate Anurag Ahluwalia told the court that as Singh has violated Section 11A of the Foreigners Order, 1948, which prohibits a foreigner from producing any picture, film or documentary without permission in writing from the Centre, he is a blacklisted subject. He had allegedly depicted India in a negative manner in the “India Burning” documentary.

Singh has covered important issues in his documentaries, including the Shaheen Bagh protests, the farmers’ protests and the Covid-19 pandemic in India, among others. Ahluwalia submitted that Singh was entering India on his journalist visa for a personal visit but he wasn’t issued a visa for that.

The FRRO, in an affidavit, told the court that Singh was blacklisted at the instance of the Consulate General of India in New York.

On January 7, Ahluwalia had said that the affidavit will explain why the petitioner was denied entry into the country. Advocate Swathi Sukumar, representing Singh before the court said that Singh’s OCI card is still valid and has not yet been cancelled.

To this, Ahluwalia sought time to obtain instructions and file a response on whether any show cause notice or proceedings were started against Singh for the cancellation of his OCI card.

The court then granted two weeks’ time to Ahluwalia to file the affidavit. In his plea, Singh has mentioned that his fundamental right under the Citizenship Act, 1955, is being violated by not letting him into India. He has also asked the court to restrain the government from violating his rights.

Earlier, Singh’s counsel had sought a declaration that his deportation from the government was illegal and disclosure of all the materials and data available with the government related to him.

His mother, through a Facebook post, had claimed that he had come to India to meet his family in Punjab and it was because of his journalism that he was deported.

Days after a BBC documentary examining the role that Narendra Modi, now prime minister of India had played in 2002 communal riots in Gujarat was released, India’s Information Ministry announced that all links to the footage were to be banned on social media.

The BBC has said its documentary was “rigorously researched according to highest editorial standards”.

India’s federal government described the two-part documentary India: The Modi Question as “propaganda” and invoked an emergency law to block it on YouTube and Twitter. The response by the Indian government was quick and draconian. Emergency laws brought in by the Modi government just two years ago were used to enforce the ban.

Both Twitter and YouTube quickly complied with the government’s censorship requests. Posts on about 50 Twitter accounts were removed, with activists, politicians and even Hollywood actors among those affected, as well as an unspecified number of YouTube channels. Widely shared clips of the documentary, which alleged that Modi, in his role as chief minister of Gujarat at the time, had enabled and then did nothing to stop the violence in which almost 1,000 Muslims were killed, quickly disappeared from Indian social media.

It is not the first time the Modi government has used the 2021 information technology rules to censor online content critical of the administration. However, the action taken over the BBC documentary is among the most high-profile use of the legislation and sheds light on the fragile and fractious place that social media such as Twitter now occupy in India and directly pits the vow of the platform’s new billionaire owner, Elon Musk, to be a “free speech absolutist” against increasingly authoritarian laws governing the country’s online sphere.

Widely criticized by human rights groups and digital activists, the 2021 IT rules give the government power to remove any content it deems to threaten “the unity, integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of India”.

Even before the passing of the legislation, legal demands made by the Modi government to remove content from Twitter increased by 48,000% between 2014 and 2020, according to the analysis of the company’s transparency reports.

The two-part BBC series documenting the rise of Modi has proved highly controversial in India, despite it only being released in the UK, prompting allegations from the Indian foreign ministry that it was “biased propaganda” that showed a “blatant colonial mindset.”

Kanchan Gupta, a spokesperson for the information ministry, called the documentary “hostile propaganda and anti-India garbage” and students who arranged a screening at a university in Kerala this week were accused of being “treasonous”.

At Delhi’s prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University, students who tried the same were hit with an electricity and internet blackout and had stones thrown at them by others from rightwing groups. New Delhi police, clad in riot gear and equipped with tear gas, arrested nearly a dozen students at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) university ahead of a planned screening. Authorities at the University of Hyderabad are also investigating a screening of the documentary on Saturday.

A local branch of the opposition Congress Party in the southern state of Kerala screened the banned BBC documentary about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s role in the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat, NDTV reported.

The documentary aired Jan. 17 and charts Modi’s political rise through the ranks of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and becoming chief minister of the western state of Gujarat.

It focuses at length on the 2002 Gujarat riots—one of the worst outbreaks of religious violence in India’s recent history—that took place while he led the state. After a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was set on fire in the state, and 59 people were killed, grieving citizens blamed Muslims. Revenge attacks led to over 1,000 deaths.

The documentary highlighted an unpublished report from the U.K. Foreign Office that claims Modi was “directly responsible” for the “climate of impunity” that enabled the violence. Modi denies accusations of personal responsibility for the riots, and his supporters cite a 2013 Supreme Court ruling of there being insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

The BBC also uncovered memos showing that Modi’s conduct was criticised at the time by western diplomats and the British government, including in a government report which found that the riots had “all the hallmarks of an ethnic cleansing”.

Modi has been haunted for decades by allegations of complicity in the violence that took place during the Gujarat riots, which broke out after 59 Hindu pilgrims died on a train that had been set on fire. The fire was blamed on the state’s Muslim population.

Many have cited their compliance with the online censorship of the documentary as an example of how Twitter and YouTube are helping to further erode freedom of speech in India, in order to appease the Modi government and not compromise access to the vast and increasingly online Indian population. There are over 40 million Twitter users in India, making it their third largest market after Japan and the US.

“This use of an emergency law as a censorship mechanism is a very worrying development but it’s far from the first time this has happened,” said Prateek Waghre, the policy director at the advocacy group the Internet Freedom Foundation in India. According to a statement to parliament in July, action was taken against 94 YouTube channels, 19 social media accounts and 747 URLs on the government’s request since the IT rules were passed.

Before Musk’s takeover, Twitter had pushed back – though somewhat inconsistently – against the Modi government’s increasingly heavy-handed approach towards social media. Twitter had restored some of the accounts the administration had demanded the removal of and in July last year filed a lawsuit in Indian courts alleging New Delhi had abused its power by ordering the company to arbitrarily and disproportionately take down accounts belonging to government critics.

Yet for all his protestations to be a crusader for free speech, there are indicators that Musk’s Twitter might be far less bullish in standing up to the Modi government. When Musk was trying to back out of the deal to buy the platform, he made it clear in the court filings that he was unhappy with the lawsuit against the Indian government, saying he believed moderation should Media/Technology“hew close to the laws of countries in which Twitter operates.”

“We’re talking about pressures on freedom of speech in the world’s largest democracy,” Waghre said. “Musk’s pledge has rung hollow everywhere, but in India the impact will certainly be larger.”

The decision to block the documentary comes amid an increasingly challenging environment for media and freedom of the press under the Modi government, with critical journalists and media subjected to state and judicial harassment. Last year, India slipped eight places in the press freedom index to 150 out of 180 counties, its worst position on record. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/25/india-ban-on-bbc-modi-film-elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-emergency-laws)

Fox News Channel was the most-watched cable television network in the nation for the seventh consecutive year in 2022, according to Nielsen Media Research data, in a year competitors saw their viewership fall. In total day viewers during the year, Fox averaged 1.4 million compared to 733,000 who watched MSNBC and 568,000 who watched CNN, according to Nielsen Media Research figures.

In the advertiser-rich weekday prime-time slot, Fox came in first with an average of 2.3 million viewers in 2022, with MSNBC netting 1.2 million and CNN coming in third with an average of 730,000.

Each of the three top cable networks experienced a decline in prime-time viewership in 2022, but Fox made up a slight dip in prime time from 2021 with high ratings for “The Five,” which earned cable news’ largest audience in 2022 with an average of 3.4 million viewers and nearly half a million daily in the key 25-54 age demographic.

The three cable networks made a number of programming and personnel moves this year in hopes of growing their audience ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. Fox gave pundit Jesse Watters, who is also a co-host of “The Five,” his own prime-time show in January and has heavily promoted comedian and commentator Greg Gutfeld’s late-night show, which finished the year as the second highest rated late-night program in the country.

MSNBC has gone through significant changes in prime time, rehiring Alex Wagner to host a show four days a week during its 9 p.m. hour in place of longtime pundit Rachel Maddow and tapping anchor Stephanie Ruhle to host a news and analysis program during its 11 p.m. hour.

CNN has gone through the most change of any of the networks in 2022, with new President Chris Licht moving pundit Don Lemon out of prime time to host a revamped morning program. Licht has also used a rotating cast of fill-in hosts to occupy the 9 p.m. time slot vacated by Chris Cuomo after his firing late last year.

The most-watched cable show was Fox’s The Five, which had an audience of 3.4 million viewers and is the first non-primetime program to rank first in total viewers for the year.

Fox is just one part of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s media empire that also includes the The Wall Street Journal and The Times of London. Australian-born Murdoch inherited a newspaper in Adelaide, Australia, at age 22 when his father, a former war correspondent, died. Murdoch acquired smaller outlets across Australia and New Zealand before expanding into the U.K. and the U.S. Murdoch founded Fox News in 1996. His publications are known for having a conservative tilt. Murdoch’s son, Lachlan Murdoch, is the CEO of Fox Corporation.

Investigations found that Muslim youth were found to be terrorising Hindu families into leaving Leicester in a replay of the ethnic cleansing of the Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir. The Muslim youth reportedly carried out `Muslim Patrols` in front of Hindu homes and posted such photographs on social media.

Dozens of British Hindu organisations are protesting against the BBC for what they call the international broadcaster`s `anti-Hindu and anti-India bias` running nonstop for many years. The protest will take place at 11 am UK time today in front of the BBC headquarters in London `against Hinduphobia and Indiaphobia.

It is similar to the one organised by the British Hindus against The Guardian newspaper in September, where the community said the newspaper`s coverage of Leicester was based on `biased and fake news.` The protesters will also hand over a memorandum to the BBC Director-General Tim Davie. They allege that the BBC has an inherent anti-Hindu bias in its coverage which has become worse over the last 18 years. 

In an extraordinarily strong condemnation of the BBC, a statement by the organisers said: `The BBC`s coverage of the violent attacks on Leicester Hindus by Islamists was the worst reporting seen so far and has contributed to the concealment of an attempt to ethnically cleanse Leicester of Hindus.` 

The groups say they are determined to protest till `the BBC cease its unrelenting vilification and dehumanisation of Hindus globally and of `licence-fee paying` British Hindus especially.` Some of the organisers of the `BBC Protest` include well-known people like Dr Vivek Kaul, Dr Sneh S. Kathuria, Pt Satish K. Sharma, Nitin Mehta MBE and Darshan Singh Nagi. 

Citing biased coverage by the BBC, the organisers point out Alasdair Pinkerton`s research for the 2008 edition of the peer-reviewed Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, saying, Alasdair Pinkerton `analysed the coverage of India by the BBC from India`s 1947 independence from British rule to 2008. Pinkerton observed a tumultuous history involving allegations of anti-India bias in the BBC`s reportage, particularly during the Cold War, and concluded that the BBC`s coverage of South Asian geopolitics and economics showed a pervasive and hostile anti-India bias because of the BBC`s alleged imperialist and neo-colonialist stance.` 

Mentioning an article, `Beaten and humiliated by Hindu mobs for being a Muslim in India`, The organisers said the headline is designed to create conflict and disorder. `It is irresponsible identitarian `divide and run` cheap, gutter journalism. It is self-evident that reports of this nature cause further inter-communal tension and stigmatise Hindus.` 

The organisers said the BBC is routinely producing hateful content, adding, `When a lie is repeated again and again, it gains credibility. A country which has given shelter to persecuted Parsis, Jews, Tibetans, Bahais and many more has been stigmatised as intolerant!` 

Pointing out to the BBC`s limited vocabulary used to describes Hindus, they said that its reporting only contains the terms, `Fear, Hate, Violence, Hindu Muslim, Kashmir, Cow, Mob and Protest` to describe India.

The organisers also claimed that increasing numbers of licence fee-paying British citizens and even the British Government feel the BBC is habitually peddling fake narratives on India and Hindus. `Your biased reporting on the world`s largest democracy and one of the biggest economies of the world is clearly against the national interests of India & the United Kingdom…` 

Anger against British media houses was ignited by the sporadic but continuing violence from August till September which targeted Hindus shops, homes, temples and cars. Fake information from social media was published by The Guardian`s and the BBC`s reporters without cross-verifying turning the Hindus into aggressors. 

In a big shock for the British government, the violence in Leicester also injured dozens of police officers, making Home Secretary Suella Braverman rush to the city. Even the newly-anointed King Charles III inquired about the serious unrest in the city. 

Investigations found that Muslim youth were found to be terrorising Hindu families into leaving Leicester in a replay of the ethnic cleansing of the Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir. The Muslim youth reportedly carried out `Muslim Patrols` in front of Hindu homes and posted such photographs on social media.

The under-pressure police later debunked most of the fake messages posted by Muslims groups against Leicester`s Hindus. It also found that Muslim youth came from outside Leicester to fan the violence. 

(The sole responsibility for this article’s contents lies with news agency IANS and their content partners indianarrative.com. TheUNN has made no editing to the contents of this article)

Free speech ideals, heated political themes prevail on these sites, which draw praise from their users and skepticism from other Americans

In recent years, several new options have emerged in the social media universe, many of which explicitly present themselves as alternatives to more established social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube – especially by opposing free speech restrictions they say are rife at those sites.

These newer sites have created a small but satisfied community of news consumers, many of whom say one of the major reasons they are there is to stay informed about current events, according to a new Pew Research Center study. The study included a survey of U.S. adults along with an audit of seven alternative social media sites – BitChute, Gab, Gettr, Parler, Rumble, Telegram and Truth Social – and a detailed analysis of prominent accounts and content across them.

Although fewer than one-in-ten Americans say they use any of these sites for news, most who do say they have found a community of like-minded people there. And news consumers on the four sites with large enough numbers to be analyzed individually – Parler, Rumble, Telegram and Truth Social – largely say they are satisfied with their experience getting news on the sites, that they find the information there to be mostly accurate, and that the discussions are mostly friendly.

At the same time, however, the study finds signs that these sites may be another symptom of the increasingly polarized public discourse – and Americans’ partisan divisions in the broader news media environment.

A majority of those who regularly get news from at least one of the seven alternative social media sites (66%) identify as Republicans or lean toward the Republican Party, in contrast with the news consumers on more established social media sites, who largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. And this trend is common among prominent accounts as well, with about a quarter of these accounts (26%) identifying as conservative or Republican or supportive of former President Donald Trump or his “Make America Great Again” movement. In addition, many prominent accounts express other values such as patriotism and religious identity.  

Several sites are linked to conservative backers – including Truth Social, which was launched by Trump about a year after he was “indefinitely” and “permanently” suspended from Facebook and Twitter. This is not a unique phenomenon: The study found a noteworthy percentage of prominent accounts on these seven newer sites (15%) have been banned or demonetized elsewhere on social media.

Perhaps connected to that, Americans who have heard of these sites but do not use them as sources for news are skeptical of them. When asked for the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about alternative social media sites, people in this category commonly cite inaccuracy and misinformation, political bias and the political right, and extremism and fringe ideas.

Other elements of the study speak to some of these associations. A small but measurable share of prominent accounts across these sites (6%) mention a connection to the set of conspiracy theories known as QAnon. And an analysis of recent content posted by prominent accounts on these sites finds that the most common phrases include some that are controversial and even inflammatory such as wariness toward vaccines and negative associations with LGBTQ people. Moreover, one of the most prevalent destinations for links found in these posts is The Gateway Pundit, a digital outlet that has been criticized for publishing false information.

These are some of the key themes to emerge from this major new study, which was designed to look at multiple aspects of the world of alternative social media. It examines those who turn to these sites for news, explores how the sites present themselves, and reports on the kinds of accounts that draw the most attention and the types of conversations taking place there.

For the first component, researchers conducted a survey of news consumers on seven sites: BitChute, Gab, Gettr, Parler, Rumble, Telegram and Truth Social. Four of these – Parler, Rumble, Telegram and Truth Social – had enough news consumers to do a deeper dive.

Next, researchers conducted an audit of all seven sites that explored elements of how the sites present themselves, privacy features, and other characteristics. Researchers then analyzed 200 prominent accounts sampled from those with the highest number of followers on each of these sites. They examined these 1,400 accounts for several attributes, including how they describe themselves in their profiles. Finally, researchers collected all 585,470 posts published by these accounts in June 2022 and examined their key phrases, themes and the links included in the posts. For more details, see the methodology. The rest of this overview discusses the key findings of the study in more detail.

Alternative social media sites have small, largely Republican audiences; prominent accounts tend to emphasize right-leaning identities and religious and patriotic values

These sites have become a refuge for some who feel they do not have a home on the more established sites.

Still, relatively few Americans use these alternative social media sites for news – though larger portions have heard of each of them. Parler is the best known of the seven sites named in the survey, with 38% of U.S. adults saying they are familiar with it. The share who get news on these sites is much smaller: Just 6% of Americans get news from at least one of the seven sites mentioned, and no single site is used for news by more than 2% of U.S. adults.

The news consumers on these sites lean heavily Republican. A majority of those who get news from at least one of the seven alternative social media sites (66%) are Republican or lean Republican. This is in contrast with more established social media sites, where news consumers are more likely to be Democrats or lean Democratic. (For more about news consumers on these more established sites, read our Social Media and News Fact Sheet.)

This report also looks at a sample of 200 of the prominent accounts on each site – those with the greatest number of followers – to determine what kinds of accounts tend to gain the most traction on alternative social media.

Roughly half (54%) of prominent accounts appeal to some kind of value or political orientation in their profiles. The most common of these values was right-leaning – 26% of prominent accounts expressed some kind of right-leaning or pro-Trump appeal – more of which centered around Trump or his “Make America Great Again” movement than with the Republican Party or conservative ideology.

Other expressed values included appeals to a religious identity (21% of prominent accounts), patriotism/pro-America views (21%), freedom and liberty (7%), pro-gun or pro-Second Amendment positions (6%), and support for the set of conspiracy theories known as QAnon (6%).

A close look at who is behind the prominent accounts shows that about eight-in-ten (83%) are run by individuals. That can mean either a single person with a noted affiliation to an organization or one without any organizational affiliation. Another 12% are organizations, including news organizations, nonprofit groups and others.

Along with a prevalence of conservative values and identities in prominent account profiles, political topics were common in the content posted there. This study collected all posts published by the 1,400 prominent accounts in June 2022 and identified those that were about five politically oriented topics: abortion; guns, gun control and shootings; the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and subsequent congressional hearings; LGBTQ issues; and vaccines.

The discussion around these issues often reflects fringe and controversial worldviews on the political right. For instance, some of the most common terms in posts about the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol include “political prisoner,” “DC gulag,” “unselect committee,” “witch hunt” and “sham hearing.” Meanwhile, posts about vaccines indicate a deep and consistent concern about the impact of vaccination. These posts regularly refer to a small group of influential vaccine skeptics. 

The most common terms in these posts point to a widespread fear of real but rare impacts of vaccination (“side effect,” “adverse reaction,” “blood clot,” “heart inflammation”) but also diseases or symptoms for which the medical literature finds little evidence of being tied to vaccines (“[sudden adult] death syndrome,” “sperm count”). And posts about LGBTQ issues commonly referred to drag queen “story hour” (a common target of anti-LGBTQ groups) or derisive allegations toward gay and transgender individuals, such as “pedo” and “groomer,” implying that they prey on children.

Most alternative social media news consumers feel a sense of community on these sites, which prominently identify themselves as havens of free speech

About two-thirds of individuals who get news on at least one of the seven alternative social media sites (65%) say they have found a community of like-minded people there.

In a related finding, those who get news from Rumble, Parler, Truth Social and Telegram are far more likely to see these spaces as friendly than unfriendly. About half or more of those who get news on each of them – ranging from 53% to 69% – characterize the discussions they see on these sites as mostly friendly, while no more than a third of each site’s news consumers say the conversation there is mostly unfriendly (the rest say conversation is about an equal mix of friendly and unfriendly).

In some cases, the activity on these sites moves beyond the digital realm. One-third of alternative social media news consumers (33%) say they have participated in an in-person political rally or other political activity they learned about on these sites, and a similar share (36%) have donated money to accounts they follow on these sites.

A central way these sites depict themselves, one that may help give users that sense of community, is as welcoming havens for free speech as well as antidotes to the censorship and “cancel culture” they say exist on more established social media sites. Indeed, all of the seven sites examined explicitly state that they support free speech.

That message has clearly resonated with those turning to those sites for news. When users of alternative social media sites were asked to describe, in their own words, the first thing that comes to their mind in connection with these sites, 22% mentioned something related to the concept of freedom of speech, anti-censorship and an alternative to more established social media – far more common than any other type of response.

Alternative social media news consumers are particularly supportive of these concepts. Compared with Americans overall, alternative social media news consumers are more likely to say that freedom of information should be protected – even if it means allowing false information and offensive content online – than they are to say technology companies should take steps to restrict false information. For example, nearly two-thirds of alternative social media news consumers (64%) favor the protection of free speech even if it brings with it some false content, while the majority of all U.S. adults (61%) prefer that tech companies take steps to restrict this kind of content even if it limits freedom of information.

15% of prominent accounts on alternative social media sites were banned elsewhere

The free speech philosophies of these alternative social media sites have attracted some user accounts that were banned elsewhere. This may be connected to the perception among Americans who are aware of these sites but don’t get news there that the sites host misinformation.

Indeed, 15% of prominent accounts across the seven sites, including Trump’s account, have been indefinitely or permanently suspended, banned or demonetized on more established social media. This is particularly common on BitChute, a video-focused site, where about a third of prominent accounts (35%) have been banned or demonetized elsewhere.

In a number of cases the banning or demonetization was based on evidence that they had spread misinformation and inaccurate information (one example being COVID-19 vaccine skeptic Dr. Robert Malone).

That perception clearly exists among the larger segment of the public that does not use these alternative social media sites for news. When asked to name the first thing that comes to mind when they think of alternative social media sites, adults who have heard about these alternative social media sites but do not get news on them most commonly voice thoughts of inaccuracy and misinformation: 16% of responses. Another 11% of these U.S. adults cite political bias or associate the sites with the political right, and 6% associate alternative social media with extremism or consider them dangerous. Those who get news on these sites are less likely to mention these ideas and more likely to associate them with a lack of censorship or as alternatives to Big Tech.

The content on these sites also raises some questions about the credibility of the information found there. In June 2022, the most prominent accounts commonly linked to digital-only outlets such as The Gateway Pundit, Rebel News, Zero Hedge and Breitbart – each of which have been banned or demonetized by technology companies or other social media sites for misinformation or hate speech. Overall, during this period, there was a clear preference for material from other social media (45% of links) and relatively new, digital-only news sites (20%) rather than legacy news organizations like print publications (4%), radio or podcast sites (1%) or television (1%) sites. In fact, the same share of links went to The Gateway Pundit as to all print publications combined (4%).

Almost all alternative social media sites studied moderate content to some extent and also give users the option to do so

Notwithstanding their allegiance to free speech, almost all of the sites analyzed have at least some restrictions on content.

Every one of the sites, with the exception of Gab, moderates user content beyond the existing legal requirements to remove illegal content and cooperate with law enforcement requests.1 In some cases, sites have agreed to certain restrictions due to outside pressure from governments or mobile app stores like Apple’s App Store or the Google Play Store. This moderation includes removing posts that may contain violent, racist or offensive content and, in some cases, for the political viewpoint expressed.

In addition, almost all these sites give their users options to control the content they see. Five sites let users block or mute other users from their news feed, six sites let users report either accounts or posts, and four of the sites allow users to block explicit content.

Alternative social media news consumers largely satisfied with news they find there, which is often government and political news they wouldn’t have seen elsewhere

For many users, these sites are an important source of information about current events – often government and politics news – and they report finding news that they wouldn’t necessarily find elsewhere.

A majority of those who get news on at least one of the seven sites (56%) say a major reason they go to these sites is to stay informed about current events and issues. And much of what they see is government and political news: 52% say this is the most common type of news they come across on these sites.

In general, alternative social media news consumers like their experience there. About half or more of news consumers on Rumble, Truth Social, Telegram and Parler say they are very or somewhat satisfied with the experience of getting news there, and this overall satisfaction extends to their perception of the accuracy of the information they find. Fewer of the news consumers on each of these sites – roughly a quarter or less – say they are dissatisfied with the experience, while the rest say they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

These news consumers also say that much of the news they see on alternative social media sites is information they wouldn’t find elsewhere. Roughly half of news consumers who get news on at least one of the seven sites (52%) say they at least fairly often come across news on these sites that they would not have seen elsewhere, with an additional 32% who sometimes encounter unique news there. (PEW Research)

A day to celebrate the creativity and nuances of photography that have mesmerised us for years. Photography is a timeless medium of storytelling that beautifully captures the authenticity of time, emotions, culture, history, and more.

World Photography Day is celebrated annually on August 19 and is dedicated to the art, craft, science, and history of photography. To commemorates this medium, let’s checkout these mesmerizing images which are part of MAP’s exquisite collection of iconic photographs by renowned photographers like Jyoti Bhatt, Karen Knorr, T. S. Satyan, Mitter Bedi, and more.

Rajasthan by Jyoti Bhatt, 1973, Silver gelatin print, Rajasthan, India, PHY.00596

This image was photographed by Jyoti Bhatt in Rajasthan in 1973. It shows a clever juxtaposition representing the relationship between prey and predator using art and everyday life.

The Queen’s Room, Zanana, Udaipur City Palace, Udaipur by Karen Knorr, 2010, Archival pigment print, Udaipur, India, PHY.01765

This image forms part of the project ‘India Song’, which was started by British-American photographer Karen Knorr in 2008. It shows a digitally inserted peacock standing in a passage of the Zenana Mahal in the City Palace, Udaipur.

The project seeks to explore ideas of caste, femininity and hierarchy intertwined with the rich cultural heritage of Rajasthan by connecting the royal spaces to the animal world with a harmonious combination of digital and analogue photography.

This photograph by Sebastiao Salgado shows three coal workers from one of the coal mines of Dhanbad in Bihar, India. Forming part of Salgado’s social documentary oeuvre, the image provides a glimpse of the working communities and the state of their immediate environments.

This is a portrait of H. H. Maharaja of Jaipur Ram Singh, G.C.S.I. Photographed by one of the oldest photography studios in the world, Bourne & Shepherd, the image shows Maharaja Sawai Ram Singh II of Jaipur. Accessioning as king at the age of sixteen months, Sawai Ram Singh was known as a reformist ruler. He was also an avid photographer, with an interest in portraiture and landscapes, having gained the reputation of the ‘Photographer Prince’.

This is a studio portrait of Maharaja Sir Bhagwati Prasad Singh of Balrampur taken by the studio Johnston & Hoffmann. The royal portrait presents an excellent example of hand-painted photographs, where the artists have beautifully brought out the beauty and richness of clothes, jewels and the furniture.

This photograph is part of a collaborative project between Pushpamala N and Claire Arni called ‘Native Women of South India: Manners and Customs’. Belonging to the sub-series called ‘The Native Types’, the images in the collection look at popular tropes and representations of women from South India through a performative angle. This particular image called ‘Lakshmi’ is modeled after an oleograph by late modernist painter Raja Ravi Varma.

This studio photograph is from the extensive work of Suhag Studio in Nagda, Madhya Pradesh, India, owned and operated by photographer Suresh Punjabi. The image shows a woman posing with a bunch of fake grapes. It was common practice for photo studios to keep props and costumes for customers, providing them with the space and opportunity to be playful, wishful and explore their own imagery.

This photograph taken by the late Indian photographer T. S. Satyan shows women at work in the Indian Telephone Factory, Bangalore in the late 20th century. The women appear to be assembling telephones on their stations. The image shows a great example of women’s workforce in technical fields in a rapidly transforming India.

This photograph was taken by late Indian photographer Mitter Bedi that shows an industrial setup of possibly Hindustan Unilever from 1961. Mitter Bedi was India’s most notable commercial and industrial photographer who paved the way for the upcoming generations. In a time, when India as a newly independent nation was going through a rapid phase of industrialization, Mitter Bedi became the most sought after photographer to chronicle this growth in various sectors like oil, textile, paper, sugar, mining etc. with his photography.

This image shows the Manikarnika Ghat on the bank of river Ganga with the Gyanvapi Mosque visible in the view. The mosque was built by Mughal ruler Aurangzeb in 1669. In the foreground, large stacks of firewood can also be seen, which were possibly used for cremation purposes. (IANS)

NDTV 24×7 has won the awards for being “India’s Most Trusted Brand for News” (English). Sreenivasan Jain, who has won several awards for his investigative reports, has been named “India’s Most Trusted News Anchor”.

Suparna Singh, President of the NDTV Group, has been awarded “India’s Most Trusted Leader”.

The awards for 2022 have been given by an organisation called WCRCINT, which evaluates brands in different countries.

These huge awards for “India’s Most Trusted News Brand”, the sixth such honour since 2019, prove that audiences rely on the NDTV Network for genuine news. These awards are also an acknowledgement of NDTV’s whole-hearted commitment to No-Hate-For-Profit.

“As always, we are so grateful to our television and online audience, and to our business partners, for their support of independent journalism,” NDTV wrote on its website.