The job vacancy placed by The New York Times for a South Asia Business Correspondent, New Delhi as advertised on job portals gives away the sly games that international media houses, and the forces behind them, are playing and planning to play in India. And on India.
NYT has not advertised for a South Asia Business Correspondent, New Delhi. It seems it actually has advertised and sought applications for a post that requires a rabid anti-Modi and anti-Hindu incumbent. It seems that it seeks applications from tool-kits who can run down their own country’s interests in flowery American English and take part in cancelling everything that is good for their own country.
This advertisement may very well have been penned by an enthusiastic China-loving communist comrade living in India, in-wait for the much-awaited bloody revolution, or a ghazwa-e-Hind destroy-everything-good-and-beautiful dreaming Pakistani general.
The best thing about the so called ‘insider-liberals’ and ‘outsider-preachers’ is that they expose themselves pretty easily and that too in written words.
Sample this quote from the same job vacancy:
“The New York Times Company will consider qualified applicants, including those with criminal histories…”
People with criminal histories are okay, but not someone who supports or represents ‘a self-sufficient, muscular nationalism’.
It also says: “The ideal candidate will have some of these qualities… Commitment to The New York Times’ strategy, standards and mission.”
So, the newspaper house also has a strategy and mission. Thanks for revealing.
It has an understanding of India: “Domestically, India is a melting pot of people and languages grappling with difficult questions of class and wealth disparity. It has a well-educated and aspiring middle class coveted by Amazon, Walmart and other major global companies.”
Okay. Is it really a melting pot? Since when? And any reason why Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iran are not melting pots? Any credit to the ‘muscular Hindu nationalists’?
And it is coveted by Amazon, Walmart? Thanks for telling us.
And why are US best-buddies Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or China or Bangladesh not melting pots?
Why no story yet on that?
Why is there an elaborate VISA policy in the US? Why does it not want to melt with next-door Mexicans? Why is immigration hated in a country made of immigrants?
Why are cruelties of Christian missionaries on indigenous populations in entire west from Canada to Poland to US not being called out in true words?
And it has strategy to chart out a future for India too: “India’s future now stands at a crossroads. Mr. Modi is advocating a self-sufficient, muscular nationalism centered on the country’s Hindu majority. That vision puts him at odds with the interfaith, multicultural goals of modern India’s founders. The government’s growing efforts to police online speech and media discourse have raised difficult questions about balancing issues of security and privacy with free speech. Technology is both a help and a hindrance.”
It is ironical that NYT laments about “the government’s growing efforts to police online speech and media discourse have raised difficult questions about balancing issues of security and privacy with free speech.”
Look who is preaching.
A media house from a country where a sitting president was not allowed to voice his opinion by the big media and big tech cartels.
And preaching to whom? To a country where every other abuse, on the MSM as well as SM, is hurled directly at the prime minister himself?
India is trying to police online speech and media discourse?
Really? Any Indian roaming the Social Media world or reading pro-China and pro-Islamabad papers and news portals would disagree completely.
If there is one person you can criticise openly in media it is the prime minister himself. And if there is one religion you can abuse openly in media or social media, it must be the same Hinduism that promotes ‘muscular nationalism’.
Is NYT grudging the fact that India is not allowing child pornography, conversion and subversion tool kits any more like it was allowed earlier?
If so, most of the Indians would have a different opinion and would want India to take on the deep nexus media and big tech international hidden interests without hesitation.