India Today Anchor Rahul Kanwal lectures on US media bias, gets trolled by Indian viewers
New Delhi: India Today’s anchor and News Director Rahul Kanwal found himself at the center of a social media storm following his remarks on perceived bias in the US media’s coverage of the ongoing presidential election.
In his post, Kanwal highlighted what he saw as clear polarization within the American media, using CNN and Fox News as examples. He claimed that CNN made it appear as though Kamala Harris was receiving widespread support from independents and even some Republicans, while Fox News portrayed Donald Trump as holding a winning edge. Kanwal added that “neutral viewers” might be left confused over which channel represented the real scenario, emphasizing that journalists should leave personal biases aside and aim to present a balanced view.
However, Kanwal’s criticism of US media immediately sparked backlash from Indian social media users, who pointed to the irony in his remarks given India Today’s own reputation. The channel, along with others, is often accused of pro-government bias, and users wasted no time in calling out what they saw as Kanwal’s double standards.
One user sarcastically remarked that, by watching India Today’s coverage, “one would think Modi is winning not only in India but in US and Canada as well,” mocking the channel’s alleged inclination to support the ruling BJP. The comment clearly highlighted what many viewers see as an overt bias in Indian media coverage that often portrays Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP in a favorable light, regardless of the topic.
Another comment urged Kanwal to “start with himself” if he truly believed that journalists should leave personal biases outside the newsroom. The commenter implied that Kanwal’s own reporting was far from neutral and questioned the integrity of his critique of American journalists. This response echoed the sentiment of many others, who felt that Kanwal’s post ignored the role he himself plays within the alleged “Godi Media,” a term used to describe Indian news channels perceived to be compliant with government narratives.
Further, one viewer took issue with Kanwal’s focus on US media, questioning why he seemed more concerned with perceived biases abroad than addressing the issues in his own country. “Godi media talking about media bias in the US?” the comment read. “Why don’t you guys do your own job honestly first rather than working against your own country and fooling your audience, then worry about other countries?” This comment struck a chord with other users, who agreed that Kanwal’s focus seemed misplaced, especially given the state of Indian media.
In a similar vein, another comment read, “Thankfully in India, all channels sing only one song, leaving no scope for any confusion. And dude, you talking about personal biases is a little too much.” The remark appeared to address the lack of diversity in perspectives among Indian news outlets, suggesting that most channels convey a single narrative favoring the government, leaving no room for viewers to experience confusion over where each network stands.
Several commenters went further in their criticisms, openly questioning Kanwal’s credibility as a journalist. One user bluntly stated, “What a joke, when you guys do the same during our elections. Take ownership of what you say because soon media will be considered a platform for only comedy.” This comment highlighted the growing skepticism viewers feel toward the news media, warning that unless journalists start to practice what they preach, the media’s credibility may be beyond repair.
Another comment directed at Kanwal was especially sharp, calling him “spineless” and accusing him of operating on instructions from his employers rather than covering real issues independently. “Firstly, Mr. Rahul Kanwal, think about your honesty in your profession. You’re acting as per your employer's instruction, not on real issues. Spineless man, don’t give lectures to others,” the user wrote, suggesting that Kanwal’s journalistic independence was compromised.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Wright was ideal India coach, he gave players free-hand unlike Chappell, Kumble: Sandeep Patil
Mumbai, Nov 7: The 1983 World Cup winner and ex-chairman of selectors, Sandeep Patil feels John Wright's approach of giving a free-hand to players led to his successful coaching stint with India, something his more authoritarian successors Greg Chappell and Anil Kumble failed to emulate.
In his autobiography -- Beyond Boundaries -- launched here on Wednesday, Patil gave deep insights in his book about the reason behind Wright's success as India coach vis a vis Chappell and Kumble.
Patil was privy to several developments of the tumultuous Chappell era as he used to attend selection and board meetings in his capacity as the then India A coach.
"Since 2000, India have had an array of international coaches and support staff. This has paid rich dividends, because India's overseas record has improved steadily. It all started with John Wright becoming India's first foreign coach.
"I think John was the ideal coach for India. He was soft spoken, polite, well-mannered, always kept to himself, and was happy to be in Sourav Ganguly's shadow.
"In addition to all that, he kept a distance from the Press. He managed that so well, that he was hardly in the news — unlike what happened in the Greg Chappell years," Patil wrote in his book.
"With Chappell, he was in the news every day. It is very important for a coach to first understand the policy of that particular board, the thinking of the board members, and the President. He should have a good rapport with the President and the Secretary, and of course the captain and the team. John did that wonderfully."
Patil observed that every player was equal and the team came first for Wright.
"...during his tenure, there was no 'seniors' and juniors' business. It was one team. He believed all seniors were leaders in some way, He gave them respect, and a free hand, which l feel Anil Kumble didn't do. Greg Chappell too," he wrote.
The former India coach felt that Chappell's aggressive approach did not suit the Indian dressing room atmosphere.
"Greg is a very strong personality; very aggressive. The moment Jagmohan Dalmiya said you have a free hand, he thought that he can change everything overnight. John waited, and learnt the system. Greg wanted to change the entire system, the entire thinking, and the selection process," Patil elaborated.
"He introduced flexibility in the Indian team, and he spoiled things for Rahul Dravid, who took over from Ganguly as captain. Irfan (Pathan) was asked to move up the order. Seniors don't like to change numbers, whether it is Sachin Tendulkar, Dravid, or Virender Sehwag.
"The other issue in the Greg Chappell saga was the presence of Ian Fraser as Assistant Coach. Most players didn't like his presence."
Patil said Chappell was in a hurry to introduce the Australian culture in the Indian system.
"Greg wanted to introduce the Australian culture, the Australian way of playing cricket, and the Australian way of thinking. He could've done it, but he didn't bide his time. That's where I think the rift started, and he was against a few seniors who were not toeing the line.
"Sourav is not a guy who will get up and start running and doing stretches. You need to give him time. I think Greg rubbed seniors the wrong way, though a few seniors didn't speak openly about him - some like Kumble still haven't. It's the same with Dravid. Ironically, Ganguly got him in, but was instrumental in his exit," he wrote.
Patil felt Gary Kirsten turned out to be the most successful Indian coach because of his closeness with the players.
"Gary Kirsten was very successful - you could say most successful, because his squad won the 2011 World Cup. Gary, again, was well-respected and soft-spoken. He had played against the same players and got runs. This counts, in a way.
"Having played in India, he knew what to expect. He also stayed away from the Press, and gave all his 24 hours to the team," he wrote.
