Indus Water Treaty by Charlotte Belanger

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

News outlets often have political or cultural learnings that shape how they report stories. By examining multiple perspectives, you can identify and filter out bias to get a more balanced view of the facts, ALL of the facts, and learn these facts without being convinced to have a certain emotion evoked. The first thing that is observed on a news source is a headline; it convinces the reader to continue reading, and gives a brief overview of the information that can be found in the article itself. When researching the Indus Water Treaty there were headlines such as “‘We have given Pakistan very generously but..’” (The Times of India) and “Pakistan Faces Severe Water Crisis Amid Extreme Heat, Indus Waters Shortage” (NDTV). These headlines give a brief clue into what the article is about except it has bias that shapes the narrative for the article and states an opinion right off the bat. The title from The Times of India centers the Indian viewpoint and suggests a tone of frustration or unfairness. This can predispose readers to view Pakistan as ungrateful or undeserving. In contrast, NDTV’s headline draws attention to Pakistan's suffering and presents the issue as a humanitarian concern. Both headlines report on the same topic, yet each sets a different emotional and political tone, influencing how readers interpret the issue even before they read the details. If a reader were just to read the headline they would easily be persuaded one way or another depending on the source. Not only is the headline a quick way of presenting bias, but the omitted facts and details shared about an incident is an easy way to convince the reader of a certain belief or opinion. In The Times of India’s source the Indus Water Treaty and the current problems surrounding it were not at all caused by the Indian government but rather they were helpful, generous people who were betrayed by Pakistan. NDTV on the other hand explains Pakistan's side of the story and how they are a struggling country who is under even more suffrage due to India. By choosing which details to highlight or leave out, journalists and editors can subtly frame a story to support one side over another. In the Indian Times write up about the issue, the article emphasizes India’s generosity and paints the Indian government as a helpful and reasonable actor. Any mention of India’s potential role in escalating tensions or contributing to water shortages is omitted, leaving readers with a one-sided, favorable impression of India. Meanwhile, NDTV’s article focuses on Pakistan’s suffering, describing the severe water crisis and the extreme heat the country is facing, suggesting that India’s actions are contributing to Pakistan’s hardship. This version omits detailed explanations of India’s position or past generosity under the treaty. By including certain details and leaving out others, each article shapes a very different narrative. This selective presentation is a powerful form of bias, as it influences the reader’s understanding of the issue based on which side’s story is told and which is left out. These two sources include words such as “generously”, “severe”, and “goodwill” in order to evoke emotion in the reader to believe either side of the story. These emotionally charged words are not neutral; they are carefully chosen to steer the reader toward a specific interpretation. By using such language, each article subtly guides readers to align with a certain perspective, demonstrating how word choice can be a powerful tool in shaping public opinion and introducing bias. Ultimately, by recognizing how headlines, selective information, and word choice can all be used to influence perception, readers can better protect themselves from bias and form their own well-informed opinions in order to get all of the facts without the illusion of persuasion.

UN accuses Israel of denying Gaza aid access as famine takes hold

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

citation

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

Staff, Al Jazeera. “Kashmir Attack: Does India’s Indus Waters Treaty Freeze Threaten Pakistan?” Al Jazeera, 24 April 2025, 1.

What Perspective/bias does this take?

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

In this source there is as little bias as possibly can be used while giving as much information that represents both sides. This information seems to be all the information the source has found on this topic and there are both good and bad things for each opposing side. It identifies what the Indus Water Trade was originally as well as what it is now in order to give the reader as much background information as possible. The headline just states what the attack is but doesn't provoke emotion in either direction. There are also no words used to specifically provoke emotions or form opinions in one direction. Overall this source gives the reader as much information as possible from BOTH sides, stating BOTH opinions and actions.

Article Main Idea/Target Audience

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

This article acts as a baseline for any research about this topic, giving lots of information and not trying to convince the reader of any certain opinion. The targeted audience is mainly the people of India and Pakistan in order to inform them of what is happening but can also act as a resource to the outside world to expand their knowledge as well.

Aid to Gaza Dries Up

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

citation

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

Desk, TOI News. “'We Have given Pakistan Very Generously but ... ': Shashi Tharoor Reiterates India’s Stance on Indus Waters Treaty.” The Times of India, Times of India, 30 May 2025, 1.

What Perspective/bias does this take?

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

This source only speaks on how India was so generous to give up a portion of their water and supply Pakistan with the needed resource and how Pakistan betrayed the trust and agreement. It doesn’t give any background on why Pakistan betrayed the agreement or any background information on the whole situation in general meaning that it uses bias of selection and omission. The headline of the source implies the same message as the selected information given in the article, it makes it seem as though India is this incredible country that does no wrong and has always tried to help Pakistan. If a reader were just to look at the title it would appear that India is in the right, when really there is so much more to the story. Not only is the headline and selected information bias towards India but the article uses words such as “generous” “good will” and “harmony” that give off the impression of Idia being all of those things. The tone of the article is light and prosperous while in reality the background of the story is much more than that.

Articles Main Idea/Target Audience

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

This articles goal is to convince anyone that they can that India is in the right and has only been trying to help throughout this entire situation. The reasoning behind this is because if they can convince a large majority of people this opinion through the article then it will spread by mouth and action in the future and soon will be the overall opinion of the public. By using these biases the authors of this article are able to convince readers that they are getting all the information, and that information is in favor of India. The audience that the article is trying to persuade is the people of India as they are the ones who receive this newspaper and so the source is trying to make sure that their citizens are in complete agreement with and support their leaders decisions. It can of course be accessed by other countries for support and persuasion but the main audience is the Indian people.

Why isn't desperately needed aid reaching Palestinians in Gaza?

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

citation

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

Mishra, Himanshu Shekhar, and Sanstuti Nath. “Pakistan Faces Severe Water Crisis amid Extreme Heat, Indus Waters Shortage.” NDTV, 2 June 2025, 1.

What perspective/bias does this take?

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

This source provides evidence and information about how Pakistan is struggling and how India is the cause of their water shortage. It does NOT though mention that terrorists from Pakistan have destroyed many parts of India and how Pakistan has many times betrayed their agreement originally made for the Indus Water Treaty. It leaves out many facts and events that could persuade the reader to be less inclined to believe and support Pakistan. Not only does this source have bias using selection or omission but the headline also provokes emotions from the reader that sway their opinion in the direction favoring Pakistan. The headline portrays Pakistan as a almost helpless, suffering country which if the reader were to only read that, it would make them more inclined to feel sorry for Pakistan and see India as the bad guys when really they haven't seen both sides of the story.

Article Main Idea/Target Audience

28cbelanger — 2025-06-02 13:45:50 UTC

This article is written to outside countries and the people of Pakistan in order to shape India as an evil country who has taken the water supply from Pakistan that was agreed upon many years ago. The reason it is more targeted to a broader audience is because it is trying to convince EVERYONE to feel bad for and support Pakistan in order to gain sympathy and resources from other places.