>

Ah yes, the prescreen and edited interviews with celebrities where he's asked hard hitting questions like "do you like mangos?"
Paywall >


NEW DELHI, Jan 19 (Reuters) - India's foreign ministry on Thursday dismissed a BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi which questioned his leadership during the 2002 Gujarat riots as "propaganda".  
Modi was the chief minister of the western state of Gujarat when it was gripped by communal riots that left more than 1,000 people dead - most of them Muslims. The violence erupted after a train carrying Hindu pilgrims caught fire, killing 59.  
Accused of failing to stop the rioting, Modi denied the accusations and was exonerated in 2012 following an inquiry by India's top court. Another petition questioning his exoneration was dismissed last year.  
Terming the BBC documentary a "propaganda piece" meant to push a "discredited narrative", foreign ministry spokesperson Arindam Bagchi said a "bias", "lack of objectivity", and "continuing colonial mindset" is "blatantly visible" in it.  
"It makes us wonder about the purpose of this exercise and the agenda behind it, and we do not wish to dignify such efforts," he told a news conference.  
The BBC, contacted for comment, said the documentary was "rigorously researched" and involved a "wide range" of voices and opinions, including responses from people in Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).  
"We offered the Indian Government a right to reply to the matters raised in the series – it declined to respond," a BBC spokesperson said. >

When someone attacks the source, instead of the argument, then the argument is usually a good one.  If Modi thinks the BBC report is wrong then providing proof or at least a counter argument is the right way to handle it. >

Exactly, and if the Indian govt are waging that people (internationally) will believe them over the reputation of the BBC, they’re in for a surprise. >

The entire British public found that scandal abhorrent. The executives were to blame and should be held accountable. 
But no one is calling for the BBC to be defunded except a small minority who think (very simplistically) that an entire organisation can be blamed for the acts of just a few. >

You’ve been frantically commenting throughout this entire thread with nothing but ‘Britain are oppressors’ comments, so I’m going to disengage with you now. There’s no meaningful conversation here, especially considering that you’re just fabricating statistics.
If the posts on your profile are correct and you are actually from the UK, then you will have access to our public libraries. I recommend you go and read ‘Insurgent Empire’ by Priyamvada Gopal (a renowned Indian national) and learn about how colonialism changed Britain. 
I’m very pro-Indian and pro-reparations to be paid to India. But the reputation of the BBC is not as you say, and you sound very misinformed. >


especially considering that you’re just fabricating statistics.

Disengage with me darling; I have no time for individuals that can't perform a simple Google search.
How much are we betting that you'll be calling it an unreliable source? >

You think just by predicting that I would call it an unreliable source, somehow negates the fact that it is an unreliable source?
Have a nice day, please consider the last two paragraphs of my previous comment. Goodbye. >

YouGov?
Or do sources only count when they match your views?
The BBC is a sinking ship organisation; most of us can't wait for the platform that humanised the likes of Shamima Begum and Anjem Choudary to completely fall. >

That’s a Twitter account that paid $8 for a verification tick…
And defending a girl who joined ISIS, a terror organisation, makes you the worst kind of person.
I won’t reply again, you’re clearly not worth it. >

Well... Isn't everything? >

Ministry of propaganda goes full on Spiderman pointing at Spiderman meme. >

Then it must be pretty good >

In 2007 Modi walked out of an interview when asked about Gujarat riots of 2002
This was the last time he ever took questions from the press