Talk:NDTV/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page reads like an advertisement for NDTV. Why is it so biased?

this criticises the channel too much it is one of d best eng news channels around better that times now and 9x ofcourse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.178.75 (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please... discuss your criticism before posting on the NDTV page and don't troll. Some proof of the communist agenda wouldn't hurt! Laxstar5 07:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add original research to this section. Furthermore, also do not copy verbatim into this section without proper copyrights. Just because it is criticism does not warrant strong POV additions, too. See

On December 3, 2008, Admiral Sureesh mehta, Indian Navy chief of Staff openly criticized NDTV Coverage as being responsible for the deaths of three soldiers in Kargil.[1] NDTV's Barkha Dutt countered by quoting the testimony of General Malik:

“I would urge Admiral Mehta to read General VP Malik's book on the Kargil conflict wherein General Malik refers to some malicious rumours that implied that media coverage could have been responsible for fatalities. General Malik clearly clarifies that given that the army was using satellite phones, more than sixty of them, and that the rocket launchers used by the army were emitting more light than what 100s of cameras manage together, this was nothing but ill-informed rumour-mongering. Admiral Mehta should at least get his facts right.”

However it should be noted that since NDTV claims to be the only news channel to broadcast to Pakistan[[2]] , Barkha Dutt has not countered the possibility that Indian Army positions could have been given away by the news broadcast itself. Cesar.medic (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not include original research in the criticism section. Please show citations and attempt to discuss the matter in the talk page prior to editing the article.

Don't think the "NDTV" featured in Napalm Death's video is New Delhi Television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun.arumugam (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

NDTV is widely known to be a pro Congress(I)supporter and systematically boosts the party in its programs

Can you give some examples?

Sure, Its News Coverage is significantly pro congress(I).Please kindly watch the channel and you can be a judge for your self, provided you are not biased towards any political party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor3008 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Any criticism of government inaction during the recent Mumbai attacks were termed as Politicization by NDTV and Barkha Dutt in particular —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.203.45 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Prannoy Roy doesn't even try to hide his glee in the discussions aftermath of the 3 state election results which marginally favoured Congress —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.203.45 (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please find a reliable resource (see

WP:RELIABLE for details) to support this view before adding it to the article. Shanata (talk

) 09:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Afroze —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afroze.sahib (talk • contribs) 07:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias amongst liberal media is not exclusive to NDTV. Most broadcasters in the US are very openly biased towards Democrats, except perhaps FOX. NDTV does not even claim to be liberal; The centrists amongst its top management have founded new channels, the top brass that remains has leftist leanings. To blame and overtly criticize them for the lack of a more nationalistic (not jingoistic, we have enough of those) network seems unfair.--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• The trivia is uncharacteristic of a WP entry, esp for a Stub. I reckon the relation with Prakash Karat is not exactly trivial(except the co-brother-in-law phrase...wott?)--Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of this article, especially the current versions of the introduction and corporate profile sections, does not appear to meet wikipedia's neutrality policy. Please see

Its coverage of starvation-deaths, malnutrition and other human rights violations has forced the government into action. Which one and what action ? In fact in when so many farmers suicided in Maharashtra NDTV almost silent on the topic as it was ruled by congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaifazam (talk • contribs) 08:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete the tag I've added requesting that citations/references are added to the corporate profile section until that task has been accomplished. Shanata (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it managed to get to this state, but I've just removed large amounts of clearly disparaging, unsourced content from the article, which was making unfounded accusations of racism and government conspiracy directed at the subject of the article. Please watch out for this material. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The main vandal has been indef blocked now, so hopefully this content won't reappear. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to kamal khan is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheelusinghal (talk • contribs) 04:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The section on the "26/11 Mumbai Terrorist Attacks" is very oddly written and doesn't seem to cite a relevant source.

I think overall it might be beneficial to start putting things like this (and other things referenced on this talk page) into a "Controversy" section rather than reporting it as undisputable fact. A good starting example might be

Corwinlw (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know it is a farud institute they have done so much of farud and specify Varun Gupta sweta there should be An action against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.208.244.56 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone please look at this orphaned article and see if they can build it into NDTV? Gbawden (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

why this paragraph is removed even when properly refrenced?

http://manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1749#.VYlChPmqqko https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIEHcitqivk

http://www.scribd.com/doc/175789159/NDTV-money-laundering-Annexure-9?secret_password=2jpv6pecii7osi9fos63 http://www.scribd.com/doc/190072062/Ram-Jethmalani-s-letter-to-P-Chidambaram-in-NDTV-money-laundering-matter http://www.scribd.com/doc/193677788/P-Chidambaram%E2%80%99s-reply-to-Ram-Jethmalani-and-Ram-Jethmalani-s-reply-to-P-Chidambaram-in-NDTV-money-laundering-matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.145.22 (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Those scribd bits are not sources, they are copies of (supposed) communication between individuals, the Manushi site is not what we'd consider as a reliable secondary source. Please see

our guideline to identifying reliable sources. —SpacemanSpiff

11:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

for scribd bids they are the the letters of accusations by the person itself.Ram jethmalani is a senior indian mpo and former law minister . other wikipedia article contains several accusations which are referenced through news website . why there is a problem in publishing the accusation backed by the original document by a former law minister .the youtube video is of the I.T officer sk srivastav himself who has accused ndtv of fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.249.145.22 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read our guideline on

biographies and sections on living persons. We need reliable secondary sources documenting this, not primary sources. —SpacemanSpiff

11:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

This edit request to NDTV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Insanemanushya (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk

) 16:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just modified 4 external links on NDTV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416181338/http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19980120/02051164.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19980120/02051164.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202102749/http://www.sunday-guardian.com/a/1082 to http://www.sunday-guardian.com/a/1082
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208060733/http://www.sunday-guardian.com/a/1083 to http://www.sunday-guardian.com/a/1083
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131103116/http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_performance/2011_2012/Civil_%20Performance_Audits/Report_No_6_CWG/CWG%20English%20-%20Part-1.pdf to http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_performance/2011_2012/Civil_%20Performance_Audits/Report_No_6_CWG/CWG%20English%20-%20Part-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Remove "It was the first hard hitting news programme with a unique Indian perspective on world's affairs. This half-hour show set off an unstoppable chain of events - the decline of government-controlled news, the burgeoning of private TV networks, and the ushering in of today's landscape of viewer democracy." from the lead section as being purely promotional, and having no references in the article from which a neutrally-phrased equivalent can be sourced.
• Remove the hard link for "The World This Week" in the lead section. Do not replace with a link to The World This Week, which is a different show that airs in Israel.
• Remove the {{advert}} template as the removal of the above cures any promotional problems with the article.

Thanks. 199.66.69.56 (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done LittlePuppers (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

The statement in the introductory box above about Indian English, claiming it has its own spelling conventions, is incorrect. All the examples given (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) are spelled like this in all parts of the world except the United States. Although spoken sentence structure in India may have its own style at times, I have never seen spellings diverge from the international (except USA) norm.

Furthermore, the use of 'z' or 's' in words like "analysed/analyzed" and "organise/organize" may be a matter of preference in many regions and has nothing to do with India specifically. Interestingly the UK Government Style Guide lists "-ize" as an Americanism that should not be used:

(https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style)

Search for "Americanisms".

However, whilst the UK Govt is free to demand "-ise" endings for documents produced by it, its description of "-ize" as being American is not quite accurate, as the listings in Oxford Dictionaries online and other sources show.

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/28/ize-or-ise/

Please do not confuse American English spellings with some sort of absolute standard.Dori1951 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about apologies from Barkha Dutt in Radia controversy as there was no citation to back it up. I couldn't find it anywhere else either. Jarinwallah (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to NDTV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the number of employees to 543 according to their official annual report 2019 Htwo0 (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to NDTV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the news house and its editors have links to cpi(M)leaders and congrerss leader and basiclally anti-modi/hindutva and anti-national news Indi1010 (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This has little to do with NDTV other than the fact that Barkha Dutt happened to be with NDTV at that point of time. This section can be removed from this article.ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• On 14 Oct 2020 NDTV was allegedly involved in tweeting fake news after jewellery store Tanishq put down a controversial ad. I think this information shall be added. Tayi Arajakate reverted my previous edit reg the information that I have added earlier. I have taken the information from the citation and put it up in my words. I think I didn’t violated the copyrights. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• The quotation I copied is the statement "as it is" from the SP Kutch city East. Apart from that all the text is been written by me. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The following content needs to be rewritten. It does not maintain NPOV and promotes propaganda as facts.

On 14 Oct 2020 NDTV was allegedly tweeted fake news regarding a controversial ad by jewelry store Tanishq promoting Love Jihad on the pretext of interfaith love.

None of the

@

WP:NPOV. - Fylindfotberserk (talk

) 11:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk, Ok. Please edit the article. ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have pasted in a corrected version. (There were some errors in the completion of the citation templates (maybe you were using Visual Editor), which I have corrected. I also corrected two capitalisation errors.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Tanishq Ad controvesy may be rewritten as

In early October

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChunnuBhai (talk • contribs) 10:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Heading shall be changed to False news reporting and more content to added

The heading shall be changed to "False news reporting" and more content shall be added . this topi is slanted towrds recent event , so more content shall be added to put it up in a historical perspectiveJoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Rabbit11, i suggest please start a new discussion, this discussion was already concluded.ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: Thanks for linking the First information report article in Special:Diff/990185258. Regarding your edit summary, please note that the indefinite article an is actually used in front of any word that begins with a vowel sound, even if the word's first letter is a consonant (see English articles § Distinction between a and an for details). Since FIR (eff-eye-are) begins with a vowel sound, "an FIR" would be the correct combination. However, the word first begins with a consonant sound, so you are correct to use "a first information report (FIR)" in Special:Diff/990185258. — Newslinger talk 12:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

This section should not be under "Controversy" section of NDTV. It is more suited to be a part of Controversies of TAM. There is already an Importance template on this section since 2018. I propose this section either be moved out of controversies, or deleted altogether from this article.ChunnuBhai (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it should be deleted rom the article, and the present location seems a sensible place for it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Instances of fake news should be added in lead section as done with other wiki pages related to News Channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.105.116.36 (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. You have probably been misled by the Indian government's disinformation campaign (see this BBC article). Of course the disinformation campaing is not just against Pakistan, but also against people at home who express opposition to them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The editing bias is clearly visible, while other channels lead contain lines about fake news, then why no this. It doesn't matter whether the news channels are biased or not, but wiki should not be biased.42.105.124.215 (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Info about false news shall be added in lead in NDTV page to maintain npov , otherwise the same shall be removed from other pages as well to neutralise the things. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• The heading shall be changed to "False news reporting" and more content shall be added . this topic is slanted towards recent event , so more content shall be added to put it up in a historical perspective JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Rabbit11, I suggest that you stop using the word "shall", whose meaning you appear not to know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I used 'shall' for our collective conscience to change the heading "Tanishq advertisement controversy" to "false news reporting". At this point of time I think we are in agreement with this. The same shall be changed. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Heading shall be changed to false news reporting

In early October

In December 2020. NDTV has reported vaccines being manufactured by the Serum institute and Bharat Biotech are not cleared by a committee of health experts.[6]. Later Press Information Bureau and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare said NDTV's claim was "fake".^[7]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo Rabbit11 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You failed to notice the implication of the distancing quotation marks in the headings and the stories.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

editor has edited title and the same has been appeared as a news article, fact checking website news laundry citation is also removed by the editor. remember this is notnews. all the fake/false news events shall be added under a common heading to prevent confusion, also quotations removed from the headingJoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

All newspapers and news services sometimes produce stories that are wrong. It is in the nature of journalism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to be neutral here, dont take sides. A fake news is a fake news. Follow npov. dont be biased if NDTV has published fake news that must be mentioned. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The 9 December 2020 story about COVID 19 vaccine needs to report on what NDTV actually said, and what the Indian Government said, which was that the NDTV story was "fake news". It also needed to have correctly completed citation templates, giving the correct URL, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no problem being you put up what NDTV said , but the problem is, this type of news shall be segregated under the tile sub heading "fake news reporting" under the heading "controversy" that will give good structure to the whole article. the way individual controversy are mentioned here seen to feel like reading news article , and wikipediais

wp:notnewsJoJo Rabbit11 (talk

) 08:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You have not provided any sources that would justify a claim that NDTV systematically produces so-called "fake news". The Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Collating individual incidents looks very much like that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Provided source for the same here[[3]]JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The following sentence is inappropriate and should be deleted:

The Channel is notorious for Posting Fake, misleading and false news at several Occasions.^[1][2][3]

None of the sources directly support the statement they are cited for.

GorgeCustersSabre, thanks for removing the inappropriate sentence before I had finished writing the above post.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

How it is in appropriate? This source [[4]] cited false reporting. This source [[5]] cited fake news by NDTV.JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The following sentence is inappropriate

The Channel is notorious for Posting Fake, misleading and false news at several Occasions.

and should be corrected to

The Channel published Fake, misleading and false news at several Occasions^[1][2][3]

JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The inappropriate sentence would be a very good example of what

WP:SYNTHESIS says is forbidden on Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk)

12:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS JoJo Rabbit11 (talk

) 14:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: In your edit you changed the citation for the following text

The company began operation as a production house of news segments for the

public broadcaster Doordarshan

and international satellite news channels.

Was this deliberate?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Toddy1, yes it was deliberate. I repeated a citation by mistake when I first added the line, the current one is the correct reference for it. By the way, the ping didn't work. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a clear attempt over the last few weeks by few editors to somehow add the phrase "fake news", in either the lead or the controversies section. EVERY news report which is reported by multiple news agencies, but denied by the govt, is termed as fake news, and somehow finds its was ONLY on the NDTV page and not on others. Latest example is the Covid Vaccine section. A news item reported by multiple media outlets gets denied by Govt tagging it on twitter with NDTV. and it finds its way here. This looks like a clear

I am deleting the Covid Vaccine section in good faith as I dont find targeted POVPUSH propaganda worthy of being part of an encyclopedia. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

That is OK. I only wrote the paragraph you deleted as part of an edit I described as follows: remove sensationalised statements from the lead where the editor failed to understand the implications of distancing quotation marks. rewrite section on "Covid vaccine" in non-sensationalist fashion so that it explains what was said, and what the cited source claiming the the story was wrong said. But there is hope.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In this section, the CAG commentary is on the government and not NDTV (or CNNIBN). I dont fully understand how this is suited to the controversy section of NDTV. This may be suited to have a mention on Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2010_Commonwealth_Games page.

However I am not inclined to edit this myself at this point right away, and will request other involved editors to address this.ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

ChunnuBhai, I have removed it from the controversy section. It doesn't have any other development (with regards to NDTV) other than a CAG report on concerns that a number of contracts were arbitrary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

JoJo Rabbit11 raised the issue of political neutrality. The following article is mainly about Republic TV, but has some data on the political neutrality of political debates on NDTV. Maybe we should use it as a source:

• Jaffrelot, Christophe; Jumle, Vihang (15 December 2020). "One-Man Show". The Caravan.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

One difficulty with the article is its use of "centre" as a verb. In sentences like "Republic TV tends to centre its content on politics." and "Data suggest that NDTV tends to centre its content on both politics and larger societal issues." the sentences make most sense if you replace "centre" with "base". i.e. "Republic TV tends to centrebase its content on politics." and "Data suggest that NDTV tends to centrebase its content on both politics and larger societal issues."-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "base" is the right meaning here. "Centre" in the sense of using it as the main focus, the central theme of their content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Good find but I don't think that source is very useful on this page in particular due to how limited its scope is. It might be more useful on NDTV 24x7, since it only seems to cover debates from that channel. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Prannoy Roy, co-founder of NDTV, said, "India is going through an aggressive version of McCarthyism against the media".^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortal Lion (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

But this is an article on NDTV. I cannot see how the quotation is relevant to an article on NDTV.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Does this add anything to the article that already hasn't been mentioned? I'd rather not rely too much on quotations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Not suitable for this article.ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about you

SagittariusAstarJ, quite unsure how that essay applies to this. If you meant to say it was promotional then I don't think stating the official slogan of a company qualifies as such. In any case, I plan on revamping the lead later, so I'm not going to bother with this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Remove. The purpose of slogan of any organization is to promote its brand. Mentioning here the slogan of NDTV is a way of promoting the same here on wikipedia. and wiki is

WP:NOTABOUTYOU45.124.142.19 (talk

) 14:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

What utter nonsense - you might just as well say that we should delete the entire article because its existence promotes NDTV. A recently banned editor was on a crusade against NDTV, and this seems to be a continuation of that crusade.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the OP here. The tagline is obviously promotional. We shouldn't include it unless it is part of the logo. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if it stays or not as I consider it to be mostly redundant but a singular mention of a tagline or slogan isn't obviously promotional, especially considering it's occasionally quoted in secondary sources and has remained unchanged since the inception. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTABOUTYOU and also I second Kautilya3 the slogan should be removed. 45.124.142.19 (talk

) 05:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTABOUTYOU is not applicable here. ChunnuBhai (talk

) 06:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it does.

WP:NOTPROMOTION is part of this essay. (Don't ask me why.) -- Kautilya3 (talk

) 08:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It is part of the essay because some people come on Wikipedia to promote either themselves or their business. Nevertheless the essay is not relevant here. (It would only be relevant to an

WP:SPA trying to promote NDTV.)-- Toddy1 (talk)

09:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Corporate mission statements and slogans are part of strategic planning. They are sometimes known as vision statements. It is perfectly reasonable for articles on organisations to say what the organisation's corporate slogan or mission/vision statement is.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

wp:rs for the same. Later i am putting up cn for the same. Doug Weller, Hammersoft you need to see this conversation , i belive some kind of promotion activity is going on here for NDTV45.124.142.19 (talk

) 16:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I can monitor, but this is a content dispute. I'm sure you can work it out. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft45.124.142.19 (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I am unable to edit as an unregistered user. You may delete NDTV's slogan "Experience. Truth First" from the header, as it is promotional to NDTV .45.124.142.19 (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

why not register? ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have revamped the lead based on the expanded body and couldn't find a place to fit this particular line. Feel free to bring forward any concerns regarding this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the latest iteration of the section called "False news reporting" in Special:Diff/995886952 with the edit summary of "rem undue section". I was suggested to post an elaboration on it on the talk page so here it is. The addition relates to a single news report, involves accusations of it being "fake news" by involved parties and correction of the report by the publication.

This article is about a company which runs a number of news outlets and is also involved in industries beyond those related to journalism. The article has 3 section pertaining to its History, Channels & subsidiaries and Corporate culture & governance, the fourth section hence can not be about a single report from one of its news outlets. This is without even going into the sparse coverage, omission of the surrounding context or the merit of the sources being used, which includes The Times of India (RSP entry) and Republic TV (RSP entry). Note that secondary reliable sources that have reported on these accusations, themselves have not made any characterisation of the report being false which makes its presentation not just undue but also inappropriate. Alt News which is a fact checking organisation has an article on it which states that it was misleading but not entirely inaccurate.

Now such a section or a sub-section could be justifiable if the company had a reputation of owning and operating news outlets with low reliability and persistent instance of false reporting. I've been developing this article for some time and from my observation, the secondary sources including scholarly ones that have documented the history and functioning of the company tend to state the exact opposite about it. For instance, some example quotations are as follows.

Star News was the first 24-hour channel on the scene. It enjoyed much credibility as the channel's news content was provided until March 2003 by NDTV, a respected India production house headed by Prannoy Roy, who had built a reputation on Indian television

Paterson, Chris A.; Sreberny, Annabelle (2004). International News in the 21st Century.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Like many news channels, NDTV too has been involved in many controversies of different types. Shouldn't that be included in the page as a new section? SReader21 (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

agree that should be included. But i can see various comrades try to keep the image of NDTV clean. Including controversy as a section balance the neutrality of this article. DavidWood11 (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to NDTV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sir, this article in its current form does not include Controversies and Criticism section. Securities Exchange Board of India’s case is a very popular incident that questioned the very credibility and trust worthiness of this news outlet. Without covering references to these controversies the article won’t provide the common public complete in formation. Providing reference of a news article that was widely published in the Indian News industry.

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/markets/stock-markets/sebi-finds-ndtv-promoters-prannoy-radhika-roy-guilty-of-insider-trading/article33199659.ece/amp/

Please include it under the controversies and criticism section to complete this article

If we are not adding controversies section in this article, then let’s make sure we remove this section from the pages of all other news channels. Thanks. NewsNeutral (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to NDTV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On the first paragraph, add

 Done ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey

Aaditya.abh, I have removed it from the first paragraph since it gives the impression that the NDTV Profit is an currently broadcasting channel. It also makes the line following it confusing, as the line refers to "two channels". NDTV Profit itself is mentioned in the third paragraph which states that the channel was converted into NDTV Prime. Feel free to tell me if you disagree. Tayi Arajakate _Talk

09:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

) 09:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

That paragraph on

NDTV Profit about a relaunch is unsourced, I did a quick search and couldn't find anything. I will do a more in depth one once I get a bit more time to see if there's anything to it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk

12:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Left-Central bias of NDTV added

sockpuppetry from the following user: Satdul (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus .

Left-Central bias of NDTV added and citedSatdul (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

this is a clear

WP:OPINION. I have reverted this for the same reason. ChunnuBhai (talk

) 06:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

read this The source i have given is not a blog but a fact-checking website Satdul (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Your source is considered to be "generally unreliable" because it is

WP:RSP for a list of both reliable and unreliable sources (and some that are reliable for some things and unreliable for others). ButlerBlog (talk

) 07:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

This edit request to NDTV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As discussed earlier in this page, a Controversies section needs to be added. A lot of the controversies have been included in the history section of the NDTV page, which should be moved to the controversies section.

After creating controversies section,

Under the Section 1.4 (2007-2015: Expansion attempts, financial crisis and digital growth) in the NDTV page, the following text can be moved to "Controversies section"

Section Radia tapes controversy

The editorial credibility of the network suffered damage as well when recordings made by the

Radia tapes published by the Open and Outlook magazines. The tapes prominently featured journalist Barkha Dutt who appeared to be violating norms of journalistic integrity.^[1] NDTV was one of the few news broadcasting companies which had a codified code of conduct for its journalistic output.^[2] The tapes came under the backdrop of the loan granted to NDTV by Reliance and included suggestions from Radia to the journalist MK Venu on how Roy needs to be supported. The Sunday Guardian, a newspaper owned by politicians M. J. Akbar and Ram Jethmalani also published a 2010 article which alleged that NDTV had colluded with ICICI Bank and indulged in financial misdemeanours. NDTV sued for ₹25 crore (US$3.1 million) and in February 2011, the Delhi High Court restrained any further circulation of the article.^[1]

Under the Section 1.5 (2015-present: Government pressure and litigations) in the NDTV page, the following text can be moved to "Controversies section"

Section Foreign Exchange Management Act Violation

In 2015, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) served a notice on alleged violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act.^[3] In 2016, the Hindi language news channel NDTV India was banned by the government on allegations that the channel had threatened national security. The company subsequently appealed against the ban at the Supreme Court of India. The ban was withdraw the following day, after popular outcry, protests from journalists and widespread criticism including from the Editor's Guild of India.^[4][5]

Section Income tax notice

In 2015, the Income Tax Department (ITD) served a tax reassessment notice which alleged that the company had committed tax evasion in the financial year 2009–10.^[6] The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which functioned under the Ministry of Law upheld the findings of the department held the company liable for reassessment of taxation with penalty.^[7] According to the findings, the company had allegedly colluded with NBCUniversal, a subsidiary of General Electric in a complex money laundering scheme for evading taxation of what was noted to be relatively small amount of funds relative to the size of the companies.^[8][9]

Section Central Bureau of Investigation cases

• In 2017, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) lodged a case against the company on allegations that it had defrauded ICICI Bank,^[6] and the offices of the company and residence of the founders, the Roys were raided by the bureau.^[10] The raid had come a day after an NDTV presenter had engaged in an argument with a spokesperson of the ruling party.^[11] The case was lodged on the basis of a complaint by a stockbroker Sanjay Dutt supported by the retracted Sunday Guardian article. It was noted that ICICI Bank itself considered the company to have returned the loan within an year and had not received any details of the case.^[12] The raids received condemnation and the CBI was accused of being under pressure from the government to act against the news broadcaster.^[4][13][14]
• In 2019, the CBI lodged a new case against NDTV on allegations that it had laundered money and violated FDI norms. According to NDTV, government agencies were lodging different cases and then deliberately stalling investigations as no evidence were found.^[15]

Section Securities and Exchange Board of India controversy

In 2019, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) barred the Roys from accessing the securities market and from holding any managerial or board positions in the company for two years on allegations that the promoters had failed to disclose agreements to minority stakeholders of the company.^[16]

--Kanhakris2297 (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Per Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies, there generally should not be sections for controversy. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference Kaushik-TheTempest_ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kaushik-IndiaMeansBusiness_ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ISSN 0971-751X
   . Retrieved 18 December 2020.
4. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference DeutscheWelle07Nov16_ was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 18 December 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: others (link
   )
6. ^ ^{a b} "NDTV co-founder Prannoy Roy's home raided by CBI". Scroll.in. 6 June 2017.
7. ^ "NDTV case: assessing officer was right in adding ₹642 crore, says ITAT". Business Line. 11 January 2018. Retrieved 18 December 2020.
8. ^ Verma, Sunny (19 July 2017). "Clear case of organisation form or legal form abuse, without reasonable business purpose". The Indian Express. Retrieved 18 December 2020.
9. ^ "NDTV: A legal mountain to climb". The Hoot. 31 July 2017.
10. Oxford Scholarship Online
    .
11. ISSN 0013-0613
    . Retrieved 16 December 2020.
12. ^ "What We Know and What We Don't About the NDTV-ICICI Bank Case". The Wire. 6 June 2017.
13. ^ Venu, M. K. (8 November 2016). "The Creeping Erosion of Free Expression". The Wire. Retrieved 18 December 2020.
14. ^ "Full text: CBI issues statement on NDTV raids, denies allegations of 'acting under pressure'". Scroll.in. 6 June 2017.
15. ISSN 0971-751X
    . Retrieved 18 December 2020.
16. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 17 December 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: others (link
    )

Controversy section added

sockpuppetry from the following user: LodoVena (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus .

Controversy section added see Zee News for ref LodoVena (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why did you add a controversy section to this article immediately after deleting the entire controversy section of the

WP:CSECTION? — Newslinger talk

07:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I've re-merged the "Controversies" section into the "History" section at

WP:CSECTION. — Newslinger talk

07:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Just so I know this well, this policy is application in each article? @Newslinger because that is not what i see over wikipedia. >>> Extorc.talk(); 07:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear,

policy but a best practice that many editors observe. While there may be exceptions, it's usually preferred to avoid "Controversies" sections in articles. Content in "Controversies" sections is better positioned in other sections of the article that can accommodate both positive and negative aspects of the article subject, such as "History", "Content", and "Reception". — Newslinger talk

07:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@LodoVena: The text you extracted from "History" and moved to the new "Content" section ("Nira Radia Tapes" and "2015 Ban and Lift") in Special:Diff/1076849214/1076883331 has almost nothing to do with NDTV's content. The text should be re-merged into the "History" section. — Newslinger talk 14:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

merged content in history with subheading as you did at Republic TV hereLodoVena (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC) (strike off sock — DaxServer (t · m · c) 06:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC))

What you have done is incomprehensible. The history section is chronological and covers a whole time period, picking out "controversies" into separate sub-section breaks the format. That the Republic TV article is in a less developed state is not relevant to this article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The goal is to improve other articles if they are deficient in some way, and not to rewrite this article to match articles that are not as well-organized. You're welcome to rearrange Republic TV § History chronologically, but not to delete the reliably sourced content in that section outright. — Newslinger talk 18:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@

edit warring. — Newslinger talk

05:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Biasness

As mentioned fir other news channels, it's need to be mentioned that NDTV is left leaning. 103.208.69.145 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

do you have any reliable source that says that NDTV is left leningIpdesign1 (talk) 11:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

We seem to have several accounts adding similar information:

• 19:43, 10 July 2022
• 16:00 & 16:02, 16 July 2022
• 18:10 & 18:13, 16 July 2022
• 06:26, 6 August 2022
• 12:00, 24 August 2022
• 16:01 & 16:08, 24 August 2022

Nobody ever seems to be willing to say why these changes should be made. The common themes are (1) alleging that NDTV is left wing, (2) claiming that NDTV produces so-called "fake news", and (3) a collection of complaints about NDTV. There are lots of problems with these edits, which is why they get reverted. The most recent edit used a YouTube video as a source - this is not an obviously reliable source. With respect of the "fake news" complaint - it needs really good, unbiassed reliable sources. There is also a problem with specifically collecting unrelated negative stories about a topic, which is what some of these accounts are doing - it is one of

synthesis – i.e. one of creating a biased set of possibly true stories to convey an impression not in the stories themselves. It is specifically forbidden on Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk)

17:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that sums it up. I suppose I should address the collection of negative stories more specifically. Besides that such a listing itself is usually inappropriate, their rendition itself is extremely partisan and grossly misrepresents material. Take for example, item 4 titled "Against the integrity of the President and Judiciary", where every citation provided for that write up describes it as a follow up to the government's attempt to subdue it after their 1 day ban but that's of course omitted, and instead the write up is largely bloated with just a copy paste of legal language of the act which itself is not present in the citations. In the end, it gives an impression that they committed a crime(?) and were "let go with a warning", a complete misrepresentation of the sources. Then take say item 5 which is just entirely sourced to a random twitter account, item 3 which is related to the same episode as item 4 and is similarly misrepresented.

Then there's stuff like item 1 and 6 titled "Ban" and "Revealing Sensitive Information" both of which are about the exact same thing (the 1 day ban) but presented as if they are not. The first item is cited to a website that's mirroring content from the blacklisted OpIndia (RSP entry) and has no connection to reality and the second one is another legalese bloat and misrepresents its own sources. Note also that the 1 day ban episode already exists in the section on history. Then take item 2 titled "Violates Child Rights" whose write up itself ends with the High Court itself not seeing such a violation, moreover this is over a regulatory notice, the kind of which you can collect hundreds for most companies; making it both a misuse of section heading and plainly undue. That said, pretty much most of the items are undue as individually they are minor. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Information

This edit request to NDTV has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi @Tayi Arajakate:, Please added this sentence "NDTV has also been criticised of cosying up to the opposition political party, the Congress." Source. Thank You! 2405:201:800B:6C09:8CC:BA27:110B:9630 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I don't think this would be appropriate to include. The sentence is fairly off-hand and the article seems to imply that this criticism is coming the BJP, going by its placement among details about how NDTV is in "crosshairs of Mr Modi's administration". But it does not explicitly say so and remains somewhat ambiguous about where exactly the criticism comes from so I don't know how one would present. It will surely not fulfill

due weight requirements considering none of the other articles covering the Adani takeover bid have mentioned anything like this as far as I'm aware. It could be considered if there's something more substantial. Tayi Arajakate _Talk

10:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. This is random stone-throwing by the critics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The BBC article in question made a vague statement. As a source for such a statement in a Wikipedia article, it is useless. In the BBC article, the meaning of the statement is implied by its position in the article (i.e. that it would be foolish to take the criticism seriously). But Wikipedia need citations from a reliable sources that directly and explicitly support statements.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of Kargil War and Mumbai 2008 terror attacks and later

Article mentions nothing of this channel's (barkha dutt) "coverage" of Kargil War and 26/11. The live and continuous coverage by dutt in the latter case did help the terrorists' handlers. Even after, they showed zero remorse, as evident from the manner in which they strong-armed the blogger Chyetanya Kunte, who was critical of them, into silence. And he was far from alone in criticizing them. In the case of the Kargil War in addition to 26/11.

"NDTV censored blogger over criticism of Mumbai terrorist attack reporage" (Wikileaks)

"India's press rebuked for Mumbai terror stories" [[7]]

"India's media blasted for sensational Mumbai coverage" [[8]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYCLover2016 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)