Growing criticism in India and Asia accuses sections of Western media of colonial mindset, narrative bias, double standards and culturally insensitive reporting on Asian countries.
For decades, sections of the Western media have projected themselves as defenders of democracy, liberal values and journalistic ethics. Yet across India and several Asian countries, a growing number of intellectuals, political observers and ordinary citizens increasingly argue that parts of the Western media continue to operate through what critics describe as a lingering “colonial mindset” and “shallow journalism.”
The debate intensified once again after a Norwegian newspaper published a controversial cartoon portraying Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “snake charmer” — imagery that many Indians condemned as racially stereotypical and rooted in colonial-era depictions of India. Critics argued that the portrayal reflected not merely satire, but a deeper tendency within sections of Western discourse to view Asian societies through outdated, patronizing and culturally insensitive lenses.
For many across the Global South, however, the issue extends far beyond a single cartoon controversy.
This was not the first such incident. Earlier, after the 2025 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir — in which 26 civilians, mostly Hindu tourists, were brutally killed by terrorists allegedly linked to Pakistan-backed groups — several international media reports triggered outrage in India over what critics described as biased coverage.
According to survivor accounts and investigative reports, the attackers allegedly identified victims based on religion before opening fire.
However, what sparked widespread criticism in India was not only the attack itself, but also the language used by several international media outlets while describing the perpetrators. Many reports referred to them as “gunmen,” “militants,” or “armed men” instead of explicitly calling them “terrorists.”
The terminology led to intense backlash across India, where commentators, journalists and social media users accused sections of the Western media of applying double standards in terror reporting. Critics argued that attacks in Europe or North America are often immediately labeled as “terror attacks,” while similar incidents in India or other Asian countries are frequently framed using softer or more neutral terms.
The controversy also revived a longstanding debate over media language and narrative framing. Many Indian analysts argued that terminology plays a crucial role in shaping global perception. According to them, words such as “terrorist” carry moral and political weight, whereas terms like “gunmen” or “militants” can dilute the brutality and ideological nature of attacks targeting civilians.
Several observers further pointed out that the Pahalgam attackers were allegedly linked to organizations associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba and The Resistance Front, groups India identifies as Pakistan-backed terrorist outfits.
Critics in India argued that this pattern was not limited to Pahalgam alone. Similar complaints have surfaced after previous attacks in Kashmir, Mumbai and other terror incidents, where international coverage allegedly used cautious or diluted terminology while reporting violence against Indian civilians.
At the same time, media experts caution that international news organizations often follow internal editorial policies before officially labeling an incident as “terrorism.” Nevertheless, the recurring use of softer language in attacks targeting India has continued to fuel accusations of selective sensitivity and narrative bias within sections of global media.
A broader argument is now emerging: that even in the 21st century, parts of the Western media ecosystem continue to interpret rising Asian powers through inherited colonial assumptions, selective moral standards and geopolitical bias.
The Colonial Lens That Never Fully Disappeared
The roots of this criticism lie deep in history.
During the colonial era, European powers frequently portrayed Asian and African societies as backward, irrational, divided or uncivilized in order to justify imperial domination. Over time, critics argue, these perceptions became embedded within political, academic and media institutions in the West.
According to many observers, remnants of this worldview continue to survive in modern journalism.
India — despite being one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, a major digital power and an increasingly influential geopolitical actor — is still often internationally reduced to images of poverty, religious tensions, caste conflict, overcrowding or democratic anxiety.
Similarly, China is frequently framed primarily as a strategic threat. Several West Asian countries continue to be associated with extremism or instability, while many African nations receive disproportionate attention mainly during wars, famines or humanitarian crises.
Critics say this creates an unconscious hierarchy in which Western societies are treated as politically mature and morally advanced, while Asian and Global South countries are portrayed as perpetually flawed, unstable or incomplete.
The Rise of “Shallow Journalism”
Another major criticism is what many analysts describe as “shallow journalism” — the tendency to simplify highly complex civilizations into emotionally charged headlines and ideological narratives.
Countries like India are extraordinarily diverse, with multiple languages, religions, cultures, political traditions and regional realities. Yet critics argue that sections of Western reporting frequently approach India through narrow frameworks focused almost exclusively on controversy, division or crisis.
According to this view, coverage often lacks historical context, civilizational understanding and social nuance.
Many Asian commentators argue that sections of international journalism increasingly prioritize narratives that confirm pre-existing assumptions rather than presenting balanced complexity. Stories involving nationalism, religion, democracy or social tensions in Asian countries are often amplified globally, while achievements in technology, infrastructure, poverty reduction, scientific advancement and economic growth receive comparatively less editorial emphasis.
Accusations of Double Standards
One of the strongest accusations against sections of Western media is the perception of selective standards.
Political tensions, protests or policy decisions in Asian democracies are often described internationally as signs of authoritarian decline or democratic danger. Yet similar developments in Western countries are more commonly framed as institutional turbulence or political disagreement rather than systemic collapse.
This perceived imbalance has generated resentment across many Asian societies.
Indian commentators, for instance, frequently argue that international coverage of India emphasizes conflict and instability while paying relatively less attention to electoral participation, democratic continuity, digital transformation or strategic achievements.
Critics say this reinforces an old colonial-era assumption in which the West remains the benchmark of political legitimacy, while non-Western societies are continuously judged through harsher ideological filters.
Allegations of “Paid Narratives” and Strategic Bias
In recent years, an even sharper allegation has gained traction in parts of Asia — that beyond “colonial mindset” and “shallow journalism,” certain international narratives may also be influenced by ideological, geopolitical or institutional interests.
Critics claim that some sections of the global media ecosystem operate within networks involving corporate funding structures, lobbying organizations, think tanks, advocacy groups and strategic institutions that may indirectly shape editorial priorities and narrative framing.
According to this argument, countries such as India, China and other rising Asian powers sometimes face disproportionately negative or selectively amplified coverage because such narratives align with broader geopolitical interests dominant in Western strategic circles.
Some Indian commentators allege that stories related to democracy, nationalism, religion, minority issues or foreign policy are occasionally framed in ways designed to increase international pressure or weaken the global image of independent Asian powers.
India’s refusal to fully align with Western geopolitical positions on issues such as Russia, BRICS expansion and multipolar diplomacy has further intensified these suspicions. Critics argue that countries pursuing independent strategic policies are often subjected to harsher international scrutiny compared to nations closely aligned with Western interests.
Some observers also point to the commercial side of modern media, arguing that negative or sensational stories about Asian countries often generate greater global engagement, political reaction and financial attention than balanced or nuanced reporting.
At the same time, experts caution that such allegations should be approached carefully and not reduced to simplistic conspiracy theories. International media systems are vast, decentralized and influenced by multiple ideological, political and commercial pressures. Not all critical coverage can be dismissed as propaganda or coordinated hostility.
Yet the growing perception itself reflects a widening trust deficit between sections of the Western media and audiences across the Global South.
Stereotypes and Cultural Reductionism
Another recurring criticism involves the continued use of stereotypes while portraying Asian societies.
India is still sometimes visually represented internationally through images of snake charmers, slums, chaos, mysticism or religious extremism — despite being a space power, a digital innovation hub and one of the world’s largest economies.
Critics argue that such portrayals freeze Asian societies into simplistic symbols designed for Western consumption rather than reflecting contemporary realities.
This issue becomes particularly sensitive during the coverage of tragedies or social conflicts. Observers have noted that graphic suffering, poverty or disorder in Asian and African countries is sometimes displayed in ways that would rarely be considered acceptable in coverage involving Western populations.
For many critics, this reflects not only bias but also a deeper psychological distance inherited from colonial-era attitudes.
Media Imperialism in the Information Age
The debate is also closely tied to the structure of global information power.
Most dominant international news agencies, editorial institutions, digital platforms and influential think tanks remain concentrated in Western countries. As a result, Western frameworks often continue to shape how international events are interpreted worldwide.
Critics describe this as a form of “media imperialism” — where narrative control remains centralized even after political colonialism formally ended.
As Asian countries rise economically and strategically, many analysts argue that sections of the Western media still struggle to mentally adjust to a rapidly changing global balance of power.
Digital Colonialism and the New Information Battle
The criticism has now expanded beyond traditional journalism into technology and artificial intelligence.
Many observers argue that global social media platforms, algorithmic systems and AI technologies continue to be shaped largely by Western institutional and cultural assumptions because they are predominantly developed and controlled within Western ecosystems.
This has fueled growing discussions around “digital colonialism” — the idea that influence over narratives, public opinion and global perception is now exercised not only through newspapers and television, but also through algorithms, content moderation systems and digital platforms.
In response, several Asian countries are increasingly investing in their own digital ecosystems, media infrastructures and global communication strategies.
Asia’s Growing Pushback
What has changed dramatically in recent years is that Asian societies are no longer passive recipients of Western narratives.
The rise of social media, independent digital journalism and stronger domestic media institutions has enabled countries like India to challenge international narratives in real time.
Today, reporting perceived as biased, culturally insensitive or strategically motivated often triggers immediate backlash from millions of people across Asia and the Global South.
The outrage over the Norwegian cartoon controversy reflected this transformation. Imagery or commentary that may once have circulated without serious challenge is now confronted by audiences demanding dignity, equality and balanced representation.
Not All Western Journalism Is the Same
At the same time, many analysts emphasize that it would be inaccurate to portray all Western journalism as uniformly hostile or prejudiced.
Several Western journalists, scholars and institutions openly critique racism, Eurocentrism and media bias themselves. Many respected international publications continue to produce deeply researched and balanced reporting on India and Asia.
The criticism, therefore, is directed less at individual journalists and more at structural patterns, inherited assumptions and institutional habits that critics believe continue to shape parts of the global media landscape.
A Larger Global Shift
Ultimately, the debate surrounding “colonial mindset,” “shallow journalism,” alleged narrative bias and accusations of influence-driven coverage reflects a much larger transformation underway in the world.
For nearly two centuries, global narratives were overwhelmingly shaped by Western political, academic and media institutions. But the 21st century is witnessing the rise of Asia economically, strategically and culturally.
As countries like India seek greater influence in global affairs, demands are also increasing for narrative independence, intellectual equality and more balanced international journalism.
The central question now being raised across much of the Global South is no longer simply whether sections of Western media are biased.
It is whether old colonial assumptions, geopolitical interests and entrenched narrative power structures still continue to influence how rising Asian civilizations are understood, represented and judged in the modern world.
