India's delegate Anuj Swarup told the UNGA Third Committee that a UN Special Rapporteur's report was hearsay based on unnamed submissions. The report by Gina Romero said Indian youth faced retaliation or stigma for speaking on mental health and gender justice, and Swarup cited constitutional protections and youth outreach in reply.
Why it matters: It shows how India answers outside criticism of civil liberties and youth protest at the UN, a debate that touches students, free speech and exam-related reforms at home.
Based on 6 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 2 of 15 (The Hindu, Aaj Tak). Most of India’s largest outlets, including NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express, block our reader in this prototype, so their coverage is missing here. The launch pipeline reads their public feeds.
All five articles carry India's rebuttal almost wholly in the government's words, and none quotes the rapporteur or independent critics; they differ mainly in which details they add.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Relays India's rejection of a UN rapporteur's report almost entirely through the government's voice, with no critics or the rapporteur's response; the nationalist, anti-UN-credibility framing leans right.
Why: Relays India's rebuttal of a UN rapporteur almost entirely in the government's words, with no independent or rapporteur voice. Nationalist framing of UN credibility and civil-liberties claims leans right.
Why: Relays India's rebuttal of a UN expert almost entirely in the government's words, with no rapporteur reply or independent voices. Nationalist, sovereignty-first framing and rejection of external criticism lean right.
Why: Relays India's rebuttal of the UN report almost entirely in the government's voice, with no critics quoted. It leans on civil-liberties-versus-national-image framing, with a nationalist tilt and little independent scrutiny.
Why: Relays India's rebuttal almost entirely in the government's words, with no response from the UN expert; touches civil liberties and national image mildly. Related protest headlines are only embedded links.
Why: Outlet's own voice calls the UN report 'false' and 'fake', backs India's rebuttal, dismisses civil-liberties concerns, and uses a national-pride 'Viksit Bharat' frame. Only the government side is quoted.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: [name to be added before launch]. Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: [name and contact to be added before launch]. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days.
[Who owns and funds Nazariya, to be published before launch]. Nazariya will list every funder and will not accept money from any political party.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: [appeals email to be added before launch].
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.