The Indian Navy rescued all 20 crew of the Iranian fishing vessel Azini after a 48-hour operation in the Arabian Sea, with Indian Air Force support. Officials said the vessel was seized by pirates off Somalia and the operation took place about 3,000 km from Mumbai.
Why it matters: The operation shows the reach of the Indian Navy far from home waters and its role in protecting shipping lanes that matter to India's trade and security.
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: 6 of 15 (Times of India, Hindustan Times, India Today, ABP, Dainik Bhaskar, Jagran).
Coverage broadly agrees on the facts; outlets differ mainly in how much space they give to the defence minister's praise and national-strength framing.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Reports a naval rescue largely via officials and the defence minister's praise; mild national-strength and security framing, but plain event reporting with little editorialising.
Why: Reports a naval rescue with mild national-strength framing and a defence minister's praise; no critical or alternative voices, and a recap of past successful operations. Little ideological content.
Why: Reports a naval rescue with heavy space for the defence minister's praise and strength-of-nation language; hawkish security framing, no other voices or critical angle. Headline carries the praise.
Why: Security-success story leaning on the Defence Minister's praise and national-strength language, with no outside voices or critical angle. Touches only the security dimension, so the score is mild.
Why: Frames the rescue through national strength and security. It leans on Rajnath Singh's praise and hawkish language, with no other voices or critical angle. This pushes it mildly right on the security dimension.
Why: Celebratory national-security framing: 'meticulously coordinated', minister's praise of resolve relayed, no independent or critical voices. Touches security dimension only, mildly hawkish tone.
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. Sport results skip winding down and are archived after about 2 days, unless police or a court are involved. 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: S. Kalra, editor@thenazariya.com. The editor-in-charge sets Nazariya's editorial rules, reviews the AI desks' daily decisions, and is responsible for everything we publish.
How we work: AI reads and scores every article against our published rubric; an AI standards desk checks accuracy and fairness; people set the rules, review decisions and handle complaints.
Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: to be confirmed (based in India). Until then, write to grievance@thenazariya.com. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days. To report a factual error: corrections@thenazariya.com. Other questions: support@thenazariya.com.
Ownership: Nazariya is independently owned by S. Kalra, an Indian citizen.
Funding: Nazariya is currently funded entirely by its founder. It carries no advertising and takes no money from any political party, government or party-linked organisation. In future it will be supported by optional reader memberships. Any other funder, grant or investor will be listed here, with the amount and date.
Independence: No owner, funder or member can change a story, a score or a correction. Scores follow the published rubric, and anyone can appeal them.
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@thenazariya.com.
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.