Talk:Asian News International

ANI sues WMF for defamation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

ANI has sued the Wikimedia Foundation over the content in this article, alleging it is defamatory. Source: Live Law. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 06:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah just saw it in news but I am not sure, what is so objectionable ? So that they have taken a legal recourse? QueerEcofeminist🌈 06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has declared them as propaganda. ArushR (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

With the way many editor editing Wikipedia conveniently picking news link as source. Many calling out Wikipedia as propaganda too. ChaobaJam (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@ArushR: don't say such things. Wikipedia does not "declare them as propaganda". Wikipedia documents what reliable sources say, and if reliable sources say ANI is propaganda, then that's what gets written here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@ChaobaJam: Do you have reliable sources that speak of this issue we can use? That's the proper way to deal with this, rather than just griping. If you're just going to make allegations and slurs, then stop it. You risk getting blocked if you continue. See WP:NOTFORUM -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the objectionable part for which WMF is slapped with a lawsuit "the news agency has been criticized for having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent central government distributing materials from a vast network of fake news websites and misreporting events." 210.212.189.98 (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a short posting about this on an Indian law blog Bar and Bench. Not much more than the LiveLaw article above but it does quote some of the claims in the suit, including the rather interesting interpretation of semi-protection as "They have closed my (ANI's) page for editing by anyone and can only be edited through their representatives". Good luck with that argument, I suppose. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 16:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, why does Wiki show them in that bad light, don't find any good reason. ANI is the leading asia news agency and the page literally show them in totally bad light like fake news and all. ANy editor involved in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.59.168.202 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

We document what reliable sources say, so their objection is with those sources. ANI could try to sue them, but that would be a big mistake, as the Streisand effect is a powerful thing. The very fact they are suing, to presumably prevent people learning about the controversy, could be construed as a bad faith and counterproductive move, as their lawsuit only increases the likelihood that even more people will learn of it. They should just clean up their act and behave better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they're just shooting themselves in the foot by yapping pointlessly... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

My point is not about preventing people from knowing fact but the very little thing like the quoted section,,(about fake news and all) could seriously misguide the people giving it a negative light which is generally not recommended.A very shrt percentage of the fact has been used to shed their negative light which is what I worry about @Valjean. 152.59.169.53 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2024‎ (UTC)

You don't understand our rules here. See my response to you below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The so called "reliable sources" :D 210.212.189.98 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean seems you are rattled by the lawsuit. But why? Be brave, let the attornies of WMF face the judiciary, everyone has a right to defend their integrity. I see nothing wrong in this 2 CR is not a big money. 210.212.189.98 (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me, because I have no skin in this game. I did not create that content, and I am not the one who wrote those RS. Those sources are at risk, not Wikipedia. Neither Wikipedia nor its editors have acted with malice toward ANI, and ANI will have to prove that in court. That is a fool's errand.

ANI's whole move is foolish, as that content is backed by many RS. If the RS have been used improperly, any editor is free to explain the error, thus rectifying the situation and changing the objectionable content. That should be easy to do. This attempt to use the courts, rather than following the normal processes here, shows that ANI knows the sources are correct and that it has a weak case. ANI seems to think that force, rather than facts, will win. It will not. To win, ANI must show it is acting in good faith. It is not doing that because it has not first tried to produce RS that show the RS we use are in error.

That's why we don't allow legal threats here. We force editors to use RS and edit the content. ANI's allies should try to do that. If there are RS that show it is innocent, let ANI produce those sources. Absent those sources, the content will remain unchanged and ANI will make a spectacle of itself in court and before the world. Its reputational damage will be done by itself. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say anything, I told what happened...That's all ArushR (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

* The IT Act, 2000 defines an intermediary under Section 2(1)(w) as: any digital company(WMF in this case) who on behalf of another person(Wikipedia editors) receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web-hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes.

* The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 in India provides a framework for regulating intermediaries and their liabilities regarding the content hosted or transmitted through their platforms.

* The intermediary has not conspired, abetted, aided, or induced the commission of the unlawful act (defamation if proven in this case)

* If an intermediary fails to remove or disable access to unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge or notification, they can lose the safe harbor protection under Section 79 and become liable for that content.

* The IT Act provides a conditional safe harbor for intermediaries, protecting them from liability for third-party content if they comply with certain conditions, such as removing or disabling access to unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge.

• The credibility of the purportedly "reliable sources" was not taken into account by Indian courts. The WMF is responsible for demonstrating the validity of the "reliable sources". It was not the Indian judiciary that relied on the views of these "reliable sources"' editors. They will ask for the evidence.

210.212.189.98 (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear @210.212.189.98, This is absolutely absurd logic. No editor on Wikipedia adds anything without a reliable source. If ANI has to file a case, they should do so against the sources that have called ANI a mouthpiece of the government, not against the Wikimedia Foundation.

Best regards, Youknow? (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Not really, Editor could have high bias and can't really be that their edit will be all good-faithed ones and most likely I presume this is totally the case here.. and the sources are really from 2020s not any recent one. Why so? I am seeing such is the suffering of many arcticle over-bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.59.169.53 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You are way out of line with such statements, and can be blocked just for saying that. Such comments are not allowed here. You must assume good faith and not make personal attacks, even if you don't name any editor. You are assuming bad faith. What is considered to be a personal attack?: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."

The bias you see is from the sources, and Wikipedia documents all sides of a controversy. You want us to leave out one side and turn this into a hagiography. We don't do that here. You want us to violate NPOV. Neither article sources or content must be "neutral". Rather, it is editors who must edit neutrally by accurately documenting what RS say, including the negative parts, the parts you don't like.

If you want to make any progress and be taken seriously, you must read the sources and see if they have been used improperly. For example, have we quoted a source inaccurately? Answer that, rather than just complaining. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Threatening and blocking people who doesn't agree to you, we all know what that is called and that's what is wrong with Wikipedia. Any sane neutral person knows what is going on behind the scenes here. 2406:B400:71:77F3:ECA0:DD65:1E37:FBD (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And cherry picking the sources, twisting the narrative, presenting one side and silencing the other, when the RS itself uses ANI for many of their articles, even Wikipedia use ANI interviews and all. 2406:B400:71:77F3:ECA0:DD65:1E37:FBD (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The reliability of "Reliable Sources" are doubtful: ANI sues WMF

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC
Off-topic
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This article's "reliable sources" include Alt News, Caravan, and the BBC. 14.139.114.221 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC) BBC has long faced accusations of liberal and left-wing bias. Source Proposed Chenge: Remove the BBC referance from this article 14.139.114.221 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are there any representatives for ANI here?

Has anyone connected to ANI made any comment(s) on this page or tried to edit the article? Please let us know here. (When I write "us", I am referring to editors in general, not the Wikimedia Foundation.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Not representatives although related to it, the intro is far too focused on criticizing with half of the intro with negative tone which is more than it weighs. I agree past shouldn't be erased which indeed it isn't but what is worth off mentioning in the particular article should be cared. In addition, As an user pointed out most of the sources used here is Caravan, is that generally good enough or powerful to retain the claim or is it unbias generally to consider. Is there renowned newspaper like The Hindu, The Times of India, Indian Express or others reviewing so mention such things or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.189.201 (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

PS , I think some claim are overly exaggerated too much for the subjects like propaganda and fake news especially the preceding lines in the Para of the Content section to the extent that almost all of the News website are common to it and this shouldn't even worth mentioning here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.189.201 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Biased sources are accepted on Wikipedia, so long as there is proper attribution of claims to those sources. That has been done in this article. The only sources that are not accepted are those which contain misinformation. Can you describe where exactly there is misinformation in the Caravan article? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 08:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't read the cited article in The Ken and the editor who added that it said propaganda tool, Winged Blades of Godric, has been inactive for years. Can anyone confirm that The Ken actually says "propaganda tool"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Update on Lawsuit

This section mentions The case is scheduled for a hearing on August 20. What are the updates? 14.139.128.53 (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is an update from today:

Bar and Bench: "Will ask government to block you": Delhi High Court issues contempt of court notice to Wikipedia, 5 September 2024.

Judge: "I will impose contempt...It is not a question of Defendant No 1 [Wikipedia] not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia...Earlier also you people have taken this argument. If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India."

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Somebody with the know how of this site please give the diff of the edit where "propoganda tool" word is first introduced in this page. 14.139.114.221 (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe 27 December 2019. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes that might be it, the user who made that edit is inactive, also the allegations regarding right leaning coverage were there for years before it. Averagepcuser (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we should remove the defamatory statements from this page otherwise Wikipedia will be forever blocked in India. 2402:8100:384E:22D0:F546:923:8D3A:6D2B (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Cool down, nothings going to happen. Wikipedia is not at risk, but the sources which support the article are. Wikipedia is just a tertiary source, its not the source of information. The courts should really work into the sources which are supporting the sentences. I.Mahesh (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to remove information simply because ANI doesn't like it. It is covered in other reliable sources; it would be a disservice to the goal of free and open knowledge to remove it. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 15:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, you can't do much about it. Indian courts and Indian laws.If you don't like the Indian Judiciary, you would be the one who is doing disservice to the global community by taking sides. Telugujoshi (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The contentious content may only be removed with a consensus of editors. Not because a news agency is weaponizing India's draconian laws to threaten a non profit into revealing identities of its editors. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with the very foundation of Wikipedia articles - a consensus reading of reliable, independent, secondary sources by laypeople - you are welcome to stop editing. Maybe you should think of doing something about draconian Indian laws rather than demanding Wikipedia stops being Wikipedia just to bend to them. The Foundation is headquartered in California in the United States; ANI is welcome to file a defamation lawsuit there if they are truly being lied about (they aren't and they know it, which is why they want the case to be prosecuted in India where things will probably be considered defamation even if they are true, so long as the aggrieved party is close to the government). Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 14:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM - lets focus here on improving the content of this article and the more meta stuff elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pretty much this. Consider this - why isn't ANI going after the sources used in the article? So, to any editor in good standing that's in India and worried about making an edit here that's backed by sources, please email me with the details (and the sources!) and I'll be glad to consider the material and make edits that I think are warranted. Ravensfire (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC) @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI Can you please give a reason for me to stop editing? I haven't broken any rules yet. Wikipedia is open for all to read and edit. what is your authority to ask me to refrain from editing, please? Telugujoshi (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC) I am asking you to refrain from editing only if you disagree with the basic principle of what editing in an encyclopedia should be - to repeat, a consensus reading of secondary, reliable, independent sources, free from whatever outside influence the article subject attempts to apply on us. I recommend this in my standing as a fellow editor. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 11:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Largely, the decision on if you should or should not edit this article should be your decision based on your awareness of potential risks. But, please don't edit the article in a way to bow to the clueless demands from ANI that would be contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. I think that everyone is aware that the actions from ANI are designed to create a chilling effect on Indian editors and puts them in a difficult place. Edit at your comfort level, but follow as best possible the principles of Wikipedia, even if that means not making edits. Ravensfire (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC) I think wikipedia has gotten too big now lol, I think it's now risky to edit wikipedia in political pages if you live in a country which is slipping towards authoritarianism. Given wiki's liberal ideals don't go hand in hand with those regimes. I was fairly new to wiki, but after this case I am going to think thrice before editing a political page. Given the deterioration of lower courts in this country. I should probably stick to editting science pages. Averagepcuser (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC) @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ANI can go to ICJ too. Just saying. universe is not California centric. Telugujoshi (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC) @Telugujoshi: They will surely not go to any other courts because they know they are wrong. I doubt that if this matter goes to the Supreme Court of India, the Court will dismiss the case, understanding that Wikipedia does not state or claim these challenged words, but rather that reliable independent sources have said them. GrabUp - Talk 03:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC) I do not think you understand what the International Court of Justice is. Go look it up - helpfully, this website is an encyclopedia. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 11:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Does India really cares about International court of justice? Does that court even functions as intended? or is it just another organisation which stopped working as intended?Like wasn't that organisation for between nation conflicts and even if it wasn't I am not sure if it even works. Averagepcuser (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2024

2409:4063:4B17:7453:3AAC:41E2:6C43:DA2F (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Fake opinion about ani

 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. GrabUp - Talk 16:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

MoU partnerships

I've found these so far, altho I haven't found a coverage in another source. Perhaps these are like press releases. I don't know how they turned out. FYI for reference.

• Emirates News Agency, 2018
• Mizzima News, 2019
• Central News Agency (Taiwan), 2024
• KOMO-TV (Sinclair Broadcast Group), 2024

References

— DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 11:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

1, 3 and 4 are clear press releases, 2 is just a gallery of photos. Ravensfire (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Renaming subsection "Propaganda" to "State-sponsored propaganda"

How many of you agree that the title of the subsection should be changed from 'Propaganda' to 'State-sponsored propaganda', because the section discusses how ANI has acted as a tool for the incumbent Indian governments to promote their agendas, in this case using the lone term 'Propaganda' doesn't make sense. Hu741f4 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not so clear how often it was used for state sponsored propaganda until some years ago. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the contents of the section, the term "State-sponsored propaganda", rather than just "Propaganda" seems more relevant and complete. Hu741f4 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit suggestions

Would adding obvious context to the contentious text be helpful?

“ANI has been accused by Indian news organisations of having served as a propaganda tool for the incumbent….” Or alternatively and at the risk of being a mouthful, “Multiple news organisations/media watchdogs have accused ANI of having served as a….”

Can “Content” subsection heading be reworked?

Change Content to “Propaganda and Misinformation Allegations,” only because the current subsection heading seems confusing and random. MeowMeow77 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple? I see cites of two: The Caravan and The Ken. (newslaundry is just quoting The Caravan.) The Ken has a paywall. I'll repeat what I asked on August 7: Can anyone confirm that The Ken actually says "propaganda tool"? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Randomly saw this and thought it would be interesting to see if I could track it down. Someone has posted the article elsewhere online, I won't link it as it's obviously copyvio. The specific words are never used, but if I had to summarise what was said it would match the current article content. You could change "propaganda tool" to "acting as a mouth piece", but it would just be weaseling.

It's notable that the article is mostly about ANI's business practices, and that they act as the mouth piece of whichever party is in power is mentioned very casually. It doesn't read as a being controversial to the author, just something that has allowed ANI to keep their business dominance. The "of the incumbent government" appears very relevant as the article makes clear this isn't particularly about the current government, just whoever is in power at the time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Here are some more sources which say similar things:

• 18 things you didn’t know about ANI, from the ‘The Ken’ and ‘The Caravan’ profiles of the video news agency to which Narendra Modi has given four interviews in five years, Indian Journalism Review, 5 March 2019.

Propaganda has been the bread and butter for ANI with successive governments and departments, making programmes for Doordarshan’s Kashmir and Northeast channels, for the home ministry and external affairs ministry, among others. ANI has also made fakes videos using footage it produces and addding logos of Pakistan channels such as Geo TV, ARY and Dunya.

• Omkar Khandekar, Prem Prakash, ANI, and the perils of access journalism, Mint, 14 December 2020.

In 2018, AltNews, the fact-checking outlet, published a long list of the agency’s “inadvertent errors and oversights”, all of which seem to be aligned with the government's interests. In March 2019, an investigation by Caravan magazine claimed close ties between ANI and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government. Last week, EU DisinfoLab, a Brussels-based NGO, alleged that the agency was part of a large-scale disinformation campaign in Europe to allegedly further the interests of Modi and the Indian government.

• Abid Hussain, Shruti Menon, The dead professor and the vast pro-India disinformation campaign, BBC News, 10 December 2020.

[EU Disinfo Lab's] researchers, who are based in Brussels, believe the network's purpose is to disseminate propaganda against India's neighbour and rival Pakistan. Both countries have long sought to control the narrative against the other.

• Ahsan I. Butt, Has a ‘fifth generation war’ started between India and Pakistan?, Al Jazeera, 4 January 2021.

In addition, the report implicated Asian News International (ANI), an Indian news agency, for covering and disseminating fake news produced by the network. Though the report was careful not to tie the network to the Indian state, there is little doubt that such a vast enterprise could and would exist only with the government’s knowledge.

• Damien Leloup, Florian Reynaud, Fictitious experts and fake conferences: The bizarre sources used by Indian news agency ANI, Le Monde, 23 February 2023.

ANI has already been accused of serving as a propaganda channel for certain interests of the Indian government and its articles are regularly picked up by media outlets in the region.

• International Coalition of Civil Rights Groups calls ANI “Islamophobic news agency,” urges Reuters to terminate its partnership, Maktoob Media, 7 August 2023.

A broad coalition of over 35 civil rights and interfaith organizations in the United States, UK, Australia, Canada and India, on 4 August, sent a letter to Thomson-Reuters, urging the media agency to terminate its partnership and investment in the Asian News Agency (ANI) due to “its Islamophobic reporting and dissemination of pro-Hindu nationalist government propaganda.”

“ANI is an India-based news service that relays false information, quotes non-existent sources and non-existent institutions, actively collaborates with India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to relay government messaging, and shows a pattern of anti-Muslim bias in its reporting,” read the press release by the coalition.

• ANI played ‘key role’, based reports on ‘fake sources’: New EU group report on Indian influence networks, Newslaundry, 23 February 2023.

ANI’s reputation since 2014 is of being pro-government to the point of being crude. The truth is it’s always leaned towards the powers that be for access and business. Every second tweet from its regional X handles are on chief ministers.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)