SAMPLE — Reading India Coverage in Context: A Framework

This is a placeholder article showing the structure and tone for this beat. Replace it with your own reporting — keep the citation habit.

When a US outlet runs a story framing a specific Indian policy or event in a way you think lacks context, the strongest response isn't "they're biased" — it's showing the missing context with sources a skeptical reader can check themselves.

A useful structure for these pieces:

1. Quote the specific claim, not a vibe. Link the actual article and quote the sentence or framing you're addressing. Vague "the media is anti-India" claims don't hold up; a specific misquote or omission does.

2. Supply the missing historical or factual context. Cite primary sources where possible — government data, court records, academic historians (including ones who disagree with each other) — rather than only advocacy sources. If credible historians are split on a question, say so; it strengthens the piece rather than weakening it.

3. Distinguish reporting from framing. Sometimes the underlying facts in a story are accurate but the headline or lead paragraph frames them uncharitably. Naming that distinction precisely is more persuasive than blanket claims of bias.

4. Acknowledge the strongest counterargument. A piece that only argues one side reads as advocacy, not analysis. State the best version of the opposing view before responding to it.

5. End with what you'd want changed — a correction, added context, or simply a more precise framing — rather than only criticism.

Replace this file with a real piece following the same shape: specific claim → sourced context → strongest counterargument addressed → what should change.