RE: Pride Hath a Fall in Indo-Pak War

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

image.png

AlJazeera Reported

image.png

ChatGPT response

Soon or late, it will be confirmed, and now let's talk more.


Look, ChatGPT is just an AI tool. Now let's see something more if you don't mind.

Visit Dhruv Rathee's latest video and then check the subtitles on the AI tool to test the level of his bias.

Indian media (referred to as Godi Media) and the Indian government denied to attack on civilians in Pakistan. While in the city of Bahawalpur, where one of my closest friends studied at CUVAS University as a Doctor of Veterinary in Bahawalpur, and he is an eyewitness to how 21 innocent civilians were killed in that attack, while none of the terror places were targeted. India calls it Mission Sindoor, a mission of unity across the whole country. 😓 Neither Dhruv Rathee (a sign of trust, facts, and realities on social media) nor the Indian media confessed to these assassinations. You gave your pov for the above blog, but reality is that reality cannot be denied. 😟 And using a sharp shooting fallacy, I wanna ask you, did you know about those jets shot down by the PAF? Yes, that army in the world about which the Indian media closed its eyes. Visit the Telegraph, BOOM, and the Washington Post newspapers. Opens the eye to reality.

Let's see a report of The Telegraph newspaper from AI POV.

The below details are ChatGPT-generated to demonstrate how AI can credit unbiased news reports as biased reports

image.png

[Image Credits: The Telegraph]

The passage presents a news report about recent military tensions between India and Pakistan. While it appears to be aiming for neutrality, certain aspects suggest a subtle bias toward the Pakistani narrative. Here’s a breakdown of how and where this bias shows:

1. Framing of Admissions and Claims

  • "India has admitted for the first time..."
    This framing implies that India has been concealing information and is now being forced to acknowledge losses. It sets a tone of reluctant honesty on India’s part without equivalent scrutiny of Pakistan's narrative.

  • "Pakistani officials claimed..." vs "India has refused to confirm or deny..."
    The Pakistani claims are reported in detail (including specific aircraft types), while India's response is characterized as evasive or non-transparent. There’s no critical analysis or skepticism toward Pakistan’s claims, which can subtly legitimize them in the reader's mind.

2. Use of Quotation and Language

  • Air Marshal AK Bharti’s quote:
    “We are in a combat scenario, there will be losses…” is presented with no elaboration or supportive evidence. It sounds like an implicit concession. On the other hand, Pakistan’s claims are detailed, implying more credibility or confidence.

  • "The answer is a thumping yes."
    This is a strong statement, but it’s quoted without context or follow-up, which can make it sound hollow or rhetorical, especially when placed next to the specific losses listed by Pakistan.

3. Imbalance in Military Details

  • The article names specific Indian aircraft allegedly downed (Rafale, Su-30, MiG-29) but provides no comparable details about Pakistani operations, equipment, or potential losses, creating a one-sided view of the exchange.

4. Authority and Legitimacy

  • Pakistan’s version is backed by “officials” (implying a state-level assertion), whereas India's statement is from a single Air Marshal, and even that is vague.
  • No international or independent verification of either side’s claims is offered, but the structure gives more perceived weight to Pakistan’s narrative.

5. Omission of Context

  • There is no mention of Pakistani losses, defensive or offensive operations, or casualties, which implies unilateral Indian aggression and loss.
  • The article references Donald Trump's alleged role as a broker, which shifts the focus to diplomacy over the complexity of the military conflict, subtly downplaying India’s strategic objectives.

Summary of Bias Toward Pakistan:

ElementEffect
India's “admission” vs Pakistan’s “claims”Implies guilt on India’s part and truth in Pakistan’s version
Detailed Pakistani claims vs vague Indian responseMakes Pakistani narrative seem more credible
No mention of Pakistani lossesImplies India was solely on the losing end
Use of authoritative sourcesPakistani narrative comes from unnamed officials, India’s from a single quote
No scrutiny of Pakistani claimsLacks journalistic balance or verification

Final Assessment:

The article subtly favors the Pakistani narrative by:

  • Providing more detail and credibility to their account,
  • Using framing that implies Indian concealment or defeat, and
  • Failing to balance the perspectives or scrutinize both sides equally.

For a truly balanced report, both sides' claims should be treated with equal skepticism and supported by either independent verification or clear sourcing.

Screenshot 2025-05-15 153440.png

Screenshot 2025-05-15 153448.png

"I have no intention to harm anyone’s emotions. Recognizing and admitting one’s mistakes is not weakness—it is strength rooted in self-awareness. When ego obstructs this process, it breaks the continuity of our shared humanity."

💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔💔

hive-153850
0
0
0.000
2 comments
avatar

Do you even read your own quoted things? Everywhere is says claims*, you can make any claim.

You lost me when you said Dhruv Rathee is unbiased and factual. He is political motivated to say whatever the government of India does, no matter the thing.

Have fun staying in your bubble. ✌️

0
0
0.000
Reply