Tibetan movement is secessionism, reiterates CBCNN

Perceptions and proportions

Similarly, there were questions on the reporting or non-reporting of the Tibetans' demonstrations during the visit of the Chinese President. There was no notice of these protests on the first day, and they were mentioned briefly on the second day, readers noted. The actions in Mumbai, including an immolation bid, were ignored. Readers linked this with the earlier non-reporting of the Chinese envoy's comment on Arunachal Pradesh, and asked, why the tilt?

As usual, when faced with pointed questions, the communists conveniently disappear. The answer, ofcourse, is that this is a Chinese newspaper, incidentally running out of Chennai. So it will only give news favourable to China.

The Hindu's stand on Tibet is well known. It opposes secessionism anywhere, in Tibet, Sri Lanka, or Kashmir. Not so well known is the antipathy of, and the campaign carried on on the web, by Tibetans and their supporters against the paper and the person of its Editor-in-Chief. The paper takes no note of these or the Tibetans' regular activities. But that does not mean the happenings during an official visit by a head of state can be ignored as these may have other implications (the rest of the media highlighted these demonstrations). By the way, the Indian Government's official policy is not to allow political activities in India by the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan community of refugees.

CBCNN does not take note of Tibetans but takes every note of Chinese activities in Tibet. CBCNN deliberately ignored the statements by a the Chinese ambassador during the official visit but it is trying to coverup by saying the rest of the media covered it. Is that an excuse?
Interestingly, CBCNN recognizes Kashmiri movement as secessionist but calls those Islamic terrorists as "millitants".