Bias is “Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair,” as defined by the oxford dictionary. History is a subject that studies the history of the past events where historians express their judgment. In the recorded history, we often come across cases were we are able to discern bias in ones viewpoint. Few years ago, India experienced one of the most disastrous terrorist attacks on the decade. The 2008 Mumbai attacks, which dated from the 26th November 2008 to 29th November 2008. There was a lot of controversy as to who was the main culprit of these attacks. The ties between the two countries – India and Pakistan have been frail and contentious, therefore before any evidence was brought to the eyes of the world; already a lot of bias was perceptible not only by the Indian media but also American officials.

Through this essay I want to objectively explore the confirmation bias that is deeply woven into the fabric of the language used by the media to inform us about the history of the Mumbai attacks. Confirmation bias is a “is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.” Looking back at the history of India and Pakistan, the bond between the two countries has been extremely fragile. Any mishap in the two countries automatically victimizes the other one and vice versa.

The modern world can be referred to as the information society as every individual or group tends to amass as much information as possible. And media is unparalleled when it comes to broadcasting information to the public. And there is no denying that the modern world is dependent on the media for information and awareness. Media when talking about history displays confirmation bias as seen in the article above. In a way, it’s the media is brainwashing the audience into believing what they think is right by strong use of ways of knowing: language, reason, emotion and sense perception.
In the article above, the writer talks about the US agreement in Pakistan’s role in the Mumbai attacks. The article main purpose is to support the argument of their previous claims as to Pakistan being the reason for the Mumbai attacks. The write of the article believes what the information of the US officials but has clearly denied believing the Pakistani officials. However there is no evidence shown for either of the argument, the writer has chosen to believe the US, because that’s what he thinks is right too. The writer should be uncertain about who is speaking the truth and nothing should be accepted without evidence.
Indian media in various other forms had accused the Pakistani for this notorious incident. From the very beginning the Mumbai attacks are described as ” India’s 9/11″ therefore from the very beginning Pakistan was being held responsible for this, even before Ajmal Kasab admitted his crime.
ANY article you read about the Mumbai attacks, there is a clear bias towards the Pakistanis. The history of the two countries in merely responsible for all the modern day conflicts between the two nations. The public has no insight into what is going on between the two countries, we are only aware of what media tells us with their manipulated use of language. Reports that show evidence for Pakistani’s being the culprit of the incident wee converged by all the media and in the process all the evidence denying the claim was kept hidden.
Osama Bin Laden was accused for this crime during the early days on the incident when the media has absolutely no evidence to support their theory. Later when Kasab admitted his crime, media not once informed the public about their wrong information of Osama behind the attacks. The public is aware of the history of Pakistan and India, therefore they could themselves assume Pakistani’s being responsible for this attack however media decides to reiterate the fact in order to prove their claim, showing clear bias towards the Pakistani’s however it is automatically assumed by the media that audiences know that Osama was not responsible for this attack.
Media is often blamed of exerting money-oriented tendencies when it passes information not from a neutral point of view but a biased one. The bias in which the articles are read by the audience, the idea is carried forward and the mob influence makes it worse. History of an incident is written from the perspective of the person who writes it. One incident may have several interpretations.

As clichéd as this may sound but it is true, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The Pakistani will interpret this incident in a completely different light. Though Indian media is not wrong, however there is a need for move evidence as to what they say and why. History cannot be written on basis on assumptions in this modern world where almost everything can be recorded or captured.

History and bias play along the same lines. While writing, we often tend to express our own opinion and yes, we are partial towards what we feel isn’t right. Bias is clearly visible in almost history of any incident that takes place. It is not possible to completely refrain from bias however media should be responsible enough to be careful of the bias they are providing in the information they are giving. Media has got all the responsibilities to help growing the nation in all kinds by their direct link to the listeners. By default it is the source of knowledge, information and communication making people aware of the things happening around them. Therefore media needs to be careful in order to avoid exorbitant bias because this is what leads to further mishaps.