try this [link]
its a query on the news site with india and i did spot the article though not the video

I will severly reprimand my editor for not detecting that.

On an intellectual level, I do agree with you on the issue of “different than.” On a practical level - and perhaps language is a practical vehicle after all - I wonder when a word, phrase or syntax becomes so much the norm that it should be accepted as “correct.” As a student of English lit in my previous life, I am amused by the English of Chaucer and Shakespeare. Much of their usage will be wrong by modern standards. Actually, many of the “correct” modern English phrases will be wrong by Chaucerian standards. Language is a growing and changing organism. After 33 years in the US, I find some Indianisms of English language as rather odd, but then I realize that I am listening to Indian English, which is very much a legitimate language and not a poorer version of Queen’s English.

Where does America fit into this picture? Alas, English of the 21st century is heavily influenced by American English, thanks to the global influence of the American economy. I am still surprised by the young Indians’ frequent use of the word, “reckon,” which is simply not a part of common American vocabulary. It is a somewhat antiquated and country-bumpkin word in America, and obviously lifted by the “metro” Indians from American movies. But so what! It is an Indian English word now.

Since we are on a blog about the economy, perhaps one should admit that language is shaped and enhanced by the economic powers of the user groups using a particular language.

Please do not be offended. What I would like to point out is the increasing tendency worldwide to use totally wrong usages, mainly usages that originate in the US and that spread outward. In this particular instance, the thing that upset me was the usage of “different than” by Atanu in this sentence:”Indian Muslims are no different than Muslims anywhere in the world”.

“Different” is NOT a degree of comparison, like taller, shorter, longer etc. Thus, the use of “than” with “different” is certainly incorrect. An apple can be “different from”, or “different to” an orange. But saying that an apple is “different than” an orange conveys no meaning. But definitely, “an apple is smoother (to the touch) than an orange”.

My appeal to all of you would be to desist from using such typically wrong (American) phrases in your writings. Please use the correct “different from” or “different to”. I am all for gloabilsation and yes, I am aware that nothing is permanent except change. But that does not mean that we should be willing accomplices in the continued mutilation of a common tongue. (Should it have been “accomplices to” - I wonder).

Interesting comments. In this case the journalist seemed to be manufacturing data (as Atanu pointed out) regarding the number of English speakers in India. Regardless of the story the journalist would like to tell, the public should be able to at least expect that the journalist won’t just make up facts to suit the story.

On the subject of outsourcing, which was in the original post of this thread, I have not seen much anger among Americans over the loss of jobs. There is concern, for sure, but there is also the begrudging acceptance among people here that outsourcing cannot be stopped by a mandate any more than the import of Chinese made goods sold at Wal-Mart.

Dear Atanu, I would side with Crazyfinger here. As a member of the media, I belong to several journalist forums and mailing lists. These are closed mailing lists - you cannot belong to them unless you are also an accredited member of the media. The public does not get to see these mails. But we do. The typical mail format looks like this STORY: blah blah REAX: blah SPIN: blah.
In other words, we journalists decide among ourselves what the story( what you call fact) is, what the reactions( what the public thinks as polls suggest, or in the absence of polls, what the public would most likely think if we got around to asking them) and what the spin(how to present this story to receive maximum coverage) should be. We then write copy according to the consensus arrived from online, offline and backchannel exchanges. This is nothing outrageous or illegal about this, though public might find it that way at first glance. This is simply SOP, we are in the business of selling newsprint, and facts matter, but how we present the facts also matters. We are not an academic journal, we are news. As such, there is no misrepresentation, it is simply representation a segment of audience may not agree with, but a larger segment which comprises the majority readership of the newspaper/channel do agree with. As a well known example, NY Post will always present a right-wing interpretation of events, NY Daily a left-wing, each catering to its audience. This is not conspiracy or collusion, it is simply how things have evolved over the years. There are turfs and these are respected. This should be no secret to you, a well respect economist. In your own profession, there are conservative economists like Martin Feldstein and liberal economists like Paul Krugman, neither of whom is misresrepresenting data, only representing their position on the data, naturally without
representing the other position, simply because it will get represented anyway by the other side. Another example is right here - IEB represents a viewpoint most likely to be interpreted as India Rising, a progressive upbeat view of the liberalized Indian economy. I suppose you have heard of another blog The Other India, which represents, shall I say the drainage inspector view of India. According to The Other India, unjust slum demolition in the heart of Mumbai has resulted in largescale dislocation, indebted farmers all over India are commiting suicide, dowry deaths are rampant etc. Are they misrepresenting facts or is IEB ? The uncomfortably honest answer is that both are catering to their respective audience. Please do not get riled up about these things.