washington — In a testament to the global influence of U.S. politics, this week’s televised debate between former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris broke through an intensely busy news cycle in South Asia to garner extensive coverage across most major news outlets.
The pivotal showdown between the two contenders vying to succeed Joe Biden as U.S. president resonated with audiences across the region, overcoming a nine- to 10-hour time difference from Washington and competing with a barrage of pressing domestic headlines:
In India, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi made a high-profile visit to the United States. In Bangladesh, interim leader Muhammad Yunus delivered his second major speech to the nation. And in Pakistan, the National Assembly speaker suspended security officials over the controversial arrest of five lawmakers in the Parliament building.
Yet amid this flurry of regional developments, leading newspapers and TV stations from Karachi to Dhaka provided considerable coverage of the debate, reflecting heightened regional interest in the outcome of the U.S. presidential contest.
“The news cycle in these countries is so fast, and the issues they are dealing with internally are so intense that probably their focus has shifted from what is happening elsewhere,” said Awais Saleem, a former Pakistani journalist now a professor at Lamar University in the U.S. state of Texas.
“Nonetheless, [the U.S. election] is still keenly observed and keenly watched because whatever happens in the U.S. invariably has an effect in other parts of the world, and South Asia is no exception,” Saleem said.
India
Take India, the region’s most populous country and largest media market. Major Indian outlets, such as NDTV and CNN’s local affiliate, dedicated significant coverage to the debate, even while prioritizing Gandhi’s remarks in Washington. Aaj tak, another leading channel, had a correspondent reporting on the debate from the spin room in Philadelphia.
Large-circulation newspapers provided more substantial coverage, even while relying on international wire services for content.
The Times of India, India’s largest newspaper, featured a video analysis of the debate on its homepage. The Hindu, another major paper, ran multiple articles, including one focusing on Trump’s pledge to end the Ukraine war and another on Hollywood’s “applause” for Harris.
While much of the coverage was routine, some stood out. In addition to broadcasting the debate live, NDTV produced at least 10 stories and segments dedicated to what it termed a “fiery presidential showdown.” These included highlights and key quotes, and major takeaways.
While Indians are as divided over Trump and Harris as Americans, most local outlets widely reported on the American media’s verdict that Harris had outperformed Trump.
Ahead of the debate, many Indians were skeptical of Harris, said Ashutosh, a veteran Indian journalist and co-founder of Satya Hindi. To find out how Harris did, Satya Hindi devoted a 30-minute segment featuring a U.S.-based Indian American academic, Ashutosh said.
The verdict: Harris won the debate.
“There now is a feeling that Kamala Harris is not a weak candidate,” said Ashutosh, who goes by one name.
India, like other South Asian countries, lacks an American-style tradition of live election debates. The concept intrigues many but faces cultural and political obstacles, experts say.
On Satya Hindi, another guest, journalist Shravan Garg, questioned their feasibility. Would Indian TV channels “dare” to host live debates and would politicians “agree” to participate, he asked.
Atul Singh, founder and editor-in-chief of Fair Observer, an international citizen journalism and civic education platform, said Indian interest in U.S. elections has surged in recent years, spurred by globalization and more recently by the Indian ancestry of Harris and Usha Vance, the wife of Republican vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance.
But he said the level of interest varies across the country. States with stronger ties to the U.S., such as Gujarat, a source of migration to the U.S., and Maharashtra, a manufacturing hub for exports to the U.S., are gripped by U.S. election fever. In more rural regions such as Bihar, with fewer connections to the U.S., enthusiasm is far more subdued.
“So it depends on which part of the country you’re in,” Singh said. “I’d say some areas in India simply don’t care, and others, the ones that are part of the global economy, are absolutely obsessed.”
Pakistan, Bangladesh
In neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh, the debate received far less coverage despite comparable public interest.
Geo TV, Pakistan’s leading TV news channel, ran an international segment on the debate, reporting on the candidates’ “combative demeanor.” A wire story on its website noted that foreign policy “largely took a backseat.”
Leading English language newspaper Dawn highlighted the debate as its top international story, reporting how Harris put Trump “on the defensive at a combative presidential debate.” A wire fact check about the debate was included among its “must read stories” on its homepage
Express Tribune, another leading newspaper, picked up multiple wire service stories about the debate, posting three short video compilations on its websites, including a video of viral memes generated by Trump’s comment that migrants were eating people’s cats and dogs in Ohio.
Atif Khan, a Pakistani journalist, said Harris’ unexpected emergence as the Democratic nominee helped boost Pakistani public interest in the U.S. presidential election.
“Every political discussion on television now involves a mention of the U.S. election,” Khan said. “There is talk about Trump. There is talk about Kamala Harris.”
While Pakistani media generally don’t cover elections in neighboring countries, some local outlets are already planning their U.S. election coverage and trying to secure U.S. visas for their reporters, he said.
“Pakistanis think that a change of president will inevitably have direct implications for not just Pakistan but also the region,” he said.
Underscoring the Pakistani media’s interest, Saleem, the Lamar University professor, noted receiving weekly invitations from various outlets to discuss the U.S. election campaign.
Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, the debate’s coverage was overshadowed by continuing reverberations from the August 5 collapse of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government.
While interim leader Yunus’ speech dominated headlines on Wednesday, leading outlets provided more substantive coverage of the debate, drawing on international wire stories and analysis.
Prothom Alo, Bangladesh’s largest media outlet, called the debate, “the most important moment” before the November 5 election.
Daily Star, one of the most reputable outlets, ran at least four stories, including a fact check and a video analysis.
Daily Ittefaq, a Bengali language newspaper, ran a summary of U.S. media accounts of the debate, reporting that even the conservative Fox News had declared Harris the winner.
Singh, founder of Fair Observer, said the post-Hasina political turmoil in Bangladesh likely contributed to the relatively thin coverage.
“They’ve got their own fish to fry,” he said.
But, he added, political elites in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – all dependent on the International Monetary Fund, the global finance agency, largesse – are keenly watching the U.S. election campaign.
“They are in economic crisis, so they follow the election for practical reasons,” he said.
VOA’s Bangla, Deewa and Uru services contributed to this article.
…