In a recent development that has sparked a debate and scrutiny, a UK-based public relations firm, hired by fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi, has successfully placed their narrative in several international newspapers.
This skullduggery has been overshadowed by allegations circulating on social media in Antigua and Barbuda, claiming that the PR firm made a substantial payment of £10,000 to a journalist working for a UK newspaper.
This payment is alleged to have been in exchange for publishing an article favorable to Choksi, raising questions about journalistic integrity and the influence of paid narratives in the media by publishing one sided story and avoiding all other evidence with indicates that Choksi was at fault and he deliberately made an escape attempt.
Continuing the discourse, netizens have raised concerns over the recent coverage by the UK-based Daily Mail regarding Mehul Choksi, particularly criticizing the article for its one-sided reporting.
The core of the argument lies in the fact that the article written by Andy Jehring seems to be entirely constructed on statements and the narrative provided by Choksi himself in the court of Antigua and Barbuda, without adequately representing the other side of the story.
This approach has led to accusations of biased journalism, as the article fails to incorporate a balanced viewpoint, neglecting to explore or even mention the perspectives and findings of other parties involved in the matter.
Furthermore, there is a notable absence of insights from independent investigators who have delved into Choksi’s disappearance. Among them is Kenneth Rijock, a US-based financial fraud investigator with a strong reputation in his field.
Rijock and others like him have conducted extensive investigations into the case, yet their findings and reports have been conspicuously ignored in the Daily Mail’s coverage.
This omission has only fueled further skepticism and criticism from the public, who argue that the article’s failure to acknowledge these independent investigations significantly undermines its credibility and objectivity.
The palpable bias in the Daily Mail’s article has become so evident that it is metaphorically said even a blind person could discern its one-sidedness, which appears to be in favour of an international fraudster seeking to evade extradition to India.
The reporting, aligning with the narrative of someone trying to escape legal accountability, has sparked widespread speculation about potential legal repercussions for the Daily Mail. If the Indian government or the parties accused in the report were to pursue legal action in the UK, the publication could find itself caught in serious legal challenges.
Netizens, in light of these circumstances, are anticipating an impending apology from the Daily Mail, as a corrective measure for what many see as a clear journalistic misstep.