Types of media.

"Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Friday (06 June) invited Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the G7 summit in Alberta later this month, an invitation Modi accepted despite strained ties between the countries." CNN. Carney "was quick to reach out to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, shortly after assuming office in March." "Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese publicly confirmed receiving his invitation in the first week of May. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she was invited during a phone call with Carney on May 15. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also receive an invitation around the same time, as per Brazilian media reports." South Africa was invited but still had not accepted. The Wire. So why were other leaders invited by mid-May and Mr Modi only now? "There was a strong push from the other G7 countries to have India at the table, Vina Nadjibulla, vice president of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, said after Mr Modi received his invitation." TOI. This means that Carney's invitation is reluctant, may even be grudging, and so should Mr Modi have accepted it with such alacrity? "As vibrant democracies bound by people-to-people ties, India and Canada will work together with renewed vigor, guided by mutual respect and shared interests," Modi posted on X. TOI. In an unrelated event, On 25 May, "External Affairs Minister (EAM) S Jaishankar spoke with his Canadian counterpart Anita Anand through a telephonic conversation and discussed strengthening the relationship between the two countries." Ms Anand said that it was a "productive discussion". NDTV. Even if Canada is grudging, other countries support India. Or, do they? "Pakistan's elevation to chair the UNSC Taliban Sanctions Committee and vice-chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee is a diplomatic blow for India." "Pakistan's successful acquisition of major loans from the IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank, despite India's vehement objections (The Wire)," and the absence of any condemnation of Pakistan for the dastardly attack at Pahalgam (wikipedia) mean that no country accepts Pakistan's responsibility, while condemning terrorism in general. "In sharp contrast to Trudeau's shenanigans on Nijjar murder, Carney exhibited a measured approach," and "seems to be putting a lid on Trudeau's dangerous game of promoting anti-India terrorists to capture Sikh votes with scant regard for Canada's global interests." ET. Not really. Carney said, "In addition, bilaterally, we have now agreed, importantly, to continued law enforcement dialogue, so there's been some progress on that, that recognizes issues of accountability." Put "bilaterally", "law enforcement" and "accountability" together and it seems that India has agreed to accept the decision of Canada's investigation of Nijjar's killing. As for "Canada's global interests", "Thousands of Indian nationals working in Canada, particularly under the Temporary Worker Program, are losing their legal work status," so as to "encourage migrants to leave voluntarily once their permits expire." ET. Our 'godi media' (lapdog media) (wikipedia) may try to put a gloss on things, but a few channels leak the truth. Should they be labeled the 'ruddy media'?