Looks like I misused the term. As I understood it, it meant one where the subject of the article is meant to look good, where the content is wholly positive, but in a way that doesn't presuppose distortion or deliberately suppressing important critical information.
I think you're looking for disappointment where you shouldn't - praise's being "effusive" isn't a bad thing in this context. And it seems true, too - the reports and interviews have often exhibited pride in their native son, and effusive praise at that.
For instance:
From IBN Live: "Ever since Viswanathan Anand arrived into the world of chess, he's proved time and again that he is the best." Really? He has been in the chess world for 21 years, and has been a world champion for two of them, the undisputed champ for only one, and his standing atop the rating list has been even briefer. Or how about this, from the same article: "Ever since he arrived on the stage, Anand's skill and determination have been unmatched." More than Kasparov's?? And here's yet another bit of unbiased, factually-based reporting from the same article: "Acclaimed as the fastest brain in the world..." At least they're not claiming that if he had grown up with a thermometer, we might have cures for cancer and AIDS today. (But maybe if I look harder?)
And this article from the Times of India has its ludicrous moments, suggesting that until Anand came on the scene like an innocent, holy child, the chess world was saturated with players full of hatred for each other.
This is all rather silly, but generally speaking, I can't see anything wrong with Indian papers taking pride in Anand's achievement.
If you think this is bad, just look at the cricket coverage! But the media has enormous reach and puff pieces or not helps sell the game to a new audience.
I am also disappointed ChessBase calls the reports on the Indian newspapers "effusive".
For instance:
From IBN Live: "Ever since Viswanathan Anand arrived into the world of chess, he's proved time and again that he is the best." Really? He has been in the chess world for 21 years, and has been a world champion for two of them, the undisputed champ for only one, and his standing atop the rating list has been even briefer. Or how about this, from the same article: "Ever since he arrived on the stage, Anand's skill and determination have been unmatched." More than Kasparov's?? And here's yet another bit of unbiased, factually-based reporting from the same article: "Acclaimed as the fastest brain in the world..." At least they're not claiming that if he had grown up with a thermometer, we might have cures for cancer and AIDS today. (But maybe if I look harder?)
And this article from the Times of India has its ludicrous moments, suggesting that until Anand came on the scene like an innocent, holy child, the chess world was saturated with players full of hatred for each other.
This is all rather silly, but generally speaking, I can't see anything wrong with Indian papers taking pride in Anand's achievement.