tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.comments2023-08-26T20:46:05.406+05:30Neglected SerendipityKetanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comBlogger1861125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-853896993027616812010-09-30T03:34:54.444+05:302010-09-30T03:34:54.444+05:30Dear Ketan, I liked the analogy to make it look si...Dear Ketan, I liked the analogy to make it look simpler & easy to understand the dispute. personally, I have little interest in the actual claim about the ownership of disputed land. I understand the importance of the piece of land to Hindus is much more than it could possibly be to Muslims given it being the birth place of one of the most revered figure of Hindus. Though technically its impossible to prove it but then its matter of faith but I don't intend to get into the technicalities of the issue. I feel, waqf board on behalf of Muslims must give up the claim and gift it to Hindus. It will help in building a lot of good will between the communities. But my problem comes, how can you gift it to organisations who have been holding gun by your head. They demolished a structure which is sacred to the community(center watched & state connived in the demolition). They indulged in worst kind of rioting through out the country in the name of mandir/masjid. They use the issue to communally divide the nation whipping passions in the name of religion. I agree that a negotiated settlement is best as matters of faith can not be decided by the court. For court it would be just about ownership right of the land. It can never take into account the emotional or religious attachment factor involved. But the basis of any such negotiation has to be respect and dignity for each other. Both sides must come together & work out a deal to bring about a closure to the dispute forever. And no mathura, kashi please after this. We have seen enough bloodshed over the issue,those guilty of demolition of mosque and rioting must be punished (not protected) to send the right message to the community and form a conducive atmosphere for a negotiation over the issue. If giving up the claim can bring the two communities together, Muslims representatives must show the right sensitivities for other side and gift it to Hindus. I just hope, the better sense prevail as no mandir or masjid is bigger than Human lives. Humanity should never be held hostage to such issues.aphysiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01199736238401885555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-85965975004944408142010-09-30T00:59:48.273+05:302010-09-30T00:59:48.273+05:30You know my opinions on this :D
For the record, f...You know my opinions on this :D<br /><br />For the record, for those who still don't know, I feel that large scale and well hidden conspiracy theories are an oxymoron. They can't exist for long :)Bhagwad Jal Parkhttp://www.bhagwad.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-59716706926862158442010-09-29T12:28:09.943+05:302010-09-29T12:28:09.943+05:30i agree
1. CWG has been blown out of proportions....i agree <br />1. CWG has been blown out of proportions. Raja has looted more and I did wonder if he sponsored the media to cover CWG.<br /><br />2.It targets Dixit subtly. (But I thought she was Sonia's pet).<br /><br />3.It gives the media we also criticise congress card. while even Manmohan has been targeted few criticise Sonia. Surely she shares responsibility. <br /><br />4.Middle class (i won't say aam admi) is okay with corruption. those who speak against cwg are probably corrupt in varying degrees in personal life. They lament the image but not the issue of corruption.<br /><br />I disagree with u on Media coverage. Indian Express for eg, came out with 3 good articles. <br />a.That 70000 cr loot is an eyewash. Much of the money was spent on things like Delhi Metro Power Plants etc.<br />b.Besides Kalmadi people like Jaipal Reddy Mani Shankar Aiyar (who is now off to London) were also responsible<br />c. The Gross Nepotism in CWG<br /><br />Corruption and Nepotism exists everywhere in India. Even today TOI mentioned how in Karnataka CM helped his sons acquire land. And while that might not even get an eyebrow moving, CWG is different because of the incompetence factor.<br /><br />Inspite of all the accusations, Lalit Modi didn't become a villain because of his aura of competence. (I am not saying he was competent but even if his critics would have to accept that he successfully managed to potray competence). But in CWG Kalmadi has become Modi's equivalent. Even if he doesn't control many things, he is the organising face of CWG. And I think what bothers the people and the media is the incompetence of CWG in dealing with deadlines and few shoddy structures. <br />Indians might be okay with 40% sanitation for Indians. but the middle class and the media don't like their image to be tarnished by the goras. <br /><br />The Event might be a success. And I certainly hope it would be. But I think Kalmadi and Co are wrong when they think people would forget it. <br /><br />I think its going to hurt lots of people even if the event goes well. Except perhaps Sonia Manmohan and Dixit.wise donkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084116949920234832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-39235751834251852712010-09-29T00:21:10.844+05:302010-09-29T00:21:10.844+05:30The third message from heaven...
If any man worsh...The third message from heaven...<br /><br />If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-66448279053011092902010-09-28T23:58:09.172+05:302010-09-28T23:58:09.172+05:30You have tried your best in creating an analogy th...You have tried your best in creating an analogy that is generic for generic interpretation and resolution. It was a good starting point.<br /><br />Unfortunately the issue is not “that” simple. If it were an issue of mere ownership - which in legal lingo is referred to as “title” then we the laity might be able to resolve it. <br /><br />Even in such a case it is rather difficult to do so because in 1528 when the original temple was demolished, the Mohguls were rulers and they claimed all land was theirs, something similar to “staking” in America. Since they “staked” a claim, they had given themselves “title” to the land in today’s legal parlance. <br /><br />Since then there have been internecine claims from the aggrieved Hindus whenever they were a little stronger and - counter claims whenever the aggressor, i.e. the Muslims felt they were stronger. This process went on till 1936, and as you say, when another aggressor, viz. the British stepped in, and in the capacity of the new “title” holder of all land, adjudicated the dispute to issue “title” to the Sunni Waqf Board. <br /><br />The issues which now need resolution are:<br /><br />1. Whether, as the original owners of the land prior to 1528, the Hindus should be declared the rightful “title” holders of the land?<br /><br />2. Whether as conquerors who awarded “themselves” the “title” to the land, the Moghuls / Muslims should be declared the rightful “title” holders of the land?<br /><br />3. Whether as the new conquerors who awarded “themselves” the “title” to the land, the British became legal “title” holders of the land and thus acquired the right to enjoy, sell or donate the “title” of the land to the Sunni Waqf Board?<br /><br />4. Whether as the Hindus reclaimed the land – de facto in 1934 or 1949 or 1992 did the “title” now revert to them?<br /><br />5. Whether any limitation of time is applicable to the usurping, acquiring, being awarded etc of the title?<br /><br />6. Finally and more importantly, as the Muslims have usurped “titles” to land at various places to build mosques, tombs etc and some of which they have themselves abandoned why can they not relinquish “title” one more piece of land especially because, the Hindus, the original “title” owners of the land believe that is very sacred to them as much as Mecca or Medina are sacred to Muslims.VOXINDICAhttp://www.voxindica.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-15778998180169765562010-09-26T00:06:36.639+05:302010-09-26T00:06:36.639+05:30...And yes, you're quite right. There is indee......And yes, you're quite right. There is indeed a political, religious and sentimental aspect to the whole issue, which I have deliberately not touched upon. Usually, I try to restrict my posts either to use of logic or expression of my emotions, and not both. :) Obviously, I am not emotionally attached to the Temple, but I find it quite hypocritical when people say that demolition of such an insignificant structure (as far as Babri Mosque's significance in Islam is concerned) had made Muslims angry and that is what had led to the Bombay riots in 1992-93 and the Godhra train burning in 2002 (in wake of which the Gujarat riots had occurred). Also, I find it hypocritical when someone says that the Babri Mosque was a symbol of secularism; I disagree, considering the circumstances under which it was built, it was a symbol of celebration of violence and bloodshed (that Babar had indulged in, in the process of establishing his rule in India). However, these feelings are subjective. But I would do a post on something related in one of the coming days.<br /><br />It is difficult to say what the verdict of the Courts would be. I wouldn't be surprised by any of the three outcomes - handing over the site to the Waqf Board, or to the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas or to (one of the agencies of) the government. What the court might though give weightage to is the fact that Ayodhya is of much greater significance to the Hindus than the Babri Mosque was of to Muslims (and this is a stance I tend to support). But the court and government are <b>extremely unlikely</b> to go by the consideration that Hindus are 80% of the population and Muslims are only 15% (and again, this view is something I support to an extent).<br /><br />To be honest, I don't know how the time-factor (more than four centuries since the Ram Temple was destroyed) would play out in the Court. But it looks like that the Judiciary might not think this to be a very important consideration (unlike how the British Judiciary had viewed it - BTW, this instance was a classical of case of "divide and rule"-policy of the British!).<br /><br />Thanks for the time and effort of reading and commenting, and also for the praise!<br /><br />Take care.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-89667433995512167222010-09-26T00:06:09.058+05:302010-09-26T00:06:09.058+05:30Sahil,
Welcome to the blog!
I would not say that...<b>Sahil,</b><br /><br />Welcome to the blog!<br /><br />I would not say that I have concentrated on legal aspects, only somewhat touched upon them. What I have instead done is to concentrate on ethics as we understand them instinctively. Of course, ethics (to roughly define, "a study of what and why one must do/not do <b>when two or more people interact or when one's actions would have effect on <i>other</i> person(s)</b>") in liberal democratic (which India somewhat rightly claims to be) countries are what guide the legal system and the Judiciary. But while ethics allow for subjectivity, law has to be more exact. Sometimes, what is ethical might be illegal, and what is legal could be unethical. E.g., in a country where the political class is so corrupt, that whatever one pays as taxes, almost fully is gobbled up by corrupt practices, it might be better (more ethical) to partly ('partly' because the corrupt government would be still providing for few facilities like roads, and security, for which one should pay) evade tax-paying and instead do some charity on one's own. However, this position would be illegal. On the other hand, if I refuse to donate blood to a friend who'd donated blood for me in the past and who's met with an accident, simply because I want to watch a movie, then I am being extremely unethical but I'm doing nothing illegal.<br /><br />Also, law has to deal with lot of specifics and take a pragmatic and practicable view of things, whereas ethics are based more in idealism. E.g., the provision of 'statute of limitations' would make inadmissible a suit against adverse possession if it is filed 12 years and one day after the alleged possession, but it would be admissible if the said period is 11 years and 364 days! Meaning, just a difference of 2 days in filing the case would make the difference between an act of aggression being considered legal v/s illegal. But from perspective of ethics, in either cases, the act would remain as much unethical as on the first day of adverse possession.<br /><br />So, what I have used as guide is something that borders on both ethics and law....Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-32751578239446516112010-09-25T22:55:17.483+05:302010-09-25T22:55:17.483+05:30Your analysis is quite balanced and rational. The ...Your analysis is quite balanced and rational. The analogy you used is quite effective in conveying your point across & Helped me in understanding the Ayodhya issue in greater detail. I can understand that you only concentrated on legal issues regarding Ayodhya conflict, the only thing i felt missing in your analysis (and analogy) was the fact that as much as it's a conflict of who is owner of the disputed land (board-game), there is another dimension of this issue, its religious and political significance. Now i am not at all aware if Indian Law is influenced (legally) by such factor(s) (especially religious factor) or not, but i would love to know about it, because the question you asked "what point in time .... would be considered illegitimate?" is largely dependent on these factors. <br /><br />I am in complete agreement with you that decision should be definite. "Taken over by Government" would be a disastrous decision bcoz of reasons you correctly mentioned.Sahilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-92214922886124809422010-09-22T22:00:53.147+05:302010-09-22T22:00:53.147+05:30PA,
Hi, and welcome to the blog!
Thanks for addi...<b>PA,</b><br /><br />Hi, and welcome to the blog!<br /><br />Thanks for adding! I had read only one of your poems, so I don't know what will interest you.<br /><br />You can take help of the pages above, which lead you to the various categories of posts.<br /><br />In the footer you will found a tag cloud. Hope, you can find something of interest!<br /><br />And congratulations for being the first to comment on my 'About' page!Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-54295311742313465462010-09-22T20:42:49.414+05:302010-09-22T20:42:49.414+05:30@Ketan
The Lahore bus ride was live on TV! All th...@Ketan<br /><br />The Lahore bus ride was live on TV! All the TV channels showed for the entire day was Vajpayee sitting in a bus!<br /><br />I also think that the internet and social media has taken over the mantle of forming public opinion in the last few years. So who influences whom is really an open matter of debate.<br /><br />But anyway, I think we agree that the media isn't doing its job of presenting the facts and playing a responsible journalistic role. Especially when you compare the news coverage here in the UK (BBC is the best but Channel 4 and ITV are very good too!) with that in India, most of the news programmes have turned into soap operas. They have very little legitimacy at least in my eyes!<br /><br />Cheers!<br />ADAshish Deodharhttp://www.indianliberals.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-68856441431758827752010-09-22T16:38:35.345+05:302010-09-22T16:38:35.345+05:30I-Ore Trading,
Though I do not have much info, it...<b>I-Ore Trading,</b><br /><br />Though I do not have much info, it seems the academic courses leading to the career in media are quite shoddy. I had interacted online with two people doing BA honors in mass media, and that is what they felt. Even some of the celebrated anchors are at best good speakers, but their lack of argument making capacity is exposed quite often when they try to interview others. But of course, these are not the skills that are actually vital to provide good-quality news.<br /><br />Yes, I find PoV (point of view)-insertion too common in news. I do not want to know whether a six that Tendulkar hit to reach his century was 'elegant' or 'ugly', but what I would want to know is the number of sixes hit! Information that goes into making of news should be objective and verifiable to the extent possible. If it is not verifiable, it should be attributed explicitly to the source that provides that info. Also, just as you point out, opinion should be part of editorials.<br /><br />I have also talked of the instance you provided in my response to <b>Ashish</b><br /><br />"If there is criticism, I must be doing something right" - well, truly that is a provocative stance. It is an insult to the intelligence of the news patrons.<br /><br />Thanks again, for your views!Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-14425659546552109422010-09-22T16:13:06.687+05:302010-09-22T16:13:06.687+05:30...When you give the Ruchika example, please think......When you give the Ruchika example, please think carefully, the popular opinion was based on information supplied by whom? Common people do not come to know of events nor do they form opinions till somebody gives them info about the event. And opinions are formed on the basis of what info is given by the media, and not otherwise. So I do not believe that people already have pre-formed opinions. Opinions are shaped quite subliminally as that is very easy to do with majority of people. People do not scrutinize the information they get - examples are superstitions (one of the best examples is Ganpati drinking milk!). Likewise, look at the Nirupama Pathak case. Who knew about the case till the media told people what to think about her mother by cleverly insinuating that she had smothered Nirupama? Though I am not sure, but perhaps it is now said that she had committed suicide. And that aspect the media has hardly covered.<br /><br />And no, I believe media's primary responsibility is to gather information, verify it, and pass on all the significant aspects of it, using a filter that is consistent across time, people and communities (e.g., such a frenzied coverage of Quran book burning exactly at the other end of the globe, which did not even occur on one hand, but non-coverage of Pakistani flag hoisting or Deganga riots in Bengal, in which perhaps one/few persons had died and temples were damaged - <b>does not constitute consistency</b>). Opinion-forming is not the job of media <i>per se</i>, though they might provide platform for people of differing perspectives to present their ideas. But what makes conflict of interest very likely is that media can greatly influence opinion, and there are powerful people who want opinion shaped one way or the other.<br /><br />I don't know what to make of your last paragraph! This commercial interest is what I have talked of throughout my post! But the commercial interest also gives rise to conflict of interest. And yes, media is not anti-Hindu in essence, but the way it allows itself to get manipulated, it appears to be anti-Hindu, and this apparent bias is only incidental.<br /><br />Thanks again, for responding!Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-12141448088676202702010-09-22T16:12:03.491+05:302010-09-22T16:12:03.491+05:30Ashish,
There is an important difference between ...<b>Ashish,</b><br /><br />There is an important difference between movies and news. Former is supposed to be largely fiction. Moreover, movie makers have to keep on making new kinds of movies. If you see every decade had its own flavor. But every one or two decades the trend becomes cyclical, meaning, the good old action movies do well, or perhaps, tear jerkers or out and out comedies. But, news people can afford to bring in new programs with greater exchange of ideas, but the news proper they show have to unbiased and news worthy.<br /><br />Firstly, it is the media that created a war between Raj Thackeray and Rahul Gandhi. Honestly, Rahul Gandhi is unlikely to contest election from Maharashtra and nor is Raj Thackeray going to do so from Uttar Pradesh. So, I have no reason to believe that both were each others' adversaries in any way.<br /><br />Now, compare the instances of Vajpayee government, which you cited as examples of media supporting his government with the instances I cited. A war, winning which was an uphill task, in which several people had died and which was a national emergency kind of situation. Then, the nuclear tests, where years of preparation was required, hundreds of scientists and other workers had to be mobilized, and five nuclear devices were tested after a gap of 24 years, in such a manner that none of the other developed countries with spy satellites could detect these activities. Lahore bus - I don't remember if all the news channels were inundated with that news or there were headlines like "Vajpayee entered Pakistani den", etc. Do you really compare the challenges involved in those events with passage of woman's reservation bill in Rajya Sabha and withdrawing money from an ATM? Moreover, for Pokhran tests, DRDO and BARC had got prominent coverage and praise. It was seen more as a victory of Indian scientists rather than the BJP government (and of course, rightly so). I did not see any of the media houses praising the security personnel of Rahul Gandhi for protecting him from Shiv Sena, the way the scientists had been commended for their job over Pokhran. But despite these instances, I must point out that in my blog post, I have used the word "struggle", meaning control over the media is not the monopoly of just the Nehru-Gandhi family, media is too powerful for that! In fact, the BJP leaders must be also influencing the media! It is just that the family has much greater ability to influence than the BJP! And no, I have no problems with good policies/actions of any government getting praised, but the praise and attention given should be commensurate....Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-55973840135070300952010-09-22T15:19:37.224+05:302010-09-22T15:19:37.224+05:30Nice blog there! Will hop over for a read again! H...Nice blog there! Will hop over for a read again! Have added it to my reader!PAhttp://pritiahuja.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-41844724145482466342010-09-22T12:00:07.191+05:302010-09-22T12:00:07.191+05:30Ketan majority of the journalists or those with pr...Ketan majority of the journalists or those with pretense to being journalist have not undergone any formal training, a journalist’s first responsibility to is to report events as they happen, after due corroboration of the facts and veracity of the event.<br /><br />What we are getting is opinionated information in the garb of News. Editorial is the exclusive domain of the editor and the publishing house where the opinion on any event may be expressed.<br />Editors permit news in this format to be published, this leads to a situation where the media is actively involved in influencing the readers to take a stand for or against each and every event, regardless of it impact or value on the society and the collective public psyche.<br />The furor on the possible Koran burning in the USA against a deafening silence on Deganga communal riot in North 24 Parganas on the 6th of Sept. where Hindu Temples and Establishments were desecrated and damaged extensively, or the burning of not just the Koran but many other books on Islam in the school in Tangmarg on the 13th Sept. by the protestors who were followers of Islam were not highlighted.<br /><br />This silence is justified by that idiom if there is criticism than I must be doing it right. This is not a defense mechanism rather a very provocative stance.<br />Await your thoughts.Anil Kohlihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03216814999818533895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-7535481723509358122010-09-22T02:49:31.201+05:302010-09-22T02:49:31.201+05:30Hi Ketan
I see your point.
I am not sure how muc...Hi Ketan<br /><br />I see your point.<br /><br />I am not sure how much you will buy into this explanation (again, this is my experience of how media behaves and not based on hard evidence):<br /><br />As they say about movies that they reflect society and not vice versa, it's the same with media and news publications. They reflect the mood of the nation they are trying to sell their stories to.<br /><br />So after the 2003 elections, the mood of the nation was largely behind the Gandhi family and it has been ever since. Contrast that with people such as Modi or Raj Thackrey or even the communists (against Congress) and you will see why the media sides with the Gandhi family. It wasn't difficult for the media to choose between Rahul Gandhi and Raj Thackery. They knew very well whom to place their bets on.<br /><br />But if you reflect back on the 1999-2000 era, most of the media was very much behind the BJP - the Lahore bus, the Kargil war, the nuclear bomb etc. all gave the BJP a popular appeal and the media made most of glorifying Vajpayee and his government.<br /><br />You could see the same trends in non-political media coverage. Take for instance the Ruchika molestation case. Popular opinion was dead against Rathore and the media stories reflected that. Even better example is the Shiney Ahuja case. The media has about-turned in its coverage of that news after the victim changed her stance.<br /><br />Now you might say that media's job is to shape public opinion and that's responsible journalism. But again, they have commercial compulsions and quality of journalism takes a back seat in such conflicts.<br /><br />So to sum up, I would accuse the media of being dishonest to its profession only for commercial compulsions but the claims of victimhood by the Hindu right wing are downright insane.Ashish Deodharhttp://www.indianliberals.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-89561145030052719482010-09-21T23:45:09.638+05:302010-09-21T23:45:09.638+05:30I-Ore Trading,
Welcome to the blog!
I agree entir...<b>I-Ore Trading,</b><br />Welcome to the blog!<br /><br />I agree entirely to what you have stated. But it is amuses me that there are sharp divides on opinions on how the media works as can be seen on this page itself. I consider some of the people on either side of the divide quite intelligent, sensible and sincere.<br /><br />It baffles me how people who on so many other issues would quite agree, reach almost polar opposite conclusions on something like this.<br /><br />I am very impressed with the point number 1 you have made. In fact, one journalist/blogger/writer - Dilip D'Souza actually takes people's irritation at his ideas/suggestions as index of his correctness. And that idea I have been quite uncomfortable with. So perhaps, what you cite could indeed be the defense mechanism people of media use to overlook the increasingly strong feedback they are getting (and of course, the fact that they don't have to be too scrupulous anyway, that they don't have much to lose).<br /><br />Thanks for your time and commenting!Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-7445574065927509332010-09-21T21:36:01.560+05:302010-09-21T21:36:01.560+05:30Ashish,
Welcome to the blog!
Yes, these are mere...<b>Ashish,</b><br /><br />Welcome to the blog!<br /><br />Yes, these are mere speculations. But the instances of media's behavior I pointed out are facts. The assumption part is my estimate of their motives behind all that. And hypothesis (based on certain premises, e.g., media houses want to survive and make profits and politicians want to mobilize public opinion, etc.) can be part of an analysis, IMO. But yes, what nomenclature you use is not of great significance. :)<br /><br />And I don't know how you missed this point - one of the important points in my hypothesis was that the <b>apparent</b> (meaning, not true) slant is not for/against one or the other community, but it is to favor the Nehru-Gandhi family (sorry, if this seems ridiculous, but so do [to me] so many things the media people do in their efforts, e.g., the Sonia Gandhi interview, coverage of Rahul Gandhi's Mumbai trip and Tarun Tejpal's letter).<br /><br />My current feeling is that except for if someone comes up with a comprehensive theory as to why what I pointed out happened, or even a specific explanation for the individual events, then I would be comfortable with discarding my hypothesis. This is not a challenge, but I am open to ideas. Till now, the best explanations I have come across can be categorized only into two: <i>"I know how media works, and it is not like how you perceive"</i> <b>or that</b> <i>"media just cannot do what you are accusing it of doing, because the scale of things is too big"</i>, but nothing else. The first explanation is little more than personal testimony, which I keep in consideration, but does not explain the instances. The second one, is something quite sensible, but I don't think it is big barrier if one goes by the risk-benefit ratio involved in being manipulative.<br /><br />Yes, the media makes a big deal about terror emanating from Pakistan. In fact, from what I have come to know on twitter from online Pakistani friends, just like how Indian media holds Pak forces responsible for arrests and prolonged imprisonment of large number of Indian fishermen, there are similar news in Pakistan against Indian coast guard, but they are never/rarely reported by the Indian media. This is in line with my hypothesis of media wanting to show things in pure black and white, so that people can take sides and feel an emotional connect with the story.<br /><br />What you point out on the template of my blog is well taken. In fact, I am surprised why you sounded so defensive about it! My templates are just a passing fancy. I might change the current one in near future. For the time being, apologies for the difficulties that you encountered in reading.<br /><br />Actually, most of the discussion/debate on this issue has overflown into Bhagwad's blog, but thanks for reading and commenting, nevertheless.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-62649769040487000222010-09-21T21:05:20.341+05:302010-09-21T21:05:20.341+05:30Hi Ketan
I would refrain from calling it an analy...Hi Ketan<br /><br />I would refrain from calling it an analysis since it is based on assumptions instead of facts, as you yourself admit.<br /><br />I see many weak links but I think people have discussed them at length already so I wouldn't start that discussion all over again.<br /><br />Having worked very closely with the media, I must tell you that most of your assumptions are not true. Yes, the media wants to sensationalize every news story and demean journalism in the process but that doesn't mean that they have a bias towards one community or the other.<br /><br />Btw FYI, the media makes a big deal of Islamic terror too! Especially the TOI and NDTV who appear obsessed with anything related to Pakistan, Taliban and so on.<br /><br />Anyway, I know this is none of my business but you might want to consider changing the site appearance. White on black is very hard on the eye and not very reader-friendly. Just a suggestion - no hard feelings if you don't like it!Ashish Deodharhttp://www.indianliberals.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-70511495268125278902010-09-21T13:55:32.596+05:302010-09-21T13:55:32.596+05:30There are 2 defining idioms that our mainstream En...There are 2 defining idioms that our mainstream English media believes in or should one say they would like us think so.<br /><br />1. If there is criticism for their reporting then they are definitely doing things right. This leads to greater the criticism, higher the validity of reportage. (Misconception in extreme is all one can say.)<br /><br />2. Dog bite man is no news. Man bites dog is news worthy. Yet this is precisely what they negate when they report on visits of Rahul Gandhi to the home of the dalits.<br /><br />The underpinning of reportage today is TRP's and ingratiating before their political masters. The inherent peril in this is that they listen to their political bosses with both their ears, where as 1 ear should be firmly placed on ground to hear the rumbling that is getting louder by the day.Anil Kohlihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03216814999818533895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-9742069739813337302010-09-21T06:36:04.609+05:302010-09-21T06:36:04.609+05:30I tried to vote in the survey but got a "You ...I tried to vote in the survey but got a "You cannot vote repeatedly" message... :(<br /><br />I wanted to hit the first option (no surprise there!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-79524519084735308802010-09-20T00:53:42.414+05:302010-09-20T00:53:42.414+05:30Rediscovering Sai,
Welcome and thanks for the enc...<b>Rediscovering Sai,</b><br /><br />Welcome and thanks for the encouragement!<br /><br />While I too get frustrated with the partisan attitude of the media, we cannot wish it away, and nor would it be wise. Media has the power to shape our opinions. Actually, in the longer run, who we vote for is not going to make too much of a difference (irrespective of what celebrities and other people tell us about the importance of voting), but imagine the power of media in other choices we make. Media's presence is everywhere from what we eat to what we wear. A lot of pseudo-scientific research is presented with even less scrupulous scrutiny. See, how Green Peace was given so much space, who had made unscientific claims like "genetically modified food causes cancer" on facebook. And it has permanently dented the impression of GM food in a country that might face imminent starvation given the rate of rise of population, diminishing returns of agricultural land and rate of inflation.<br /><br />But now the damage has been done - "cancer" is a terrifying term. Use it in juxtaposition with anything and people will avoid it like the plague (okay, cancer! ;) ).<br /><br />It is for this reason that I always am so suspicious of the motives of the media.<br /><br /><b>PS:</b> Sorry, had missed seeing your comment (it was hidden amidst so many long and disagreeing ones), and hence the delay in responding.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-74954176626558975492010-09-20T00:42:05.116+05:302010-09-20T00:42:05.116+05:30Ravishankar,
Welcome to the blog! And thanks for ...<b>Ravishankar,</b><br /><br />Welcome to the blog! And thanks for reading and the praise!<br /><br />While you perhaps do not have evidence for what you say, I would not be too surprised if any of the media houses have shares in bigger companies. Because, in itself media business is not very lucrative if one were to stick to ethics, so other avenues of raising funds have to be found.<br /><br />I do not know if having shares in Emaar would qualify as conflict of interest (e.g, NDTV would not report it unlike how it would report on Vedanta), and if indeed such conflict of interest would lead them to be selective in news presentation.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-50895702936222825572010-09-19T23:01:46.516+05:302010-09-19T23:01:46.516+05:30Great article. Keep it up sir. Indian media anti-H...Great article. Keep it up sir. Indian media anti-Hindu bias because of lot of petrodollar and missionary money. Do you know NDTV has shares in Gulf company Emaar which is accused for fraud in AP.Ravishankarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1117433809983410591.post-78554114062777459202010-09-19T22:33:43.418+05:302010-09-19T22:33:43.418+05:30And yes Hari by "national media" I meant...And yes <b>Hari</b> by "national media" I meant exactly what you have guessed (in contradistinction from the local media).Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.com