Vimoh's Blog

Following what happened on Mumbai on November 26, 2008, there was widespread anger on the irresponsible way some TV news channels handled the crisis.

The media defended its stand with various kinds of replies, some more aggressive than others. But the general public ended up taking them the court over their manner of operating, especially in the times of crisis.

The latest in the matter is that the News Broadcasters Association has released a new set of guidelines focusing on “impartiality, accuracy, fairness and neutrality while covering such incidents”. Rediff reports, quoting the guidelines:

“They should not disclose confidential information of operations involving national security. Broadcasters should also use discretion in reporting on operational methods used by perpetrators of serious offences against the State during the occurrence of the event. Also live interviews with perpetrators should not be aired,” say the guidelines.

Going on about some more questions raised by many critics, the NBA is quoted as saying:

Calling upon broadcasters to respect privacy, the new guidelines also say they should exercise discretion and sensitivity when reporting on distressing situations on grief and bereavement.

“Content that would cause unwarranted distress to surviving family members, including by showing archival footage should be avoided. Also surreptitious recording of any person or event should only be made without committing any illegality and if editorially justified,” they say.

Whether the media will abide by the guidelines is something nobody may comment on at the moment. They are just guidelines after all, and not hard-bound rules (and they shouldn’t be).

The guidelines, after all is said and done, boil down to being just common sense, sensitivity, and civility.

Perhaps I spoke too soon. Or perhaps the MSM were a little late on this. But be that as it may. Here is a list of mainstream media outlets who have picked up the issue of NDTV bullying the (by now incredibly famous) blogger C Kunte.

Call it a war between a Goliath and many Davids! Blogs are up in arms against NDTV’s Barkha Dutt after the TV channel sued a blogger who attacked her coverage of Mumbai terror attacks.

The blogger, Chyetanya Kunte, in his post named Shoddy Jounralism, had come down heavily on Barkha Dutt for “breaking every rule of ethical journalism in reporting the Mumbai mayhem.”

He had also accused Dutt of “giving away locations in her broadcasts, thus causing Indian casualties” during the Kargil war.

NDTV soon issued a legal notice to the blogger, forcing him tender an ‘unconditional apology’ and remove the post. (Source: Mid-Day)

The matter also found mention in the Pune Mirror over here:

First of all, I would like to congratulate Chyetanya Kunte and Barkha Dutt, that very powerful beacon of free speech on NDTV, for proving that bloggers actually exercise more power than we think.

I had not heard of CK’s ‘blogsploits’ (that can be a new word — exploits on a blog) till I got a forwarded mail about the TV giant asking Kunte to apologise for saying things without proof.

I read the apology too. It sounded cool in its legalese, where Kunte says that Barkha Dutt’s reporting did not result in the death of Kargil soldiers and that she didn’t give away crucial information during 26/11 about hostages.

After reading the apology, I felt CK did not even write it because his writing style on his blog is different. Of course, I have no information to back up my claim, just as CK didn’t have proof to back up his. (Source: Pune Mirror)

If there are links I am missing here, do fill me in in the comments. I have a feeling there will be more mentions of this before all is said and done.

Post the NDTV ruckus that rocked the Indian blogosphere a few days ago, many of us attempted to get a reaction out of our esteemed mainstream media.

I emailed Barkha Dutt, requesting her comments on the matter. I am still to receive a response. I also mailed some other mainstream media outlets, asking if they considered the story worth some attention. Here too, I was met with silence.

NDTV and Barkha Dutt, by and large, have ignored the angry voices and are either waiting for things to cool down, or simply don’t care about what we, their audience, think of them.

But the following news just came in. I consider it something of a victory.

Read the rest of this entry »

The media is the media because we identify it as such. We expect it to be unbiased and truthful and honest. We believe that the journalists who bring us news of things happening around us have no reason to alter it.

But truth be told, we have all known, for quite some time, that we don’t really believe in all of the above.

Sometimes we are not told of certain things. Sometimes we are given coloured versions of things. What we take to be the objective truth, is often biased in favour of certain people, parties, or ideologies.

I think the time has come to face the truth – objectivity doesn’t exist.

An unbiased viewpoint is a good idea, but it is also impractical. A journalist in charge of bringing us the big picture, will find himself or herself supporting one side or the other. It always shows. In recent times, it has begun to show more and more.

A bias isn’t a bad thing. A hidden bias is a bad thing. I would be more comfortable with a journalist’s version of a news story if I know what she thinks of it. Does she hate the protestors for riling against the innocent minister? Does she think the diplomat she just interviewed was lying to her face? It’s really ok. Tell me about it.

If you don’t, it is offensive. Not only do you underestimate my intelligence, you also lie to me by pretending to be objective. Please stop doing that.

In time, this may also turn out to be a good thing for the media. Say we have ten news channels and we know where their loyalties lie. We can then tune in to listen to their version of things, and if we need a second opinion, change the channel.

News channels, instead of trying to become our one-stop news source on everything, should try to become keepers of a perspective. This way, they will complement each other and become vital cogs in a vast news and opinion media infrastructure.

I wrote the last post in anger. Then I started wondering what possible recourse a blogger might have against legal threats from a media biggie like NDTV.

In popped a comment from Mr Naavi. I recognised him as a cyberlaw person (of naavi.org) who was involved in a blogging related case in Chennai a few years ago. I mailed him, asking him what he thought the blogger in this case might have done. He replied saying that Mr Kunte “could have remained silent until the next action.” Here’s an excerpt from his email.

He could have in the meantime shared a copy of the notice in the blog and sought views.

On the other hand he could have also replied back refusing any attempt to defame without apologizing.

Probably no further action would have been taken up by Burkha.

In the worst instance, a case would have been filed and Mr Kunte might have had to find a lawyer and reply to the notice as well as follow up. It is unlikely that the Court would have given any credence to Ms Burkha’s notice.

All this, of course, assuming Mr Kunte received a notice from NDTV lawyers. He may simply have had a change of mind since he made the blog post. Or he might have faced pressure from quarters other than the NDTV camp.

Mr Naavi shares more of his views on the matter here and suggests that the Press Council of India step in.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one. — A J Liebling

Dear NDTV and Barkha Dutt. Hope you are well, now that you have arm-twisted CKunte into submission.

Don’t get me wrong. You have as much right to sue people as I do. Especially when your reputations are at stake. But here are a few reasons why your approach may not be best suited to the present circumstances.

Following the terrorist attacks that happened in Mumbai on 26 November, 2008, many people took offence to the way Barkha Dutt reported the event. Her reporting was called “shoddy” and “irresponsible” (among other things).

Read the rest of this entry »

Dear mass media of my country.

I know you are analytical & highly educated people, and have my best interests at heart. But you are also blind. Allow me to explain.

A band of murderers pops out of nowhere and kills a whole lot of everyday folks (just like me) and then send you a letter (or a video, or an email) telling you who they would like to be known as and who they represent and what they want.

You then, in your great wisdom, read their lies to the whole nation aloud (with flashy lights and exciting music in the background for added effect).

Please stop doing that! It is fucking irritating!

I, and many others like me, can do without their lies. And it irritates to see you repeat their lies for them.

Can’t you tell?

I don’t care what they are called. I don’t care where they are from. I don’t care who they think they are doing this for. They killed people – they are murderers.

Stop calling them Islamists or Hindus or activists or outfits. Words like ‘criminal’ and ‘murderer’ work just fine.

If they need to kill people to get the governments’ attention, then they don’t deserve ANY attention. In fact, I would go so far as to say that murderers don’t deserve freedom of speech.

I would love for them to be nameless and uncategorised. The whole lot of them undesirables. I would like them to be put away for life, with no one ever seeing them again, or hearing of from them, or hearing of them and their so-called ’cause’.

Update: I received an email in response to this post. Read it here.