Indian media's indifference to 'fake' encounters: 20 killings in Chittoor, five 'murders' in Telangana

When 20 persons were killed in an 'encounter' in Chittoor, it didn't create a flutter in national media.

The Tamil Nadu police said they were 'smugglers' and their version was immediately accepted.

Media didn't raise a single question that if they were hard-core criminals, how all the 20 people were killed on the spot, without injury to policemen.

They were termed as 'Red sanders'. Even if they would be suspects of smuggling, this sort of MASSACRE isn't justified. It didn't seem 'encounter' from any angle. The clothes on the victims' bodies, shows that they were poor people, possibly wood cutters.

This is the treatment our police give to wood cutters. Are we becoming a police state where courts don't matter at all? 'Suspects' are killed in cold-blood, 'under-trial prisoners' are killed even before there is a verdict.

TV channels didn't bother much as the victims were POOR. No TRP!!!. Channels who show live reports over nonsensical and trivial issues, had no interest, there was no anger or special programmes to raise the issue of such injustice.

The same was the attitude of the media in the encounter of suspected SIMI operatives, Viqar and four others, near Warangal in Telangana. The initial reports were about police versions. Later, photographs emerged that the persons killed were all handcuffed.

Elitist Indian media's new 'values': Don't question killings by police, army

But, there is no interest in our media, to question the police version. There is a serious concern towards the way journalism is heading in this country. Society, the influential upper and vocal middle class, has developed certain 'values'.

The values indicate that anything the police and army does is not questioned. This is a dangerous phenomenon. So there is hardy any effort to look at the other side of the picture, these days. It seems 'unpatriotic' to them, perhaps!

The attitude of Indian media towards police excesses is a serious issue. Media is supposed to be the 'conscience keeper' of the country, but it has gone astray, big way, in India. This is really very, very serious and senior journalists must do introspection.

Rajat Sharma, Naqvi and Uday Shankar responsible for turning Hindi news channels into a circus, journalists into jokers

Many are wondering how Rajat Sharma could be awarded Padma Bhushan?

This post is about the fall in standard of TV news and journalism in India.

While Arnab Goswami is accused of killing English TV news [as Outlook claims], who is responsible for the death of Hindi TV news?

This question has been raised by Senior journalist Dilip C Mandal who has written a series of Facebook posts on it.

Mandal, who was managing editor, India Today (Hindi) till recently, names three journalists for their role in bringing down credibility of Hindi news channels.

The names are Uday Shankar, Qamar Waheed Naqvi and Rajat Sharma.

Read the English translation here:

Dilip C Mandal

Under whose leadership did the Hindi TV channels enter the 'circus mode'? In prime time, instead of news, TV channels began showing stories about naag-nagin (snake) superstitions, call girl who charged the most and about cars moving without driver.

This journey continued to such an extent that everybody kept slipping, even falling into gutter, and no one bothered.The three leaders who are responsible for turning Hindi media into Peepli Live and its journalists into jokers are Uday Shankar, Qamar Waheed Naqvi and Rajat Sharma.

I will write a detailed paper on it, sometime later. I have no personal issues with any of them. But they are responsible for the situation that today there are jokes on media. Talk about reporters and kids start laughing.

These channels got audiences addicted to such humour that ultimately TV News channels began showing half-hour laughter challenge shows. If this trio won't be there, may be other leaders would be around, doing the same. But they were leading the three major channels in the era.

There was a time when Ganesha idols were sipping milk but SP Singh countered superstition on TV and used the cobbler's tool and showed that it could also sip milk in the same way, and also demonstrated how TRP can be generated by going against superstition.

There is tamasha in Indian English news too but that is mostly around news. In Hindi news channels, tamasha is foremost and there is no need for news at all. Uday Shankar, Qamar Waheed Naqvi and Rajat Sharma drove Hindi TV news to the superstitious age, even though all of these three persons are modren people. However, news was brought the lowest common denominator.

Read the posts on Dilip C Mandal's Facebook Timeline

Role of media in Afzal Guru's case: Creating hysteria, refusal to air views of those who opposed his hanging & reporting biases

On the left is the photograph of Afzal Guru, the man convicted of Parliament attack. You may not have seen this photo at all.

If you search internet, it's tough to find this photo. Rather, the picture with the bearded man, wearing topi and Arabic kerchief (that stereotypes a fundamentalist) would be visible everywhere.

That 'single' picture which creates a demon out of a normal looking man with an MBBS degree, is used on all forums. No attempt was every made to show a second photograph. 

Now it is immaterial to discuss how much he was involved in the attack. After the death penalty was ratified by Supreme Court, it is clear that he had to go to the gallows.

 While convicts who got death penalty long before him are yet to be executed, Afzal was hanged promptly. The reason are well-known. But the role of Indian media, mostly TV channels, and affecting public opinion, must be discussed.

Afzal Guru's trial in court took place long after his media trial, which had already given its judgment.  It became a Congress-BJP fight to score brownie points over who is more nationalistic in the run-up to the next general elections.

After the highest court's go-ahead and the rejection of mercy petition, there was no question of stopping his hanging. But the TV channels made a grave mistake, and in process harmed the basics of journalism as well as national integrity.

What were the grounds, people were opposing death penalty to him? This was never properly shown on TV channels who had taken the BJP's line 'Hang Afzal' as the mantra to prove patriotism. In competitive nationalistic fervour, they bayed for his blood.

Worst, even when he was executed, the protests  were not reported honestly. People who opposed the execution were not given opportunity by English-Hindi channels to speak and let the ordinary people know that why people were asking for clemency.

Just one side of the picture was presented. The job of media is objective reporting and presenting facts. But here it failed miserably. In fact, it worked with a clear agenda. The versions of police and prosecution were aired. How the man was tortured, made to 'confess' and then the recorded video was used to prove his complicity, was ignored.

This is a sad chapter in Indian democracy. The fourth pillar--Press--has succumbed to jingoism. It buys hardline versions, listens to those who shout, who are bloodthirsty. It has no time for sane voices. It listens to those who turn it into Us Vs Them.

It doesn't allow anyone to speak against it or even question it. Afzal is gone. Perhaps to satisfy  our 'collective conscience' (ours?) but it's a moment of collective shame for Indian media, because right-wing journalists have hijacked journalism.

Read these links:

1. Nandita Haksar on why people think he didn't get a fair trial. Article in English

2. Apoorvanand on 'Was justice done with Afzal Guru?': Article in Hindi.

3.  Kamini Jaiswal, the lawyer of Afzal Guru on the execution. See the video

Ambani 'virtually' owns 27 TV channels in India: Are you worried about Indian media now?

If Mukesh Ambani's RIL has majority stake in 27 TV channels in India, does that worry you about the state of electronic media in the country?

Worrying part comes later. First question is that did you have any idea about that. Secondly, can you figure out the amount of influence on Indian journalism, this can have?

Forget thinking about stories or such news reports that may hurt this huge business empire, just think of the impart of the sort of monopoly on media and its implications in future.

Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) recently bought shares in Infotel, a TV consortium that controls 27 TV news and entertainment channels in almost every regional language.

This single sentence buried in a paragraph in Arundhati Roy's article, tells you a lot. Yes, Outlook can still publish her. Tehelka may do it as well and of course, the foreign publication Guardian. But where else you are going to read such a report? Mukesh's monstrous sky-scraper Antilla or his stakes in oil, gas, petrochemicals, telecom are all too well-known.

But in a country where free media has kept the democracy afloat, the monopoly over media is something that we should seriously ponder over. Media h as the power to make or break an agitation. It has the strength to bring a government on its knees and make it fall as well.

Didn't we see in the Anna Hazare agitation. Mukesh Ambani has taken his father Dhirubhai Ambani's business forward. Sorry, we are not jealous of him. Mukesh's prosperity and growth in business empire show the robustness of Indian economy and its global march.

As patriotic citizens, we do love Indian businessmen acquiring groups abroad, inking huge financial deals, their clout and influence increasing. But there is a difference when it comes to monopoly. In any sector, it is important. More critical when it comes to media.

Even if you don't love Arundhati, you must understand that it is she who can say it and it still gets published. But yes, if he has stake in 27 channels, it does worry me as a media man. And he virtually owns it as the Outlook article says.

It may or may not worry you. But probably you should know it. I hope you got it, readers.

Media's role during Mumbai terrorist attack: Looking for TRP in a Tragedy

Indian media failed to rise to the occasion once again. It was a tragedy that unfolded in Mumbai for 48 hrs but channels didn't appear sombre and regulated.

Instead, they were over-excited and showing everything as if it was a 'live war reporting' though wars aren't reported in this manner either.

There were alerts, flashes, scrawls and breaking new for 50 hrs. The aim was to grab eyeballs. Ads were not shown as the viewer could switch to other channel in the meantime.

The news channels wanted highest TRP in this troubled times, so that they can later demand higher rates for advertisements and stay up on chart.

Much will be discussed in the coming days whether it was prudent to show the positions of police, commandos and officials in the initial stage of encounter in Taj Hotel that left officers, ATS chief Hemant Karkare and others dead.

Celebrity reporters' questionable conduct

Worst was the conduct of the so-called celebrity reporters who wanted their cameramen to zoom on everything as they lay on the ground. A star reporter-cum-anchor spoke lying on the ground to create the impact that he was reporting from warzone.

Others were not sure how to be on the ground and either grotesquely prostrated themselves or laid down on their back or side. The same anchor was drunk when he first appeared in the first hour of the tragedy.

The slur was visible and he was cut short. He later re-appeared on Thursday morning. In the end, all these channels together made a tamasha of the tragedy and served it to audience as if it was any other tamasha.

Where on earth the reporters are allowed to mob such a site? The government also woke up very late and by the time the TV channels stopping showing 'live' [7 pm on Friday], it was already too late. But our electronic media made a mockery of itself.

Amir Khan blasts journos and media in Tehelka: Bollywood actor on journalism, role of journalists in India

Bollywood star Amir Khan's interview in Tehelka is being discussed because of his straightforward answers and strong criticism of the media.

The sight of Khan's men mistreating journalists at his marriage was still fresh in my mind and at first glance I though he was acting smart.

Though I believe journos should not try to intrude private parties without invitation. But then I read the interview today. He has raised serious questions.

I must amid that the interview is interesting, eye-opening and shows mirror to the TV channels and newspapers.

Media ought to be a watchdog not a lap dog, he says and cites glaring errors of newspapers.

Amir Khan charged Times of India with publishing wrong stories, HT with printing false news of his marriage twice, Channel 7 of airing his conversation without talking to him (it was someone else's voice, says Amir) etc etc.

The interview with Shoma Chaudhury is spread on three pages. Amir says that he reads just The Hindu, Indian Express and watches only DD for news.

On the investigative prowess of journalists who do stings like sex life of an actor, Amir has spoken a lot. Particularly, the shooting of militants soon after any terrorist attack.

"I realise that somehow authorities very conveniently find one or two people within hours or days of the attack (like Varanasi blasts) and kill them in shootout.What I want to know is why can't they do that before. Is it so easy to find a criminal?

If it is so easy why can't we nab them before the act? And in this, I want to comment on the role of media, where they conveniently take it on face value and say phalana dhimka from phalana dhimka group has in fact done this.

We know that somebody has been killed. We can see the dead body there, but we don't know who he is. No body knows who planted a bomb in the temple.

Today a temple, tomorrow it can be a mosque or market. The job of authorities is to find out those behind the act and the job of press is to investigate whether the authorities are telling the truth".