When the Press shackles...

Turn the pages of a newspaper, surf television channels, visit news websites. What you get to see is plenty of freedom. Everybody is free to say what they wish, in a language they choose to, for a motivation only they might know about.

Together with freedom comes responsibility is not just a cliché. When you celebrate World Press Freedom Day at least understand what is expected of you:

Every year, May 3rd is a date which celebrates the fundamental principles of press freedom; to evaluate press freedom around the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession.

2014 Theme is: Media Freedom for a Better Future: Shaping the post-2015 Development Agenda.

How many are bothered about this? Editors who censor pieces and kowtow to masters of varied stripes are talking about press freedom? Even reports are cut to make space for ads, or if they go contrary to what the sponsors might like. Opinion pieces are censored because, again, they will cause problems.

But, whose freedom is this?

The regional press that has a much wider reach and better understanding of people in the villages and small towns, and certainly has an urban audience as well, is largely ignored.

A few months ago, two well-known TV anchors were said to be planning to quit their jobs. The immediate reaction was that they were under pressure. Op-eds in the international press too gave their example even though both had clarified that no such thing had happened.

More recently, a young lawyer collated some Modi myths to be busted; it was published in DNA. A few hours later it was not there. The immediate reaction was that the fascists had started working.

Let us get this clear: the fascists will. There are several examples. Yet, had anybody bothered to call out the newspaper, ask for an explanation? Had anybody bothered to raise questions other than the one that suited the current anti-wave? This is surprising, for nothing in that piece was new or more damning than some that have preceded it. There was no sharp opinion.

Would it not be more proactive to get the newspaper to respond instead of just riding a, well, wave?

We are already on to other stories, other minor ripples.

Is this about censorship?

The media that seeks the right to write has crossed the line several times. Have you noticed that while film stars and politicians are soft targets, industrialists are treated with deference? And what about the media houses themselves? It is rare that a Tarun Tejpal case comes to light, but even here it became a matter of professional rivalry.

I will only be repeating myself when I say that the deals the media strikes with politicians, with corporate houses (if they are not owned by them), with the underworld too will not be outed. Even in the Tejpal case, two factors were important.

1) After the media had given the Delhi gangrape primetime, sexual abuse has become an issue that cannot be ignored. I won't go into the dynamics of how it twists the victim's situation to suit TRPs and advertising.

2) Without in any way taking away from the crime, there was the political-corporate aspect that oversaw how justice was to be delivered.

In the FoE overdrive, there is rarely any discussion about the reporters on the field, especially in sensitive areas.

It is disgusting to read about how some in the press cling onto their peers who might be unfortunate victims of violence. It is time to wake up. Such incidents take place not because the media houses are outspoken and free, but because the perpetrators of violence won't have it any other way. They have targeted even those who are silent and have no media access. If the press wants to act as though it is upholding democracy, then it better learn to practice the freedom across the board within the organisation, and not be selective.

Or they should make their position/agenda clear. To the readers, their sponsors, and their staff and contributors.

Do they have the courage? No. They keep their options open because they want to curry favours. They do not know who will come to power, which industry will have its projects passed, which celebrity will be feted. So, we have a mélange of people of dubious worth featured consistently until such time that they become redundant for the 'free' media.

One incident, two versions

Nobody in India can be in denial about communal clashes, but should the media play them up? Or, jump the gun? On Ram Navami, violence erupted in Kanpur. It happened to be the eve of the polls in Uttar Pradesh. These things can be engineered.

What is disturbing is the manner in which media reports give differing versions. Hindustan Times stated:

Eight people were injured when members of two communities fought a pitched battle over taking out of Ram Navmi procession in Sayed Nagar of Kalyanpur area in Kanpur late Tuesday evening.
Panic spread in the area after the rival groups resorted to indiscriminate firing and lobbed hand-made bombs during the clash. Police had to resort to cane charge to control the mobs after they tried to manhandle them.

Others had something else to say. Take this in Mid-day:

The incident was triggered when the district administration did not allow some people to take out a Ram Navami procession through a certain route in Sundernagar area of Kalyanpur.

HT starts by talking about two communities; Mid-day (The Freepress Journal and IBN too) mention that the administration did not grant permission.

In one the implication is that members of a certain community that is not referred to by name could have created mayhem. In the other, it seems to be a dispute with the administration.

Which one is true?

As I said, communal clashes do take place and it is easy to manufacture them, especially for political parties. Should this mere raw material for a news story? Has there been any interview where the police has blamed any group? What makes some in the media decide on these matters? People were injured, property destroyed. We have our priorities all wrong.

On the other hand, while HT specified that eight people were injured, the rest used an obscure “many”. Even one person is important, and eight are many. But eight is not eighty. It alters how the government and police act upon it.

If the media is concerned about how these issues affect the polls, then they should be the first to maintain some sense of proportion.

The devil reporter wears emotions?

A rape apologist is somebody who condones rape, not one who reports on its verdict. The Steubenville trial has concentrated on making a devil of a reporter by comparing what she said with the terrible online comments. How concerned about rape are those who merely ‘followed’ the herd to outrage about the news?  All those who downloaded or watched the YouTube clips are as much rape apologists as Poppy Harlow. 

The CNN site and others have got many hits. Yet, who has bothered to even mention that she called it a “serious crime”?  That is just so tame and obvious, isn’t it? So, this quote from her has made it:

"Incredibly difficult, even for an outsider like me, to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believed their lives fell apart."

The screenshot reproduced by Mashable has the incessant query, “Not one word about the victim.” What do they want to know about the victim that has not been already reported? Is this a spectator sport? Trent Mays and Ma'Lik Richmond were sentenced for raping a 16-year-old by a juvenile court. Why are rapists punished? Because society needs to understand that they are committing a crime against women, against another human being. 

The idea is to make an example of them, and what better way than to mention that they were star football players and good students who had indeed lost it all for behaving in such an atrocious manner. Is this not the message that has to be sent across to other young men that, whoever you are, if you commit a crime, then this is what you get? 

One recalls other crimes, including mass murder and terrorism, where the convicts has been deemed insane. This results in covert sympathy, which is far worse.

You might ask: why was it difficult for a reporter or the news anchor to discuss emotions? Check out the comments. Anger is also an emotion. Pity is an emotion. Had the judge let them off, most people would have reacted emotionally. It was difficult to sit in the courtroom probably because both of the convicted got up and apologised to the family of the victim; one broke down. It is not about sympathy for their crime, but for their response to being punished. I would judge Harlow harshly had the verdict been innocent and she had said that this was an incredibly emotional moment watching as these two footballs stars and good students could return to a new life that awaited them. This was not the case.

A report further states:

(Candy) Crowley turned to legal expert Paul Callan who sounded almost apologetic when explaining how the rape conviction will mean that the Steubenville rapists will now be registered sex offenders and how that "will haunt them for the rest of their lives." None of these things said were untrue. But the tone was certainly a little off.

How does anyone decode that the tone was off? As I said, the report was about the trial, not on the rape. The emphasis ought to be on the rapists who will be tainted for the rest of their lives. This is as it should be, for the usual narrative is that it is the victim who is so tainted and who has to live with this all her life.  If, for the sake of argument, the tone sounded apologetic, it does not reverse the judgment. It brings to the fore that whatever anyone might feel those two young men will have to live with it, their futures have been mucked up. Justice has been done.  

Ohio attorney general Mike DeWine said after the verdict, "As I said already, any rape is a tragedy. But, it is even more of a tragedy when that victim is continually re-victimized in the social media."

This is what people should understand, instead of a typical knee-jerk reaction.

But, then, it is becoming increasingly impossible to do so.  Online abuses by anonymous blokes are being spread around by women, giving even more ammo to them.  How many of those reading these get sensitised? It just becomes part of the sickening term ‘rape culture’ that even well-known commentators use with impunity.

One report while rubbishing CNN – that I do not admire, anyway – talked about how the circus has just begun. Well, the moral high-standing falls flat on its face when you decide to ignore the crime and only watch the ensuing performance. How many referred to the victim while pulling up those who they think are rape apologists? Online warriors are primarily online voyeurs. This is being an apologist, too.

There is also a clear hierarchy regarding who to feel sympathy for. A few days ago in Mumbai, four men sodomised a eunuch, stubbed him with cigarettes, poured kerosene on him and threw him out of the moving car in which they committed the crime. Has there been any reaction to it except for a newspaper report? For all those who participate in the Gay Pride parade and offer lip sympathy to the LGBT community, this still remains an area of darkness. One of the reasons is that liberalism is all about accepting, but not questioning crimes towards the community as well as within it.

© Farzana Versey

Black Stiletto

The heels dug in. Innocence. Heels that caused dents in the tracks. Heel marks don't leave trails on concrete.

HORRIFIC. It was not the cry against the piercing sole but the pack that descended not allowing the heel to claim innocence.

The heels maintained their composure, we are told. It is a shoe store - heels on celluloid, heels in books, long promos and extracts to mark the day of the heel. To mark territory for new heels.

The heel went on a city tour, a city where she dreamed of walking on clouds and stamping feet all over them even if it was to make them weep. She went and prayed in church. Gods do not talk, god did not create heels. God is vegetating in imprisoned imaginations.

The heel turned her face away as a picture of skull and ribcage "intact" was flashed. News bulbs flashed. Innocence flashed. See, the heel had only made a few dents. Where are the pieces?

Black stilettos are statement pieces. They stand tall and when they fall it is merely a fashionable trip.

- - -

The heels belong to Maria Susairaj as she walked out of jail for a press conference. (I have cropped the newspaper picture.) Neeraj Grover's "friends from the TV industry" don't see the irony of the same industry offering her Rs 5 crore to appear in the reality show Bigg Boss.

It is okay to hold candle-light rallies. But will they be able to ensure that news channels do not give her some sort of heroic status? Will they be able to ensure that ads promoting any film on the subject are not screened?

Justice has to go beyond the courts.

- - -

A friend has told me that I often tend to get too personally involved in news stories. I see people. If oversensitivity is a crime, then I plead guilty.

I don't wear black stilettos.

Indian courts and forked tongues?

'Law and order' sounds like a curious term because the law does not seem to have any order.

The Supreme Court gets a 7-month itch

On September 30, the Allahabad High Court pronounced its threesome verdict about Babri-Masjid/Ayodhya ‘dispute’. Now, the Supreme Court has decided it is all wrong.

The 50-year legal battle for control of the 2.77 acres of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid will start from scratch, with the Supreme Court on Monday faulting and staying the Allahabad High Court order dividing the temple-mosque complex among Ram Lalla (the idol of Lord Rama), Hindus and Muslims.

“How can decree for partition be passed as the HC has done? Something very strange has been done by the HC on its own when no party had sought such a relief.”

What was it doing all these months? It is rather strange that both the Hindus and Muslims are satisfied with the stay order. They need not be because one really does not know when our courts start contradicting each other. As regards the farce of the early judgment, we got there before the SC in Ayodhya: Where 1=2

A few points from my piece reiterated here again:

1. My judiciary has instead taught me a new math. One is equal to two. The 2.77 acre land has been divided into three parts – one for the master, one for the slave and one for the little boy who cries down the lane.
2.  Has the judiciary defined what exactly it means by the term ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’?...
3. This secular democratic republic has copped out under the weight of its own mythology and given a verdict where religion IS the state…
4. This brings us to the third portion – the demolished mosque. It “belongs to Hindus”. Which Hindus? From an ancient era?

The court gets god

Back to the courts. This time to the Ahmedabad High Court. On May 1, Gujarat Day, the Governor and Chief Justice (CJ) of presided over the bhoomi pujan of a new building on the premises. Mumbai Mirror reported that Rajesh Solanki, who heads an Ambedkarite organisation called Council for Social Justice, wrote to the CJ and sent copies to the Union and State Home Secretaries. No one bothered, so he filed a PIL:

At the end of it, Justices Jayant Patel and J C Upadhyay called Solanki’s view ‘pervert’ [sic] and dismissed his petition with an ‘exemplary’ fine. Stating that the puja was for the successful completion of the proposed building, and for the larger interests of all those who would benefit from its construction, the order defined secularism as based on the principles of ‘Vasudev Kutumbakam’ (the world is one family). Differentiating between religion and ‘dharma’, the judges said dharma meant ‘sarva bhavantu sukinah’ (may everyone be happy).

Solanki took his plea to the Supreme Court, which dismissed it. He is persistent and says if it is about all religions then why are their rituals not included.

The CJ and Guv seeking 'happiness': captured by Solanki in a TV shot

Does the court have any right to call a person’s views perverted when he has said nothing of the nature? The bench should be sued for defamation.

I would like to ask a few further queries:

If constructed buildings benefit people, then what about those that are demolished or crash due to natural disasters? Since the Indian Constitution rules in law, what place do holy scriptures have? This ‘we are family’ cheesiness is best left for popcorn munching films or in social interactions. I find the distinction between religion and dharma rather facile. All religions in some form or the other wish everyone to be happy even if they kill each other in the name of some other happiness. Dharma is embedded within a certain religious idea and it is fair enough, but do not try and make a distinction to sneak out of a sense of responsibility.

I’d say this not only about Gujarat but any state in a non-theocratic country. You have absolutely no business to use government space to flash any kind of religious rituals. The true benefit of a new building would be better facilities for those who have to spend hours waiting for hearings and speedy justice delivered in a non-partisan fashion. This is what the courts are about. Please leave “I’m happy, you’re happy” to individuals.

The TOI pushes it

Is it proper for the Times of India to give its 'Times View' together with a report, as it has done in today’s edition in a piece on the Supreme Court and honour killings? Why are reports being editorialised? Although there is always a bias, this is just not done. There can be a separate editorial or opinion pieces, even if by the editor, and they already have a ‘pro’ and ‘con’ section. But to use a box item with a report goes against all journalistic ethics. There have been a few occasions when the Times View appeared on the front page, which is akin to shouting from the soap box.

What could be the compulsions behind pushing such ‘views’? Do they believe the readers are idiots and won’t know how to formulate their own opinions, if any, on the reports? Or is it insecurity? Or fake bravado – ‘See, we are standing up for the issue’? Spare us. We know what to look for where. And if you must show us how serious you are, then ask the hard questions and push the hard stories.

News meeows

True lies:

In times when exposes have become grandiose, Mumbai Mirror (Jan 11 issue) sent out its reporter to apply for membership to various political parties. He said he was a freelance web writer. This was enough to make him seem educated and he is young, too, which is what
everyone is looking for.

It is appalling to discover that one can become a member of any political party without anyone bothering to check on not only credentials but basic details. He even lied about his address.

The NCP was the quickest, followed by Shiv Sena, BJP and the MNS, whose office was also the most crowded. Within 48 hours he had laminated ID cards for all these parties. The Congress is the only one that asked for proof of address and PAN card number and the form he
has filled will take a week to process. I assume there will be some standard used for that.

What does this reveal? Party members can participate in several activities and have access to programmes organised by them. Should the person wish to take advantage, he can easily do so and there will not be any evidence. A fake name, a fake address, a fake profession - think about these the next time someone sells a political leader and party to you.

Are the political parties desperate or do they want such 'invisible'
people who can hide their shame?

- - -

True idiocy:

"It's true that the price of milk and vegetables are high. Some of this is a reflection of economic prosperity and purchasing power."

- Montek Singh Ahluwalia, deputy chairman, Planning Commission

Someone tell him that we are not talking about limited edition solitaires. A country's economic prosperity is judged by how it manages to improve its main sector - agriculture here.

The high cost of essentials, in fact, is a yardstick of poor policies. I heard someone say on a TV discussion on Doordarshan, I think, that if the price rise is being attributed to bad crop, then why are egg prices high? "Murgi ne tau andey dene band nahin kiye! (the hens have not stopped laying eggs)"

If our purchasing power is so high then even the fairly pricey restaurants would not be replacing onions with cabbages. But who's to tell these kings of fancy economic policies?

- - -

True grit:

This news has made me really happy.

Polio cases in India are down by 94 per cent from 741 in 2009 to 42 last year.

It seems like such a small thing but in our land of bad health care, superstition and lack of initiative, this shows we can do it if we genuinely want to.

Just two drops can save so many people of a debilitating disease and also closed minds.

I have an opinion, so what's your problem?

“Have you been there?” “How well do you know about the place, the person, the idea…?”

These queries have beset me and, I am certain, several others in the writing and more specifically the journalistic field. It is a valid query if one is reporting from the ground. It goes without saying that when you are at the scene, then you would gather some basics by the mere fact of being there. Is this sufficient?

Often the questions are not arising out of curiosity, but to pin you down, to challenge not your knowledge but your opinion. When I had written about the Indian army, among the several responses there was one that assumed that I had never met an armyman in my life. I had, rather cockily, said that I had not met god and yet wrote about religion. In further areas I have been put on the mat for different reasons.

I would like to put myself through self-scrutiny. I do not write on subjects, even opinion pieces, of which I have no knowledge or very little. The financial area is one; technology is another; science is fascinating, so I try and understand some nuances. But, it is not possible to have first-hand knowledge about everything one opines about.

So, how does one form opinions? There are strong opinions and reasonable ones. There are opinions that are reactions or come from a strong belief. The responses to them are also opinions. We consider a viewpoint reasonable when it confirms our beliefs or when it ostensibly looks balanced.

I am mortified of balanced opinions; you can give two sides of a story but it is as you see it, not as it necessarily is. Therefore, the balance lies in sitting on the fence and watching both sides and it includes the experience of sitting on the fence and the sore-ass it causes.

A logical opinion is one where the person tries to string together the threads of disparate thought processes; it is essentially seeking to make sense of the noises in the head, but you’d never be able to tell! While we use the term loosely, ‘personal opinion’ is tautology. All opinions are personal, unless you are sponging on someone else’s views or relying on research even to form an opinion, which is the last refuge of the scrounger.

Now, there are some opinions that are considered kneejerk. As the recipient of this honorific often, I must say that such rashness is possible when you know you are entering where angels fear to tread. It is akin to a satanic rite of passage, perhaps the predecessor of the more honourable devil’s advocate that I love playing. There are certain subjects that one has internalised or understood or discussed before and what comes forth is impulsive and spontaneous, but it is also a reaction. To assume that a reaction put in words has no merit makes little sense; it springs from a strong feeling. Are feelings opinions? Indeed, they are. Belief or disbelief without emotion is mercenary. The expression of it need not be emotive, though.

So, how does one form opinions? I think conditioning plays a very minor part if you are highly individualistic. The environment is crucial not because it influences you, but it makes you respond to it for what it is and how it ought to be. In this ‘ought to be’ aspect lies one’s ability to chart a mental course. It could be a tried-and-tested formula or out-of-the-box thinking. Some people change their opinions according to what is convenient. These are chattels to the available material. However, if the alteration in perspective arises due to deep thought or disillusionment with an ideology, then it is not turn-coat behaviour.

This long but necessary preamble brings us to the queries posed to opinion-makers. There is much scientific endeavour expended on finding things from little tubes. Here, hypothesis is an opinion that is sought to be proved. An artist’s painting on canvas is an opinion of an event or an abstraction; s/he may have not been there in the first instance and it is not possible to do so in the other. A writer of fiction is expressing an opinion through the characters.

If you were to ask anyone what they think about a political event, party, figure or a film, film star or celebrities or even the person in the street, they will have something to say. 

Why then is the person writing in the newspapers made answerable? I have not been to Bihar, just as Manmohan Singh has never contested an election. One has to have some basic knowledge, some facts, some ideas formulated in the past to reach certain conclusions. We know about poverty, about the caste system, about crimes, about feudalism, about lack of basic facilities, about the economic elitist idea, about politicians…there is a process of transposition and an understanding that conjecture is based on some edifice or precedent. We can be on different sides but the basic facts remain. How we see those facts – whether we take them at face value or bore holes into them or hang them from a pole are opinions.

One may question opinions but not the existence of them. It is like wondering about dreams, but no one can deny the existence of sleep. Of course, it is possible to argue that daydreams are more potent. But that is just my personal opinion.

And, yes, if some people think I am opinionated as hell then they must thank me for giving a sneak preview of what they too have no clue about!