The Ugly Spat of Journists...Where is The Problem!??
Recently, one famous journalist, Barkha Dutt, took on another very famous jouranlist, Arnab Goswami. While Goswami referred to Barkha Dutt as, "“pseudo-secular and pro-Pakistan”", she shot back calling him, "“cowardly hypocrite".
While the spat like these may go on between such top level journalists, it brings us to the question -- what is the duty of media in a country like India and where does it need to draw the line?
The stand of NDTV seems to be, at least on paper, that a media house has to be extremely neutral in its reporting. One of their reporters had cited the example of BBC to support this view of theirs. BBC, a top English news channel in UK, calls the British Army as "The British Army" whenever UK is involved in any war. It refrains from using the words like, "Our Armed Forces or Our Army", indicating the neutral stand they maintain. The implication of such philosophy is that a news channel has to be extremely honest in reporting the facts from the holistic point of view, even at the cost of being labelled "Anti Patriotic". I mean this is what I understand. I may be wrong! So, for example, in case of recent Kashmir controversy, the reporting of NDTV may also cover the issue from two to three perspectives -- from the perspective of the Indian Armed Forces, from the perspective of local Kashimiri people and from the perspective of the Kashmiri political leaders. NDTV, on an average, seems to be avoiding to take a stand and focus on reporting the facts from various perspectives--once again, that is what I understand from the way they report.
Times Now, on the other hand, seems to have a philosophy of taking up a stand--sometimes a bold stand--and then support it at any cost. For example, in case of the Kashmir issue, it seems to be behaving like a patriotic news channel. The style of reporting, the way the facts are presented and the ways in which debates takes place--all seem to be indicating that Times Now does take a stand and supports it whole heartedly. I repeat the above line once again--this is my understanding of Times Now.
All other media channels seem to be lying in between these two extreme philosophies. It brings us to the basic question once again: what is the duty of media? Simply report the facts without any bias or take a stand and support it?
I leave the question open and every reader is free to decide her / his own answer.
Written by
Pathik B. Variya
Assistant Professor & Placement Coordinator at MBA Dept, Dharmsinh Desai University
While the spat like these may go on between such top level journalists, it brings us to the question -- what is the duty of media in a country like India and where does it need to draw the line?
The stand of NDTV seems to be, at least on paper, that a media house has to be extremely neutral in its reporting. One of their reporters had cited the example of BBC to support this view of theirs. BBC, a top English news channel in UK, calls the British Army as "The British Army" whenever UK is involved in any war. It refrains from using the words like, "Our Armed Forces or Our Army", indicating the neutral stand they maintain. The implication of such philosophy is that a news channel has to be extremely honest in reporting the facts from the holistic point of view, even at the cost of being labelled "Anti Patriotic". I mean this is what I understand. I may be wrong! So, for example, in case of recent Kashmir controversy, the reporting of NDTV may also cover the issue from two to three perspectives -- from the perspective of the Indian Armed Forces, from the perspective of local Kashimiri people and from the perspective of the Kashmiri political leaders. NDTV, on an average, seems to be avoiding to take a stand and focus on reporting the facts from various perspectives--once again, that is what I understand from the way they report.
Times Now, on the other hand, seems to have a philosophy of taking up a stand--sometimes a bold stand--and then support it at any cost. For example, in case of the Kashmir issue, it seems to be behaving like a patriotic news channel. The style of reporting, the way the facts are presented and the ways in which debates takes place--all seem to be indicating that Times Now does take a stand and supports it whole heartedly. I repeat the above line once again--this is my understanding of Times Now.
All other media channels seem to be lying in between these two extreme philosophies. It brings us to the basic question once again: what is the duty of media? Simply report the facts without any bias or take a stand and support it?
I leave the question open and every reader is free to decide her / his own answer.
Written by
Pathik B. Variya
Assistant Professor & Placement Coordinator at MBA Dept, Dharmsinh Desai University
