N.Ram continues his tirade against his bete noire, Narendra Modi and in the process belittles the intelligence of his readers. Caught with his pants down in his truncated presentation of a Defence Ministry note, he is now unleashing a fusillade of weak arguments from his fellow journalists in The Hindu.
Varghese K.George claims to present four reasons why the attacks on The Hindu story on Rafale are 'shallow' and 'self-incriminating'. Let us see how logical these four reasons are.
1) "Investigative stories come in drips." "No single report on the story is the last word on it." Nobody contests these motherhood statements. The criticism is not against reporting in instalments. What is questioned as duplicity is presentation of a part of a page and deliberate omission to include the minister's observation which is included in the same page. This omission is plain deception and not mere mischief. It is silly to conveniently modify the criticism and address the modified criticism. This is a subterfuge.
By quoting Carl Bernstein, "We are reporters. Not judges. Not legislators. What the government or citizens or judges do with the information we have developed is not our part of the process nor our objective" The Hindu is hoist with its own petard. N.Ram has failed to act as a reporter. He is blatantly judgmental. His objective of derailing the Rafale deal is as clear as daylight.
2) "Parikkar note implicates, not absolves, the PMO." So what? Is the journalist not giving the game away here? Has he not come to a judgment that Parikkar's note is implicatory? Is Carl Bernstein forgotten?
Interpretation of Parikkar's note is not the issue. The issue is why this observation of Parikkar was left out. If N.Ram accepts that the omission was a mistake, there is no need for further argument. But his hubris and narcissistic monomania will not let him accept his mistake. He makes other journalists in The Hindu to toe his line and further mislead the readers.
3) "PMO role in negotiations hidden from the SC." Words speak for themselves. A non-judgmental expression would be 'PMO role not disclosed'. Usage of the word 'hidden' gives the journalist's game away. The Hindu has decided that the PMO was an active player in negotiations. Therefore, the assertion that the PMO was only monitoring falls on deaf ears. How could these journalists forget the pain brought on the nation by Manmohan Singh's turning a blind eye to the shenanigans committed under his nose? Do these journalists want an ineffective prime minister who does not monitor what his ministers are doing?
4) "PMO role is not supervisory or of oversight; it is blindsiding the principal ministry." Again, is the journalist not judgmental? When a journalist is blind to a part of the note contained in the same page either by design or by negligence, he becomes delinquent and instead of informing the readers, he becomes a 'rogue journalist'.
Mr.Ram and his ilk have the freedom to misread the intentions and actions of national leaders, but they cannot arrogate to themselves any right to mislead the readers. Let them keep their coloured glasses to themselves and do the readers a favour by desisting from propagating misinterpreted and opportunistically truncated information.
In sum, Ram and The Hindu have first come to a conclusion that Narendra Modi has not played fair and are now trying to fit half-truths and half-concealed faxes to suit their premature conclusions. This is not what Carl Bernstein advocated.
Varghese K.George claims to present four reasons why the attacks on The Hindu story on Rafale are 'shallow' and 'self-incriminating'. Let us see how logical these four reasons are.
1) "Investigative stories come in drips." "No single report on the story is the last word on it." Nobody contests these motherhood statements. The criticism is not against reporting in instalments. What is questioned as duplicity is presentation of a part of a page and deliberate omission to include the minister's observation which is included in the same page. This omission is plain deception and not mere mischief. It is silly to conveniently modify the criticism and address the modified criticism. This is a subterfuge.
By quoting Carl Bernstein, "We are reporters. Not judges. Not legislators. What the government or citizens or judges do with the information we have developed is not our part of the process nor our objective" The Hindu is hoist with its own petard. N.Ram has failed to act as a reporter. He is blatantly judgmental. His objective of derailing the Rafale deal is as clear as daylight.
2) "Parikkar note implicates, not absolves, the PMO." So what? Is the journalist not giving the game away here? Has he not come to a judgment that Parikkar's note is implicatory? Is Carl Bernstein forgotten?
Interpretation of Parikkar's note is not the issue. The issue is why this observation of Parikkar was left out. If N.Ram accepts that the omission was a mistake, there is no need for further argument. But his hubris and narcissistic monomania will not let him accept his mistake. He makes other journalists in The Hindu to toe his line and further mislead the readers.
3) "PMO role in negotiations hidden from the SC." Words speak for themselves. A non-judgmental expression would be 'PMO role not disclosed'. Usage of the word 'hidden' gives the journalist's game away. The Hindu has decided that the PMO was an active player in negotiations. Therefore, the assertion that the PMO was only monitoring falls on deaf ears. How could these journalists forget the pain brought on the nation by Manmohan Singh's turning a blind eye to the shenanigans committed under his nose? Do these journalists want an ineffective prime minister who does not monitor what his ministers are doing?
4) "PMO role is not supervisory or of oversight; it is blindsiding the principal ministry." Again, is the journalist not judgmental? When a journalist is blind to a part of the note contained in the same page either by design or by negligence, he becomes delinquent and instead of informing the readers, he becomes a 'rogue journalist'.
Mr.Ram and his ilk have the freedom to misread the intentions and actions of national leaders, but they cannot arrogate to themselves any right to mislead the readers. Let them keep their coloured glasses to themselves and do the readers a favour by desisting from propagating misinterpreted and opportunistically truncated information.
In sum, Ram and The Hindu have first come to a conclusion that Narendra Modi has not played fair and are now trying to fit half-truths and half-concealed faxes to suit their premature conclusions. This is not what Carl Bernstein advocated.
No comments:
Post a Comment