| Author | Message | ||
     Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 3759 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
case prove ayyina avvakapoyina modi CM ga vunantha varaku congress has no hopes in gujarat anukuntunna.....gujarat lo modi ni entha target cheste antha nastam...their strategy is to confine modi to gujarat and make him unacceptable outside gujarat..... | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 14748 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
vaarini .. inthoti "evidence" ke naa chokkalu chimpukuntunnaru .. delhi lo congress vaallu .. okati gurtu pettukovaali .. ee case prove aithe .. Amit Shah political life ni encounter chesina vaallu avutaru .. but case prove avvakapothe matram .. Guj state lo Congress ni marchipovachu inka .. which will likely be their fate at a later day .. Ab bhi jiska khoon na khola - khoon nahi wo paani hai, jo desh ke kaam na aye - wo bekaar jawani hay | ||
| Kamal Hero Username: Kamal Post Number: 14747 Registered: 08-2009 Posted From: 24.0.123.37 Rating: N/A |
Swapan writes awesome stuff, almost everytime without bias .. and sadly and ironically .. he does not represent mainstream media .. btw .. in my honest opinion .. had the media that we had at the time of independence .. like the same dainik bhaskar, nav bharat times, andhra patrika, anand bazaar patrika .. played GOD, as the media today is playing .. I would not have a problem .. they were honest and had the integrity .. the problem with today's media is, at their very best, can be an illegitimate child born to a prostitute with many political fathers ! Ab bhi jiska khoon na khola - khoon nahi wo paani hai, jo desh ke kaam na aye - wo bekaar jawani hay | ||
| Vjavasi Side Hero Username: Vjavasi Post Number: 3753 Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 75.131.192.17 Rating: N/A |
http://dailypioneer.com/271562/Media-Plaintiff-prosecutor-ju dge.html Media: Plaintiff, prosecutor, judge Swapan Dasgupta Next to playing god, contemporary journalism is built on the principles of infallibility and public gullibility. Journalists and pompous editors are disinclined to admit that, being humans, they too can make mistakes and commit errors of judgement. More crucially, a misplaced sense of self-esteem has proved inimical to a sense of contrition. Like love, journalism usually means never having to say you are sorry. Of course, honest mistakes can and do happen. Since information is subject to human interventions and interpretation, the scope for being misled by âsourcesâ loath to see Yudhisthir as a role model is enormous. This may explain why old-fashioned practitioners of the trade strove to highlight the important distinction between verified reality and unsubstantiated claims or allegations. Both have a place in reportage but only when it is clear which is which. One of the casualties of the tabloid culture and popular TV is that scepticism (Iâd even say cynicism) has been replaced by certitude. Like the old Bollywood potboilers, the media seems to be driven by a macabre desire to divide humankind into the good and the bad â with the media, naturally, on the side of their chosen good. This undaunted sense of partisanship (depending on political preferences, nationality and commerce) is compounded by some robust demonology that transforms the âbadâ into both the âuglyâ and the âevilâ. In a made-in-media society, this misplaced self-righteousness can have a hideously distorting effect on public discourse. Journalists are naturally dependant on non-attributable âsourcesâ for both insider information and perspectives. The problem, however, begins when the âsourcesâ start taking over the finished product. This seems to be happening in India with alarming frequency, especially now that the âsourcesâ have got it into their heads that they are not going to be held accountable for anything they dish out to news-hungry journalists in a fiercely competitive environment. The unending quest for the âexclusiveâ has turned a large section of mediapersons into stenographers. They have become captives to official dictation. In the past 48 hours, India has witnessed a fierce trial by media targeting the favourite ogre of the liberal consensus: The Government of Gujarat. The CBI has charged Amit Shah, one of Chief Minister Narendra Modiâs closest political associates, with a direct hand in the âencounter deathsâ of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kauserbi and his associate Tulsiram Prajapati. It has alleged that Shah, who was Minister of State for Home till his resignation on Saturday, conspired to kill Sohrabuddin, not because he was a suspected terrorist intent on killing Modi â the police in Madhya Pradesh had recovered some 300 AK47s from his home â but because he was running a protection and extortion racket with his favourite police officers. It has been suggested that Shah targeted Sohrabuddin at the behest of some harassed marble traders of Rajasthan. Prajapati and Kauserbi were on the other hand killed because they knew too much. These are grave charges, particularly when levelled against a senior political functionary. It is almost akin to Home Minister P Chidambaram or his Andhra Pradesh counterpart being formally charged with organising an âencounterâ killing of the CPI(Maoist) Politburo member Azad and âjournalistâ Pandey. If these charges are upheld by the courts they would undeniably constitute a damning indictment of the State Government. For the moment, however, the CBIâs voluminous chargesheet is at the level of accusations. Shah hasnât yet presented his defence, and nor has the investigation been endorsed by the Supreme Court which is monitoring the case. On the contrary, the BJP has charged the CBI of being a compliant arm of the Congress. Modiâs public proclamation of Shahâs innocence and the BJPâs decision to throw its political weight rests on the belief that Shah has been targeted on flimsy grounds, perhaps as a prelude to a full-scale legal assault on Modi. The BJP leaders who have examined the evidence say that the case against Shah is based on three substantive points. First, it is claimed that Shah was in constant telephonic contact with DG Vanzara, the police officer charged with the âencounterâ killings. However, there is nothing in the records to indicate that on the days Sohrabuddin and Prajapati were killed, Shah spoke to either Vanzara or the other policemen charged with the killings. Second, the CBI has relied on the testimony of Raman Patel and Dasrath Patel, two âhistory-sheetersâ who claimed that they met Shah to get cases against them under the Gujarat Act against anti-socials removed. In that meeting, Shah is apparently said to have told these complete strangers that Sohrabuddin had to be eliminated for political reasons. The BJP claims that there are no cases under the anti-social behaviour law against the two Patels and neither is there any record of any meeting of Shah with them. Moreover, as is well known in Gujarat, Shah is extremely taciturn and not given to boasting. Finally, the CBI has relied on the testimony of a jailed policeman who claims that a phone call Vanzara received (said to be on the day Kauserbi disappeared) was âpresumablyâ from Shah. There are apparently no records to substantiate the claim. The weight of the evidence against Shah will be assessed by the trial court. What is clear is that the CBI charges donât amount to an open and shut case which can be decided by a media combining the roles of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. There have been enough instances of tall claims made by authorities being effortlessly punctured in courts. However, the mismatch between reality and claim rarely get reported. Media certitude is frequently shown to be baseless. This may be why it is rewarding to play stenographer to those who are politically on top today. Tomorrowâs flip-flop is another day. |
