"BarkhaGate" Scandal

blr_p said:
The solution to that is to search for better writers or be selective, not give up. Its one of those broad sweeping statements that tarnishes every journalist.
I think there are many good writers out there but the problem is different.

blr_p said:
Watch tonight's 'The Last Word'. They say its not the journalists but the editors per se that direct what can and cannot be said. There is an agenda and no journalist can ignore it. They then say that the ad-budgets are so high that they can pay several newspapers to get the stories they want. This means the smaller publications or lesser circulated ones are likely to be more objective. The problem in a nutshell is we do not get objective news.
You are thinking in "micro" terms. They are talking about private treaties. Do a google search.

John from RTE has made the obvious points on this new age of journalism

blr_p said:
The other point brought up was that it should be stipulated by law WHO pays more than 10% of a media's budget as well editors and leading journalists having to declare their assets. This declaration of assets is because they are public figures despite the fact they work for private corps. And finally that they ought to be a readers ombudsman for each publication. They menitoned that the Hindu is the only newspaper that currently has such an ombudsman.
At what price does ToI sell it's newspaper? Or most other papers? How is DNA able to give me a year's subscription for 250-300 rupees? How do they recover the cost of the paper? Obviously, its not just advertisements but paid news and lot of other things in the side. I mean, what sort of money are we talking about if they are able to subsidize for all of india.

As the print media starts becoming "sincere", it'll begin loosing advertisements among other things. It'll have to recover that cost from it's readers. Isn't the west experiencing a decline in paid newspapers... you can guess what happened.
 
broadway said:
I think there are many good writers out there but the problem is different.
The problem is there is no distinction between ads and news. How does one tell the difference ?

Comments like 'TOIlet' i find are useless because they say avoid any bennet coleman publication, in toto. I read an article i want to know how to spot the spin and whether what the article tells me is objective or not. The only way you can tell is if you are involved in the industry otherwise not. This leaves you nowhere.

broadway said:
You are thinking in "micro" terms. They are talking about private treaties.
Here's another in the NYT.

Mint mentions the second report (here) put out by press council only talks in broad terms, it does not name any names. Because when it initially came out publishers compained that all the evidence was circumstantial.

I remember reading about private treaties a cpl yrs back or so, TOI used to have a webpage that indicated who they had links with. If its mentioned at the bottom of every article then its clear, but they don't do this and thats where the lines between ads and objective reporting get blurred.

broadway said:
John from RTE has made the obvious points on this new age of journalism
His blog post is a summary of what the PCI report which mentions an even bigger problem of election time 'paid news'. Your views on a candidate can be distorted depending on how much a candidate pays the media for favourable reports. Thats a much bigger problem than corporates doing it. Papers usually don't like to say too bad things about the govt because the govt is a huge advertiser in papers.

broadway said:
At what price does ToI sell it's newspaper? Or most other papers? How is DNA able to give me a year's subscription for 250-300 rupees? How do they recover the cost of the paper? Obviously, its not just advertisements but paid news and lot of other things in the side. I mean, what sort of money are we talking about if they are able to subsidize for all of india.
Advts compromise ~75% of a paper's revenue. Subscriptions is supposed to fill in the remainder.

I don't see any reasons for paid news to blur the boundaries of ads and news at all. The only reason its like this now is because there are no rules that stipulate flagging which is which in the paper.

broadway said:
As the print media starts becoming "sincere", it'll begin loosing advertisements among other things. It'll have to recover that cost from it's readers. Isn't the west experiencing a decline in paid newspapers... you can guess what happened.
The well known papers have to cut costs, but they are not going to dissapear. Smaller ones will just syndicate from the bigger well known names.

Who's going to replace the established newspapers. bloggers ? lol, they feed off the established media and have a parasitic but still useful relationship. If anything the need for capable objective journalism will never go away.
 
blr_p said:
I read an article i want to know how to spot the spin and whether what the article tells me is objective or not. The only way you can tell is if you are involved in the industry otherwise not. This leaves you nowhere.
Other wire services! You cross check and verify. It is one of the reasons why i cancelled my ToI subscription. Sadly, only the people who have access to the internet can do this free of cost. The general public does not subscribe to six different newspapers. I don't think outlook in sold at all stands. The people who are against NDTV and IBN are the few who probably have access to multiple news sources. Why will the channel fire barkha to satisfy this segment of the crowd?

Whistle-blowers exist everywhere. How did the wikileaks get hold of the diplomatic cables? Cause a private within the US army spilled the beans.

blr_p said:
I remember reading about private treaties a cpl yrs back or so, TOI used to have a webpage that indicated who they had links with. If its mentioned at the bottom of every article then its clear, but they don't do this and thats where the lines between ads and objective reporting get blurred.
Why would the corporations continue dealing with a newspaper if the paper decides to mark those favourable articles as "paid media" or "advertisement"?

Maybe this has gone too far. Maybe they have become dependent on each other. Maybe if the corporations do not fund or help subsidize the papers, it'll begin to decline.

blr_p said:
His blog post is a summary of what the PCI report which mentions an even bigger problem of election time 'paid news'. Your views on a candidate can be distorted depending on how much a candidate pays the media for favourable reports. Thats a much bigger problem than corporates doing it. Papers usually don't like to say too bad things about the govt because the govt is a huge advertiser in papers.
I club both the corporates and the politicians together. Because both instruct the papers to deceive the readers and both act as a source of funds.

In the barkha-radia tapes, the businessmen, the politicians and the journalist acted in co-ordination. Niira radia connected all of them. Whether they knew all the big people in the their little game is impossible to find out because of lack of more evidence.

blr_p said:
Who's going to replace the established newspapers. bloggers ?
Yes they will stay but its not journalism any more.

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

Arjun said:
Ethics in journalism are subjective. Hence, you start looking for bench marks. If is why n ram on war of words said that if vir and barkha had been working for forbes or financial times, they'd been sent packing right away.

Vinod made an important point which had to be made. Everything was black and white. They was nothing grey. There was nothing grey about the radia-barkha tapes to engage in arbitrary arguments.

I never had a good opinion on sardesai. I think he tried very hard to justify "paid news", "private treaties", the "proximities" political journalists had to make to get the scoops.

The lady in the back raised an excellent point. Rajdeep sardesai talks about compromises. He talks about the compromises some political journalists(like barkha) make to get news scoops. He spends 15 minutes screaming and justifying about those who have sold out. Bullsh!t.

Neena vyas covered the BJP for more than 30 years and when they made offers, she never gave in. Sucheeta dalaal of money life made many compromises when she wrote what she really felt. The RBI blocked her. SEBI does not meet her or talk to her. The finance ministry does not entertain her. These people never sold out. Shouldn't their compromises be brought up first?
 
jith77 said:
This one talks about election time 'paid news as summarsied in the PCI reprt i linked to in my last post.

jith77 said:
Campaign managers have told me that newspapers in Indian languages—which are sometimes held up in the English language press as more ‘authentic’—are often the worst offenders.

How sad :(

India currently has more purchased daily newspapers in print than any other country, and is one of the only places on earth where advertising in papers and magazines is still growing.
broadway, this is why things are booming here, more ppl buying rather than just paid news pumping revenues up.

The technology writer Sree Sreenivasan has suggested that Indians approach social media sites ‘with great passion’ because they allow them ‘to do two things they love:
- Tell everyone what they are doing; and
- stick their noses into other people’s business’.
Typical Indian mentality :lol:

In the meantime, publications with an established brand name and well-known writers are in a defining position. In the upmarket foreign media, the handful of Indian contributors are distinguished principally by their homogeneity—their views run the gamut of ideas from hard left to liberal left.
Yep, not a lot on offer if you want right-of-centre :(

People want to read articles and books and to watch TV shows that can make sense of an ever more complex and fluid world, even though the conventional thinking is that everything has to be dumbed down. As the digital revolution speeds up and alters over the coming years, and gallops off in directions we cannot yet imagine, there will be a growing demand for quality. Somebody will always have to write good journalism.
Yep :)

jith77 said:
incase anyone missed these...interesting what is said abt fox news
Fox offers a right of centre viewpoint which you won't get with CNN which is liberal. Fox is pretty clear about it and there is a demand for republican viewpoints.
 
blr_p said:
broadway, this is why things are booming here, more ppl buying rather than just paid news pumping revenues up.
But it is still subsidized. I doubt if ads+subscriptions covers the cost of the paper. They still need to pay to the thousands of journalists they employ all around the country and abroad. A year of DNA's subscription comes to Rs. 0.75-1.00 a day. How the hell does that work? My guess is that the people buy it, the more funds the newspaper company needs to subsidize it.

I think if the papers can show a huge enough subscriber rate, then maybe one or another corporate firm will come forward to sponsor it in return for paid news, private treaties etc etc. The future of the paper then becomes stable, provided it maintains its subscriber base.
 
Arjun said:
Finally got time to watch this in its entirety and it was quite good. One solid hour.

Have to say Rahul Kanwal is not exactly in the same league as the other hosts i prefer but in this show it was the guests that carried the show. They really go into what the lines are, where they've been crossed etc. There is also an indirect message for heads to roll, just as it has with various ministers then so should the same apply with journalists that have asked the same of ministers. Don't think i've heard it being put that way from the other channels so far.

Are Barkha & Snaghvi going to be axed :)

That NDTV's MD hinted that this is a corporate war implies no way where Barkha is concerned.

I thought sanhgvi carried himself pretty well, at least a little better than Barkha did but he only took a few questions by the host and there was no interaction with the other guests, unlike with Barka.

But afterwards they slammed both of their replies. They refused that Sanghvi had even apologised pointing out that he did not say he was sorry but only to those that he had let down. Hehe, what a smoothie this sanghvi is :D

They also talked about how they did not want to ask the journalists concerned because they felt that many interests would have tried to block it one way or the other. So they took a judgement call and went with it.
 
blr_p said:
Fox offers a right of centre viewpoint which you won't get with CNN which is liberal. Fox is pretty clear about it and there is a demand for republican viewpoints.
How is it any different from paid news?.....Maybe they didnt get paid for publishing anything scripted, but still favouring one side/party and that ensuring paychecks from the party means there is an financial motive to take one side

and being popular does have the side effect of having more contributors...meaning more money power to fund media...meaning even more popularity and so on

to quote whats written in the article:

" In its total effect it may be no worse than a TV channel employing a swathe of commentators from one party, as has happened with Fox News in the US: countless eminent Republican politicians are well-paid contributors to Fox".
 
jith77 said:
How is it any different from paid news?.....
The editor's policy is to take a conservative position on the news. It caters to a demographic that is not interested in a liberal take. That demographic is sizeable enough to make the enterprise profitable because it fills a need.

Paid news is putting out what others tell you to do and is not quite the same thing.

jith77 said:
Maybe they didnt get paid for publishing anything scripted, but still favouring one side/party and that ensuring paychecks from the party means there is an financial motive to take one side
Their argument is that their point of view is not adequately represented by mainstream media, that they are making a difference in doing so.

Why should only liberals have a monopoly in the media ?

But i bet it does not seem that way to you because you are liberal and perceive the media to be neutral. A conservative will look at FOX and say FOX is neutral and that CNN is biased. All depends on where you stand :)

jith77 said:
and being popular does have the side effect of having more contributors...meaning more money power to fund media...meaning even more popularity and so on
I would not say they are popular, they cater to a minority that is significant. Popular is always the liberal mainstream.

jith77 said:
to quote whats written in the article:

" In its total effect it may be no worse than a TV channel employing a swathe of commentators from one party, as has happened with Fox News in the US: countless eminent Republican politicians are well-paid contributors to Fox".
They're just taking a lame shot at FOX, i do not accept the comparison as valid. Be wary of those that hate FOX because they have their own agenda as well. Both sides want to limit dissent of their views ;)
My position is that there be a diversity of views being expressed. The more options the better. You do not see the difference here because in India there are only two poles either hard left or liberal left. The conservatives have not really crystallised into anything substantial as yet. That day will come though. Its a natural progression. I look forward to a FOX India.
 
Home Secretary G.K. Pillai: The Real Radia Tapes Are Coming
So you think you’ve already heard the damning evidence in 2G-Gate, Radia-Gate, Barkha-Gate, Raja-Gate, or whatever you want to call it?

Well, think again.

Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai said in an interview to the Wall Street Journal that the roughly 100 tapes that have been leaked to the Indian media – recordings of wiretapped calls between corporate lobbyist Niira Radia and the country’s journalistic and political power brokers – barely scratch the surface of the stuff that will be at the heart of the government’s investigation.

The tapes that have come out contain only “juicy elements†meant by the leakers to “titillate†the media, he said, while the remaining 5,000-plus recordings contain the details that will actually assist investigators as they draw up formal charges against wrongdoers.

“The investigation part is much more, which has not yet come out,†said Mr. Pillai, the top bureaucrat in the Home Ministry, which oversees domestic security issues and approves wiretap requests by central government agencies. “The parts that have come out aren’t really connected to the investigation.â€

What’s gotten the most attention from the calls released thus far, as India Real Time has reported in detail, are questions of media ethics and integrity stemming from the dealings Hindustan Times columnist Vir Sanghvi and NDTV group editor Barkha Dutt had with Ms. Radia; a trove of conversations on the formation of the Indian Cabinet last year; and the Ambani brothers’ feud.

Apparently none of that has anything to do with the legal case going forward. Mr. Pillai said he gave the go-ahead to bug Ms. Radia’s phone to further a tax-evasion investigation. Asked how that probe is connected to the controversial allocation of so-called 2G mobile phone spectrum in 2008, he would only say that the potentially illegal movement of funds in and out of India is being scrutinized closely. He declined to offer further specifics on who will likely be charged and for what specifically.

One of Ms. Radia’s public relations firms, Vaishnavi Group, has said that the company is “fully transparent†and that the lobbyist is cooperating with financial authorities. The firm declined to immediately comment further on Monday.

Mr. Pillai said the leaking of the Radia tapes has spooked India’s corporate establishment, with honchos of India Inc. now calling him to find out if they, too, are being tapped. (Tata Group Chairman Ratan Tata, whose firm is one of Ms. Radia’s clients, has told India’s Supreme Court that the disclosure of recordings of his personal conversations with her that were totally unrelated to the government’s probe violated his privacy.)

Mr. Pillai said the fears of widespread wiretapping are much exaggerated and that he follows strict guidelines in approving any surveillance.

He said the government has about 6,000 to 8,000 wiretaps happening at any point, and only about 3% to 5% of them are for corporate or white-collar investigations. wow

Investigators must show him some evidence that a suspect has done something illegal – a document, an email, a bank statement.

Each wiretap can go for a maximum of 60 days before his approval must be sought again. And Mr. Pillai’s authorizations are reviewed every two weeks by a board including the telecom secretary, Cabinet secretary and law secretary, he says.

Meanwhile, elected politicians at both the state and central government levels are not wiretapped as a matter of policy, he says. The only way investigators could hear their conversations is if they happened to be caught on the other end of the line talking to a bugged individual, as happened when Ms. Radia had phone conversations with former telecom minister A. Raja about the status of his position in the cabinet appointments that followed last year’s election. (Those calls were among those that were leaked.)

Mr. Pillai said he is concerned that the Radia tapes leaked and is awaiting the results of a government inquiry into how the disclosure happened.

But he said all the Radia tapes will likely become public at some point anyway, since the Supreme Court has asked for a full set of copies and can be petitioned to release them eventually. Then, “u can’t do pick and choose,†he said. “Everything will come out.â€
 
The tapes that have come out contain only “juicy elements” meant by the leakers to “titillate” the media, he said,
Meaning what's put out so far isn't enough to make definitive statements as i claimed :)

They just pose questions, in need of an answer.

while the remaining 5,000-plus recordings contain the details that will actually assist investigators as they draw up formal charges against wrongdoers.
This is where the answers will be found if and when they release them.

But he said all the Radia tapes will likely become public at some point anyway, since the Supreme Court has asked for a full set of copies and can be petitioned to release them eventually. Then, “you can’t do pick and choose,” he said. “Everything will come out.”
When ?

If any incriminating stuff is found it will be sub-judice to release until the case is concluded.
 
Forget journalistic ethics. The Radia tapes have wider implications
It’s interesting, then, that in a season of multi-billion dollar scandals that has seen India’s 24/7 news machine at its probing, questioning, investigative best, one — perhaps bigger and more serious than all the rest — has failed to make the hourly bulletins.
...
due to the embarrassing proximity that the Indian media elite have to the most controversial dialogues amongst her web of business, political and journalism sources, full-blown coverage has not been seen.

Save the outrage to the wall of silence seen on social networking website Twitter, only Open magazine, which first published the tapes last month and a handful of other publications have given column inches to the story.
Govindacharya to move court to make ‘Radia tapes’ public
Former BJP leader and ideologue K N Govindacharya today said he would move a court of law seeking that transcripts of the ‘Niira Radia’ tapes allegedly related to the 2G spectrum allocation scam should be made public.

“The transcripts of the tapes should be made public as I feel they do not come under the Right to Privacy. If the court feels that some parts of the transcripts violated the Right to Privacy, those parts should be removed,†Mr Govindacharya told reporters here.

Claiming that people have the right to know what was there in the transcripts, Mr Govindacharya said he was holding discussions with legal experts to file an appeal in court for making the transcripts public.
 
broadway said:
It's good he is doing this :)

“The transcripts of the tapes should be made public as I feel they do not come under the Right to Privacy. If the court feels that some parts of the transcripts violated the Right to Privacy, those parts should be removed,” Mr Govindacharya told reporters here.

Absolutely agree.

Let's have it out there once and for all without having to resort to innuendo & insinuations.
 
i guess the timing of Mr. Tata to reveal that he couldnot start a plane because he didnot want to pay a bribe , was clearly wrong huh
 
^yes apparently the tatas were asked about 150 crores during madhu koda's tenure for a mining lease.
So if he felt bad for 15 crores 150 should have angered him.
Source for the mining lease thing
outlook which i read in library
 
Back
Top