[BJP News] Why isn't the media accountable?

[Guest guest]

>BJP News

>bjp-l (AT) bjpfriends (DOT) org (BJP Discussion Group) >To:

vaidika1008 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com >[bJP News] Why isn't the media accountable?

>Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:10:43 -0800 (PST) > >Title: Why isn't the media

accountable? >Author: Arvind Lavakare >Publication:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/05arvind.htm >February 05, 2003 > > >Our

media demands foolproof accountability from every institution in our >land,

including the judiciary. Why then doesn't it demand the same from >itself? >

>Even the Central Bureau of Investigation's testimony in court that the

>Bajrang Dal had no links with any of the 18 accused in the Graham Staines

>murder in January 1999 hasn't satisfied the media secularists. > >The Indian

Express of January 29, 2003 (without a by-line) contained >enough spice of

suspicion about what the CBI officer said on oath. > >Thus, that report dubbed

the concerned CBI officer's testimony 'surprising >as the accused named in the

FIR had been earlier described as members of >the Bajrang Dal. Even several

prosecution witnesses had deposed before the >trial judge that the accused were

shouting slogans like 'Bajrang Dal >zindabad' before setting Staines and his

sons on fire.' > >Note how the above paragraph makes the reader believe that >

>i. all the 18 accused had been described in CBI's FIR as Bajrang Dal >members,

and > >ii. the CBI contradicted that description with impunity before the trial

>judge. > >The fact is totally different as reported under the by-line of

Jitendra >Dash on the Hindustan Times web site The latter recorded that what

the CBI >officer told the court was: 'Although the FIR lodged by the CBI had

>identified six persons, including Dara Singh as members of the Bajrang >Dal,

we did not find evidence to corroborate this claim.' > >Clearly, only six of

the accused, and not all the 18, were given the >Bajrang Dal tag in the CBI's

FIR; clearly, the CBI came to a different >conclusion only after it did not get

corroborative evidence to justify >that tag. > >The 'secular' media's

belligerent attitude towards the Hindutva forces has >been pronounced since the

rape of four missionary nuns in Jhabua in >September 1998. The English press

screamed 'rapists' at the Bajrang Dal >and the world echoed that scream. It was

later, much later, that the rape >was revealed as being really an

intra-Christian mess. > >In the X-mas week of that year came the attacks on

Christian prayer halls >in Dangs and Surat districts of Gujarat. Once again

there were flaming >outbursts in the English media against the Hindutva

votaries; once again, >the world poured oil into those 'fires.' It was later,

much later, >discovered that not a single Christian had been killed in those

clashes, >and that the original sinners were not Hindu 'fanatics.' > >Very soon

thereafter was the episode in Wyanad in northern Kerala when the >'secularists'

reported that a priest and four women were beaten up and a >Bible was stolen

by... 'fanatical' Hindus, who else? An FIR on those lines >was lodged with the

police, Communist processions against those >'atrocities' were held all over

Kerala and the press went berserk once >again. Later, all this was found as

untrue by an Indian Express reporter. > >Then came the Staines murder in

January 1999. Not only the press but also >the President of India cried 'murder

most foul.' The USA and the rest of >the Christian world pounced on Hindutva

and, in the process, humiliated >the entire nation. > >Unknown to the public,

the President had taken keen interest in the >affair. Thus, he granted an

interview to four Communist leaders headed by >an MP who wanted to show him a

charred wrist watch that a team of MPs had >found at the murder scene during

their visit there. After meeting them, >the President thought it fit to write

on February 23, 1999 to Home >Minister L K Advani, informing him that the four

Left leaders had met him >and showed him the watch, and that he had told one of

them to hand the >watch directly to the authorities investigating the matter

after >contacting the home minister. (Source: Justice D P Wadhwa Commission

>Report, June 21, 1999) > >To give the benefit of doubt to the then President,

he probably did what >he did because, close on the Staines murder, there were

newspaper >headlines about the rape of one Sister Jacqueline Mary in

Gadadeuilia, >Baripada district in Orissa by one of the persons who had offered

her a >lift on February 4, 1999. > >Just a few days later came reports of a

multiple crime: the murder of one >boy aged 10, attempt to murder another and

rape and murder of a >19-year-old girl in Mandasaru village, Kandamal district,

Orissa. All the >victims were Christians. > >The newspapers had gone to town

over the above two incidents. On the >Sister Mary episode, The Telegraph of

Calcutta had screamed 'Nun gangraped >by men in sari in Orissa' and The Indian

Express had come up with >'Orissa's second stain: nun raped.' What's more, The

New India Express, >Bhubaneswar, of February 6, 1999, reported that a

bipartisan group of 24 >US influential lawmakers had written to Prime Minister

Vajpayee expressing >grave concern over increase in the anti-Christian violence

in Gujarat and >Orissa. > >The Mamdasaru tragedy led to headlines of 'Two

Christians killed, one >injured in Orissa,' '2 Tribals done to death in

Kandhamal' and 'Orissa >hunts for Christian killers.' > >Long after this media

sensationalising had done the damage to Hindutva and >the nation's government,

investigations found that Sister Mary had filed a >false FIR and that that she

had not, in fact, been raped. The crime in >Kandamal was found to have been

committed by a Christian relative of the >Christian victims. > >It's because of

the above kind of sensationalism that the Wadhwa >Commission Report, while

coming to the conclusion that 'There is no >evidence that any authority or

organisation was behind the gruesome >killings' of Graham Staines and his sons,

recommended that 'There should >be a Code of Conduct for the political parties'

whereby 'Leaders cannot >make statements merely for gaining political mileage.

Their statements >should be subdued and not to fan the fire when the atmosphere

is >communally charged. Allow the police to make independent investigation of

>the crime uninfluenced by politics or religion or caste.' > >However,

considering that politicians are influenced almost entirely by >newspaper

headlines (which they often hold up in Parliament), the Wadhwa >Commission's

plea to the media is more critical than its advice to >politicians. The

Commission recommended, 'Media, both print and >electronic, has also to

exercise restraint. Screaming headlines should be >avoided which have the

effect of misleading the public and creating more >tension and suspicion among

different communities. Reporting of communal >strife should not be done without

proper verification or an ordinary crime >given a communal twist.' > >But our

media seemed to have been upset by the Wadhwa Commission's refusal >to

associate the Bajrang Dal with the Staines murder. One news channel >even

permitted a debate in which two participants almost rebuked the >Commission's

finding. It was not surprising therefore that the media world >also bypassed

the evidence of one Binod Kishore Das, a doctor of medicine >degree holder from

the US, who was a weekly visitor to Staines' leprosy >home in Baripada. > >Das

told the Commission Staines had a great hatred for other religions, >that

though he would be simply dressed he lived a lavish lifestyle, that >he had

modern gadgets in his home and that even for a minor disease he >would go to

either Jamshedpur or Calcutta. > >The Wadhwa Commission itself found a report

of January-February 1999 >containing Staines' description of the Sanatan Dharma

as 'an animist >sect.' > >More importantly, our media completely ignored the

Commission's plea for >restraint in reporting on communal strife. Their

reaction to the >post-Godhra situation in Gujarat was ample proof of that. >

>The issue here is the sheer irresponsibility of the media. Whether it is

>Godhra, Tehelka, petrol pump allocations or the Ansal Plaza killing of

>terrorists, our media seems to believe it will attract its audience only >if

it dresses to kill, or, as some newspapers have patented, it undresses >models

in colour. That it is not accountable to anyone in the country >except to its

proprietors' profit and loss account abets that belief. No >wonder the ICE

World section of Business Standard dated January 29, 2003, >says The Times of

India charges fees to PR agencies for publishing their >releases. Are we then

headed for editorials charged at so many rupees per >column centimetre? > >Our

media demands foolproof accountability from every institution in our >land,

including the judiciary. Why then doesn't it demand the same from >itself? Add

photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.