I've just one question. Why has the Rizwanur case suddenly and completely dissapeared from The Telegraph pages, after all the hue and cry and consecutive headlines for over a month?
Not that I think it ever was more important than the happenings at Nandigram, I dislike this monopoly over public voicings.
Sigh. The Statesman is dead. Long live The Statesman.
1. because nandigram is indeed more important, and should never have gone out of the front page. it only did because the telegraph is a two-faced cad. literally. 2. because rizwanur isn't the heat of this moment. and as we know perfectly well, telegraph is alien to the idea of either ethics or risk. i don't mean the terms in any absolute sense, but in the simple sense of a newspaper reporting news. the telegraph reports news that is, in all sense of the term, 'safe'. as long as rizwanur hadn't (already) taken hold of the public voice, owing to other people shouting themselves hoarse over it, the telegraph didn't report rizwanur. and nandigram has been boiling over aince not only march, but the begiining of the year. but the telegraph only always begins to report such stuff when it can no longer ignore it, as it were. if it could ignore it, it would. 3. all reasons related, but allow me to tell you about one loonybin lecturer (teacher) in our department last year, who made a huge ruckus about certain exam answer-scripts, in which, he claimed, students had written obscene stuff. as an insider, i can vouch for the fact that no student was in any way guilty of anything like obscenity, and this has since been proved. anyway, for about a month, the university and my department had amny answers to make to an insidiously suspicious and quite large fraction of the city. and it was a widely known case, owing to the tv. the point about the telegraph is this: they didn't touch the thing with a 10-foot long pole. even such a transparent case as this had them running for cover, or at least keeping in their own covered and sheltered spot. because owing to party affiliations or god knows whatever (and don't fool youself that it doesn't have those loyalties), as they couldn't write against this lecturer, they chose not to write at all.
don't get me wrong, i am very far from blaming 'the telegraph' as a whole or as a homogeneous entity. but i do dislike their policies immensely. the city's journalism is almost at an all-time low, and the telegraph is largely to blame for that. it has a very wide circulation, and a very lage fraction of the people working in the abp establishment work earnestly, hard, and meaning well. but at the highest levels, the paper's policies are descipable. their departments are understaffed and underpaid. people only stay at this newspapare because the other newspapers are even more bankrupt. and at the decision-making level, the paper steers always very clear of anything approaching controversy. in the end, i find the paper always over-eager to be in the good books of the government. now that's all very well, but while it is evident to all thinking people that in this state there ISN'T a governemnt that hasn't been appropriated to the ends of the political party in power (and which has been in power for 30 years now), the telegraph still caters to that government. the telegraph is confused, distorted, and serves its readers nothing other than what is, as it were, pre-known and pre-approved, and therefore cosy and comfortable.
@dibbo: yes, i suppose every newspaper has to go by some version of exactly that, or it wouldn't survive, but the telegraph does do it very blatantly, i think, and i can't respect that.
@mojo: as a reader, do you mean? i suppose quite a few, although the last thing i want is out. in agreement or in disapproval, i cannot afford not to know what a very large urban population is being served. as a reader and subscriber, i do have a few options. in terms of actually reading different papers and different reporters, certainly, but most of all in knowing that even by definition there isn't an objective point of view, for the very circumstances behind the creation of an object will colour it. and maintaining a healthy scepticism, so to say. as a journalist, i suppose my profile, my experience, and above all my inclination (whether or not i want to work for a daily newspaper or a weekly magazine, for instance) would spell my options out for me. it is journalists who are absolute beginners, yes, in the city, that really have limited options. somehow, there is an increasing gravitation towards the telegraph, if for no other reason than that it serves the pay-cheques regularly. and that is no mean thing. however, one is a beginner for but a couple of years. after that, one stays, or leaves, or changes things, or not, by choice.
yes of course, as a journalist you can switch jobs once you get to a position from which you can afford to pick and choose...as a reader i dont think, in calcutta at least there are other dailies which i would prefer reading (to telegraph, that is), maybe statesman,but there too there are not a few problems.....i mean look, i agree that abp serves you only what is tried and tested and safe and at that point,in keeping with public opinion,i dont really support that, but no newspaper is impartial, it is after all a business venture and they have to keep a lot of people happy..in favour of telegraph i just have to say that they dont grossly distort facts usually, and they dont shamelessly print two completely versions of the same incident on two consecutive days...they might mellow down their accusations or indictments, but dont completely switch sides...they try to maintain a balance on the surface at least...that makes them guilty of equivocation maybe..thats there too...
8 comments:
I've just one question. Why has the Rizwanur case suddenly and completely dissapeared from The Telegraph pages, after all the hue and cry and consecutive headlines for over a month?
Not that I think it ever was more important than the happenings at Nandigram, I dislike this monopoly over public voicings.
Sigh. The Statesman is dead. Long live The Statesman.
1. because nandigram is indeed more important, and should never have gone out of the front page. it only did because the telegraph is a two-faced cad. literally.
2. because rizwanur isn't the heat of this moment. and as we know perfectly well, telegraph is alien to the idea of either ethics or risk. i don't mean the terms in any absolute sense, but in the simple sense of a newspaper reporting news. the telegraph reports news that is, in all sense of the term, 'safe'. as long as rizwanur hadn't (already) taken hold of the public voice, owing to other people shouting themselves hoarse over it, the telegraph didn't report rizwanur. and nandigram has been boiling over aince not only march, but the begiining of the year. but the telegraph only always begins to report such stuff when it can no longer ignore it, as it were. if it could ignore it, it would.
3. all reasons related, but allow me to tell you about one loonybin lecturer (teacher) in our department last year, who made a huge ruckus about certain exam answer-scripts, in which, he claimed, students had written obscene stuff. as an insider, i can vouch for the fact that no student was in any way guilty of anything like obscenity, and this has since been proved. anyway, for about a month, the university and my department had amny answers to make to an insidiously suspicious and quite large fraction of the city. and it was a widely known case, owing to the tv. the point about the telegraph is this: they didn't touch the thing with a 10-foot long pole. even such a transparent case as this had them running for cover, or at least keeping in their own covered and sheltered spot. because owing to party affiliations or god knows whatever (and don't fool youself that it doesn't have those loyalties), as they couldn't write against this lecturer, they chose not to write at all.
don't get me wrong, i am very far from blaming 'the telegraph' as a whole or as a homogeneous entity. but i do dislike their policies immensely. the city's journalism is almost at an all-time low, and the telegraph is largely to blame for that. it has a very wide circulation, and a very lage fraction of the people working in the abp establishment work earnestly, hard, and meaning well. but at the highest levels, the paper's policies are descipable. their departments are understaffed and underpaid. people only stay at this newspapare because the other newspapers are even more bankrupt. and at the decision-making level, the paper steers always very clear of anything approaching controversy. in the end, i find the paper always over-eager to be in the good books of the government. now that's all very well, but while it is evident to all thinking people that in this state there ISN'T a governemnt that hasn't been appropriated to the ends of the political party in power (and which has been in power for 30 years now), the telegraph still caters to that government. the telegraph is confused, distorted, and serves its readers nothing other than what is, as it were, pre-known and pre-approved, and therefore cosy and comfortable.
many typos.
let your indulgence set me free.
"and serves its readers nothing other than what is, as it were, pre-known and pre-approved, and therefore cosy and comfortable."
I agree with that.
i guess, but what alternative do you have to the telegraph? none, practically.
@dibbo: yes, i suppose every newspaper has to go by some version of exactly that, or it wouldn't survive, but the telegraph does do it very blatantly, i think, and i can't respect that.
@mojo: as a reader, do you mean? i suppose quite a few, although the last thing i want is out. in agreement or in disapproval, i cannot afford not to know what a very large urban population is being served.
as a reader and subscriber, i do have a few options. in terms of actually reading different papers and different reporters, certainly, but most of all in knowing that even by definition there isn't an objective point of view, for the very circumstances behind the creation of an object will colour it. and maintaining a healthy scepticism, so to say.
as a journalist, i suppose my profile, my experience, and above all my inclination (whether or not i want to work for a daily newspaper or a weekly magazine, for instance) would spell my options out for me. it is journalists who are absolute beginners, yes, in the city, that really have limited options. somehow, there is an increasing gravitation towards the telegraph, if for no other reason than that it serves the pay-cheques regularly. and that is no mean thing. however, one is a beginner for but a couple of years. after that, one stays, or leaves, or changes things, or not, by choice.
yes of course, as a journalist you can switch jobs once you get to a position from which you can afford to pick and choose...as a reader i dont think, in calcutta at least there are other dailies which i would prefer reading (to telegraph, that is), maybe statesman,but there too there are not a few problems.....i mean look, i agree that abp serves you only what is tried and tested and safe and at that point,in keeping with public opinion,i dont really support that, but no newspaper is impartial, it is after all a business venture and they have to keep a lot of people happy..in favour of telegraph i just have to say that they dont grossly distort facts usually, and they dont shamelessly print two completely versions of the same incident on two consecutive days...they might mellow down their accusations or indictments, but dont completely switch sides...they try to maintain a balance on the surface at least...that makes them guilty of equivocation maybe..thats there too...
Post a Comment