WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU COMBINE BOTH?

THIS.

Maybe Sunny’s going for the Don Johnson/Miami Vice look. Or the Graham Norton look. You can never tell with Sunny.

Don’t listen to the ‘player –haters’!

How?

Warm regards,

http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=1

I for one appreciate you taking pains to explain your point of view – which is in itself entirely reasonable and correct.
I know that I often don’t have the patience (or the skill) to lay out my arguments with both precision and nuance. Part of the problem is the informal and somewhat hit and run nature of blogging commentary. Like my comment about Pramod Mahajan. It undoubtedly sounded crass and maybe a bit too personal to some when in reality, I was not that exercised by this man’s death other than to to feel a small sense of relief for the reason given. But then someone reacts adversely and I find myself, er, sort of overstating my case, you know. We get too defensive – like Vikrant inevitably does when it comes to these hindu-muslim issues ( as I have on occasion on similar issues) and the name-calling starts and the thread simply disintegrates.

PP will be great blog if we can all get past our knee-jerk reactions.

Have to go out for dinner now- goodnight!

I am not ignoring that those issues are still there in Gujarat and there is reason to worry. I don’t deny what happened at all. I do have issues with how it was covered and the major holes in the coverage and the different standards of coverage (and the utter dishonesty of some coverage) and hypocritical reaction to events there and elsewhere in India. I just wish people would also pay attention to some of the other abnormalities in India and not apply Gujarat or other heavily and incorrectly publicized affairs to coverage of those incidents, which should be judged on their own merits.

I could write you a formula and evolutionary timeline for the press coverage of certain events in India, complete with key words to use and key phrases and key quotes and which key facts to include at which stage or week of the issue. I can tell you which people will get involved and start writing about the issue at what stage of the issue and what they will highlight and what they will not. I could manufacture a whole article right now It’s like listening to sports commentary. After awhile you realize anyone could just repeat a bunch of phrases and sound intelligent.

“Most of the time I try and have a blind-spot about religion. I don’t care about anyone, and I care about everyone, equally.”

Believe it or not, that’s exactly how I feel. Most of the time I’m an utter misanthrope. If a meteor came and destroyed the whole human race (and all religions with it), but left the other species, I would probably be happy to sacrifice myself. But in the absence of that miracle, I’m an equal opportunity person and can’t stand double standards.

If you accept this you will see why your big long dissertations are misplaced – there are good reasons for being extremely concerned and highlighting what happens there – it has a track record. To the matter in hand double standards becomes a secondary issue.

Do you get that? Do you understand why people start howling when that place gets taken to the brink? That genocide was real and was state supported. Those issues are still there, and you should accept that. It is not some conspiracy of double standards – its a very real and alive concern for who the only blame lies with the fascist factions who carried out the killing – same reason people flip whenever there is an inkling of an Islamist extremist attack in the West – because there is a record of this.

xyz – join the queue mate. Name me one religious group that doesn’t think they get reported accurately.

Given that Gujarat has a big black mark against it since 2002, my primary concern here was that these murders lead to more state-wide riots.

Most of the time I try and have a blind-spot about religion. I don’t care about anyone, and I care about everyone, equally. So I posted on what happened with a few links – it’s probably your job to post below and give the full picture if you so wish. If things had gotten worse then I would have but initially I just wanted to highlight this as something to watch for. I get accused of being anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, anti-Muslim all the time. I’ve dealt with it, so should you

Do you think that maybe the fact that a few thousand Muslims were barbecued, raped, murdered in mass graves, burnt out of their homes, sent to live in refugee camps, had their shrines and mosques razed to the ground, in what was basically a state sanctioned genocide four years ago, with the architects and killers free as a bird, AND IN OFFICE might have something to do with the feeling of victimisation and differential in the reaction between Muslims and Hindus to the demolition of a dargah that is 200 years old? And that the whole thing was not slightly provocative?”

I don’t think you’ve understand what I’ve said. Of course it affects their feelings. Just as other people’s feelings are affected by aggression against them. Other people are people too, not everyone belongs to a mindless mob. Of course I can understand that they would feel victimised. And maybe one can blame the govt. for not reassuring them that this is just a part of wider demolishment and doesn’t target them. That’s what’s called context and I am all for taking it into account. But as Mirax said, it doesn’t excuse violence or killing people because you’re upset. And it doesn’t excuse poor or shoddy reporting. The whole truth will eventually come out – but that doesn’t excuse sloppy, incomplete and sometimes downright dishonest recountings of events.

It isn’t just Vadodara. In recent months, this same pattern has been seen in Lucknow, in Mau – members of one community object to something, become violent, kill a few people (who don’t get any or much mention because they happen to be from the “wrong” commuinity media-wise) and then riots break out and revenge is taken and the story comes out as : majority community harassing and persecuting minority. That’s the end story that reaches the outside world. All previous facts are buried or forgotten. And invariably those end stories will find some way to mention Gujarat etc. even though it had absolutely nothing to do with that.

Didn’t you say on the Bradford thread that the NF’s actions shouldn’t really excuse the actions of the rioters? Would you say then that in the aftermath of 9/11 Americans were justified to be extra jumpy around people who looked like the terrorists and to react differently to them than they would have before and to live in fear of them? It’s a human impulse after all, not just one restricted to Gujarat. Americans probably were quite justified then after witnessing the tragic events of that day. But were they justified in attacking people in revenge? No. Of course the American state behaved much more responsibly than the Gujarat govt.. I don’t deny that.

In the end, I’m looking at this primarily from a journalistic point of view. I’m not saying it was wrong of the Muslims to protest the dargah destruction. That’s their right. But to assume, without providing any evidence, that the law was there to persecute them, is also irresponsible and further fans the flames without any proof. Rights go both ways. But when covering the story, mention the context, mention the facts, mention EVERYONE who was killed and by whom. Take everyone to task – police and public of any religious background. Paternalistic shielding and copping out doesn’t help and excuses illegal behavior, no matter who does it.

And because this is Gujarat, does that mean that for perpetuity, every Muslim act is to be excused or assumed to be the innocent party and that every Hindu is automatically a bigot and every action taken by a Hindu in Gujarat that happens to affect a Muslim is de facto anti-Muslim? Again, proper coverage would help prevent those sort of attitudes and the opposite and equal attitude of “Muslims are the cause of all problems” which crop up around the globe because of actions taken by some of them.

My point to Mirax is that context is vital, but not just for Muslims. It’s also vital to others as well (in this case those Hindus who were murdered by Muslims angered by the dargah destruction). By all means mention Modi and the past in stories about the dargah demonstration, by all means excoriate him and lament that he’s not behind bars or worse, but by all means please also mention the murder of Hindus when tallking about a Hindu mob taking revenge – which again cannot be excused. The fact that Modi is not in prison does not excuse violence of any kind and does not excuse incomplete reportage.

As for it being provocative, the tearing down of any shrine is provocative. The tearing down of a Hindu shrine in Tripura, where they live in fear and have been intimidated because of their religious views – and in some parts of the northeast there is an ongoing “genocide” against certain minority Hindu and tribal communities. Why is it so wrong for me to ask that the media give them their due as well? Is Gujarat all there is to India? (Even the Narmada Dam problem gets more attention because it’s associated with that state. There is a similar outcry over another dam, but it doesn’t get the same media or celebrity attention even though the issues are somewhat the same)

If the Hindus of Tripura had become violent and killed non-Hindus because of their justified fear, do you honestly think the media or even you or mirax would have the same sympathetic attitude you have to the dargah case? Would you have taken the trouble to look into their particulars that drove them to behave like that? If Hindus in Kashmir bombed a mosque or slit the throats of 32 Muslims, would the media be worrying about the particulars that drove them to it? Would they even identify the Hindus as “minority people killed by members of the majority community.” And killings of Hindus in Kashmir are state-sponsored to a certain extent (as are killings of innocent Kashmiris by Indian forces). But both those heads of govt. aren’t in jail either. Neither are the people in the present Congress government who oversaw the slaughter of Sikhs in 1984. I’m amazed that that fact is not mentioned in every story about the party (the way its mentioned in every story about the previous NDA govt) – the family that oversaw it is not only in power but being feted as the savior maharajahs and maharanis of India. Instead the party is touted as the “secular party” of India. Secular? When it appointed the main culprits of 1984 to some of its highest posts? Again journalistic and public double standards. Or some killings can be more easily forgiven than others, apparently.

I resisted commenting on this thread for awhile because I know no matter what I say or how I put it across, people like you will accuse me of being insensitive, a Hindutva supporter etc. I have a background in journalism so I have a very strong interest in how things are covered. I don’t support murderers, tyrants, dictators, religious bigots of any hue or religion. And I don’t think that because I see a need for more equitable press coverage of similar situations and issues, and at least the semblance or appearance of actually caring about and valuing each life as the same – but affecting different communities — in India and elsewhere, that that equates to me condoning any despicable or barbaric behavior.

I didn’t mean to imply that there isn’t any decent journalism being done in India. I think India was just voted as having the freeest or one of the freeest presses in the world. However, I still find major problems and neuroses and outright imbalance and placing different values on lives when covering sensitive topics (from publications representing all hues of the political spectrum), and in the end it’s the public that loses out, no matter what their religion or caste or lack thereof.

Even some of the supposedly respected print (and I focus more on print) or TV outlets often have shockingly woeful coverage of complex, multifaceted issues. I know these problems can be found in the press around the world, not just India. I just think any outside coverage of issues in India would do well to cite multiple sources and viewpoints and biases (as say the Washington Post does in its roundup of global news coverage on a particular issue) so that between all of them, at least most of the facts get covered and people can judge for themselves. You can still have your viewpoint and take sides, but at least present things more equitably. Even if it is just for appearance’s sake.

Do you think that maybe the fact that a few thousand Muslims were barbecued, raped, murdered in mass graves, burnt out of their homes, sent to live in refugee camps, had their shrines and mosques razed to the ground, in what was basically a state sanctioned genocide four years ago, with the architects and killers free as a bird, AND IN OFFICE might have something to do with the feeling of victimisation and differential in the reaction between Muslims and Hindus to the demolition of a dargah that is 200 years old? And that the whole thing was not slightly provocative?

Maybe just a teensy-weensy bit to do with it?

Not even a tiny-winy amount?

Yes?

No?

Maybe?

No problem mirax, we just have different attitudes to death. I’m not defending the man. I didn’t shed a tear when he died, nor did I jump for joy.

xyz you make some good points in #50. In fact, on the subject of press self-censorship, I am probably less interested in – or rather follow less closely – events in India than many here. I don’t visit often and feel quite alienated. I say this because as a result I don’t read much Indian press, other than perhaps when writing a PP post. I do, however, watch NDTV now and again and have found it to be fairly good at reporting with neutrality and not omitting any major stories, no matter who is concerned.

“They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.”

“Keeping news in proportion and not leaving important things out are also cornerstones of truthfulness. Journalism is a form of cartography: it creates a map for citizens to navigate society. Inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative all make a less reliable map. The map also should include news of all our communities, not just those with attractive demographics.”

Journalists should be “good enough at providing the context on complex stories.”

“The primary obligation of journalists is to seek the truth and report it as factually, contextually and fairly as possible.”

“Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can–and must–pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts.”

“Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built–context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. ”

“The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards.”

“While editorialists and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform–not their devotion to a certain group or outcome. “

mirax, It seems you have just contradicted yourself with the above statement and your statement that too much context is making excuses.

So why shouldn’t the particulars of anyone’s situation be looked into first? I thought looking into the particulars meant looking at events that preceded and doesn’t that amount to context? Would you give the above argument if say Hindus in Kashmir murdered some Muslims? After all they have every right to live in fear there and to distrust the local government.

Actually Hindus in Tripura were justifiably very upset about it, just that they didn’t kill anyone over it and they didn’t get any sympathy from the national press over it, the same sympathy you have for the dargah. It was a very old temple and the reasons for tearing it down were also questionable given Tripura’s “Tripura for Christ” campaign. But it didn’t get any attention or any sympathy. If it had been a church the reaction would have been much different.

I agree, tearing down places of worship is sensitive, but I also think your attitude of one law for one and another for another set is also counterproductive and only serves to inflame Hindu bigots and even ordinary Hindus like myself who are very frustrated by some appalling double standards in reportage and govt. reaction to incidents in India. Why should some people get penalized for playing by the rules? And if those very same (Hindu) people had broken the rules and killed some people in retaliation, I have no doubt that the Indian media, and maybe even PP, would have reported on it and condemned them for it. I thought in a secular democracy, it was the goal to hold people to the same standards of law and behavior?

I also disagree with Vikrant that it’s ok for the media to say ‘some people killed by members of the minority community” as a form of self censorship. It’s a very immature attitude and not befitting a country that aims to be a world-class democracy. Where labelling is relevant to a story, it should be included. If this had happened in the UK, would they say members of a minority community? Interestingly, in India, they only use minority community in reference to Muslims and Chrisitans. When Buddhists and Muslims had some problems in Kashmir/Ladakh, the Buddhists were not given the “courtesy” of being referred to as minority,, they were identified as Buddhist perpetrators. Why this double standard? If Hindus in Kashmir, a definite minority, attacked Muslims in Kashmir, do you think the media would say members of a minority community attacked? No they would say “Hindus attacked.” If the perpetrator is Hindu and it’s relevant to the story, mention it. If the perpetrator is Muslim, and it’s relevant, mention it. If you’re going to waffle and fudge the lines of journalistic ethics, then do so across the board.

>> Actually those Hindu deaths were not elsewhere at all but directly related to the demolition of the dargah and the spark for the subsequent riots.

Sorry Vikrant did mention a whole lot of hindu deaths in Kashmir and riots in other places.

The two hindu deaths – caught up in a mob in the midst of a riot- in Vadodara are reprensensible. As are the 3 muslims shot dead in that same riot. So the hindu mob that then goes out to burn a muslim man has ‘context’ does it? I suppose that muslims now want to go on a rampage for their 3 killed by the police and the one burned alive by the hindus also have the same ‘context’. Part of the problem of too much ‘context’ is that you do begin to sound like you are making excuses.

- That’s not true at all. Journalism requires context and the facts. Then people can make up their own mind. After all, why have any history at all and try to put things in historical contexts?

>> Why was there a vengeful mob there in the first place? Mentioning that doesn’t condone their barbarity in any way.

Doesn’t it? Oh the muslim man was torched alive by the mob cause some other muslims killed some other hindus earlier. Nope doesn’t cut it for me. The hindus had no business being out the streets prowling for muslim blood.

- That’s a very simplistic retelling of what I said. All I said is you cannot mention the Hindu mob in a story covering this issue without mentioning the context and background. It is journalistically unsound practice. The Muslims had no right either to be out for Hindu blood because a religious structure was being demolished. Would it have been ok for a news story to mention the Muslims killing the Hindus without mentioning their reason for doing so – the dargah demolition? Would it be ok for me to write a story saying “Members of the Muslim community today murdered some Hindus” after some days of rioting and mob violence? Or would it be ethical for me to mention why they were so angry? It doesn’t excuse what they did but it does put it into context.

>>By not mentioning it you condone the barbarity of the people who killed those first (Hindu) victims.

I don’t see it as such. You are talking about two separate incidents and unrelated groups of people. By seguing the two, you are giving ground to vigilantism of the worst type. It is NOT the business of any individual hindu to avenge the killing of any other hindu. Same goes for the muslims.

- Again these are not two separate incidents. One led to other. Anger over the Hindu murders led to the retaliiation. It is not supporting vigilantism at all. I can say the same. By separating the two you are condoning the deaths of the Hindus. I’m assuming then that if a story is published saying “Muslims today burned a Hindu after several days of mob violence and rioting (without mentioning that it was in retaliation or sparked by a Hindu mob burning alive a Muslim man) that you would be ok with it? Given what you said above, that would be perfectly ok because too much context would be excusing the Muslim retaliation.

And if too much context is making excuses, why even bring up Gujarat’s history or what happened before? Why mention Modi or Mahajan at all? Aren’t you in fact then using context (what came before) to “excuse” Muslim anger and action and fears? And if you think that context is necessary (and I agree it is) why not extend that courtesy to others?