Why 2002 Will Haunt Rajdeep & Barkha

In October 2012 the queen of trolls, Barkha Dutt, wrote an article titled “A Roshomon Effect”. For all those who don’t follow Japanese, that’s from a movie by Akiro Kurosawa. In short, what BD wanted to tell the world was there could be multiple sides to a ‘truth’. Not much to worry about that except that this propagandini believes only “her side” is the truth. I wrote a response to her nonsense under “Bark in the USA” Let’s do a quick recap from the first on BD’s first shot in her article:

“As a journalist you train yourself to treat both accolades and abuse with the same level of levity; you tell yourself over and over again to not take yourself seriously and you even learn, eventually, to laugh at yourself. You understand that being in the public gaze inevitably comes with being viewed through a coloured prism — whether rose-tinted or jaundiced. And you develop the ability to lightly shrug off the distortions of a persona foisted on you by others”.

That para is from BD’s article and my comment on that is given below:

“Read that opening paragraph carefully. Read again please. Did you? Alright, in the very opening you are declared a prejudiced, jaundiced abuser if you’re not one showering accolades on BD. Smart, eh? Since when is “abuse” the antonym of “accolades”? ‘Bouquet and brickbats’ is a common phrase but ‘Accolades and abuse’? And then the “persona” is foisted by others? It has nothing to do with what the individual herself has done? The opposite of accolades could be censure, rebuke, denunciation, reprimand, criticism but it’s highly unlikely that you will find “abuse” as an antonym. Talk about “perceptions”. Hey, how about: “If you’re not with me, you’re an abuser"?

That’s what brings me to write this post merely for the record. As an Amdavadi I have seen many riots, big and small. I have also stated that the Congress party has a history of fomenting communal riots in the state when any non-political agitation is unmanageable. For a sample read “Digvijay’s desperate and dangerous communal call”. I have been a witness to part of the Gujarat 2002 riots too. What was different in 2002 was the skulduggery of reporters with an agenda to overthrow the NDA govt of AB Vajpayee. Among the scumbags who most indulged in fear-mongering and indulged in hyper-ventilating were, naturally, Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt. Two of the most journalistically-corrupt media persons of our times. In September 2011 when the SC didn’t accept the plea to prosecute Modi and returned the petition of Zakia Jafri to the lower court here is what I wrote under “SC exposes media’s clean shit”:

“On the morning of March 1, 2002 if you had walked the streets of the relatively posh western parts of Ahmedabad you wouldn’t believe what had happened while you were sleeping. You could see shops and restaurants that were burned overnight. All these shops had such names – Bhagyoday, Kabir, National and so on – all belonged to muslims, and this was a predominantly Hindu area. While there was property damage there was no report of people being killed in the area. Even residents of Ahmedabad had no idea of the scale of the riots that were going on. And then suddenly on the scene bursts Barkha Dutt and then Rajdeep Sardesai (both with Starnews then) and some more.

Hour after hour after hour we hear the most horrific stories of mass killings all over the state. In cities, towns, villages and even on highways. Words like mass murder, genocide, pogrom start to gain currency in some quarters. Were there terrible killings? You bet, some of it very horrible. But the kind of dramatic and hysterical reporting on TV was no more news reporting. It was almost fanning the flames. So much so that in some areas some TV channels had to be shut down to contain the provocation. As in the case of war, even in an unfortunate communal riot such as this, ‘truth’ is the first casualty. The numbers-killed story was generously sprinkled with imagination of people being raped, foetuses ripped and more by the media. I can safely say that the response to the Godhra train burning was spontaneous. The Gulbarg case which has become prominent because of the widow of Ehsan Jafri, killed by mobs, were attacks by mobs that would have been difficult to handle by any police force given that many other parts of Ahmedabad were equally badly affected. For all this to make one man singularly responsible could not have been anything but an agenda driven media. This agenda had to be surely backed by political forces and extraordinary influx of funds. This is where the witch hunt of Narendra Modi started”.

The drama and excessive nonsense of both Rajdeep and Barkha are clearly etched in my memory. Both these people were also involved in the excessive chest-beating during the Kandahar episode in 1999. I call their reporting nothing short of criminal. These are among the top reasons why I even started this blog. It’s almost three years since the SC ruling of 2011. Here’s the other side of the truth since Barkha likes to talk about multiple sides. This time it is from the horse’s mouth. It is Narendra Modi’s version of the behaviour of Barkha and Rajdeep and he bears out exactly what I wrote three years ago (3.15 mins):

That was Modi in an informal conversation with Madhu Kishwar, journalist and social activist. Please do note, Modi says he called either Rajdeep or Barkha to tone down their inflammatory reporting. Neither of them has denied this. I can vouch for the fact that both RS and BD were doing exactly that. If they want to prove otherwise, they should put out tapes of their criminal reporting for the world to see. They won’t! Here’s a transcript of Modi’s statement from the Manushi site:

“It was my endeavour that we restore peace at the earliest possible. If you look at the data you will see that in 72 hours we had put down the riots and brought the situation under control. But these TV channels kept on playing up the same incidents over and over again. At the time, Rajdeep and Barkha were in the same channel NDTV. During those inflamed days, Barkha acted in the most irresponsible manner. Surat had not witnessed any communal killings, barring a few small incidents of clashes. However the bazaars were closed [as a precautionary measure]. Barkha stood amidst closed shops screaming “This is Surat’s diamond market, but there is not a single police man here.”

I phoned Barkha and said, “Are you providing the address of this “unprotected” bazaar to the rioting mobs? Are you inviting them to come and create trouble there by announcing that there is no police here so you can run amok safely?” In a second incident in Anjar, she played up the news that a Hanuman mandir had been broken and vandalized. I told her, “What are you up to? You are in Kutch which is a border district. There you are showing the attack and destruction of a mandir. Do you realize the implications of broadcasting such news? We haven’t yet recovered from the earthquake. Have you actually done proper investigation into the riots? Why are you lighting fires for us? Your news takes a few minutes to broadcast that such and such place is unprotected or a mandir has been vandalized. But it takes for me a few hours to move the police from one disturbed location to another since these incidents are breaking out in the most unexpected places.”

What is worse, when I got the matter enquired into by the local police, we found out that it was a small, insignificant structure under a tree which had been damaged a little bit by some crazy individual. But NDTV presented it as an attack on a Hanuman mandir. When the fires were raging these journalists were pouring fuel on those fires.On that day I had put a ban on TV channels because they were actually provoking trouble.  But it was only for one day. Since Rajdeep Sardesai was among the leading reporters covering the disturbances, I phoned him to say, “I will have to put a temporary ban on your channel if you continue with the provocative coverage. There is a well-established regulation that media should not name communities during communal riots nor identify a damaged placed as a mandir or masjid. Why are you violating that code and well set protocol about not naming communities or identifying places, of worship? You are going against established norms.”

Barkha tweeted she was never in Surat. Doesn’t matter, it’s either one of them and talking off-hand after 12 years can have errors. But Modi did call one of them he claims. Following their criminal reporting during the Kandahar episode and then Gujarat 2002 many have been convinced that both RS and BD were “motivated”. Those days, the number of news channels were fewer. If you are wondering where Arnab Goswami was during the 2002 reporting; he was in the studios doing the pimping for the ground reporting for the other two. Since then I have called this trio the lowest BAR (Barkha, Arnab, Rajdeep) in TV journalism.Following the 2002 episode NDTV grew wealthy enough to break from Star News and launch a channel under their brand. I don’t know how they got the funds. Do you? And despite consistent losses over the years NDTV survives. That story will come out someday. Since then Prannoy, Barkha and Rajdeep have become exceptionally wealthy. RS and BD were also showered with Padma awards by SoniaG’s govt for their glorious services during Kandahar and Gujarat 2002. A day will come when the story of 2002 will not haunt Modi but many in the MSM and other filthy NGOs. The Holy Ghost also comes in the form of truth. And that truth will first piss them off.

Bark In The USA

This is the 50th anniversary of the James Bond series. Most of us love those movies, they’re fun. In ‘Goldfinger’, often rated the best Bond movie, M asks Bond: “What do you know about gold..?”. Bond says: “I know it when I see it!” That is actually a legendary line a US Supreme Court Judge Potter Stewart used in a case about pornography. True for Bias! “You know it when you see it”.

I know a few things that a journalism course might teach. I estimate, though, that they don't run some chapters on how to deal with the "Truth". So Barkha Dutt in the USA, on a “sabbatical” as she says, looked at TV channels like Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and wants to educate Indians on “bias”. So she writes “A Rashomon effect” and doubts over the singularity of ‘Truth’. She borrows the concept from Akiro Kurusawa’s movie. Fair enough. That is about perception of observers of the same event, somewhat like the tricky but gripping movie “Usual Suspects”. In contrast, if one were to use a Hercule Poirot story or movie as example it will be easy to understand how he uses a process of elimination, with even 5 or more suspects in some cases, to arrive at the ‘Truth’ about the real criminal. What creates bias on TV, which BD talks about, is really not about different perceptions but that the “usual suspects” are used to peddle “perceptions”. This is when “bias” slowly morphs into “agenda”. This is the serious mistake that BD and many sermonisers make. Let’s go through some of her write.

As a journalist you train yourself to treat both accolades and abuse with the same level of levity; you tell yourself over and over again to not take yourself seriously and you even learn, eventually, to laugh at yourself. You understand that being in the public gaze inevitably comes with being viewed through a coloured prism — whether rose-tinted or jaundiced. And you develop the ability to lightly shrug off the distortions of a persona foisted on you by others.

Read that opening paragraph carefully. Read again please. Did you? Alright, in the very opening you are declared a prejudiced, jaundiced abuser if you’re not one showering accolades on BD. Smart, eh? Since when is “abuse” the antonym of “accolades”? ‘Bouquet and brickbats’ is a common phrase but ‘Accolades and abuse’? And then the “persona” is foisted by others? It has nothing to do with what the individual herself has done? The opposite of accolades could be censure, rebuke, denunciation, reprimand, criticism but it’s highly unlikely that you will find “abuse” as an antonym. Talk about “perceptions”. Hey, how about: “If you’re not with me, you’re an abuser"?

Towards the end of her article she talks about the Socratic ideal of the unexamined life. There, in that one sentence above is my assessment of BD’s examination. Now if she wants to call it abuse she is welcome to it. Let’s take up some channels BD mentions. BD has simply Coleridged herself, that’s all. Did you ask, what the hell is Coleridged? I don’t know, but I said that cuz it sounds very “intelligent” and “intellectual”. No? Look, if you disagree, you’re abusing me!

Let’s take FoxNews. It’s a known Conservative or, as BD would like to call, a Right-wing news channel. It is not driven by a single personality like NDTV, TimesNow or CNN-IBN but Bill O’Reilly of the channel is a popular and controversial media celebrity. Hard-hitting, opinionated and sometimes even humorous and enjoyable, Bill is the typical arch-enemy of the Left-Liberal channels in the US. Bill is often accused of going after people whose thoughts or actions run against his or FoxNews’ “fair and balanced” agenda. In a recent case his rants against abortion specialist Dr. George Tiller was perceived to be part of the cause for the doctor being shot dead in 2009. That is the “perception” although it may not be the reason at all. Politifact does state:“We found at least 42 instances of O'Reilly mentioning Tiller by name, going back to 2005. In 24 instances, we found that O'Reilly referred to Tiller specifically as a "baby killer”.  

Tiller the baby-killer, rhymes well doesn’t it? Now, compare that with how systematically and consistently channels like NDTV and CNN-IBN have allowed tags like “mass-murderer’, pogrom, genocide. That is not bias, that is “agenda”. Bill O’Reilly makes no secret about his anti-abortion bias. In case of the Indian channels they cloak their bias with intelligent and intellectual debates. They specifically call individuals who have an interest in the agenda and then claim tag lines like “Experience Truth First” as NDTV used to. Singularity of truth? Oh yeah! Narendra Modi is still alive. For all we know, the hate-campaign unleashed by some of our media channels could very well have had him killed. A hate-campaign based on lies, untruths and engineered “perceptions”. The truth might free Barkha but it might piss her off too. Quite often our media celebs tar the truth as “abuse”.

CNN, a lot more centrist, is going down the ratings charts as BD correctly observes. This is more because CNN makes a “fake” attempt at “fair and balanced” debates on issues that do not require debates at all. Let’s take the current Robert Vadra and Salman Khurshid cases. Do these require TV debates? There can be the Rashomon tactic of movie making or the Hercule Poirot method that channels can adopt. Obviously, the Poirot method requires “little grey cells” (as Poirot himself would say) whereas the Rashomon one requires just creative scripting. Both Vadra and Khurshid cases are ones where documents can be scrutinised and investigated and may be one or two legal experts can comment. Instead, getting political spokesmen is the idea of deliberately clouding issues and engineering “perceptions”. Which is the reason CNN’s pretences of bipartisanship fail. Documents, facts, truth do not require a debate all the time unless you are conducting a “show” as all our channels do. Do they?

Let’s turn to MSNBC that BD mentions, a prominent leftist channel. It has celebrities like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. Oh wait! Olbermann? Yeah, the same guy who was suspended from the channel because he made an undeclared political donation to three political candidates. That broke in the same month as Radiagate – November 2010. Haha! Regardless of what the bias, indiscretions aren’t tolerated by MSNBC. Fareed Zakaria was suspended too. But hey, even after suspicions of “lobbying” and “power-brokering” in ministry formation, BD merrily continues on NDTV without any censure or investigation. Now that’s at least one major difference between the “biased” US channels and the “biased” Indian channels. Let’s read some more by her:

But if there’s one accusation that can still get a rise out of you — triggering annoyance, exasperation or weariness at different times — it is the charge of Bias. So whether it’s from the online armies of ideologues and their weapons of mass fabrication; or more sincere feedback from people who may demand to know why your views on a certain issue have altered — in India, the debate around Media Bias remains volatile, but essentially shallow and infuriating…..

Yet, wearing your political bias on your lapel microphone seems to be the new mantra of successful television in the US. I wouldn’t be surprised if the vitiated political environment in India and the constant pressure for a more provocative and opinionated media, sees a similar trend for us. Whether that’s a good thing or bad- ah well, that would probably depend on your ‘Bias’

So the online armies have their “weapons of mass fabrication” and BD alone has the truth. Ah well, she has the truth, you have the fiction. Like I said there is something worse than bias; it’s called “manipulation”. We know it when we see it. It is precisely for this reason that a few months ago I monitored every minute, every second of a program by BD on NDTV. Instead of merely peddling an opinion, as BD does, I decided to check with statistics and timeshares. In the post titled “NDTV–Evolving The Gandhi” I found that the entire discussion, just before the last UP elections, was manipulated in terms of timeshare in favour of the Congress party. BD herself was more or less the spokesperson for the party. Even her “acting” was bad. That is not a one-off episode. Just before the 2009 general elections BD did an interview with Priyanka Vadra (or Gandhi at election times) which can be best described as “emotional rescue”. Perception or truth? We know it when we see it!

The comparison with the US model is mindless. If they wear their bias on their lapel mics, the Indian counterparts wear it on their mics and even their sleeves. The US has only two main political parties across the board. In India there are more than 60 big and small parties, all vying for power and for the loot. A vertical division of media in the US by bias is not the same as the devious manipulation by news channels as we see in India. The right-wing or conservative channels in the US too came up only in response to the biased, manipulative left-liberal channels. Fox News came up only as recently as 1990s and has been very popular with the conservatives. If the leftist Indian media doesn’t stop their manipulative ways then right-wing news channels will come up here too, and that wouldn’t be bad either.

The problem with Indian news channels is far worse than mere bias. The media celebs rarely touch upon the epidemic of “paid-media” and other media crimes. Recently, a channel has even been accused of blackmail with a sting operation. Now who is to say which channels are not guilty of such crimes? As for Barkha, there is no real need to justify bias. A prominent panellist recently told me: “When I want the Congress viewpoint on issues I just turn to NDTV, it’s a lot easier”. You see, she might feel Coleridged. It’s a reference to the “Albatross around the neck” she carries; that of Radiagate. It’s from a poem by Samuel Coleridge. As an English-literature expert I’m sure BD is unlikely to have missed that. That’s probably the reason for her frequent anguish over accusations of bias or her persuasions and “imaginary abuse”. What would be considered a “bite” by Barkha in India is just another Bark in the USA.

“A second-class mind dealing with….” is a quote from famous British Political Scientist Harold Laski.