Is CNN-IBN's FTN The Most Enduring Stupidity on TV?

Guy on the street says “over the years we celebrate it more for the sake of celebration than for any religious connotation”. He’s sort of explaining why Diwali is being celebrated. If you have an ignoramus anchoring a TV show you are bound to have a poor beat reporter (titled Smriti Advani) asking someone silly scripted questions. It’s a natural rule. Hinduism has been open to question and criticism down the ages. Hindu icons have also appeared in movie comedies and have been the subject of humour and jokes. But it takes an extreme moron like Sagarika Ghose to ask “Is the legend of Ram the most enduring in India, was Ram a bad husband”? (November 13). The journalistic-bimbo thought that would be a good question to ask on Diwali night on her show ‘FTN’ on CNN-IBN. I must, of course, mention that CNN-IBN and its editors have been traditional Hindu-haters. They fail to put up that disclaimer on their screen when they do shows like this. It didn’t occur to the Cacofonix that she’s asking the question after almost 6000 years of the Ram legend.  

In just the previous post (The holes in the mint) I talked about another extreme moron called Priya Ramani of Mint who has consistently abused Ram for no rhyme or reason. You know, I wouldn’t consider criticising, poking gentle fun, even ridiculing a bad thing but abuse and hatred for Ram or Hinduism seems to come naturally to these ladies. Sometime back the SocialGenius wondered if Ram was a “Divine encroacher”, so you know where she comes from. She also claimed she came from a devout Hindu family because her unkill joined the Ramakrishna Mission. I know of many of many idiots who say “geeze” in their conversations without knowing what that even means. It’s sort of hip. I am willing to bet these ladies say geeze quite often.

After the older guy, the beat-woman picks up a younger guy and asks him if Ramayana is relevant and she herself concludes “Ramayana is not so relevant for the younger generation”. What the younger guy did say was that Dusherra is like Diwali, when Ram destroys evil Raavan and Diwali is more of a family celebration. I know how the street specialists are picked by TV channels and so do most people watching the shows. And what triggered the question and discussions? Oh that Ram Jethmalani (RJ) said something like “Ram was a bad husband” for the way he treated Sita. Haha! That comes from a guy with two wives at the same time. Never mind. Does the comment of a mercurial lawyer, frequently hated by CNN-IBN for his defence of various characters, warrant a full-fledged discussion? No! But since it was something negative about Ram it’s like lighting the fuse for a bomb for the journalistic-bimbo.

Then the bimbo wonders if people know what Diwali is about or if they remember Ramayana or Ram’s story. No matter which faith you belong to in India it is unlikely that kids have never heard of Ramayana or Mahabharata. Being two epics it’s not possible for everyone to remember the epics from start to finish. Most remember the essence of the stories and probably many incidents from each. These epics have not just been widely discussed, told and retold in India but across many parts in the world. Ram’s life has been far more public and far more discussed than say a Gandhi or Nehru. So when Sagarika suggests Ramayan doesn’t resonate with the younger lot she is probably speaking from her own life experience. Maybe her parents didn’t tell her those stories or maybe her kids never heard those stories. Your guess is as good as mine.

So the discussion is all over a statement of RJ. Alright! This moron Sagarika is the same one who once interviewed RJ over his defence of Manu Sharma, the killer of Jessica Lal. Her absolute ignorance of law and legal procedures were total exposed by RJ. The bimbo believes if the media and public opinion holds a person guilty then no lawyer should defend that person. Trust me, there’s a moron like this born every minute in our media. The thrashing she got at the hands of RJ was far more severe than the off the cuff remark by RJ on Ram. He called her rant all “bullshit”. He called her a “chit of a girl” trying to advise him. Of course, she honestly carried a show on FTN with the question “Is Sagarika a chit of a girl & a load of bullshit”? You remember seeing that, don’t you? I do, and I remember 99.93% voters saying “YES”! The bimbo asks a lawyer if he is “defending the indefensible”. Forget the Ramayan, no school, no parents, no spouse, no unkill ever taught this extreme moron that every accused has not only the right to defence but a lawyer refusing to defend his client may be guilty of misconduct under the bar rules. If she can decide the case of Manu Sharma in her filthy studios you can imagine what trial Ram would go through on CNN-IBN in absentia. (See the RJ interview on Youtube)

RJ has often said quite a few things about others too. His most recent pearls of wisdom have frequently been on the one Great White Hope of our media morons; the one and only Rahul Gandhi. Yeah! He’s the same guy that CNN-IBN awarded “Indian of the year” in 2009. Even Ram doesn’t have such an award from that channel. So what did RJ have to say about RahulG? Let’s do a count:

* RahulG has black money stashed abroad (Here).

* RahulG is good for nothing! He is useless! (Here).

* There isn’t even a quotable quote from RahulG.

* RahulG is illiterate.

It’s unlikely RJ’s epithets for RahulG is going to end there. Now, how many times have you seen CNN-IBN or Sagarika Ghose have a discussion or debate on these statements of RJ? Ummm.. I counted and it is ‘Zero’. It’s only when the old man had something negative to say about Ram that CNN-IBN has massive orgasms. You see Ram pays for the TV channels through serials which news channels can’t carry. But RahulG’s Congress is a paymaster for CNN-IBN all the time. So I doubt you’ll see a discussion titled “Is RahulG the enduring fool of Indian politics”? Quite unlikely!

What these “secular and fiberal” experts and Hindu-haters consistently demonstrate is their total lack of understanding of Hindu culture itself. Unlike Muslims or Christians the Hindus aren’t bound together by religion. The greatest Hindu scholar of recent history, Swami Vivekananda, told his American audience that in the West a ‘woman’ means the wife or girlfriend; to Hindus, a woman means mother. He also explained that Hindus aren’t bound as a community by religion but rather by social customs and traditions. Holi (which for Priya Ramani is a festival of “molestation”) is a festival of harvest and thanksgiving celebrations. So too is Pongal. A deeper look will tell everyone that kite-flying on Uttarayan or Makara Sankaranti has nothing to do with religion. And the shocker, even a Hindu wedding doesn’t have much to do with religion. New Year among Hindus varies with regions. Not much of it has anything to do with religion. Diwali too, has precious little to do with religion. It’s a celebration of return of the rightful king to his throne, a celebration of the victory of good over evil, the lights symbolise new beginnings, knowledge and celebration too. The only time these media celebs find the need for light is when they support a candle-march for some protest.

Hindus worship and adore light. Ask any of the media morons what darkness is, I’m sure the best answer is you will get is “absence of light”. That isn’t really an answer is it? That’s like saying hate is absence of love. Hate is the outcome of lifelong prejudice born out of value systems built by families among their children. The ones who discuss Ram or Hindus with so much hate need to wonder what values they were instilled with. Their hate comes from prejudices built over years. It’s not easy to define darkness but you can tell darkness when you see it. You can tell the prejudices of our TV hosts when you see them.

Forget Ram and Diwali for the moment. The right question for people would be “Is CNN-IBN’s FTN the most enduring stupidity on TV”? That’s a poll they won’t conduct but we will. So do cast your vote in this poll on the top right margin of this page. Happy new year! 

Walking The Dog

The theory that dogs resemble their masters or vice-versa has been around for a long time. I have no idea why. It’s possible that people look around for pet dogs that look like them but that again is a theory. Maybe stray dogs somehow find their way to houses of people resembling them but that again is a theory. Whatever the reason, there seems to be some valid logic for such theories. Look at these pics and I think you’ll find it hard to deny that there is some secret or divine resemblance dogs have to their masters:

No matter how far you drive a dog away it has this uncanny but natural ability to find its way back to its master. Is the dog biased? Sure it is! It is biased beyond reason and will remain faithful no matter what. It does not tolerate any reason, question or logic against its master; which is why it’s called a man’s best friend. (Is it sexist to say just ‘man’ anymore? Should I say a person’s best friend?)

There has always been a question on many people’s minds: “Are our judges really unbiased”? The answer is a simple but emphatic “No”. Judges are as human as you and I and have their biases, opinions and preferences on almost all issues that come to their courts. In an unusual incident a former judge, Justice SM Soni, even wrote to the SC to keep Justice Aftab Alam away from Gujarat related cases due to his “communal mindset”. If you have heard the frequent statements by Justice Katju it won’t be hard to see that he has very strong views on almost every issue that surrounds us. The reason why judges are able to rise above their biases is because they are trained long years to interpret the letter and spirit of the law and go by facts and evidence. In higher courts it is rare to find a single judge deciding a case. It’s usually a bench of two or even more judges. Also, for their judgements they are accountable to the Law, the Constitution and their conscience and no other master. Beyond that, there is also a system of appeals that includes seeking a review of an SC judgement and can go right up to the President. What are our options with the media?

So when the eternal journalistic-bimbo announced her FTN show “Is Narendra Modi PM material?” you naturally wonder if she is even fit to discuss the topic given her hatred and bias. No, don’t take my word for it. Look at her tweet and look at the response she got from noted journalist Swapan Dasgupta (SD). Now I have to tell you, I have rarely seen SD being so blunt about anything. He is usually direct but with a lot of subtlety but in his tweet he directly charges the Social Genius not with bias but with “hatred” of Modi. Just a few weeks back Modi had sarcastically asked Rajdeep Sardesai, the ‘Numero Uno political analyst’ according to the Social Genius, if the people had assigned the task of finding a PM to the media. What SD asks is a very pertinent question. Many of our media celebs have made their fortunes not based on their bias but based on their “hatred” for Modi. In doing so, some have been as faithful as dogs are to their masters. Naturally, some even speak and bark like their masters do. They have come to resemble them in their discourses.

I strongly recommend that you read all the responses to that tweet of Swapan Dasgupta. Some are quite interesting and I reproduce a few:

One asks: @Swapan55 that just Paradoxically displays ur love for Modi!!! @sagarikaghose #FreedomofSpeech anyone?

This guy probably doesn’t realise the difference between being a biased journalist or commentator and being an anchor. He forgets that the anchor is supposed to be a moderator and not let her own opinions, bias and hatred dictate the course of the debate. SD’s sympathies for BJP or Modi are not a big secret. He does not pretend to be an “independent observer” like Sagarika or Rajdeep. More importantly, SD doesn’t allow his bias to condone lies, untruths and outright misdeeds by the BJP. The tweeter even overlooks the fact that SD is being invited for the very reason of his sympathies for Modi. SD further tweets that owing to her hatred of Modi, Sagarika should be a panellist and not the moderator. That would have been fairer.

Here’s another one from a regular moron on Twitter: @swapan55 Ouch. Clearly @sagarikaghose didnt invite you on the panel :p

Haha! This moron tends to speak before actual events. Little did he realise that when the show actually took place SD would indeed be on the panel. Perhaps it didn’t even occur to him that SD may have tweeted for the precise reason that he knew he was on that panel. Of course, ‘scoop and break’ specialist of CNN-IBN wasn’t to be left behind so he tweeted thus:

Bhupendra Chaube: @swapan55 ha ha, where is that anchor swapan?

That’s probably a dig Chaubeji wanted to take at someone. We know that lately Chaubeji is at the receiving end of some internal politics at his channel’s office and his bosses seem to be running a cheeky rivalry between him and Pallavi Ghosh in public through their tweets. All in good fun, one hopes. There are some other silly tweets like one asking if SD is being “paid” by Modi which don’t really warrant any comment.

As for the debate itself, there was Modi sympathiser Dasgupta, Modi critic Yogendra Yadav and Modi-haters Javed Anand and Sagarika Ghose. Yogendra Yadav has made a gentle shift from a “jholawalla” to politician recently. Javed Anand, husband of the washing machine of justice Teesta Setalvad, is as much a Modi-hater as Sagarika herself. So it’s 3 against 1 so you can imagine how the dice is loaded, loaded.

So let’s ask the same question we asked about judges. Can we expect media celebs to rise above their biases? Absolutely not! Especially not when it borders on hatred as has been over the years. Sagarika, Rajdeep, Barkha, Vir Sanghvi, Vinod Mehta, Vinod Sharma are not driven by bias. They follow a political agenda set by their masters. In the absence of independent moderators these media celebs automatically become the voices and barks of their political masters. By pitting 3 against 1 CNN-IBN has already skewed the time-share that would be available to each participant in the debate. This is the simple reason that the US presidential debates now have a clock running on the screen for viewers to see if both candidates are getting a fair timeshare.

Even in pointing out non-threatening PMs in the coalition era the SocialGenius reels off names to compare what she calls a “polarising” candidate in Modi: MMS, Narasimha Rao, IK Gujral, Deve Gowda. Oops.. the most assertive and yet a non-threatening PM in the recent past would have to be Atal Behari Vajpayee. Reminder: No matter how far you drive a dog away it has this uncanny but natural ability to find its way back to its master. It’s not only unconscious it is second-nature for dogs. As for threatening, who exactly does Modi really threaten? India? The idea of India? (As the social scientologist kept mentioning), the minorities, the media? Looks like Modi threatens the very Macaulay Putras and Putris who have so far lived a life of luxury and entitlement. He threatens the very masters of this class who hate anything that is likely to challenge the status quo.

After years of an insipid, lack-lustre, puppet PM like MMS it is only natural that many would like to see an assertive and decisive PM. Modi need not be the only candidate who fits that bill but there isn’t anyone else who's standing up yet. It wouldn’t be unfair to say that the Cong-UPA under MMS (or Sonia if you like) has figuratively burned down mission-India and many dreams and houses. As for the dogs, even if their masters literally burn down the mission and the house, I leave it to you to wonder who they will still follow. Seems their masters walk them well.

FTN: The Gandhis & Vardabhai

Even when one wishes to give some credit to the Social Genius for finally picking up courage to talk about the Gandhi family she spoils it by inviting panellists whose views on the topic are already well-known. Still, she does deserve credit for breaking the silence. Unlike a debate for an election contest or winning a prize, a debate on TV need not be for and against. It can simply be on established and verifiable facts against myths or lies. So Sagarika Ghose picks up the flavour of the season in “Does the Indian media steer clear of reporting on the Gandhi family”? Ordinarily, that question shouldn’t even need a debate. It is now established beyond any doubt that the Gandhi family is shrouded in secrecy except for old clips and some stray sound-bites, mostly from election campaigns. Secrecy about their travels, meetings, health – nothing is in the public domain.

You’ve got the home team in S. Vardarajan, (SV) or Vardabhai for short, of The Hindu. Varda and Vadra have a nice ring to it. You had Vinod ‘Smirk’ Sharma of Hindustan Trolls. You have Madhu Kishwar, Activist and Jonathan Livingston Seagull. I got that wrong, it’s Jonathan Shainin of Caravan magazine. A what? Yes, that Caravan is a magazine of some sort. What a start from SG: “Charges are swirling around, we don’t know the veracity..”. That’s the first untruth from the host herself. Veracity? The charges, as she claims, against Robert Vadra, are based on public documents. Now, anyone can use help and verify authenticity of those documents and the contents of those documents. Those documents do suggest an absence of fair play in the financial dealings. Whether that is criminal or not is another story. Since RV has called the nation a “banana republic” he knows best how to harvest the bananas from the system.

On Smirk’s comments, which go back to the Rajiv Gandhi era, I have this to say: __________. His comments warrant no further assessment, there is only so much you can comment on forty licks. Debate rules should have made it clear that this is about the ‘current’ Gandhi family and not Rajiv Gandhi and earlier. Then SG refers to the ET report of March 2011 and asks why the media didn’t pick it up and take it further. You see, that’s the real problem. The bitchy competition between our media houses makes them ignore competing media reports rather than focus on the issues that come up. And then they go around asking everyone else why they didn’t act on that report. Answer by Vardabhai? “The transactions were unorthodox, unusual but not illegal”. Really? Then why didn’t The Hindu, at the very least, post a report on its assessment at that time? Wasn’t that the question? From 6.30 onward in the video SV is clearly stumbling and fumbling for an answer.

Then, when asked about travels and expenses, SV churns out even bigger untruths. He states that when it comes to Indian leaders, media is sensitive to their privacy. This is the nonsense that a host should point out to a panellist. SV states that even when it came to AB Vajpayee, after his knee operation, media were reluctant to show him coming down a plane? I’m sorry but I do have to call this a load of BS. Was Vajpayee’s knee surgery itself a secret? Was MMS’ heart procedure a secret? Was Nitin Gadkari’s weight treatment a secret? There were and still are abundant jokes on Gadkari’s weight and he takes it lightly. This is how Varadarajan lays eggs of untruths in defence of the sorry absence of reporting on the Gandhi family. Madhu Kishwar points to the absence of “investigative journalism” in the country. She’s right, but I have to say that those living on crumbs are unlikely to possess the nose of a real hound.

So in response SG asks Kishwar, who has filed RTI applications, why it’s important to know about Rahul Gandhi’s travel information. Alright! Let’s imagine LK Advani went to Pakistan on a private trip. Sure, we have no business to ask for information on personal trips. That’s the argument being peddled by most. While in Pakistan, LKA also decides to secretly meet Hafeez Saeed. Does that matter to you? Does that matter to the nation? LKA can turn around and say it’s his “private matter”. Is it really private? If the host herself is dumb enough to ask a question like this the debate loses value. The nation has a right to know where its representatives go and who they meet. A detailed report is definitely not required on every trip and meeting but a small summary would do. It is enough to say ‘SoniaG was in Venice and spent time with her family and friends’. No further information is required unless it is of national interest.

The problem with Sonia, Rahul and the Gandhi family is that nobody even knows. Even in the Robert Vadra case, even after so many debates nobody in the public knows where he is. In other circumstances it’s not necessary but since RV’s case has come up it’s important. In contrast, when Varsha Bhosle, Asha Bhosle’s daughter, shot herself every channel reported Asha Bhosle was in Singapore (October 8). See the difference? Asha Bhosle is a very prominent public figure too, probably more than some Vadra. In case memory deserts us there was this book by a Spanish writer Javier Moro about Sonia Gandhi titled “The Red Sari”. Oversexed Abhishek Singhvi reportedly made sure it wouldn’t be available in India. This WSJ article should serve as a good story for Vardabhai.

Madhu Kishwar says the media is “fawning” or “petrified” or simply just “so charmed” that they lose their wits. “Anybody who has had a cup of tea or dinner with Sonia or Rahul Gandhi, their hormonal balance is finished and damaged for life”. Those two sentences by her about the Indian media sum up what a million words cannot. The absolute truth about our crony media! Some samples were on the panel too.

On being asked why Sonia, Rahul don’t give interviews SV has a “simple” explanation: “In any party that has multiple leaders… “. If you laughed, it’s your own fault, not mine. Congress has “multiple” leaders? And then the BJP is more open because there are “several contenders” for the top spot while the Gandhis have no such incentive. That is brilliant “intellectualism” for you. And then he says “that’s the nature of the Congress party”. Well, Vardabhai that is precisely what is being debated. Why such a secretive culture? Why such cronyism? Why such sycophancy? SG should have explained the question to SV twice over before the debate. At 24.04 Vardabhai asks “when was the last time Sushma Swaraj or Arun Jaitley were in live debates”. If he was ever guilty of moronery in the past, SV has exceeded that. Who said anything about being in live debates? Both Swaraj and Jaitley have given enough interviews in the last year, at least 3 each to major news channels that I can point to. After every parliament session they address pressers and both are regular speakers in the parliament. Of course, a “live parliament” debate does not constitute “live debate” for some foolish minds. Vardabhai would have you believe real live debates happen only on TVchannels. Once again, you laugh at your own risk.

Then Jonathan Livingston Seagull, who flies too, majestically states: If citizens don’t demand transparency there will be secrecy. What exactly are RTI inquiries on travels and expenses of SoniaG and RahulG? Inquiries by foreign spies? Not by citizens? SoniaG and RahulG not talking is one thing, even the state machinery refuses to release or even answer queries of citizens. What does that say about transparency?

SG points out that in the past 14 years SoniaG has given only 3 interviews, Rahul Gandhi – Sibal! Now, let’s be honest. Neither Sonia nor Rahul have any obligation to give interviews. If they accidently do, our media morons will tom-tom it as “Exclusive, exclusive” for 26 and half days. All that is being sought is information on their travel, their medical fitness or health and who they meet abroad or anywhere. And sometimes their views on policies since they influence those. Some of that information is definitely of public interest. If Robert is only the tip of the iceberg as someone mentioned, then who knows how many such sidekicks have made a financial killing? Lastly, TV debates are fine but calling too many panellists definitely robs the debate of any depth and inquiry into the issue. As for Vardabhai, maybe he should forget the Gandhis and tell us the status of N.Ram & Co. on the land-grab case and report on it. Let him not say nobody asked for information. The TV channels might wonder where Kripa Shankar disappeared before some scandal surfaces again. That doesn’t require the Gandhis or Vadras, does it?