Following Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi, the latest to offer a defence of his conversation with Nira Radia is Prabhu Chawla. Here is what he wrote on November 23:
"Much has been made about a conversation that Nira Radia had with me. This is just to put the record straight. The 13 minute conversation had nothing to do with the controversial 2G of A Raja. Nira called me as she said “to seek my expertise” on the Battle for Gas” between the two Ambani brothers. I merely told her that the earlier the brothers put an end to their private battle, the better it will be for the public good. I did not take sides........It is proof, if indeed proof were needed, that I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. " Read his full blogpost Here.
Here's my response to Mr. Prabhu Chawla:
Firstly, I have not yet come across any media, electronic, print or online, accusing you of any "guilt" in these conversations. Then why this defence? Why this attempt to show you are "innocent" of any wrong doing?
You were at least one person to admit that these tapes are genuine in your "Ask Prabhu" feature on your group site (Read Here) And then you went on to state these were obtained "illegally"! Really? I would request you to substantiate your charge that these were obtained illegally. In other terms, are you suggesting that the magazine that exposed the tapes had "sources" that were illegal, unlike the "legal" journalistic sources that Barkha, Sanghvi and you maybe indulging?
You are a very senior and respected journalist. But if someone completely unaware of the background of the whole story were to be shown the transcript of your conversation with Radia, who do you think would be perceived to be the journalist? You or Nira Radia? In all honesty, in response to her clever line of probing you appear to be the one singing like a canary with delicate juice on the Ambani brothers. Is that how journalists do business? Who's doing the "Seedhi Baat" here? And were you completely unaware that this person is a corporate and political lobbyist that would make anyone cautious about what they say to her? Especially a senior journalist of some standing.Were you completely unaware of the overall nature of Radia's portfolio of work and assignments?
No one accused you of any guilt, Mr. Chawla. However, since you have offered a defence, the above are the real questions you need to answer. Will you? It doesn't cross the minds of the journalists involved in this story that it's not Radia who appears to be the "journalistic source" in all the transcripts. It is, unfortunately, the journalists who appear to be a "source" for a lobbyist's designs. Is that so hard to see?
Showing posts with label X Tapes. Vir Sanghvi. Quid Pro Quo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label X Tapes. Vir Sanghvi. Quid Pro Quo. Show all posts
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Rajdeep Sardesai on ' Quid Pro Quo '...
Following the exposure of the Radia tapes involving journalists Rajdeep Sardesai was among the first to defend Barkha Dutt. He tweeted "Conversation between source and journo is legitimate. if quid pro quo is shown, expose it. else, dont destroy hard earned reputations”. When I looked up I found no better article/speech than one by Rajdeep himself on the matter of quid pro quo (sometime in 2001). Here are excerpts from one such speech/article by him. I repeat these are 'excerpts' and a link to the entire article is provided at the end of this post.
Quote:
... In each instance, the system operates on a clear quid pro quo.... In particular, when it comes to celebrity journalism in the country today, the lines between reportage and public relations are slowly getting blurred.
....Take also the so-called ad supplements .....For example, journalists are taken on a full, all-expenses paid holiday for the Dubai shopping festival. The newspaper gets ad revenues, the festival gets publicity, and the journalist gets a perfect junket.
....As indeed can the political journalist who enjoys the privilege of travelling with the prime minister or the president on an official tour.... How is the Black Label whisky and box of chocolates that are left in the hotel room of any journalist any less of an inducement than the gifts offered to army officials on the tehelka tapes?
And yet few, if any, of us journalists even bother to consider that this may be a corrupting factor, an attempt by the government to break the dividing line between journalist and establishment and ensure that the press writes positively on the ‘achievements’ of those in power.....
....It’s no different with corporate houses who have select journalists on their payroll.
....In Delhi, a senior political reporter can ensure an appointment for a businessman with an important civil servant for a fee..... And at the very top of the journalistic pyramid, an editor may be able to ensure that a television channel gets the benefit of a major satellite project in return for a prime time news programme. Indeed, as the stakes get higher, the ‘journalist as fixer’ concept has become more and more prevalent.
Another reason for the problem is the changing self-image of the journalist, and his role in a democratic system. For a long time the journalist’s role was seen to be that of an independent observer of events. But observation alone can be rather tedious, and not very financially productive either. So, over the years, the journalist has chosen to move from the margins of the fourth estate to being firmly on the centre-stage, closer to the first estate. Ideological corruption is as much a part in this process as anything else. A journalist can get close to a political party, business house or an individual in a manner that compromises his independence. Having acquired that proximity, the journalist can then use his clout on a larger scale, playing kingmaker in cementing political alliances at the centre, or in providing the link between a minister in the Union cabinet and a business house in need of a favour.
In the process of becoming power centres in their own right, the journalist has acquired a new profile and status within civil society. Ironically, in the process of acquiring this new image the journalist has become less of a watchdog and more of a lapdog of the system. For once a journalist is corrupted – either ideologically or financially – his space for challenging the system and playing an adversarial role keeps shrinking.
Unfortunately, few media persons have chosen to even look at the extent of the problem. Perhaps, it suits us not to look inwards since the reflection in the mirror won’t look very attractive. Perhaps, it suits the newspaper owners and channel bosses to keep the status quo since they have been prime beneficiaries of a corrupted system. Certainly, none of the so-called media watchdog bodies, be it the Press Council or the Editors Guild, have chosen to focus on media corruption – political, ideological or financial.
There are no rules or regulations that govern media ethics, or tell us whether it is acceptable for a journalist to receive a gift from a corporate house, or a junket from a ministry. With no clear-cut guidelines, it has become almost open season for those who wish to manipulate the system to their advantage.
Unquote
Rajdeep wants the "quip pro quo" to be established, knowing well that will be impossible. Else many corrupt politicians and journalists would be in prison by now. It doesn't strike him that even where there is strong evidence and proof the criminals walk around free in this country. His own words explain the media silence on the Radia tapes and to use his own words "the system operates on a clear quid pro quo"...
Quote:
... In each instance, the system operates on a clear quid pro quo.... In particular, when it comes to celebrity journalism in the country today, the lines between reportage and public relations are slowly getting blurred.
....Take also the so-called ad supplements .....For example, journalists are taken on a full, all-expenses paid holiday for the Dubai shopping festival. The newspaper gets ad revenues, the festival gets publicity, and the journalist gets a perfect junket.
....As indeed can the political journalist who enjoys the privilege of travelling with the prime minister or the president on an official tour.... How is the Black Label whisky and box of chocolates that are left in the hotel room of any journalist any less of an inducement than the gifts offered to army officials on the tehelka tapes?
And yet few, if any, of us journalists even bother to consider that this may be a corrupting factor, an attempt by the government to break the dividing line between journalist and establishment and ensure that the press writes positively on the ‘achievements’ of those in power.....
....It’s no different with corporate houses who have select journalists on their payroll.
....In Delhi, a senior political reporter can ensure an appointment for a businessman with an important civil servant for a fee..... And at the very top of the journalistic pyramid, an editor may be able to ensure that a television channel gets the benefit of a major satellite project in return for a prime time news programme. Indeed, as the stakes get higher, the ‘journalist as fixer’ concept has become more and more prevalent.
Another reason for the problem is the changing self-image of the journalist, and his role in a democratic system. For a long time the journalist’s role was seen to be that of an independent observer of events. But observation alone can be rather tedious, and not very financially productive either. So, over the years, the journalist has chosen to move from the margins of the fourth estate to being firmly on the centre-stage, closer to the first estate. Ideological corruption is as much a part in this process as anything else. A journalist can get close to a political party, business house or an individual in a manner that compromises his independence. Having acquired that proximity, the journalist can then use his clout on a larger scale, playing kingmaker in cementing political alliances at the centre, or in providing the link between a minister in the Union cabinet and a business house in need of a favour.
In the process of becoming power centres in their own right, the journalist has acquired a new profile and status within civil society. Ironically, in the process of acquiring this new image the journalist has become less of a watchdog and more of a lapdog of the system. For once a journalist is corrupted – either ideologically or financially – his space for challenging the system and playing an adversarial role keeps shrinking.
Unfortunately, few media persons have chosen to even look at the extent of the problem. Perhaps, it suits us not to look inwards since the reflection in the mirror won’t look very attractive. Perhaps, it suits the newspaper owners and channel bosses to keep the status quo since they have been prime beneficiaries of a corrupted system. Certainly, none of the so-called media watchdog bodies, be it the Press Council or the Editors Guild, have chosen to focus on media corruption – political, ideological or financial.
There are no rules or regulations that govern media ethics, or tell us whether it is acceptable for a journalist to receive a gift from a corporate house, or a junket from a ministry. With no clear-cut guidelines, it has become almost open season for those who wish to manipulate the system to their advantage.
Unquote
Rajdeep wants the "quip pro quo" to be established, knowing well that will be impossible. Else many corrupt politicians and journalists would be in prison by now. It doesn't strike him that even where there is strong evidence and proof the criminals walk around free in this country. His own words explain the media silence on the Radia tapes and to use his own words "the system operates on a clear quid pro quo"...
Read the full article Here.