<p>Over the last few days I&rsquo;ve seen with a sense of dismay a &lsquo;<i>tu-tu main-main&rsquo;</i>&nbsp;over NDTV censoring its journalists.&nbsp;One of NDTV&rsquo;s senior-most journalists and well-known faces, Sreenivasan Jain, on Tuesday, alleged that a report by him on loans given to companies owned by BJP chief Amit Shah&rsquo;s son Jay Shah was taken down from NDTV&rsquo;s website. This was done in the name of &#39;legal vetting&#39;&nbsp;he said in a detailed Facebook post.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="307" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fsreenivasan.jain%2Fposts%2F711765419028812&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>Once the face of NDTV, Barkha Dutt also said many of her stories were axed. In a series of tweets, she said, &ldquo;yes, axing stories at NDTV not new. And I don&#39;t recall said ex colleagues standing up for freedom of press &amp; reporting when some of fought it&hellip;&rdquo;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Can share <a href="https://twitter.com/nitingokhale?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nitingokhale</a> &amp; I were punished for speaking on censorship of our work:<a href="https://twitter.com/ndtv?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ndtv</a> was hostile to us: we parted. We stuck to our stand <a href="https://t.co/nCDsrpKy6G">https://t.co/nCDsrpKy6G</a></p>
&mdash; barkha dutt (@BDUTT) <a href="https://twitter.com/BDUTT/status/920502848575758337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>She also wrote a long explainer on Facebook too, where she said, &quot;Stories are censored in other newsrooms too but who else pretends to be this self-righteous and morally superior.&quot;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="294" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FBarkhaDutt%2Fposts%2F1149648611835422&amp;width=500" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="500"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>Nitin Gokhale, whose interview with the former Navy chief was also dropped, also tweeted on his similar experiences. The Twitter debate turned ugly when Sonia Verma Singh, NDTV&rsquo;s Editorial Director, questioned her former colleague on why he&rsquo;d allowed his son to intern in NDTV if he had such an axe to grind.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">You brought my son into it, not me. So you stooped low, not me. Good you realised. Debate on issue, not personality. <a href="https://t.co/lZ39GEHbQS">https://t.co/lZ39GEHbQS</a></p>
&mdash; Nitin A. Gokhale (@nitingokhale) <a href="https://twitter.com/nitingokhale/status/921014183583391745?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 19, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>Seeing the pile-on brigade&rsquo;s hullabaloo, Sreenivasan Jain seems to have called truce for the moments. He tweeted in solidarity with NDTV (they&rsquo;re still his employers) and said not many companies allow dissent from within. &ldquo;Had decided to not respond to noise around my statement - abuse, support, whatever. Journalists tell stories. They are not the story.&rdquo;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">But seeing how some are using this to pile on to NDTV, remember - can&#39;t think of too many org&#39;n&#39;s that allow public dissent from within.</p>
&mdash; Sreenivasan Jain (@SreenivasanJain) <a href="https://twitter.com/SreenivasanJain/status/920588485290893312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>What was genuinely upsetting was the barbs that flew back and forth were from people I&rsquo;d learnt a lot from and looked up to.&nbsp; I&rsquo;d been part of NDTV for over 7 years and had learnt much of my journalism there.</p>

<p><b>Why Target NDTV</b></p>

<p>In the middle of this Twitter war, my former boss, a director with NDTV and the managing editor for NDTV Convergence, the company&#39;s digital arm, wondered if some other websites have set up an&nbsp;NDTV beat. (I must say we haven&rsquo;t even though I&rsquo;m writing on it now.)</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">So many stories, such compulsive interest. Have other websites set up an <a href="https://twitter.com/ndtv?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ndtv</a> beat? ????</p>
&mdash; Suparna Singh (@Suparna_Singh) <a href="https://twitter.com/Suparna_Singh/status/920639731557265408?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>She also called out&nbsp;those&nbsp;who seem to have suddenly discovered &lsquo;their lost ethics&rsquo;.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">interesting to see some who&#39;ve shown up at Lost and Found today to reclaim their very righteous Sense of Ethics ??</p>
&mdash; Suparna Singh (@Suparna_Singh) <a href="https://twitter.com/Suparna_Singh/status/920516513710395392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>I tend to agree. That stories are dropped wasn&rsquo;t a eureka moment for anyone. Why such senior journalists chose to speak at a time they did is also something I won&rsquo;t comment on. But there remains the fact that many who knew about these stories being dropped did not speak up earlier and have suddenly found a voice.&nbsp;&nbsp;That said, journalists are after all not Martians - we all have bills to pay and if we chose to live with somethings that are uncomfortable, so be it. Some people couldn&rsquo;t&nbsp;and&nbsp;moved on, others grinned and bore it.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Maybe there are a few people who are favoured by the management. I&rsquo;m yet to work in a company that there aren&rsquo;t. And about glass ceilings -&nbsp;well, most English language media outfits favour those with public school education and perhaps a degree from Oxbridge or Columbia. That doesn&rsquo;t mean that those who are in decision-making roles are not competent or don&rsquo;t deserve to be there. Perhaps it simply boils down to basic language skills or the fact that they interviewed better.&nbsp;I wouldn&rsquo;t know. I didn&rsquo;t go to public school and am not armed with a foreign degree (not even then ones handed out by the Lajpat Nagar branches here in Delhi).</p>

<p>The charges of nepotism aren&rsquo;t then biggest problem here. The perception seems to be that an organization that seems to be fighting for the freedom of press when its owners are raided by the CBI is also sidestepping inconvenient stories -&nbsp;and it&rsquo;s this hypocrisy that has evinced such a response.&nbsp;</p>

<p><b>Are We Willing to Pay for News?</b></p>

<p>Has the ghost of media censorship, in many cases self-censorship, started tumbling out of the closet? Is press freedom dead? Much humbug is talked on this subject.&nbsp;</p>

<p>As a person who has worked in various media organizations over the past 17 years, there was no ghost -&nbsp;censorship is a reality. But that isn&rsquo;t a government or political party specific problem.&nbsp;From news agencies to TV channels to news websites, there was a side of the toast that was buttered and that&rsquo;s what you went for.&nbsp;</p>

<p>And there&rsquo;s basic economics at work here. For many publications, channels and websites -&nbsp;the smaller ones, at least -&nbsp;the government continues to be the largest source of advertising revenue. And to offend the government of the day would have a serious impact on bottom-lines. Protracted legal battles are expensive and in most cases, it is more economically viable to not run a story, or have it pulled off.&nbsp;</p>

<p>For larger media houses, it&rsquo;s definitely better with revenue streams that are diversified but that still means selling advertising, going out to corporates and perhaps not offending them to the extent that your revenues dry up.&nbsp;&nbsp;In case of dealing with political parties, it could simply be a matter of access - do a few negative stories and&nbsp;thesources who would call you with information would refuse to take your calls.</p>

<p>There are some subscription models for news&nbsp;that&nbsp;exist in India but those are few and far between. For most of the &lsquo;mainstream&rsquo; media, in an attempt to get to the numbers, which in turn ensure a minimum revenue to keep the business viable, coverage is routinely dumbed down and dense -&nbsp;in some cases, I fear, even biased.&nbsp;&nbsp;For here even supremely popular products are difficult to monetize.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Subscription based media is thriving&nbsp;in&nbsp;other parts of the world. Publications such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have seen their digital subscriptions swell manifold in the Trump presidency. This has perhaps lent them, not just the moral courage, but also the fiscal muscle to deal with a government that is at loggerheads with them.&nbsp;</p>

<p>If&nbsp;the average Indian reader wishes to be an informed citizen or learn about subjects that they care about and causes they want to mobilize on, they should start subscribing to news outlets based on the quality and depth of coverage. It would stop this mad rush for page views and ratings -&nbsp;headlines would be readable again and not a bunch of keywords and editors would be able to commission reporters to do the stories that are in the greatest public good. There would be no propensity to do &lsquo;paid news&rsquo; and no journalist or organization would need to pray at any altar save the reader.&nbsp;</p>


Over the last few days I?ve seen with a sense of dismay a ?tu-tu main-main? over NDTV censoring its journalists.

Over the last few days I’ve seen with a sense of dismay a ‘tu-tu main-main’ over NDTV censoring its journalists. One of NDTV’s senior-most journalists and well-known faces, Sreenivasan Jain, on Tuesday, alleged that a report by him on loans given to companies owned by BJP chief Amit Shah’s son Jay Shah was taken down from NDTV’s website. This was done in the name of 'legal vetting' he said in a detailed Facebook post. × Once the face of NDTV, Barkha Dutt also said many of her stories were axed. In a series of tweets, she said, “yes, axing stories at NDTV not new. And I don't recall said ex colleagues standing up for freedom of press & reporting when some of fought it…” Can share @nitingokhale & I were punished for speaking on censorship of our work:@ndtv was hostile to us: we parted. We stuck to our stand https://t.co/nCDsrpKy6G — barkha dutt (@BDUTT) October 18, 2017 × She also wrote a long explainer on Facebook too, where she said, "Stories are censored in other newsrooms too but who else pretends to be this self-righteous and morally superior." × Nitin Gokhale, whose interview with the former Navy chief was also dropped, also tweeted on his similar experiences. The Twitter debate turned ugly when Sonia Verma Singh, NDTV’s Editorial Director, questioned her former colleague on why he’d allowed his son to intern in NDTV if he had such an axe to grind. You brought my son into it, not me. So you stooped low, not me. Good you realised. Debate on issue, not personality. https://t.co/lZ39GEHbQS — Nitin A. Gokhale (@nitingokhale) October 19, 2017 × Seeing the pile-on brigade’s hullabaloo, Sreenivasan Jain seems to have called truce for the moments. He tweeted in solidarity with NDTV (they’re still his employers) and said not many companies allow dissent from within. “Had decided to not respond to noise around my statement - abuse, support, whatever. Journalists tell stories. They are not the story.” But seeing how some are using this to pile on to NDTV, remember - can't think of too many org'n's that allow public dissent from within. — Sreenivasan Jain (@SreenivasanJain) October 18, 2017 × What was genuinely upsetting was the barbs that flew back and forth were from people I’d learnt a lot from and looked up to. I’d been part of NDTV for over 7 years and had learnt much of my journalism there. Why Target NDTV In the middle of this Twitter war, my former boss, a director with NDTV and the managing editor for NDTV Convergence, the company's digital arm, wondered if some other websites have set up an NDTV beat. (I must say we haven’t even though I’m writing on it now.) So many stories, such compulsive interest. Have other websites set up an @ndtv beat? ???? — Suparna Singh (@Suparna_Singh) October 18, 2017 × She also called out those who seem to have suddenly discovered ‘their lost ethics’. interesting to see some who've shown up at Lost and Found today to reclaim their very righteous Sense of Ethics ?? — Suparna Singh (@Suparna_Singh) October 18, 2017 × I tend to agree. That stories are dropped wasn’t a eureka moment for anyone. Why such senior journalists chose to speak at a time they did is also something I won’t comment on. But there remains the fact that many who knew about these stories being dropped did not speak up earlier and have suddenly found a voice. That said, journalists are after all not Martians - we all have bills to pay and if we chose to live with somethings that are uncomfortable, so be it. Some people couldn’t and moved on, others grinned and bore it. Maybe there are a few people who are favoured by the management. I’m yet to work in a company that there aren’t. And about glass ceilings - well, most English language media outfits favour those with public school education and perhaps a degree from Oxbridge or Columbia. That doesn’t mean that those who are in decision-making roles are not competent or don’t deserve to be there. Perhaps it simply boils down to basic language skills or the fact that they interviewed better. I wouldn’t know. I didn’t go to public school and am not armed with a foreign degree (not even then ones handed out by the Lajpat Nagar branches here in Delhi). The charges of nepotism aren’t then biggest problem here. The perception seems to be that an organization that seems to be fighting for the freedom of press when its owners are raided by the CBI is also sidestepping inconvenient stories - and it’s this hypocrisy that has evinced such a response. Are We Willing to Pay for News? Has the ghost of media censorship, in many cases self-censorship, started tumbling out of the closet? Is press freedom dead? Much humbug is talked on this subject. As a person who has worked in various media organizations over the past 17 years, there was no ghost - censorship is a reality. But that isn’t a government or political party specific problem. From news agencies to TV channels to news websites, there was a side of the toast that was buttered and that’s what you went for. And there’s basic economics at work here. For many publications, channels and websites - the smaller ones, at least - the government continues to be the largest source of advertising revenue. And to offend the government of the day would have a serious impact on bottom-lines. Protracted legal battles are expensive and in most cases, it is more economically viable to not run a story, or have it pulled off. For larger media houses, it’s definitely better with revenue streams that are diversified but that still means selling advertising, going out to corporates and perhaps not offending them to the extent that your revenues dry up. In case of dealing with political parties, it could simply be a matter of access - do a few negative stories and thesources who would call you with information would refuse to take your calls. There are some subscription models for news that exist in India but those are few and far between. For most of the ‘mainstream’ media, in an attempt to get to the numbers, which in turn ensure a minimum revenue to keep the business viable, coverage is routinely dumbed down and dense - in some cases, I fear, even biased. For here even supremely popular products are difficult to monetize. Subscription based media is thriving in other parts of the world. Publications such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have seen their digital subscriptions swell manifold in the Trump presidency. This has perhaps lent them, not just the moral courage, but also the fiscal muscle to deal with a government that is at loggerheads with them. If the average Indian reader wishes to be an informed citizen or learn about subjects that they care about and causes they want to mobilize on, they should start subscribing to news outlets based on the quality and depth of coverage. It would stop this mad rush for page views and ratings - headlines would be readable again and not a bunch of keywords and editors would be able to commission reporters to do the stories that are in the greatest public good. There would be no propensity to do ‘paid news’ and no journalist or organization would need to pray at any altar save the reader.

Don't mourn the loss of free media till you pay for your news

<p>The CBI today sought to clarify its decision on carrying out raids against NDTV bosses saying the agency respects freedom of press and the action was taken as per the due process of law.</p>

<p>The statement comes in the wake of various media organisations, including the much-powerful Editors Guild of India, expressing deep concern over the raids conducted by the CBI on the offices of NDTV and its promoters.</p>

<p>&quot;Entry of police and other agencies into the media offices is a serious matter,&quot; the Editors Guild statement had said after the raids yesterday.</p>

<p>In an unusually lengthy statement, the agency said it has not conducted any search on the registered office of NDTV, media studio, news room or premises connected with media operations.</p>

<p>&quot;CBI fully respects the freedom of press and is committed to the free functioning of news operations,&quot; it said and clarified that the allegations under investigation are not regarding the default in loan repayment.</p>

<p>The allegations &quot;relate to the wrongful gain of Rs 48 crore to the promoters--Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy, RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd and a corresponding wrongful loss to the ICICI bank arising from their collusion and criminal conspiracy,&quot; the CBI said.</p>

<p>NDTV in its statement yesterday had termed the action of the CBI to register FIR and carry out searches at Roys&#39; as an attempt to muzzle the media.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><strong>Also read:&nbsp;</strong><a href="http://NDTV chief Prannoy Roy under CBI lens, channel calls it 'witch-hunt'" target="_blank">NDTV chief Prannoy Roy under CBI lens, channel calls it &#39;witch-hunt&#39;</a></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The ruling party politicians could not &quot;stomach&quot; the &quot;independence and fearlessness&quot; of NDTV&#39;s team and the CBI raid is merely another attempt at silencing the media,&quot; it had said.</p>

<p>The CBI, while advising restraint, said denigrating the allegations at this stage of probe and wrongly accusing the agency of acting under pressure is uncalled for and an attempt to malign the image of the agency.</p>

<p>&quot;The investigation is being conducted as per the due process of law and under the jurisdiction of the court of law. The result of investigation will be filed before the competent court of law based on the evidence adduced during investigation,&quot; it said.</p>

<p>The agency said it has registered the case based on the complaint of a share holder of ICICI bank and NDTV after carrying out due diligence.</p>

<p>Referring to the statement of NDTV about never having defaulted on any loan, the CBI alleged that the probe would revolve around why ICICI bank took the entire shareholding of the promoters in NDTV (nearly 61 per cent) as collateral and reduced the interest rates from 19 per cent to 9.5 per cent.</p>

<p>Contesting NDTV&#39;s questions raised over the jurisdiction of the CBI when ICICI was a private bank, the CBI referred to an order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gelli versus CBI of 2016 where the apex court has held that the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are applicable to the officials of private banks.</p>

<p>&quot;Therefore, CBI has jurisdiction to take up investigation of the cases of private banks,&quot; it said and assured the agency was committed to carry out the investigation expeditiously and in accordance with the due process of law.</p>

<p>In the meantime, a statement of Editors Guild said NDTV, in various statements, has denied any wrong doing and termed the raids as &quot;stepping up the concerted harassment&quot; of the news channel and an attempt to &quot;undermine democracy and free speech&quot; and &quot;silence the media.&quot;</p>

<p>&quot;While the Editors Guild maintains that no individuals or institution is above the law, the Guild condemns any attempt to muzzle the media and calls upon the CBI to follow the due process of law and ensure there is no interference in the free functioning of news operations,&quot; the statement said.</p>

<p>Press Club of India and All India Newspaper Editor&#39;s Conference also condemned the CBI raids on the NDTV.</p>

<p>A group of intellectuals under the banner of SAHMAT have condemned as &quot;totally unwarranted&quot; the CBI raid calling it &quot;an intimidatory tactic&quot;.</p>

<p>The group maintained that all due procedures should be followed in cases of private complaints. It said it is of opinion that searches even without a preliminary enquiry, as stated by NDTV, is nothing but an intimidatory tactic.</p>

<p>&quot;By attacking the media, the present government is undermining freedom of the press, so essential for a democratic polity,&quot; it said.</p>

<p>(PTI)</p>


The statement comes amid media houses expressing deep concern over the raids conducted by the CBI on the offices of NDTV and its promoters

The CBI today sought to clarify its decision on carrying out raids against NDTV bosses saying the agency respects freedom of press and the action was taken as per the due process of law. The statement comes in the wake of various media organisations, including the much-powerful Editors Guild of India, expressing deep concern over the raids conducted by the CBI on the offices of NDTV and its promoters. "Entry of police and other agencies into the media offices is a serious matter," the Editors Guild statement had said after the raids yesterday. In an unusually lengthy statement, the agency said it has not conducted any search on the registered office of NDTV, media studio, news room or premises connected with media operations. "CBI fully respects the freedom of press and is committed to the free functioning of news operations," it said and clarified that the allegations under investigation are not regarding the default in loan repayment. The allegations "relate to the wrongful gain of Rs 48 crore to the promoters--Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy, RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd and a corresponding wrongful loss to the ICICI bank arising from their collusion and criminal conspiracy," the CBI said. NDTV in its statement yesterday had termed the action of the CBI to register FIR and carry out searches at Roys' as an attempt to muzzle the media. Also read: NDTV chief Prannoy Roy under CBI lens, channel calls it 'witch-hunt' The ruling party politicians could not "stomach" the "independence and fearlessness" of NDTV's team and the CBI raid is merely another attempt at silencing the media," it had said. The CBI, while advising restraint, said denigrating the allegations at this stage of probe and wrongly accusing the agency of acting under pressure is uncalled for and an attempt to malign the image of the agency. "The investigation is being conducted as per the due process of law and under the jurisdiction of the court of law. The result of investigation will be filed before the competent court of law based on the evidence adduced during investigation," it said. The agency said it has registered the case based on the complaint of a share holder of ICICI bank and NDTV after carrying out due diligence. Referring to the statement of NDTV about never having defaulted on any loan, the CBI alleged that the probe would revolve around why ICICI bank took the entire shareholding of the promoters in NDTV (nearly 61 per cent) as collateral and reduced the interest rates from 19 per cent to 9.5 per cent. Contesting NDTV's questions raised over the jurisdiction of the CBI when ICICI was a private bank, the CBI referred to an order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Gelli versus CBI of 2016 where the apex court has held that the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are applicable to the officials of private banks. "Therefore, CBI has jurisdiction to take up investigation of the cases of private banks," it said and assured the agency was committed to carry out the investigation expeditiously and in accordance with the due process of law. In the meantime, a statement of Editors Guild said NDTV, in various statements, has denied any wrong doing and termed the raids as "stepping up the concerted harassment" of the news channel and an attempt to "undermine democracy and free speech" and "silence the media." "While the Editors Guild maintains that no individuals or institution is above the law, the Guild condemns any attempt to muzzle the media and calls upon the CBI to follow the due process of law and ensure there is no interference in the free functioning of news operations," the statement said. Press Club of India and All India Newspaper Editor's Conference also condemned the CBI raids on the NDTV. A group of intellectuals under the banner of SAHMAT have condemned as "totally unwarranted" the CBI raid calling it "an intimidatory tactic". The group maintained that all due procedures should be followed in cases of private complaints. It said it is of opinion that searches even without a preliminary enquiry, as stated by NDTV, is nothing but an intimidatory tactic. "By attacking the media, the present government is undermining freedom of the press, so essential for a democratic polity," it said. (PTI)

Action against NDTV taken as per due process of law, CBI claims

<p>Many of Trump&rsquo;s dependable media critics took a day off and praised his&nbsp;address to Congress. The New York Times ran the headline, &ldquo;Trump, in optimistic address, asks Congress to end trivial fights&rdquo;. The Washington Post, &ldquo;In first joint address to Congress, Trump wins high marks for steady, muscular tone&rdquo;. Another Washington Post headlined&nbsp;called his speech &quot;surprisingly presidential&quot;. They were not alone.</p>

<p>These major US media outlets are rebranding themselves as crusaders in the war between Trump versus facts. While their Congress speech coverage wasn&rsquo;t universally positive, they and others got fooled&nbsp;because for 60 consecutive minutes Trump generally managed to impersonate an adult. Also,&nbsp;perhaps they&nbsp;responded favourably because for once the president&nbsp;didn&#39;t berate them.</p>

<p>The full speech is <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/read-full-text-of-trumps-first-speech-to-congress-12919" target="_blank">here</a>. Reading it is suggested, because it&#39;s different than watching Trump&nbsp;perform it.</p>

<p>It&rsquo;s impossible to address every lie in the speech because most&nbsp;sentences contain&nbsp;at least one, or are&nbsp;founded on one.&nbsp;But let&rsquo;s look closely at one&nbsp;excerpt. The beginning of the speech was praised, despite being dangerous and profoundly untrue. This is both representative of Trump&rsquo;s overall <em>modus operandi</em>, and illustrative of&nbsp;how even non-supporters can fail to understand him:</p>

<p>&ldquo;Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our nation&rsquo;s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains. Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centres and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week&rsquo;s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.&rdquo;</p>

<p>Trump here doesn&rsquo;t celebrate Black culture or condemn acts of&nbsp;racism or&nbsp;murder, he is reminding everybody that he <em>already has</em>. Ingrained&nbsp;in the paragraph is his&nbsp;belief that by definition&nbsp;the US is automatically against hate and evil, so as president, the ultimate embodiment of this virtuous country, Trump is automatically virtuous. He is praising himself, not supporting targeted minority groups.</p>

<p>For weeks he has&nbsp;been asked to condemn the rise of racist attacks since the election.&nbsp;Here, he&nbsp;devotes only two sentences to three groups. Apologies require admitting fault so he doesn&rsquo;t do that, here or anywhere. It would be against his programming. He just utters the word &ldquo;Black&rdquo; and &ldquo;Jewish&rdquo; aloud without saying something horrible after. This bar is disgracefully, grotesquely low.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

<p>Yet even here he cannot bring himself to say &ldquo;Muslim&rdquo;. He does say&nbsp;&ldquo;Muslim&rdquo; twice in the hour-long speech but later, and only in the context of working with Muslim allies to fight Islamic State, or, in Trump&#39;s typical trite,&nbsp;overcompensating&nbsp;language, &ldquo;Extinguish this vile enemy from our planet&rdquo;. Several mosques have been burned in the US since the November 8&nbsp;election, but Trump only utters&nbsp;&ldquo;Muslim&rdquo;&nbsp;in the context of Muslim allies helping to kill other Muslims. This is the president&nbsp;extending an olive branch? He did not end his silence on these attacks, he continued it.</p>

<p>Some Indian media credited Trump with something that simply did not happen. NDTV ran the headline &ldquo;President Donald Trump denounces killing of Indian engineer in state of union address&rdquo;.&nbsp;No, Trump&nbsp;did not denounce the killing. He only alluded to it broadly, in part of one sentence,&nbsp;with&nbsp;a&nbsp;euphemism and a dodge. He carefully avoided&nbsp;expanding on or conveying what happened, which is: A&nbsp;white American&nbsp;murdered an innocent Indian man&nbsp;and shot two others because, as if this is a credible reason, he thought they were Iranian. A witness heard&nbsp;the shooter say,&nbsp;&quot;Get out of my country&quot; before firing.</p>

<p>Later in the speech&nbsp;Trump singled&nbsp;out victims of <em>other</em>&nbsp;attacks that fit his narrative, like the father whose son was, in Trump&#39;s words, &quot;viciously murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member&quot;.&nbsp;Ask yourself, why does Trump&nbsp;so brashly emphasize the attacker&#39;s background when they&#39;re not white, but remain silent about this aspect when the murderer&nbsp;is white?&nbsp;Trump never said &quot;Indian&quot; or&nbsp;the name&nbsp;Srinivas Kuchibhotla aloud.&nbsp;This is all crammed into the limp term, &ldquo;the Kansas shooting&rdquo;. And&nbsp;again, Trump&nbsp;never condemned&nbsp;this in his speech,&nbsp;he reminded&nbsp;us that he had already done so, when he had not.</p>

<p>Lest anyone think this is&nbsp;splitting hairs, remember, when Trump is genuinely moved his language is anything but subtle. To Trump&nbsp; Islamic State isn&rsquo;t just the enemy, they&rsquo;re &ldquo;a network of lawless savages&rdquo;, et cetera. He did not call it&nbsp;the &quot;Kansas multiple shooting&quot;, or the &quot;Kansas murder&quot;. If Trump felt sincerely pained by&nbsp;a racist murder, he would have rushed to Twitter to say something like the US needs a &ldquo;total and complete shutdown&rdquo; on racist murderers. We would not be sitting here five days after the killing, parsing language&nbsp;trying to figure out what Trump&nbsp;meant.</p>

<p>There is enough data on Trump to know where he stands. The verdict was in&nbsp;a long time before he addressed Congress: The president is&nbsp;a dangerous bigot who will never change. Even if he did&nbsp;condemn racism in this speech it would be&nbsp;moot, because it assumes that there was something left to decide about the man.</p>

<p>Trump managed to fool people incapable of decoding both his warped worldview and his barely-veiled bigotry, even his critics, by&nbsp;calmly reading&nbsp;from a teleprompter words he obviously didn&rsquo;t write. When students accomplish this it&rsquo;s called plagiarism,&nbsp;for him&nbsp;it&#39;s presidential.</p>

<p>If&nbsp;president of the United States requires&nbsp;this little, every single employee in the world deserves an enormous raise and promotion.</p>

<p>(WION)<br />
&nbsp;</p>


Trump has conditioned the media to expect a madman and a pathological liar, so he impressed many pundits by only lying

Many of Trump’s dependable media critics took a day off and praised his address to Congress. The New York Times ran the headline, “Trump, in optimistic address, asks Congress to end trivial fights”. The Washington Post, “In first joint address to Congress, Trump wins high marks for steady, muscular tone”. Another Washington Post headlined called his speech "surprisingly presidential". They were not alone. These major US media outlets are rebranding themselves as crusaders in the war between Trump versus facts. While their Congress speech coverage wasn’t universally positive, they and others got fooled because for 60 consecutive minutes Trump generally managed to impersonate an adult. Also, perhaps they responded favourably because for once the president didn't berate them. The full speech is here. Reading it is suggested, because it's different than watching Trump perform it. It’s impossible to address every lie in the speech because most sentences contain at least one, or are founded on one. But let’s look closely at one excerpt. The beginning of the speech was praised, despite being dangerous and profoundly untrue. This is both representative of Trump’s overall modus operandi, and illustrative of how even non-supporters can fail to understand him: “Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains. Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centres and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.” Trump here doesn’t celebrate Black culture or condemn acts of racism or murder, he is reminding everybody that he already has. Ingrained in the paragraph is his belief that by definition the US is automatically against hate and evil, so as president, the ultimate embodiment of this virtuous country, Trump is automatically virtuous. He is praising himself, not supporting targeted minority groups. For weeks he has been asked to condemn the rise of racist attacks since the election. Here, he devotes only two sentences to three groups. Apologies require admitting fault so he doesn’t do that, here or anywhere. It would be against his programming. He just utters the word “Black” and “Jewish” aloud without saying something horrible after. This bar is disgracefully, grotesquely low. Yet even here he cannot bring himself to say “Muslim”. He does say “Muslim” twice in the hour-long speech but later, and only in the context of working with Muslim allies to fight Islamic State, or, in Trump's typical trite, overcompensating language, “Extinguish this vile enemy from our planet”. Several mosques have been burned in the US since the November 8 election, but Trump only utters “Muslim” in the context of Muslim allies helping to kill other Muslims. This is the president extending an olive branch? He did not end his silence on these attacks, he continued it. Some Indian media credited Trump with something that simply did not happen. NDTV ran the headline “President Donald Trump denounces killing of Indian engineer in state of union address”. No, Trump did not denounce the killing. He only alluded to it broadly, in part of one sentence, with a euphemism and a dodge. He carefully avoided expanding on or conveying what happened, which is: A white American murdered an innocent Indian man and shot two others because, as if this is a credible reason, he thought they were Iranian. A witness heard the shooter say, "Get out of my country" before firing. Later in the speech Trump singled out victims of other attacks that fit his narrative, like the father whose son was, in Trump's words, "viciously murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member". Ask yourself, why does Trump so brashly emphasize the attacker's background when they're not white, but remain silent about this aspect when the murderer is white? Trump never said "Indian" or the name Srinivas Kuchibhotla aloud. This is all crammed into the limp term, “the Kansas shooting”. And again, Trump never condemned this in his speech, he reminded us that he had already done so, when he had not. Lest anyone think this is splitting hairs, remember, when Trump is genuinely moved his language is anything but subtle. To Trump Islamic State isn’t just the enemy, they’re “a network of lawless savages”, et cetera. He did not call it the "Kansas multiple shooting", or the "Kansas murder". If Trump felt sincerely pained by a racist murder, he would have rushed to Twitter to say something like the US needs a “total and complete shutdown” on racist murderers. We would not be sitting here five days after the killing, parsing language trying to figure out what Trump meant. There is enough data on Trump to know where he stands. The verdict was in a long time before he addressed Congress: The president is a dangerous bigot who will never change. Even if he did condemn racism in this speech it would be moot, because it assumes that there was something left to decide about the man. Trump managed to fool people incapable of decoding both his warped worldview and his barely-veiled bigotry, even his critics, by calmly reading from a teleprompter words he obviously didn’t write. When students accomplish this it’s called plagiarism, for him it's presidential. If president of the United States requires this little, every single employee in the world deserves an enormous raise and promotion. (WION)

Trump?s Congress address analysed: How did this speech fool so many news outlets?

<p>A day after the Indian news channel, NDTV, was asked to cease all its broadcast for 24 hours by Indian information and broadcasting ministry, several political leaders and journalists have condemned the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government&#39;s decision.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>An inter-ministerial panel on Thursday pointed out that the channel&#39;s report disclosed the details of the military aircraft and weapons kept at the air base which were &ldquo;likely to be used by the terrorists themselves or their handlers to cause massive harm,&quot; international news agency AFP reported.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, NDTV said that it is being singled out &nbsp;while other channels also played similar coverage because of its run-ins with the Narendra Modi-government previously.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Meanwhile, reacting to the day-long ban to be imposed on NDTV, opposition leader and Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, posted on microblogging site Twitter: &quot;NDTVBanned-shocking and unprecedented (sic).&quot;&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Editors Guild of India, the Broadcast Editors Association (BEA) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) also criticised the decision.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Editors Guild of India said the measure evoked memories of the 1975-77 emergency rule when fundamental rights were suspended in the world`s largest democracy and large numbers of journalists were jailed, AFP reported.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;The decision to take the channel off the air for a day is a direct violation of the freedom of the media and therefore the citizens of India and amounts to harsh censorship imposed by the government reminiscent of the Emergency,&quot; the guild said in a statement.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&quot;Imposing a ban without resorting to judicial intervention or oversight violates the fundamental principles of freedom and justice. The Editors Guild of India calls for an immediate withdrawal of the ban order.&quot;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>(WION with inputs from AFP)&nbsp;</p>


The news channel alleged that it was being singled out while other channels also played similar reportage

A day after the Indian news channel, NDTV, was asked to cease all its broadcast for 24 hours by Indian information and broadcasting ministry, several political leaders and journalists have condemned the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government's decision. An inter-ministerial panel on Thursday pointed out that the channel's report disclosed the details of the military aircraft and weapons kept at the air base which were “likely to be used by the terrorists themselves or their handlers to cause massive harm," international news agency AFP reported. However, NDTV said that it is being singled out while other channels also played similar coverage because of its run-ins with the Narendra Modi-government previously. Meanwhile, reacting to the day-long ban to be imposed on NDTV, opposition leader and Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, posted on microblogging site Twitter: "NDTVBanned-shocking and unprecedented (sic)." The Editors Guild of India, the Broadcast Editors Association (BEA) and the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) also criticised the decision. The Editors Guild of India said the measure evoked memories of the 1975-77 emergency rule when fundamental rights were suspended in the world`s largest democracy and large numbers of journalists were jailed, AFP reported. "The decision to take the channel off the air for a day is a direct violation of the freedom of the media and therefore the citizens of India and amounts to harsh censorship imposed by the government reminiscent of the Emergency," the guild said in a statement. "Imposing a ban without resorting to judicial intervention or oversight violates the fundamental principles of freedom and justice. The Editors Guild of India calls for an immediate withdrawal of the ban order." (WION with inputs from AFP)

One-day ban on Indian news channel over Pathankot reportage sparks outrage

ndtv

Ndtv, News on Ndtv, stories on Ndtv, articles on Ndtv, Ndtv stories at Wion, Ndtv news, Ndtv latest news