The times of Times of India
I admit that when I read a news report titled “NGOs, Teesta spiced up Gujarat riot incidents: SIT” in Times of India, I almost bought it. I know it is stupid to blindly believe everything that the media churns out, but the story was published in TOI and they quoted the SIT in their news report which added to some primary credibility. Then there were immediate responses from Sangh Parivar sympathizers. They said that the “pseudo-secular media” conveniently withheld the story from publishing since it is election time. They attacked their enemies, those who stand for the secular ethos of the country. They also wanted the Supreme Court to initiate action on the “pseudo secular media” because of their silence on the issue.
I was shocked to read the whole thing. I got confused too, as whom to believe and whom not to believe on such sensitive issues. I thought that the very same secular values that many people in this great country stood for have just got dirty because of people like Teesta. Like I said before, I almost bought it.
Yet, the main charges/claims of the Times of India reporter had no substance and it did not come from the SIT. The major claims in the Times of India report mentioned the following:
- The riot witnesses were tutored by Teesta Setalvad before submitting the affidavits
- The celebrated rights activist [referring to Teesta] cooked up macabre tales of wanton killings
- The gangrape on Kausar Banu, and the gouging out of her foetus by the mob was found with “no truth”
- Dumping of dead bodies into a well by rioters at Naroda Patiya was also found with “no truth”
The TOI report said that all of these were told by SIT chief R K Raghavan in the Supreme Court on April 13th, Monday. But hold your horses, because none from the SIT or Mr. Raghavan himself were present in the apex court on April 13 to tell anything.
Even though the TOI article was referring to the SIT report, the person whom they quoted was Gujarat government’s counsel, Mukul Rohtagi. And the SIT chief Mr. Raghavan told Hindutan Times that the alleged leaks appear to have been based on statements of state police officials and “cannot be termed as findings of the report.”[via]
Then came the second article in Times of India, by the same reporter and this time the reporter said nothing about the above claims and rather held on to “discrepancies” and “contradictions“. No word about Kausar Banu, Wanton Killing or the Tutoring of Teesta. He chose to be silent on those allegations which he had earlier stated as the “SIT found untrue“.
So yes, if this is the kind of journalism we are fed with, there needs to have legal action against “such” media houses. Unfortunately, these are the times of India.
PS: It doesn’t take a genius to guess why the Gujarat counsel’s claims made news just 3 days before the 1st phase of general elections. I am not for or against Teesta’s case. We have a process of law in place and our Supreme Court to judge the case. So let the law take it’s due course.
Related reading:
About warped minds - Dilip D’Souza
‘Cooking Up Macabre Tales’: FAQ – Outlook
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
I was skimming through. Not that I know of the matter, but the media issue caught my attention. But what prompted a comment was “Let the law take it’s due course.”
LOL, Joseph, 5 years, and even you pop surprises at times:-) Or maybe I am losing more trust towards India, its politicians, hypocritical leaders, media and people, as I mature.
Digress: Good luck with your new attempts.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
Cannot afford to be hopeless, my friend. That’s what keeps our lives going.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Jo, the same feelings that went through your mind went through mine. I personally do not think highly of Teesta as I have heard her speak on television and she comes across as a biased person. Therefore I believed the TOI report, in fact fell for it hook line and sinker! Good to know that there is an element of doubt.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Yes, Nita.
In an Outlook report, they mainly say that the report was actually leaked by some people. It says,
So we have reasons to believe that what has been made public is “parts” of the original report, with some dubious motives related to the election of course. But at least for now, the SIT chief has told that the leaks appear to have been based on statements of state police officials. So now we have to wait for the Court’s judgement to see whether what has been said in the the leaked or sealed reports are true or untrue.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:40 am
You say: ‘ TOI report said that all of these were told by SIT chief R K Raghavan in the Supreme Court on April 13th, Monday.’
Wrong.
TOI report said: ‘the SIT led by former CBI director R K Raghavan told the Supreme Court on Monday’
It isn’t exactly the same as ‘told by SIT chief R. K. Rahgvan’; but I concede there was scope for more precision, although later on it did say that it was Mr Rohtagi who was quoting the SIT report.
Then you say that : “And the SIT chief Mr. Raghavan told Hindustan Times that the alleged leaks appear to have been based on statements of state police officials and “cannot be termed as findings of the report.”
What do we say about this? This statement wasn’t made by Raghavan. The HT report actually attributed it to SIT sources: “The SIT sources said the alleged leaks appear.. ..”.
If ‘precision’ is what you expected from TOI, then how could you treat SIT sources as Mr Raghavan?
Not just that, if you were really talking about TOI’s misleading phrasing, what do you say about HT report? HT’s headline read : ‘Gujarat Riots witnessed not tutored- SIT’
It went on to claim that SIT ‘rebutted’ the claims!
What really happened was different and I quote HT report again: “Asked about the leaked contents of the report, the SIT chief, R. K. Raghavan told Hindustan Times that he could not confirm whether the leaked contents were true”
Or let us look at what Raghavan said: “I am answerable only to the Supreme Court. The alleged reported leaks appear to be inspired by dubious motives. I cannot confirm such claims. The act is highly condemnable,”
So he won’t confirm that the leaks were true or not! The only way you could call it REBUTTAL is by claiming that ‘cannot confirm’ means ‘denial’. If so, then do let me know which dictionary do you use.
Or take another statement, which was purportedly made by some ‘senior SIT official’: ‘The findings of the report have concentrated on the investigations into the cases and it was not our business to indulge in the blame game and level allegations’
Even if we ignore the fact that the report is quoting some unnamed official where does it even suggest that witnesses were not tutored? Are your and HT’s conclusions based on the use of phrases like ‘blame game’ and ‘level allegations’?
Does this mean that SIT will not blame anyone for the crimes committed during the riots, because their business was to ‘not indulge in blame games’
If anything, the content of HT report virtually confirmed what TOI said: note ‘ Supreme Court termed the leak as a “betrayal of the faith reposed in those to whom the report was allowed access”.
If what was leaked was not from SIT report, then there was no leak. Where is the question of ‘betrayal of faith’ in that case?