What does “Haath main chudiya pehen ke rakhi hai kya” really mean?

"Haath main chudiya pehen ke rakhi hai kya" is a phrase worthy of a discourse analysis - it is a unique example of gender discrimination.

In December 2012, during the Delhi Gang-Rape protests some women were reported to be shouting this - "these men have worn bangles" (see the screen shot below). 

 

So why exactly is it wrong to use such an expression? 

Whenever a human being wants to ridicule or abuse someone he or she resorts to comparisons with lesser things - things that would effectively humiliate a person. For example, saying - “you are a pig”. What this sentence does is 1) It assumes that a “pig” is essentially a dirty loathsome creature 2) It implies that you are as loathsome and dirty as a pig. 

Does this young woman (quoted in the screen shot above) assume that women are weak? And why did she use references associated with feminism, and that too being a woman herself? with an intent to ridicule someone? 

It only suggests that there are some rather deep subconscious notions and ideas existing in our society and minds.

Men use this phrase to tease the ego of another man or to rouse someone “for not being daring”. And the man on whom this phrase is thrown at, is expected to get offended. 

So far, I have used this blog to support AAP, but I would like to make some critical remarks so that protesters and activists, particularly representing AAP, are aware of what inferences their actions can make. This is one photograph which I came across and this method of protest should not be used. 

These kind of expressions have seeped into our society over centuries, the underlying assumption of which is that women are weak. Volunteers and members of AAP I hope that next time much thought will be put into symbolism used during protests - of course, no use of bangles anymore.

Darling wake-up. Smell the coffee. Maybe India does not have a 'Fourth Estate'

OPINION

Arvind Kejriwal's fast was for unfair rise in prices. Reactions from political corners was anticipated. But it also made the Aam Aadmi understand the tone and tenor of what it calls "media". Since the day of the fast, and till the time all the letters were bundled to be sent to Sheila Dixit, the kind of news reports which were published meanwhile had more in it than what it appeared.

Among those who supported Arvind Kejriwal during this fast, there were cries and shocks about the so called "news media's" role and that it was not giving the movement enough coverage. These "cries" and "shocks" come from layman who also considers a large section of India's news media as the Fourth Estate - impartial and objective. To all the people who are expressing shock and anger, my question is - why do you expect  Arvind Kejriwal to be given any news coverage anyway? The so-called news media is a business enterprise - not a social service. The news media favored Anna (more on that in later part of article) because he brought TRPs. Everything happens only and only if there is a monetary gain. The talk of Fourth Estate, journalistic idealism is now considered "blah" - it died with Lokmanya Tilak - the man who started Kesari (1881).

Let's dive into history.

The Fourth Estate did exists in the spirit that it should exist for 100 odd years in India (from 1881-1980). However, and after the printing technology began to be used for newspaper production (post 1980), operation costs increased, and advertisements were the only savior. Marketing, content packaging, supplements, began to take center stage - and whatever transpired since then, is a part of India's journalism history which is worst than the history of the worst brothel in India.

Our forefathers in journalism had set a good example of practicing high level of ethics. Those 100 years was the period when publishers and journalists had a spine. And it showed. They had an ideology which was not influenced by market conditions, but by passion to provide the masses with unbiased reportage. Kesari was so fearless, that the editors were jailed often (today they are accused for their nexus with corporate's - take the Jindal case or the Nira Radia case). Very often Kesari had to furnish sureties to rescue its staff - it faced the rage of pre-independence British, and the rage of power intoxicated rulers after independence.

Let's look at the present situation now.

As of 2012, India has more than 400 news channels and 86,000 newspapers, and maybe a few thousands news websites - which I am not sure if they are even registered. How many editors have you heard have been jailed? prosecuted for their unbiased reportage? Or lauded or appreciated for their investigative or developmental reports? This is directly proportional to the investigative or developmental stories a news organisation does. India is a developing nation, there are so many news stories and issues - all you see is four faces on News TV - who we are told are "experts". And more than investigative journalism, the trade is about "sound-byte" journalism - aapko kaisa lag raha hai? - 9 out of 10 journalists in India should have done a hotel management course.

The news media trade is also about creating controversies and keeping them "alive" for it brings TRPs. The fact is - news media today does not exists for the service of the people. It exists to make money. And it is a "pet dog" (not watch dog) of the mighty and influential - which is why many politicians and industrialists have invested in it.

Now take into account these examples of politics and news media relationship- Saamna (Shiv Sena), Sakaal (Sharad Pawar), News 24 (Owned by Rajiv Shukla, former journalist, and now congress minister), Prahaar (Narayan Rane), Network 18 (CNN IBN etc., Mukesh Ambani has investments in it), and down south we have the gamut of Jaya TVs (Jaya Lalitha) and Sun TVs (Maran's - accused for involvement in 2G scam) - how can any of these newspapers or TV media provide objective news stories?

The last investigative news story which I felt had some impact was Deepak Sharma's news story on Salman Khurshid. Maybe I am overlooking other investigative stories - let's assume there were hundred investigative news reports in 2012. Which were they? Did they match the scale of Nira Radia expose by Open or Deepak Sharma's expose on Salman Khurshid? Why not? If these 86,000 newspapers and 400 odd news channels were fulfilling the role of "Fourth Estate" as Lokmanya Tilak did with Kesari - India would have been a different country. Today, websites like http://cgnetswara.org/ are doing much better job of exposing and giving platform  to grass root issues in India as compared to anchors who sit in their fancy studio's and expect us to digest their tripe.

The exposes that Arvind Kejriwal made are "investigative stories" - and he could do it because he is not a part of media. The media might question him, but he presented evidences against  Robert Vadra, Sharad Pawar, Mukesh Ambani and many others which could be investigated further. If the 'Fourth Estate' was really functioning as it should, it would be ashamed of its incapabilities. But instead the news media (and because it is so much influenced by corporate's and politicians) ganged-up against Kejriwal and systematic pressure was built up to gag him - read this and see this. Also, what does it have to say about the fictional 'Fourth Estate' of a country where sources having access to evidences against the corruption of the big and mighty prefer coming to Arvind Kejriwal instead of going to a newspaper or a TV channel?

At this point there is something you must know - the Robert Vadra, Sharad Pawar, and many other expose's  would have never been telecast. Yes, you and me would have never known about it. They were telecast because Arvind Kejriwal never revealed the name of the person he was exposing until the time of press conference. The media had no choice, but to come at the place where the press conference was happening, and see who he was exposing - perhaps some news media maybe even regretting it now. But not revealing the name to the media before the press conference was crucial - had he already revealed the name of the person he was exposing - the person who was being accused could have got a court order to stop him and the media itself (knowing it gets revenue support from corporate or politicians) would have backed out.

After all this  - do you feel these 400 odd news channel, and 86,000 newspapers are serving the people of India? And in what way? Forget serving people, imagine the influence these number of news channels and publications must have right now to mold or dilute public opinion. Indian's look at newspapers and news channels with a lot of trust, but there is little suspicion in their mind that it can also be a source of propaganda and misinformation. Our this ignorance, is the 'power' of today's news media. No news channel or publication wears the loyalties of its master on its sleeves, and consequently people rarely can make out with their limited knowledge whether it is a "Fourth Estate" or a "Mouthpiece".

Earlier newspapers harnessed a certain ideology - in case of Tilak's Kesari - it was Swaraj (democracy), boycott (boycotting everything that was contrary to the interest of the country), Swadeshi (growth of indigenous industry, agriculture and commerce by which the money generated in the country would remain in the country and would be utilized for our own country) and national education (education that would arouse patriotism among students and would also provide them training in business, commerce and research that would lead to the progress of the country).

Today, all these so-called "news media" questions Arvind Kejriwal - what is your ideology? I would like to pose a question to these news media conglomerates - What is the ideology of your news organisation? which causes are you addressing to in the society? and how? The fact is - no cause will be taken up unless there is monetary/political benefit attached.

Let me illustrate why the so-called "news media's" role is doubtful.

During Anna Hazare's anshan, the Centre for Media Studies (CMS) conducted an exhaustive media monitoring exercise. The exercise was done between 16-28 August, 2011. They monitored two Hindi channels-Aaj Tak and Star News. Collectively, they devoted 97% of total news time during prime viewing hours (7 to 11pm) to Anna's fast. In two English channels-CNN-IBN and NDTV 24x7 the figure was 87%. It is also estimated that through Anna's 13-day fast ,the viewership of English news channels increased by over 70% and of Hindi news channel by over 80%. The news clips were classified by their tone, 5,592 were

positive towards Anna and his cause, while 92 were characterized as negative. You can see a massive imbalance there - ideally, the positive and negative (critical) should have been the same. It is because of such reporting that now many say that "Anna" and "Kejriwal" are creation of media. Did they ask for it? They were doing their job, but the so-called news media had other agenda - and it was NOT supporting Anna's cause. Anna just brought them good TRPs. People were glued to their TV sets. With good TRPs come advertisers who are willing to pay more. But as soon as the so called "news media" realized that for the current political parties this could mean loss of political influence and power, an advisory was released - no more Anna or Kejriwal. The layman has to understand that there is a nexus between political parties and corporates, corporates and media, and political parties and media. They offer their services to each other, and the common man continues to be fooled.

Heres how: 

- Political parties depend on funds from corporates during elections.

- In return, corporates make political parties frame policies in a manner that benefit them - for instance, contracts or subsidy's.

- Political parties and corporate often invest in media, or buy ads - this means a large revenue  source of the  media comes from corporate and political parties. Who will bite the hand that feeds it? (An example of corporate-media relation: http://archive.is/4c1Rr - and the common man knows about it because it went worse)

Soon enough, the reality TV industry jumped on the bandwagon, and took the people of India on the 'Satyamev Jayate' ride hosted by Aamir Khan, and sponsored by Reliance. Will Aamir Khan also do a Satyamev Jayate on topic of corruption? Will he also call Arvind Kejriwal? That would be a litmus test. It perhaps also wasn't because this channel wanted to "contribute" to the society by creating a series like Satyamev Jayate. Perhaps it just made economic sense to ride on the "emotional wave" which Anna's campaign had created, and also fill the "Corporate Social Responsibility" gap (by the way, there was controversy surrounding that too http://archive.is/pFId1). The common man mistakes this as social service and philanthropy but it is also an attempt to "create an image" which can be used as a "testimonial" when questions about integrity are raised against the same corporate's. And by the way, this is also how http://archive.is/17HP3 the television industry was looking at Anna's Janlokpal Bill agitation. 

If you look at the coverage starting from the time Kejriwal went on fast (23 March 2013 to 4th April), you'll notice that the stories are constantly negative, and some of it is plain irresponsible journalism. The common man is unable to put things in context. What happened? It is the same news media which till last year was very enthusiastic about ideologies of Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal - suddenly their discourse becomes counter-productive to the nation?

The so-called news media gave space to bloggers whose qualification to comment on issues of politics are not clearly known (example: http://archive.is/oC3dk) - it is a clear effort to manufacture an anti- AAP public opinion. Will the same media give space to bloggers who are supportive of AAP? If not, there is every reason to doubt them for they are not objective. And then there was one columnist  (who does not live in India, but Hong-Kong!) who offered his two cents on First Post (http://archive.is/d3XiL) on the support that Arvind Kejriwal received in the Times Poll - his headline proclaimed "If Kejriwal is influential we are in trouble". I am not sure who did he mean by "we". Perhaps he was referring to his brethren in the paid media industry.

If you look at countries outside India clear rules are established as far as media coverage goes during elections - Norway, France, Denmark, US, UK have "equal media time" access during elections. During the November, 2013 Assembly Elections, you can be sure that AAP won't be given any airtime. In fact a steady campaign to malign its methods and ways will be carried out beforehand. And it is possible that new laws curbing use of social media will be passed.

There was a time when India practiced journalism which gave us much pride. There was a time when publishers, and media owners knew the responsibility they were taking up. There was a time when they all had a conscience. Do you know what the words of Lokmanya Tilak were? The founder of Kesari?

"Kesari belongs to people. Neither have I brought it nor I am going to take it away. All patriots who are anxious for the interest of the country, should keep it going" 

How many so-called news media organisations in India can say the same today?

Also recommended: Pay to Print - How Media Corruption Undermines Indian Democracy - a lecture by P. Sainath 

A simplified timeline of electricity privatization in Delhi

INFORMATION

The idea of privatization of electricity occurred in 1999. By 2002, it was complete. It was in July 2002, that Delhi Government privatised distribution portion of Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB).

A logical question is - Why DVB had to be privatised in the first place?

-There were serious cash losses in the system. And instances of electricity theft.

-There was no register of assets or an accurate master list of customers. Similarly, there was poor information about which customers were in arrears.

- DVB had accumulated receivables of about US $400 million. In addition to this, no audited financial statements had been prepared for more than a decade.

- Still, in 2000, a Tri-partite agreement between DVB, its employees and the Delhi government was reached that protects the "employment" and pension rights of the employees.

- Delhi government had to subsidize DVB every year by about Rs. 1,500 crores (US$ 315 million) through “loans” that were never likely to be repaid.

- The total liabilities of the electricity sector (primarily government loans and power purchase dues) in Delhi was a little over Rs 23,100 Crore (over $5 billion). Effectively the servicing of these liabilities had not been met by DVB’s customers but rather by taxpayers.

- Since the inefficiencies could not be eliminated overnight, no private investor would be willing to take over the system unless the Delhi government would agree to provide direct or indirect subsidies for several years.

Before we go further, we need to understand the role of DERC (Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission)

What is DERC?

- Simply put, DERC determines the tariff for electricity, wholesale bulk, grid or retail. DERC began functioning in December 1999 - three years prior to the privatization. .

- When the Delhi government began considering privatization, it was advised that the commission’s existing tariff policies (which were regulated by DERC) would be a major impediment to successful privatization.

- Delhi Government decided to issue a policy statement that required DERC to adopt certain tariff policies that the government believed were necessary to attract "private investors"

What directives did the Delhi Government issued?

-It defined the process of privatization.

-Proposed a set of opening loss levels for tariff setting purposes but which still needed DERC’s approval.

-Specified that bidding would be on the basis of a multi- year loss reduction trajectory rather than bids for the price of the equity interests.

-Mandated a sharing mechanism for revenues if the new private discoms beat the annual loss values specified in the trajectories accepted by the government.

-Required that DERC adopt the annual loss targets accepted by the government in the privatization agreement when the commission set annual tariffs for the discoms.

-Specified that retail tariffs can change over time but would have to remain uniform across the three private discoms during the 5 years following privatization.

-Required the regulator to set the prices that the discoms pay for power purchases from the Transco as a derived number based on an annual calculation of the estimated shortfall in the discoms’ annual revenue

requirements.

-Committed the government to provide a loan to the Transco to allow it to subsidize the discoms’ bulk supply costs up to a maximum of Rs. 2,600 crores (US $546 million, later increased to US $692 million or Rs. 3,450 crores)

Meanwhile, in the service of corporate's...

-A high level political support was made operationally effective by the fact that there was a small group of Delhi government officials who could respond quickly to the inevitable “crises” that arise in any attempt at privatization.

After DERC was tackled - what next?

- The assets and liabilities of DVB (Delhi Vidyut Board) were transferred to the Delhi government and then to six successor companies—one generating company, one transmission and bulk supply company, three distribution companies and one Holding Company. The three distribution companies were privatized but the three other companies continued to be owned by the Delhi government.

- Six companies - AES, BSES, Cescon, China Light & Power, Reliance Power and Tata Power - were pre-qualified but only two entities-BSES and Tata- submit proposals.

- Share Acquisition Agreements are signed with BSES Ltd. and Tata Power Company. BSES acquires controlling interest in two of the distribution companies, viz. South-West Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and Central-East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., and the Tata Power Company will take over the management of the third distribution company, viz. North-Northwest Delhi Distribution Company Ltd.

It is not clear why four of the companies decided not to bid. The two foreign businesses may have just been reacting to the general worldwide withdrawal of international players from power sector investments in developing countries. Reliance is now the owner of BSES and consequently may, at the time, have not wished to be bidding against a company it was considering acquiring.

Information about the bidding

The transaction was one where the private operators bid on the level of technical and commercial loss reduction to be achieved over the five years. The government proposed that losses would be calculated annually using a concept called Aggregate Technical and Commercial Losses (AT & C).

Loss reduction targets were set by the Delhi government from an average of over 50% to around 30% after five years.

BSES and Tata stated that they would not be able to meet the government specified targets. Instead, both companies responded with bids that would commit them to achieving cumulative loss reductions of 5 to 10% less than the government’s targets.

The government agrees, and more...

-The Delhi government commits to subsidize the new private discoms for up to Rs 3,450 crores (USD $720 million) for a period lasting no longer than 5 years. No specific amount of money is targeted for each discom. And there are no restrictions as to how 3,450 crores will be spent - it could be used up within two or three years or five years.

-In addition to the power purchase subsidy to the discoms, the Delhi government announced that it would

provide an additional subsidy of Rs. 52 crores to subsidize the tariffs of residential customers who consume

less than 400 kWhs per month. The government made the announcement just before the commission

issued its first post-privatization tariff order.

-The price for power is based on the discom’s “ability to pay” rather than the Transco’s costs of supply.47 In effect, the burden of the subsidy is shifted back to the Transco which has been mandated to supply power to the discoms at a loss.

-In other words, the discoms would first reimburse themselves for their distribution and retail supply expenses. The discoms are explicitly given the first “rights” to the retail revenue.

-The amount of subsidy received by an individual discom will depend, in part, on its internal operating efficiency. A less efficient discom will be eligible to receive a larger subsidy. As a general principle, it does not seem like a good idea to create a subsidy systems that rewards inefficiency with a higher subsidy.

What's wrong with the policy?

-These subsidies were intended to avoid the need for large post-privatization tariff increases. It doesn't achieve that.

- Regardless of when and how the subsidies are delivered, Delhi consumers will ultimately pay for the subsidies either in the form of higher taxes or in reduced government services.

-The disadvantage of the Delhi approach (where several contiguous discoms are being privatized) is that it leads to uncertainty over exact boundary lines, ownership of moveable assets, responsibility for shared services and allocation of shared costs. After privatization, the Delhi discoms have had to spend time trying to sort out who owned what—time that presumably would have been better spent on improving service and reducing inefficiencies.

- In any privatization that involves a subsidy, there is always a risk that the private companies will come back after a year or two and assert that they need a larger subsidy because their costs are higher or their revenues lower than It is also “partial” system in another respect. Two key regulatory elements, the distribution and retail supply license and quality of service standards, were not specified prior to privatization.

Source: The Delhi Electricity Discom Privatizations (2003)

On day of rally to Sheila Dixit's house, Economic Times published this article http://archive.is/rgDY5 as "expert" opinion - which overlooks many facts mentioned above.

The politics of caste and religion

OPINION

India has a complex social structure largely dominated by casteism. History reveals a pattern wherein roots of political parties have been based on caste or supported by voters belonging to a particular caste. Examples of this would be Shiv-Sena, Bahujan Samajwadi Party, Vishawa Hindu Parishad or Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. You may like to go through this list here - and categorize parties which are representative of a particular caste or religion. There are way too many. History also tells us that all these parties were formed to preserve the interest of a particular group, caste or religion or to free them from some kind of "oppression". Aam Aadmi Party is also a result of oppression - there was no party which preserved the interest of hard working, tax paying, law abiding, common man who did not believe in these separatist ideologies, or who was tired of corruption.

But the existence of these caste-based political parties in itself is questionable. If you look at it, the Indian Constitution provides enough provisions for "trouble-makers". Let's say - for instance - if a Hindu is troubling a Muslim, the troubling Hindu will be put behind bars. If a Muslim is troubling a Hindu, the troubling Muslim will be put behind bars. If someone from upper caste is oppressing someone from the lower-caste, the person from the upper-caste will be put behind bars. I only mention this to make a point - the Indian constitution and Indian Penal Code does not take into account any particular caste or religion as a parameter - then what is the reason for a political party to be based on a particular caste or religion? Don't these political parties believe in the power of Indian Constitution and Indian judiciary?  

If we look at 'caste' separate from politics, you may agree that the "norms" within a particular caste by itself are not bad, and objectives can be achieved without the political shell. Take for instance, the objectives achieved by Anna Hazare in his village of Ralegan Siddhi where villagers themselves constructed ponds, reservoirs, and small dams on their own, and planted around 4 lakh trees. Elsewhere, in Rajasthan, a labor union Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) or Workers and Farmers Power Organisation is known to frequently obtain access to official expenses under the Right to Information Act. This group cross-checks expenses made by the government, and assesses the actual work done on its basis. The group, though less-educated, has ably exposed several frauds within the government. This proves one thing – politics, based on caste system, achieves much less. And even heavy labor workers, who may not have much education, can achieve their goals without giving political tone to their motivations. This leads us to a question - political parties, which are run on the basis of caste, do have an ulterior motive  -they mainly cite protection from 'external threat' as a reason for their existence - when there is none. The common man, who doesn't necessarily believe in this theory of 'external threat' has to pay a heavy price - in terms of utilization of national resources - and the way in which policies are framed to appease a particular caste or religion.

Aam Aadmi Party's motive is to cut these barriers raised by political parties which have not contributed to India in anyway. AAP's ideology is simple - give power back to hard working, tax paying, law abiding citizens of this country irrespective of their religion, caste or creed. If you are one - make sure you vote for AAP.

Poll survey says, 'AAP to win' - news media buries the report without explaination

A news report on this link disappeared after being online for a few hours. Was there something wrong with the source? If yes, why didn't the publication do a story questioning the methodology of the source? Or at least provide a clarification for retracting the news update?

The report cited a survey done by this agency which predicts that majority of votes in the 2014 Delhi Elections will go to AAP. We have the google cache - so feel free to read it here.

This news features in google search results, and people who want to know more about the contents of this report might be unable to do so unless they know the link for the cache.

Though the news publication has removed this news report, this story continues to appear in the search result. Do you know why? It is likely that many people are clicking on the link to read the news story, and more this link is clicked on, google algorithms will recognize this as something that is widely read, and refuse to bury it down.

But there are several questions that this incident raises, but first of all, people must write to the editor of this online news portal demanding an answer. Additionally, it must be cross-checked whether http://news.oneindia.in/ is registered with Registrar of Newspapers of India or any other similar body that recognizes a news publication on internet. You can file an RTI application, or write to the Grievance Redressal. Such incidents must not be over-looked anymore. Newspapers/Magazines/Online publications  are bound to provide us with objective, unbiased information, and also answerable regarding the contents of a news story they publish or retract.

Another question is - does RNI only recognize "Newspapers and Magazines" or also "Online News Publications" - there is no information available online with respect to this. Every newspaper (print publication) comes with a registration number which can be cross-checked on the website of Registrar of Newspapers of India - what is the process for online news publications?

A suggestion to online news publications, newspapers and magazines - if you cannot provide objective news/information/analysis then start a blog.

Kejriwal's fetish for Topi - really?

I would urge you to read this article first, and then read the rest of this post. What you just read, may be classified as an example under “second level agenda setting”.

What second level agenda setting does is - it tells you “how to think about the object”. You can read more details about second level agenda setting here.

Don’t you also feel that a newspaper like Business Standard had a good opportunity to do a business story? Investigating whether there is indeed misappropriation or collusion between business houses and politicians? And perhaps an investigation about how much percent of rise have these private companies made, and on what basis? But you see a rather needless take on Arvind Kejriwal - one that is far from the niche of the newspaper. And by the way, the word “fetish”, is usually used with a sexual connotation - I am unable to make sense of why it was used here.

Anyway.

Do you remember the issue of Vir Sanghvi? His case is an apt example of second level agenda setting and framing.

Let's take an excerpt found in Open Magazine to better understand this.

VIR: What kind of story do you want? Because this will go as Counterpoint, so it will be like most-most read, but it can’t seem too slanted, yet it is an ideal opportunity to get all the points across.

RADIA: But basically, the point is what has happened as far as the High Court is concerned is a very painful thing for the country because what is done is against national interest.

VIR: Okay.

RADIA: I think that’s the underlying message.

VIR: Okay. That message we will do. That allocation of resources which are scarce national resources of a poor country cannot be done in this arbitrary fashion to benefit a few rich people.

RADIA: That’s right.

Did you notice what Vir Sanghvi did? He offered to do something very subtle - “That allocation of resources which are scarce national resources of a poor country cannot be done in this arbitrary fashion to benefit a few rich people.” Simply put, he “framed” the issue in a manner that it becomes an issue of the "country". In short, through his columns, he wanted the common man to think about this issue in a certain way.

There’s another interesting thing I found.

It was reported that Ambani’s lost Rs 20,000 crores in 'market value'. The timing about this story is questionable, and I would urge people not to believe it unless hard core evidence is also provided with the story - is this also confirmed by SEBI? Please check all the news reports for the quotes used, and write to the editor to put online the facts on which this story is based. I am anticipating that such a story will be used by “experts” and columnists by tommo or in coming weeks, to suggest that Ambani’s are going into loses, and Kejriwal’s protest harms the Indian economy.

What the media won't tell you, but tell you about Kejriwal's fast

I scrolled through a few web pages for news relating to Arvind Kejriwal's fast (Civil Disobedience), and found that there were glaring contradictions between what I read on news portals, and what was distributed on social media (mainly Twitter).

Simply put, news websites played down Kejriwal's fast as something which has failed to gather response, or is a "flop show". On the other side, Twitter provided with documentary evidence of what was happening on ground. Whom would you trust?

These are images of on ground activity of the movement.

 Volunteers (unpaid, self-motivated) went door to door to gather consensus. 

More evidence/cases of inflated electricity bills were found. In this particular case, a women received a bill of approx. Rs 93,000 for a small room she lives in. If such a thing was to be discovered by a journalist on his own, he or she would have done a news story. But since AAP is first to raise the issue, perhaps, there is no more news value to it.  

And some more... 

This is another related event in Lucknow where medical students, protesting in support if AAP were arrested.

These are people coming out in support of Kejriwal's fast, and denouncing unjust rise in electricity bills.

Seated on left is Mr. V Kalyanam, who has worked in the capacity of personal secretary to Mahatama Gandhi. He came to meet Arvind Kejriwal.

And like any normal human being would - Arvind Kejriwal also spent some personal time with his family.

  

But this is the image which flashes on TV.  

In the above picture, I can see Headlines Today reaching a conclusion of sorts "Civil Disobedience Flops" - does it support this conclusion with a research? And what are the parameters under which this movement can be qualified as a successful one? 

I also came across some news stories, which can be considered as downright dishonest practice of journalism.

For instance, the above headline is stated. Is it a fact? Is it supported by a research? How many people did this reporter interview in order to reach to this conclusion? In the hurry of being creative, and using pun-intended headlines, the journalist (or maybe the sub-editor) seems to have forgotten some basic principles. Such a statement cannot be made unless the reporter has surveyed/interviewed a representative population of Delhi.

The above news story (also archived here for sake of posterity) crosses all limits of journalistic sensibilities. It offers to tell you "How" Kejriwal's fast became a flop show but doesn't answer the "How" part (and remember the fast is only in its 3rd day at the time of this report). For those who don't know components of a news story - here it is - very briefly, it consist of 5Ws and 1H - (5W's - What, Where, Who, When, Why and How). Read the news story for yourself, and see if it answers the "How".


Another assertion stated as fact in the above news headline. After reading the headline Delhi: Kejriwal's civil disobedience movement fails to attract public, one would be curious or expect that the report will now answer "why" and "how" the movement failed to attract public. Some natural questions which arise are - Is it that the people do not want to participate because they do not like Kejriwal's initiative? Or they do not agree to the method of protest? Or his party? If yes, an objective reporter will support his claims by quoting at least a handful of  random people (remember, it still would be inappropriate to use a headline as one above). But guess what - this report does not include a single quote of any common man, whether opposing or supporting- and still makes a rather tall claim in the headline.

So were there publications which followed basic journalistic sensibilities before publishing stories around Kejriwal's fast? 

Very few. Citing an example below.

A headline like the one above is safe to use when one is not sure what is going to happen next. This headline is questioning the potential of the movement to mobilize people, and it is fair to do so. But in journalism in India, questions and question marks are perhaps the most abused (and mind you, its importance - grammatical or contextual is rarely understood). An issue can be framed even through a question mark.

Do you think its happening in the headline below?