Dear Rajdeep...

Hope you are enjoying your time away from Twitter. I understand on Twitter praises are showered but there are twice as brick-bats - but that's a professional hazard. Perhaps you had it enough. And your decision is respected. But what is not clear is the reason you mentioned for doing so:

This is what you wrote:

My timeline suggests little space for healthy debate/discussion on twitter. So will no longer raise any political issues on the medium. Will continue writing/talking on issues of natl interest in print/tv, but not on twitter. Will continue to write in print/speak on tv. But will no longer seek twitter as a medium for public debate. Had hoped to interact; failed. A journalist has only his integrity/credibility. That has been abused on this medium for too long by unknown people. Time to switch off.

I don't know you personally, but you appear to be a good individual. And I love your personal side too -  cricket fandom, interest in health and fitness, films, pun intended political commentary every now and then, drinking Old-Monk and enjoying old bollywood songs - in fact, I would love to have a peg with you. But I would like you to know that I separate you as a person from you as a journalist.

From what I observe, as a journalist you are not the kind who is particularly fearless. What is the number of investigative stories which CNN-IBN reported in the past year? What's the average? One per month? Did those stories have considerable evidence against influential politicians or corporate's? You just hold debates which have no value whatsoever, have a peg, and then sing an old bollywood song before going off to sleep. Of course, your channel cannot take on the high and mighty - for instance Mukesh Ambani - because he has investments in your group.

Today, Arvind Kejriwal is doing more investigative stories than most of your news media put together - and the kind that are truly representative of the "real, free, and fearless Fourth Estate". The news media questions the evidence he presents, and his motive, and his intentions, but at least he is not presenting the made-up "sources" stories which your brethren make up on a daily basis. Do you question the evidence/fact these made-up stories hold? Or write about it in your columns?

And by the way, no matter how much ever integrity you may claim to have, for me, this one instance raises a lot of questions. When you were the President of Editors Guild of India you presented a shocking defense  on  the Barkha Dutt incident and her alleged involvement in Nira Radia case. Eventually, you became the butt of all jokes - "Editors Guilt of India". What did the "credible" and "integrity-minded" journalist in you tell you then? You could have ordered an internal investigation but you appeared to be in a hurry to defend. It is better to share your haplessness with people than defend.

Now coming back to Twitter:

Your decision to go off is nothing but your inability to handle criticism - if some of them are abusive, you can always block them - it's as easy as cleaning your nose. But what is the point of alienating those who ask valid questions? For some time I have been demanding that all news channels and publications must put online the editorial guidelines they follow. This is how BBC does it. Isn't that a valid question? Do you read an abuse in this question? I am yet to get your response.

India is a huge country with so many castes and religions and so many issues. Indian news media needs to formulate and put in public domain the editorial guidelines which it follows - more than any other country in the world. Having such an editorial guideline out on the web will help a common man refer to the channels formulated editorial guideline and question the channel when it tows it's own line. Aren't other channels accountable to people? Isn't the channel you work for accountable to people?

I am happy that "you" the journalist has left Twitter. You couldn't make much use of it anyway - rarely responded to valid questions. And perhaps, like the Indian government, you also like the "top-down" hierarchical model of communication.

The above criticism was for you as a journalist - but for you as a person - this is a Jagjit Singh ghazal which I would  like to dedicate"Baat Niklegi Toh Phir.... Door Talaq Jaegi..". Goes well with an Old-Monk.

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.

Tripping on Manmohan Singh's speech at NDTV Indians of the Year Award

OPINION

On April 15, PM Manmohan Singh had something up his sleeve which was quite rattling. He gave a speech at the NDTV Indians of the Year Award Function. Since he was on the "turf" of his hosts NDTV, he obviously had good (imaginary) things to say about it. You can find his full speech on pmindia.gov.in – I am excusing myself from analyzing the customary "ladies and gentlemen..." and the three hour pauses between them.

So here are some troubling highlights of the speech he made – toh shuru karte hai, leke prabhu ka naam.  My commentary (bracketed) is in italics bold.

PMs speech at NDTV Indian of the Year Award:

(starts) I have been told that today happens to be the 25th anniversary of the establishment of NDTV (Accha) NDTV’s successes and achievements in its journey of 25 years owe a great deal to another outstanding individual and its founder Dr. Prannoy Roy (Okay, I understand - kiske ghar jao toh unki buraiyi nahi karte - chalo #Theek hai - granted) Twenty five years back he ( bole toh, Prannoy Roy) had

the courage of conviction to enter untested waters. This boldness and his talent, and the talent of many other men and women working with him have resulted in a media brand that is widely respected for its professionalism and ethics (Sirji ye thoda jyaada ho gaya). I congratulate Prannoy and his team for the high standards they have maintained.

Dr. Manmohan Singh, for your lack of research, and for speaking from the top of your head, this is what you must know.

(1) NDTV's stance on important issues in past has been questionable. Take for instance the time after Abhishek Manu Singhvi's CD made it on the public domain. Then, he was the chairperson of Parliament Standing Committee on Law and Justice and the charges against him were of extremely serious nature - of allegedly appointing judges in the Supreme Court of India. Most of the media had to keep mum due to the court order, others who spoke gave it a kind of spin which was not representative of a 'sound' fourth estate. NDTV did this story - Do public figures have right to privacy? How was this a "private affair" when the allegations were against a person holding a public position? And when the alleged activity allegedly took place in a government premise? If this is not agenda setting than what is? Also, it seems NDTV always has access to all the officials particularly of Congress, including the PM. Is NDTV open to do a "we the people" with PM taking questions from people of India? Access should not be a problem right?  

(2) NDTV's Group Editor Barkha Dutt has a questionable professional past - Open Magazine and Outlook had done an extensive expose on her alleged involvement in Niira Radia case. In journalism, once's a question mark floats on someone's credibility - its over. 

(3) Forget asking the right questions, on occasions  it was social media which brought to the notice of NDTV news website about its lack of research on different news stories. The most recent one was this - Naredra Modi was a "Union Railway Minister" - the text is updated here - but the website doesn't feel it is important to inform readers about the changes made. You may also like to read this.

-----XX----

The PM goes on to add:

The period of 25 years that NDTV has been in business is also broadly the period of economic reforms in our country (wait a minute... business? shouldn't it be journalism?). The media has both been a partner and a beneficiary from the reform process. The need for enhanced communication because of

increased economic activity, and advancements in telecommunications technology have led to a rapid growth in the number of television channels in our country. At the time when NDTV pioneered the idea of a private television company, our country only had Doordarshan as a public broadcaster. Today, we have more than 800 channels in nearly two dozen languages. Television sets have now reached more than half the households in our country (Yes Sirji, but what work are they doing? Padho, please padho) .

---XX----

Then PM, in an absolute failed attempt to sound "balanced" adds:

I have always believed that the media has a very important contribution to make in the processes of nation building in our country (Nation building? news media? Kya bol rahe ho?). We expect our media not only to just report accurately on what has happened but also to highlight social and economic injustices and thus pave the way for their redressal. We expect the media to educate public opinion on what is advisable and what is not by informing the people of the benefits and adverse consequences of following a particular course of action (news media se advise? majority are owned by politicians sirji - what kind of advise will they give?. We expect the media to point out the shortcomings of the government and thus help in improving the effectiveness of the administrative set up in our country (now this is the part which I like - read this letter by a certain Shriman Mukesh Ambani - who gagged the media when Arvind Kejriwal did the duties which should have ideally been done by a journalist. Btw, on one occassion Shriman Mukesh Ambani had also alledgedly said that "Congress toh apni dukaan hai" - Dr. Manmohan Singh - what does this say about "administrative set-up of the country?". If you didn't know, Ambani also has "preferential access" to content of Network18 group channels like CNN-IBN, IBN7, IBN Lokmat etc.) This is indeed a formidable list of expectations (considering all this, indeed... indeed... absolutely).

----XX----

Another interesting part from the speech:

I also believe that the media in our country has, on balance, acquitted itself well (Sirji please... you say, "media in our country has on balance acquitted itself well" - "acquitted" of some crime? Ok, if that was inference you were trying to make - I agree. Sorry.) We can be justifiably proud of its vibrancy and its independence (Justice Katju, the karta-dharta of PCI must now post a list of all news media owned/share by politicians in India - will it happen?). There are many newspapers and TV channels that have maintained a very high quality in their work, and have made a conscious effort to take up issues that are of critical importance to our society and country. We witness examples of accurate, fair and well researched reporting everyday on the pages of newspapers and on TV screens (ab aur bhi kuch bolu?). I think that as a whole our media has been successful in its task of informing and educating the people about the state of our society and to our country and the work of the Government (Bwahahahahahaha... bas kar... bas kar).

However, there have been aberrations too. We sometimes see sensationalism driven by personal and political prejudices (You need education in Indian news media). There is trivialization of the serious issues resulting sometime in misinformation (Exactly - you must be referring to Diggy boy?). Reports about ‘paid news’ during the election times should be a major cause of concern to the media. I am of the view that it is for the media itself to find effective ways and means of addressing these concerns problems (What do you feel, all our editor's are Kesari's Bal Gangadhar Tilak? Read about the serious allegations some editors have on them)

YOU are the only PR of Arvind Kejriwal

OPINION

Earlier this week, there were reports which suggested that more than half of Narendra Modi's Twitter followers were fake. Did Narendra Modi's PR agency buy these followers? You may be aware that it is as easy to buy twitter followers as a fancy underwear on E-Bay. 

I do not trust news reports, so I checked Narendra Modi's Twitter followers myself - it is easy to distinguish the real from the fake one's. 

Who really keeps names like @gaurav2981993,  @Vaibhav59384301? These accounts are easy to recognize, and there are perhaps thousands of such accounts following Narendra Modi - they have no tweets. PC mag had written about the business of Twitter followers, and I would encourage you to read it 

Today a news report mentioned that US-based international lobbying agency Apco is helping Narendra Modi - it is quite likely that the hulla-hoop that one hears around Narendra Modi, after all, might not be real, but a result of well-planned PR activity. 

Do you want to know how United States, through use of lobbying firms, establishes leaders and governments which serve their interests?  

Watch this film on youtube - Our Brand is Crisis

There are leaders who resort to using publicity gimmicks and PR strategists to acquire seats of power, and there are rare leaders like Arvind Kejriwal, who do not follow, nor are supported by such lobbyists or PR strategists. Even after he fasts for 13 days among the poor, he is heckled and questioned by media for his intention, called a "wannabe" CM. 

Today, each common man of India, who is a honest law-abiding and tax-paying citizen of India is the PRO of Arvind Kejriwal. 

Time and again, Arvind Kejriwal has shown that one does not need such fancy brand management experts. What worth does a "leader" really have if he or she is depended on fancy PR outfits? Anybody's guess.

Twitter Analysis: Rahul Gandhi's speech - a butt of all jokes?

For the wannabe PM, this might be bad news. I made use of the 'Technology' that Rahul Gandhi was talking about, and registered myself on Topsy.com (you can too - have a free trial, and experiment yourself) to get a general idea about the public opinion on trends.

My first hashtag for this analysis was the neutral keyword #RahulGandhi - this is what the graph looked like:

Well, don't be shocked, the "positive" rise you see - doesn't suggest that everyone was going gaga over his speech. Topsy's analytic's cannot detect ''sarcasm", and sarcastic tweets tend to get categorized into "positive" one's - examples below.

Notice @gappistanradio's response to @jhasanjay :D

For my second analysis, I switched from neutral #RahulGandhi hashtag to the trending #pappucii (created with the intent to pull a fast one on Rahul Gandhi). The "positive" (read: sarcastic) rise remained.

 Examples of some "sarcastic tweets".

So, the "positive" tweets were sarcastic, and the negative tweets were... well, negative? The question is - who really had something good to say? Perhap's this could be a reason why the Indian govt. wants to regulate social media.

And here are some of the top shared/created images...

And these were some of the top trending videos on Twitter (Youtube the video titles)

-Is Rahul Gandhi DUMB? Proof

-I lost it - Rahul Gandhi

-Shocking State of Rahul Gandhi's General Knowledge

-Dumb Rahul Gandhi says politics is in your shirt and your pants

And some more interesting "takes" followed...

 And Sagarika Ghose too joined in... perhaps, a high command order must be waiting for her...?

This is the analysis - a reasonably good indicator of public opinion- which the media won't take into account. They will instead indulge in assertions, and enforce their own interpretations on the people. And then we have journalists posing questions like Modi's ME vs Rahul's US. #CentreStage face-off: Who's vision will India buy?

What can you say about the guy who gives one speech, and the sensex goes down?