The Hundred Day Questions - Number 3

For the past 100 days, twice every single day (basically 200 times so far), I have been asking Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi to answer a set of questions, based on their conversations with Nira Radia.

Day 100-2: Hi @BDUTT & @virsanghvi Could u pls ans specific qns instd of rhetoric. http://bit.ly/f2eMRE & http://bit.ly/ekM3HY respectively

Previously, similar efforts to extract responses from journos have borne fruit. Never had any luck with NDTV folks though! Vir Sanghvi just comes on twitter to market his articles (yes, he is still writing :D !).

Those links in the question detail the background, and have a list of questions directed towards the journos (that haven't been answered yet!). The media leaves no stone unturned in reporting anything related to Nira Radia. But when it comes to her conversations with journos, we see a defeaning silence in the media. And as much as they would like the viewers to forget this episode, I think viewers are much smarter than that.

This is the 3rd time, I have posed 100 day questions. The previous questions (and their background) are here. For easier reading, am pasting them below too.

Question 1:

On the evening of March 4, NDTV website had this headline "Modi Godman Sex Scandal" and presented to us a slideshow of Swami Nithyananda. Now, if you are wondering what the headline and the slide show have anything to do with each other - here's the link. The Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi once launched a book by Nithyananda and apparently said he is a follower. Nithyananda was embroiled in a "sex scandal" and since Modi is a follower, it became "Modi Godman Sex Scandal" !!!

Mails and messages on twitter that day made sure that the page was removed. However, I was more keen in knowing why such a headline crept up in the first place. What kind of journalistic practice allows a national channel to have such a headline on its site? Barkha Dutt, Group Editor,said she will look into it, but hasn't really done it I guess. For the past 110 days, I have been asking her "Any update on followup of "Modi Godman Sex Scandal" headline on NDTV site on the evening of March 4.Thank you".

The initial idea was to not give up till an answer came. However, well meaning folks on Twitter have advised that concentrating only on a couple of questions makes it difficult to bring up other such headlines of sections of the media. Following up on any question for 100 days is good enough way of trying to expose their lack of interaction when it comes to correcting their mistakes, at times.

This particular blog post will continue to add all such "hundred day questions", and try to keep a record of their lack of response over a period of time. Also, this means the followers on twitter don't get bored with the same questions after 100 days ;-) ! More to follow soon :D!

Question 2 (Day 100 today, June 30th):

This was the question: "Day100 Hi @BDUTT @vikramchandra @prannoyroyndtv Is NDTV planning to clarify on the "summoned on March 21"fiasco raised by d CM of Gujarat?".

A childish response and the whole background of this question has been documented here.

"Lynch Mobs"

For more than a year now, the media derived some kind of sadistic pleasure in labeling those questioning them. When mediagate broke, the expletives continued. Lynch mobs was the term. Barkha used it first. Then Rajdeep Sardesai, in his capacity as the President of Editors Guild called it the "lynch mob mentality".

After an emotional speech, he was ready to face some questions. Look at the end of this video. He got some very very tough questions. This report in The Hindu details it clear.

Mr. Sardesai also remarked that the response in the case of Ms. Dutt and Mr. Sanghvi had been lynch-mobbish, with their being judged guilty without any reference to their journalistic track records. “The fundamental principle of jurisprudence, that you are innocent until proven guilty, has been reversed here,” he said, adding there was an element of professional jealousy in the chorus of voices raised against them. This started a near riot on the Press Club lawns, where the discussion was held. Journalists rose as one to condemn the suggestion that talking to corporate sources was an unavoidable aspect of good reporting. Many of them pointed to their own experience of getting good stories and breaking scoops without ever having to talk to a lobbyist. They made their displeasure clear at the issue being reduced to a case of jealousy and envy, and sought to know if Mr. Sardesai's own channel referred its exclusive stories to those featured on them.

Sensing the mood of the house, Mr. Sardesai, who is also president of the Editors Guild, quickly took back his words, promising immediate intervention by the Guild in formulating a code of ethics for journalists, including for editors.

So members of their own community have behaved in a manner befitting "lynch mob" mentality! Wonder if anyone would now dare to label any of the genuine questioners online. Also look at the cat fight amongst editors. Rajdeep taking on N.Ram, Vinod Mehta taking on Barkha and Vir - this is a HUGE victory to all those bloggers who have argued the same, over the years, in detailed blogs. Kudos to all ! The hypocrisy stands exposed, and how! The muck doesn't seem to stop anytime soon :)

Mediagate! - More Questions to Vir Sanghvi

Read both articles in their entirety on my website (the links are given below) and judge for yourself. I think you will find that they are completely fair.

Somewhere in his "response" to the Mediagate, more popularly known as #mediamafia #barkhagate, debate Shri Vir Sanghvi writes that. Now Shri Vir Sanghvi, if you are leaving the judgement to me and then tell me it is fair - what kind of choice are you exactly giving me sir? Not that you care,but brilliant this post on Governance Now, has argued that you were extremely biased in your write up (folks, that link is a must read. Please take time out to read it).

Plus just take a look at how the editor of Open magazine dissects your "counterpoint" on this topic - matching what was said on tapes to what was written. It can't get more elaborate than this, is it? (Another must read folks. Dont miss it). Don't you think you should counter these points, instead of your free flowing generic rhetoric.

Then you go along and write about how it is important for you to string along your source blah blah. As fellow tweeter, NR_Tatvamasi points out here: "All it needed was am doing a coloumn on this dispute, would like to know your side of the story, what are your keypoints." Would you care to answer ?

No message was ever conveyed by me. And Congress leaders have now confirmed that.

Right - we should trust the Congress leaders now. Is that how you want to close this matter? Really? What about the below excerpt then?

VIR: I’ll pass this on?

RADIA: Yeah. Thanks. Thanks to you.

VIR: Yeah.

RADIA: That was really great, you know, you all, I mean it was exactly as you had said and…

VIR : Okay.

RADIA: They were very relieved and she was so relieved. So, wants to say thank you to you personally.

VIR: I’ll pass it…

Why was she thanking you Shri Vir Sanghvi? You have not done anything for her, and yet she is thanking you? I wonder why the Tatas and Ambanis will hire such people in the first place? :D

Also, most feel (I realised it later too) that you have been let off too lightly by the ever vigilant online community. As a small attempt, have written a separate blog mentioning all questions that were directed towards you. Answer them specifically instead of waiting for this issue to die down. Merely discontinuing "counterpoint" (though a relief) is no solace. Plus your rhetoric is tiring to read.

Mediagate! - More Questions to Barkha.

"While there is no doubt that journalists must be held to the same exacting standards of accountability that we seek from others, the allegations in this instance, as they relate to me, are entirely slanderous and not backed by a shred of evidence."

Thus begins Barkha's response (in her words, her final word) to the Mediagate, more popularly known as #mediamafia #barkhagate, debate going on.

"The same exacting standards" means that she gets grilled the exact same way she and her ilk do on TV (often times, smirking at politicians for the exact same kind of response above). Instead she just choose to write and then call it the "final word". Am reminded of unilateral ceasefire! What kind of standards does this set? (Update on Dec.1: Last night NDTV asked for journos to question Barkha. Watch the show and decide for yourself who got grilled.)

Before I ask more, let me say this - Yes Barkha the tapes have nothing to prove that you lobbied for Raja or for that matter any individual. So there is no debate there.

Now, Barkha then goes on to say.

The few, short conversations took place in the backdrop of cabinet formation in 2009, when the DMK had stormed out of the UPA coalition over portfolio allocation.

And at a later point says this:

"What should I tell them," was in response to her repeatedly saying to me over several different phone calls, that if I happened to talk to anyone in the Congress, I should ask them to talk the DMK chief directly.

Quick question Barkha - were there "few" calls or were there "several" calls? The "two separate sentences " -"Oh God, What should I tell them", were uttered not in response to "can you pass the message", but almost voluntarily upon hearing Baalu's mess up. Why were you the first person to broach the topic of passing the message? Did you give out such vibes in your "few several" calls before too? Did Radia know that she can rely on you to pass the message (because in a conversation with A. Raja, she says she spoke to you and you have agreed to pass the message). Or are we to assume that the PR lobbyist of the Tata's and Ambani's is so stupid as to have believed you when you have not acted on such promises previously too?

Like asked in the previous blog, by "humouring of the source", did you mean to say you lied to her? Does NDTV's ethical policy (if it has one) allow any employee to lie (humour) a source to extract any kind of information? And no - all journalists do it is not the answer I am looking for.

The next main important question that many other folks in the media have asked too. If you knew that the PR lobbyist of Tata's and Ambanis is very much trying to get some portfolios in the Cabinet - did you NOT find that as newsworthy? Or did you find it so, and decided to kill it so as to not lose the source? Over the past 1 year, at no point of time have you felt that this was not newsworthy? Investigative worthy?

Later you say this too - Anyone who has bothered to read the entire transcript of these conversations instead of just the headline, would notice that the conversation is essentially a journalist soliciting information from one of the many people plugged in - something all journalists do as part of news gathering

Yes Barkha - I have "bothered" to read and re-read the entire tapes. I heard and re-heard the tapes - just to come out of the shock. And no - it doesn't sound like you were "sourcing information" or "humouring a source". By merely saying, "anyone would understand" you are just insinuating those who are disagreeing and asking pointed questions.

"While a genuine debate on media ethics is always welcome in the quest for self improvement.."

Thus ends her "final word". Barkha - I have asked this question multiple times before too - what is stopping you from starting that genuine debate? What efforts have you made to bring about this quest? And no - 140 character debates on twitter or a 45 minutes "We the people" does not count as "genuine debate". Regret to say this but your "final word" is anything but that.

PS: Earlier questions to her here.

Trysts with MSM - Part 12

MSM stands for Main Stream Media.

#Mediamafia #barkhagate were two most trending topics on Twitter since about 10 days after "Mediagate" broke. After 10 days, The Associate Editor of The Hindu comes on twitter and says this:

Those curious about view of the Hindu on Radia tapes and journalism, see N.Ram on Karan Thapar's show at 10 pm on CNN-IBN tonight

For which, I ask back:

@svaradarajan why not write in the newspaper instead of talking on some channel?

And this got him all worked up!

@ssudhirkumar Grrrrr If he writes, y'all whine itna late kyon likha, yeh kyon nahin bola, voh klyon nahin bola. Learn to be happy sir.

I don't get it - What is so unreasonable in expecting the Editor of a newspaper to write his views in the paper rather than speaking on TV (which quite obviously all his readers will not watch)? And why should I be content with 'something is better than nothing' logic? Is the Editor really not writing in the paper because he is worried readers like me may not like it? Is that how the standards have fallen down now?

Also, CNN-IBN's Bhupendra Chaube also has been tweeting on this topic, asking how such smear campaign is ok. One such example:

U put pics of individuals on cover, then say let's deal with larger public issue at a seminar,what else will this be considered if not smear

I ask back:

So @bhupendrachaube those specific conversations r not the issue? Their publishing is?

He replies back:

@ssudhirkumar I am on the specific point of the manner in which they were presented. Design of the story is what I am debating.

When asked how the design matters, when the larger issue of betrayal by distinguished journos and their defeaning silence , he says there is a valid point and they need to come clean.

@ssudhirkumar precisely, frankly the key actors have a lot to answer for and I do agree that their silence is deafenin

Exactly our point! It really doesn't matter to us why there was selective leaking, or what professional "jealousy" (as termed by Sagarika Ghose) has led to these publications of the tapes. Those who don't miss out on an opportunity to lecture us on morality have betrayed us, and they need to answer. Period.

Mediagate - Part 2 !

This is a continuation of the earlier elaborate post - Mediagate. Came across this post today. Written by B.V.Rao of Governance Now, this article counters Vir Sanghvi when he first wrote that Ambani article (and therefore feels very vindicated about his observation - given what the tapes have now revealed!). Especially those sattires referrring to Vir's food articles are sooper!

The print media has been slowly picking up the tapes story. After Open, Outlook and Mail Today - New Indian Express and Deccan Herald have covered the news, and have written editorials too. And today, The Hindu published a lead article, speaking of these tapes in nice detail. And this article made very interesting read - primarily because the most pompous Vir Sanghvi says that even if he did pass information it was not wrong!

He insisted that he had never acted on Ms Radia's requests to call Mr. Patel or anyone else in the Congress “as anyone in the government will know.” However, even if he had called Mr. Patel as promised, it would not have been unethical if it was not privileged or secretly communicated information, he felt.

And then when Barkha was questioned, she refused to answer citing "legal concerns" !!!! This is more huge - what "legal concerns" do you have here Barkha? What just is your problem in coming out with facts, instead of general rhetoric?

Ms Dutt declined to answer The Hindu's questions, citing legal concerns, but she has been freely offering answers to similar queries on her Twitter account over the past few days.

Most of Barkha's response on twitter are to people who are supporting her. To those questioning her, she asks back why only her tapes were released;whether it is ethical for Open and Outlook to air them etc etc. After a couple of days, I have stopped following her replies (if you have the patience, please visit www.twitter.com/bdutt). She needs to answer many specific questions, and only a long article will do justice to it. Merely rubbishing off questions in 140 characters amounts to trivialising the issue. And please, no marks for attempting to have a debate on twitter - that will count only if you answer the tough questions.

While the blackout of the tapes on TV continues (only IBN did a 30 min discussion on this - without airing the tapes though) - many people still await a satisfactory response from the pompous Vir Sanghvi and Her Highness Barkha Dutt.

Mediagate!

Watergate was a major scandal back then in United States. It led to the fall of the then President too. Indian media, to showcase its utter lack of imagination, includes a "gate" to almost every scandal that gets exposed in India. Following their eminent footsteps, this blogpost has been titled "Mediagate" (word not my invention, but many folks have been using this on twitter and elsewhere, ever since the latest scoop got exposed!).

Anyways, let's get to the point. Nira Radia, a PR consultant and a lobbyist, was in news recently because of her alleged involvement in the 2G spectrum (Check out this link, for exhaustive info on links to follow). Turns out, she was also in touch with a lot of media folks. And then turns out, she had discussions with Barkha Dutt (during the 2009 UPA2 govt. formation), and Vir Sanghvi (during the 2009 UPA2 cabinet formation, and also about the Gas pricing fight between the Ambani brothers).

Quite expectedly, these have created quite a stir . And also quite expectedly, peripheral and generic rebuttals by both Barkha and Vir Sanghvi have come out too. The purpose of this blog (a copy of which has been sent to feedback@ndtv.com for Barkha's response. Not sure how to get in touch with Vir) is to pose some specific questions to both these eminences, with a vain hope of extracting a clarification from them. Multiple questions to Barkha on twitter (1, 2, 3, 4) have not yielded any answer from her.

The conversation between Barkha and Radia is here. These tapes are real - that much has been established. In defense of her conversation, Barkha Dutt points out:

Gathering information against the backdrop of a political story is not unethical. Nor is using that information to get more information

In isolation, this tweet looks perfect and most logical too. The problem arises, you see, when there is a difference between "using information" and "sharing information". Take for example this line by Barkha:

Oh God. So now what? What should I tell them? Tell me what should I tell them?

Now, the first and foremost commonsense question that comes to mind is - who are "them". What should Barkha tell "them" that will ease the situation? When asked this pointed question on twitter, there is no answer. When asked if finding out what to "tell them" is "sourcing" information, no answer.

We move on. To this line.

BARKHA: Also, but, but the Congress needs to tell Karunanidhi that we have not said anything about Maran.

BARKHA: Okay. Let me talk to them again.

So here she says she will talk to "them" again on what needs to be communicated. Naturally, a doubt arises if that communication has happened. But hey - ask her this and no answer!

Lastly this -

BARKHA: No, I’ll set it up as soon as they get out of RCR.

RADIA: What she saying is that, you know, that someone senior like Ghulam [Nabi Azad, senior Congress leader]---because he is the one who is authorised to speak. ….

BARKHA: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

RADIA: Right? Was to speak to her then she can tell her father that I have got this message from the Congress.

BARKHA: Theek hai, not a problem. That’s not a problem, I’ll talk to Azad---I’ll talk to Azad right after I get out of RCR [Race Course Road, presumably, the PM’s residence].

RADIA: Yeah, and then she said when father lands, I can speak to him.

BARKHA: Okay.

"Sharing" information eh? "Sourcing" Information, did someone say? "I will set it up" comes under these categories?

Well to be fair, here's what she replied to some folks in a generic sense. No specifics. Only generics.

@diptosh Thanks for a voice of sanity.Many things said as diplomatic nice-nice to get info. Challenge magazines to prove any quid pro quo

Now would she care to define "many things"? Assuring that something will be "set-up" is part of a "diplomatice nice-nice" to get info?

Barkha also says this -

Radia was a valid news source for DMK camp. She gave info on Karunanidhi, and sought my analysis on what Cong may do next. Valid journalism.

I am sorry, but from the tapes, does it really sound like someone's "analysis" was being sought? Is it just about interpretation here?

@samratd diff btwen humouring a news source politely and acting. for the record, no call was made to azad. Check with him.

Yeah right, we should check with Azad (because he is one icon of trustworthiness!) And despite Barkha not delivering on "many things", I just wonder why Radia keeps calling her up? Radia is not as intelligent as she is made out to be?

There are more specifc questions that Barkha Dutt needs to answer. From how long has she been in touch with Nira? What stories were aired on NDTV based on her sourcing (Question via auldtimer)? (since she claims she is trusted source)? Exactly who were "them" and what was "set-up"? Or were they amongst the "many things" that were just said and not acted upon? How much trust did Radia place in you, that she is asking you to pass on information (or in your terminology, "share" information)? Does NDTV group have a corporate ethics policy? 2. If yes, does it endorse an ends-justify-means strategy? For ex: can NDTV staff lie to or strike dubious deals with sources? (last 2 questions from auldtimer). And then these superb questions from the editor of Open magazine (this line added on Nov.26) . Mere rebuttals with fancy words like "defamation", "unsubstaintiated" etc etc don't mean anything at all.

It is not this blogger's contention that you "lobbied" for A. Raja or for that matter, any individual. The above questions are asked based purely on the material available on the net, and not picked up from magazines that you have accused of defaming you. Nor am I am a part of a "lynch mob".

Now comes Vir Sanghvi! More than the transcripts, his rebuttal is more hilarious! First for some points on the transcripts - He talks about writing about the Gas pricing tussle between the Ambani brothers -

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.

Also Vir Sanghvi talks about how an entire interview has to be "scripted" before it goes on air. Vir Sanghvi in his response, does not talk about any of these. Just goes on to rant about how he has never lobbied for Raja and how that is an unfair allegation. Many questioned as to how asking for the kind of story she wants, amounts to ethical journalism. No answer yet!

Check out this piece of conversation during the cabinet formation:

VIR: I’ll pass this on?

RADIA: Yeah. Thanks. Thanks to you.

VIR: Yeah.

RADIA: That was really great, you know, you all, I mean it was exactly as you had said and…

VIR : Okay.

RADIA: They were very relieved and she was so relieved. So, wants to say thank you to you personally.

VIR: I’ll pass it…

Does this not make it clear that he was "passing" along some information for which some people were very "thankful" about? And in his "response", he says this:

I received many calls from different sources during that period. In no case did I act on those requests as anybody in the government will know.

Does the pompous Vir Sanghvi see no need to clarify on these issues too? And first of all, which magazine has accused him of "lobbying for A. Raja"?

Why should these journos get away with merely rubbishing claims that were not made in the first place? Aren't there so many grey areas in these conversations that need clarification? Or is it that they think these are not worth clarifying? Just use hi-fi words, get on the offense, shout loudly, thank their supporters (who I presume haven't read/heard the transcripts) and therefore skip the specifics? Some journalists think the "complexities" of the source-journalist relationship needs to be understood better. I am sorry, Mr. Diptosh - getting away with such language doesn't befit the profession you are in!

It is an open challenge to these journos to answer these specific questions. Mere generic and peripheral "rebuttals" are not helping in bringing this watershed moment a.k.a the "Mediagate" to a closure!

PS: This blog has more follow-up posts on Mediagate, after writing this one. This link will take you to all posts labelled mediagate.