'Internet Hindus' Culprits or Victims???

India:- Meet the 'Internet Hindus' : Rightwing tweeple and bloggers looking to rule social media.

It is a real achievement to get a fairly apolitical neo-Platonist who cares more about the Roman Empire than any present political entity to be annoyed about the spate of articles about “internet Hindus,” “trolls,” and the “Right wing.” But first, it was that Raman piece about NaMo and his trolls, and then a piece in the Hindustan Times, and now Global Post’s latest article, “Meet the Internet Hindus.” To be fair, this third piece is describing the phenomenon, and is far more objective than most twitter comments or the other two articles. In any case, let me make a few points clear to you moderns:  “Just for the Record”  Has more than fittingly dealt with this article by Mr. Jason Overdorf.

My take on this article is lacking on three counts 1.) Research 2.) Victims presented are the actual culprits  3.) Evidence presented has been ignored. 

Media in India is largely left leaning and has arrogated to itself many labels and rights including that of outrage. Moment we peel off one label we encounter another, its like the onion as you peel a skin the next one is there to contend with, only difference it’s not the viewer who has tears in his eyes, it’s the media which is whining while it wipes it’s tears. 

Deficiency of research is a major shortcoming in this article, not just this but maybe he is also unaware Indian media may probably be the only one in the world, which is in a state of conflict with its consumers. Ironic as it may seems it’s a hard fact. Print and Electronic media published comments convenient to them, edited some and totally ignored those which were critical as per the narrow definition of the media houses. This has been happening for over 10years. Blogs and Twitter have provided that section of the society a platform to air their views whose voice had been effectively throttled by the media houses.

Natural corollary is breaking down of the established secure order so enjoyed by all the media and its population. Blog and Twitter have exposed them to a counter narrative which has totally benumbed them all and hence the victim hood is the favored route.

Three individuals that Mr. Overdorf presents as victims are in fact the culprits. Sagarika Ghose, Barkha Dutt and Namita Bhandare are the ultimate ASS no don’t get your heckles up, all it means is “Attention Seeking Syndrome.”  

Lets deal with each of the victims so presented by the author.

Sagarika Ghose who proudly claims to have coined this term Internet Hindu is a typical case of a juvenile mind housed in an adult. How many of us have either experienced this or seen it happen, younger sibling who provokes the elder sibling get a whack in return and goes weeping to momma complaining about the elder sibling. The screen shots will prove that beyond doubt she provokes to attract attention.  These 10 screenshots were available to the author did he confront this so called victim. Why was the Tweet about Lord Ram a Divine Encroacher deleted by her. Lacks of conviction, courage or plain simple mischief making.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If she coins a name its but natural a counter will be there to it and she is the Media Jehadi, who lacks patience and ability to engage in a debate. Twisting Tweets and using fake interviews of Sri Sri Ravi Shanker are some other feathers in her cap. On the basis of this evidence doubt it if she can stake a claim to being a victim, on the contrary she is the Culprit who should have been removed from the organization for her unacceptable conduct. The issue is not just of this individual, but also the channel. She would have been sacked for her indiscretions which are a plenty in any other organization. Here she is protected due to her marital ties. 

 

Barkha Dutta has a serious problem of credibility ever since her role has been exposed by Radia Tapes. Her belief that public memory is short is just not holding true. Longer she stay higher is the degree of disgust with her. These screen shots will more than establish that she indulges in use of unacceptable language and if she get paid in full measure in return how can she claim to be victim. Inciting others who support her to indulge in abuse is also her way of life on Twitter. Calling those tweeters as guttersnipe who do not agree with her is definitely civil by her standards. Here again the issue is not just individual but the channel also.

 

 

    

 

Namita Bhandare is some one who had followed me on Twitter sometime last month, at the very outset I had informed her about my disposition towards the so called Journalists and forwarded to her the link to an article which was a rejoinder to her post in Hindustan Time, response was prompt unfollowing by her, not that it made any difference to me. The screen shots are self explanatory need one say who is abusive and who is the victim.

Here again the issue is that the publication and it’s personnel are biased and anti majority.

 

 

 

I have been on Twitter for over two and half years with over 104000 Tweet not one has been abusive or has been deleted because it was unacceptable. I am yet to encounter abusive Tweeters, do not contest the claims that there are abusive tweeters also, one has to deliberately invite them and this is what your so called victims have been indulging in.

Did these individuals present any evidence or their word was enough to classify them as victims. Did they describe what in their scheme of things was Liberalism? How they had the right to be called Liberal? While the only thing liberal about them that comes through is abusive and provocative language and actions.

Mr. Jason Overdorf cannot deny that @Sureshnakhua during the course of the interview with author did provide the evidence collated in the article  “Twitter a case of Fatal attraction or twitter a case of a sting in the tale (not tail)?"  Why it was overlooked is best explained by the man himself?

In conclusion wish a more thorough research had been done before writing the article. Finally as a tweeter 

@barbarindian has aptly stated “Media is a crime scene always take a screen shot.” 



Latest update on 17th Aug 2013
What particularly disturbs me is the way in which sections of the mainstream media and others in positions of power use the worst of what happens online to condemn all that happens online. One manifestation of this is the way in which the word “troll” has been appropriated by sections of the mainstream and redefined.  

Those in MSM who think all abusers n dissenters r "trolls" should read this.

Latest update on 27th Nov 2012

Latest update on 11th Nov 2012

 Latest update on 01st July 2012

 

I welcome a debate and discussion on this…As always, please keep your tone civil, your language polite…no sweeping generalisations please and no personal abuse.  Thank you.

The Interview that set a million tongues wagging.

The Interview that set a million tongues wagging.

Media deliberately dividing people: PCI Chief  “Speaking to Karan Thapar, the new Chairman of the Press Council of India Markandey Katju slammed the media saying that he is very disappointed with the way in which the Indian media works. Katju also said that the media is not working for the interest of the people and sometimes divide the people of the country.” 

 { Link } 

As is their wont no sooner had the interview of Justice Katju concluded all vantage points were occupied, an incessant chatter of self-righteous indignation and outrage  was unleashed; the irony is that everyone is speaking, but the victims of Media Yes! We are the victims of media for what they publish, broadcast and equally what the media does not publish and broadcast.

In all these years never has the role of the media been scrutinized in detail, is it politically incorrect to inspect the role of the media, or is it a mine field, which deters these so called experts from delving into its role, a potent tool, when employed strategically can inflict immense damage on the victims. Has our media been reporting factually, without bias for one or the other protagonist? 

Plenty has been said yet no cogent case has been made out why Self Regulation should be permitted for electronic media in particular? This central point is missing.

Has the self regulation so far by this section been a roaring success? If yes! Where is the evidence to back the claim? 

What has self regulation yielded to inspire confidence for continuance? Is it their case what transpired in the aftermath of Radia Tapes expose omerta observed by all concerned, and followed by a Court being convened in the studio of a channel where the alleged accused is also the presiding officer, the defendant, who pronounced self to be innocent by way of “Error of Judgment?” Should we be encouraged by the apology of an apology issued by another channel in the wake of 9^th Nov 2011 fake live interview! If this is their basis then conversely there is a mountain of evidence in public domain for appointing an Independent Regulator for Media.

Society exists, functions and thrives by a given set of rules and regulation. No component or part is permitted an exception from this. Why should the media then demand that they be exempt from what the rest have to adhere by? 

Can a citizen or a group of citizens demand that they be exempt from IPC & CrPc since they shall setup a self regulation?

Other relevant articles and programs that appeared as a consequence of this interview  

Quick of the blocks is CNN IBN with its Face The Nation on 02^nd Nov 2011

FTN: Should Justice Katju apologise to journalists?

 

Not breaking news Namita Bhandare, Hindustan Times  November 11, 2011

“The problem begins when the former Supreme Court judge reaches sweeping conclusions, perhaps oblivious to the fact that many issues that make him queasy (sensationalism, celebrity journalism and paid news) make most journalists queasy too. Perhaps he needs to meet more journalists.” { Link }

When journalists turn brokers By KULDIP NAYAR

“Credibility is like virginity. It either exists or does not. Unfortunately, some top names in Indian journalism have lost their credibility. In the few cases that are in the public domain, they have been found lobbying for the scam-ridden A. Raja. Transcripts of tapped telephone talks by the income-tax department have revealed the manner in which these journalists were throwing their weight around, trying to get the "right" minister from the "right" party. They behaved like powerbrokers and crossed the Lakshmanrekha between legitimate news gathering and lobbying. It is like the fence eating the crop.” { Link }

Justice Markandey Katju clarifies

“By criticizing the media I wanted to persuade the media to change its manner of functioning and not that I wanted to destroy it. The Indian media has a historical role to play in the age of transition, and I wanted to remind the media persons of their historical duty to the nation. Instead of taking my criticism in the correct spirit, a veritable diatribe was launched against me by a section of the media, which painted me as some kind of dictatorial monster.” { Link }

Media self-regulation has failed: Ansari

Mr. Ansari questioned whether such freedoms were being manipulated by media companies for their own purposes. “Can the constitutional safeguards on freedom of speech be used to evade regulation of the commercial persona of media corporates and groups? Where does public interest end and private interest begin?” he asked. “Collective self-regulation has yet to succeed in substantive measure because it is neither universal nor enforceable. Individual self-regulation has also failed due to personal predilection and the prevailing of personal interest over public interest,”  { Link }

‘The media industry needs an independent regulating authority with teeth’

“Control over media is a dangerous proposition, but there needs to be an independent authority which can force corrective action on publishers without interfering with their freedom,” said veteran journalist and former Press Council member Mr Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. His comment summed up the lively interactive panel discussion that followed a screening of the movie ‘Brokering News’ by Moneylife Foundation and vCitizens Action Network and MxM India. 

{ Link }

Control freakery Hindustan Times November 15, 2011 By Arun Jaitley

“The chairman of the Press Council of India, Justice Markandey Katju, lost little time after his appointment to make known his contemptuous views about the Indian media. The obvious danger of talking out of turn in order to sound crusading is that one ceases to be objective. You only have to tabulate the weak points of the target institution and emerge a reformist yourself.” 

{ Link } 

Switching off from news By: Vanita Kohli-Khandekar  2011-11-18    Mumbai

“If credibility is the currency a news brand trades in, most are running low these days. And having star anchors will not improve it. It is only when news channels can harness, educate and train young people to gather facts, research and apply rigour to their work will you see good stories on your TV screen. That is when India will see really strong, profitable news broadcasters emerge out the mess the industry has become today.”  { Link }

Who owns media? BY Vaidehi Sachin  afternoonvoice news  Mumbai

“First we have to look that who is running the media. Let us see the ownership of different media agencies.  NDTV: A very popular TV news channel is funded by Gospels of Charity based in Spain and supports communism. Recently, it has developed a soft corner towards Pakistan because the Pakistani President has allowed only this channel to be aired in Pakistan. CNN-IBN: This news channel is 100 per cent funded by the Southern Baptist Church with its branches in all over the world and HQ in US.” { Link }

CHIEF MINISTER ASHOK CHAVAN CLEARS JOURNALISTS HOUSING SCHEME

MHADA will allot a total of 230 flats at Pratiksha Nagar, Sion for journalist members/nominees of the Press Club. This will include 168 High Income Group (HIG) and 62 Middle Income Group (MIG) flats. This will include a reservation of 13 percent for SC applicants and 6 percent for ST applicants.” { Link }

Updated on 25^th Nov 2011

Can a reporter make a comment of his own?

The report was illustrated with a photograph. The photograph showed an empty, throne-like chair between one seating Advani and the other seating Modi and the report said: “The reported dissent between Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and veteran Bharatiya Janata Party leader L.K. Advani… came to the fore… with the two keeping a distance while sharing the dais.”  The report added: “Despite lauding Advani’s fight against corruption, Modi preferred not to take the throne-like seat next to him… throwing enough hints at their continuing cold war”.  It also reported, wrongly, that Modi “sat two chairs away from Advani”. The headline said: “Modi-Advani Cold Vibes Continue”.  { Link }

I welcome a debate and discussion on this…As always, please keep your tone civil, your language polite…no sweeping generalisations please and no personal abuse.  Thank you.