After two weeks of hullabaloo in twitter, Barkha Dutt allowed herself to be on the dock and be catechized by 4 senior editors in a special show on NDTV. It was twitter and other social media that kept this story alive and put pressure on NDTV to hold a show on Dutt’s involvement in the Radia tapes controversy. The controversy seems to signal the arrival of the social media as a watchdog of the traditional watchdog, mainstream media.
But one has to admire Dutt’s nerve to come out and face tough question from senior journalists and her newbie-nemesis, Open’s Manu Joseph. Though she took some time to state her defense with the help of some footage of her coverage of cabinet formation, Dutt took on some tough questions in the 48-minute show. Despite being prompted, she did not apologize for her conduct, but admitted that she made an “error of judgment” in dealing with Radia.
But most of the allegations leveled against her by commentators in the social media does not seem to hold true anymore. From being accused of corporate/political lobbying to colluding in the 2G scam, the netizens did not have very kind words for Barkha Dutt. But even though the editors tried, there was hardly any concrete allegation that could be made against Dutt. The closest to an allegation brought against her was that she did not report that a corporate lobbyist representing two big corporations was mediating between Congress and DMK. There was also the question of her being too close with Congress and the ethicality of exchanging information with sources.
That Manu Joseph went on harping about Dutt not doing her journalistic duty to report a particular story clearly shows that Open’s arsenal against her is limited. However, the allegation of killing a story is no small matter for a journalist. It’s common knowledge that the power of the press lies not in its ability to print stories it want but in its ability to not print stories others don’t want. Does Dutt’s supposed killing of the story amount to the press exercising this power? I don’t think so.
I think Dutt never killed the story but failed to detect a possible story. Manu Joseph said twice in the show that the story she failed to cover was the “story of the decade”. I hope he did’nt mean what he said, for if he did, it would mean that he has some peculiar ideas as to what constitutes a major news story. So what was this big story which Dutt failed to report? Its simple, Joseph says- “The source was the story”.
Now I am not aware of any instance where the fact that a source is well-connected is reported let alone become the “story of the decade”. The headline of such a story would have read-“NDTV source and lobbyist of Tata and Ambani also speaking on behalf of DMK”. Sounds hardly like the story of the decade. Doubt anyone would have bothered when it was still unsure as to who’d form the government. But even if Joseph feels it is a story, is it not a journalistic call whether it is to be reported? Yes, as concerned citizens we do not expect the press to act in a biased manner and cover-up major controversies. However, Dutt not making a story out of her source does not appear to be an case of cover-up or biased reporting.
A common misconception as to Dutt’s culpability is that she didn’t report that a PR agent of telecom players like Tata and Ambani was trying to push for A Raja as telecom minister. However, nowhere in the tapped conversations with Dutt did Radia lobby for A Raja or her clients. Radia seemed to be someone close to Kanimozhi speaking on behalf of DMK. She was giving some inside information from the DMK camp and the only message which Dutt was asked to convey to Congress (which she says she did’nt) was that Congress was speaking to the wrong people at DMK and should instead speak directly to Karunanidhi. Sorry, can’t see any story here.
But one has to admire Dutt’s nerve to come out and face tough question from senior journalists and her newbie-nemesis, Open’s Manu Joseph. Though she took some time to state her defense with the help of some footage of her coverage of cabinet formation, Dutt took on some tough questions in the 48-minute show. Despite being prompted, she did not apologize for her conduct, but admitted that she made an “error of judgment” in dealing with Radia.
But most of the allegations leveled against her by commentators in the social media does not seem to hold true anymore. From being accused of corporate/political lobbying to colluding in the 2G scam, the netizens did not have very kind words for Barkha Dutt. But even though the editors tried, there was hardly any concrete allegation that could be made against Dutt. The closest to an allegation brought against her was that she did not report that a corporate lobbyist representing two big corporations was mediating between Congress and DMK. There was also the question of her being too close with Congress and the ethicality of exchanging information with sources.
That Manu Joseph went on harping about Dutt not doing her journalistic duty to report a particular story clearly shows that Open’s arsenal against her is limited. However, the allegation of killing a story is no small matter for a journalist. It’s common knowledge that the power of the press lies not in its ability to print stories it want but in its ability to not print stories others don’t want. Does Dutt’s supposed killing of the story amount to the press exercising this power? I don’t think so.
I think Dutt never killed the story but failed to detect a possible story. Manu Joseph said twice in the show that the story she failed to cover was the “story of the decade”. I hope he did’nt mean what he said, for if he did, it would mean that he has some peculiar ideas as to what constitutes a major news story. So what was this big story which Dutt failed to report? Its simple, Joseph says- “The source was the story”.
Now I am not aware of any instance where the fact that a source is well-connected is reported let alone become the “story of the decade”. The headline of such a story would have read-“NDTV source and lobbyist of Tata and Ambani also speaking on behalf of DMK”. Sounds hardly like the story of the decade. Doubt anyone would have bothered when it was still unsure as to who’d form the government. But even if Joseph feels it is a story, is it not a journalistic call whether it is to be reported? Yes, as concerned citizens we do not expect the press to act in a biased manner and cover-up major controversies. However, Dutt not making a story out of her source does not appear to be an case of cover-up or biased reporting.
A common misconception as to Dutt’s culpability is that she didn’t report that a PR agent of telecom players like Tata and Ambani was trying to push for A Raja as telecom minister. However, nowhere in the tapped conversations with Dutt did Radia lobby for A Raja or her clients. Radia seemed to be someone close to Kanimozhi speaking on behalf of DMK. She was giving some inside information from the DMK camp and the only message which Dutt was asked to convey to Congress (which she says she did’nt) was that Congress was speaking to the wrong people at DMK and should instead speak directly to Karunanidhi. Sorry, can’t see any story here.
No comments:
Post a Comment