Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Re: [IAC#RG] from a to x to zee

Dear Rajput
Thanks for your comment of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" which is also synonymous with saying that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander (1670s), or "as deep drinketh the goose as the gander" (1562). More commonly "What is good for a woman is equally good for a man; or, what a woman can have or do, so can a man have or do" and "What is good for one type is equally good for another type, despite any irrelevant differences between the types".
I wrote in the comment on the article titled From A To X to Zee by Ms Seema Mustafa appeared and circulated on Monday, February 22,2016 in online magazine the Citizen Bureau. It was about need for unbiased reporting by tv media owners. Yesterday night I was watching another debate at Zee tv where anchor was saying to Congress spoke-person that as Indian National Congress almost ceased to exist therefore they should lock the party office and wind up party too. That means TV channel are now deciding what looser should do and not to do, which is the job of the party concerned. The hatred to presence of INC is so hurting the sentiments of winning party and their support that they wish to execute their opponents, which was tendency of dictators that is being proliferated through tv debates at zee tv. In India, live and let live is being practiced since time immemorial bu few misguided tv journalist have hidden dictatorial mindset. That was the issue, and i expressed my view, may be wrong or right but I am sure it was neutral and not offending none..   
Coming to your observation of good for one may not be good for other. I agree, as no people have same liking. Indeed this is the question of distributive justice. A person who is adult may have different needs as compared with infant. Also person who has liking for rice as staple food may not like wheat, and so on. Nation has inherited inequality of social and economic. Though political inequality has been removed by various measure and laws, social and economic inequalities continue to exist. But if one looks at recent event about demands of Patels, Jats and Kapus in respective state it would lead to conclusion that what suits to one does not suit to others. I agree with you. But as far as secularism, nationalism, patriotism, freedom of speech and expression, tv debates on these issues etc. each channel hold different views and those are not neutral but with full of bias either in support of one or other point of view. Often TV anchors impose their point of view on the participants. That was the point I tried to make, be it arrest of student on anti-national slogans or attack by lawyers on accused of anti-national slogan or other issue. Indeed law must take its own course but intervention of people not authorize to attack accuse feel their sentiments were hurt and wish to eliminate accused by illegal means. People have freedom of choice therefore what suits to geese may not suit grander but as far as services providers like telecom, railways facilities to commuters, drinking water distribution and other common facilities including elementary, secondary, tertiary or higher education is concerned what's good for the goose is good for the gander" may hold valid. That is depending upon situation what suits or hold valid or does not hold valid be construed.

Most of things are to be construed as relative to each other, and what suits may not suit other, moreover, winner write both history and what is good for them, but never forget the right to existence of the contrarian views or recognize right of other to express their views.

Dr. Ratnakar Gedam  

From: Rajput Basant <>
To: "rgedam@yahoo.com" <rgedam@yahoo.com>; "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] from a to x to zee

After reading this mail chain, I am amused that the writers did not notice the same phenomenon in much bigger scale when UPA was ruling at the Center. This reminds me of the saying ' what is good for the goose is good for the gander'!!!

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad

On Feb 22, 2016, 5:52:18 PM, Ratnakar Gedam wrote:
Dear Ms. Seema

I tried to post following comments but something went wrong. My comments are as follows, you may advice to your editor to get publish it along with your article. Have a nice time!
Good Analysis! I am inclined to agree with you, but needs placing some points in right the perspective to be neutral per se, i.e. neutral in terms of men and matter, putting matters first than men in politics, policies over politics or nationalism (pseudo versus in reality) versus anarchy.
There are at least three points that this article articulates which draw attention to.
Firstly, media's role in supporting each and every thing that NaMo as Pm does. Indeed, observations are very correct. Subash Chandra's Zee is anti, Congress and Pro-NaMo not pro-BJP. When Jairam Ramesh said toilets as more important than temples, Zee started non-tireless campaign against him. But when same issue raised by NaMo, zee tv has mad all praise for him, as if NaMo was first to invent, forgetting the facts that Jairam was talking about Total Sanitation Campaign which was one of 16 flagship projects of INC then in power. That is, Zee has blind support to NaMo as PM; certainly for aspirations for gains, recognitions of Padma awards, positions as well as profit motive, without tax evasion charges or dragging his empire into tax evasion net. Zee Tv and its all anchors wore pro-Namo spectacles. Therefore, one must expect impartial reporting or DNA from Zee.
Second, each of tv channels have political orientation and support to the one or other political party, therefore almost all channels are not impartial or neutral to any issue or debate. Last general elections to Lok Sabha were not won by NaMo alone by his so called miracle speeches (which indeed lack substance and knowledge of subject he often spoke of) but it was winning of mass media of both digital and print media that unleashed anti-Congress and anti-NaMo parties through 24x7 propaganda. There was debates not on the subjects but pro-NaMo praise. Those who were oppose to NaMo were subject to verbal attack as well as use of abusive. This trend is continued till today and may continue till next general elections. This is bad for democracy and anti-ethical reporting. Media must impartially put forward neutral view and not impose upon the viewers channels' views through their anchors.
Finally, freedom of speech granted under Article 19(1) is not an absolute right but is subjected to "reasonable restriction". Nationalism and patriotism have blurred boundaries but are inculcated since the childhood and requires it to be cherished. The nationalism means irrespective its good or bad aspects. Both nationalism and patriotism does not requires certifications either from ruling party or opposition parties, or justification or denounces from anyone, least at least from tv channels owners or anchors who are paid employees of tv owners and re bound to do, say or argue as their bosses wants them, for the sake of continue earning salary. Students are bound to be distracted to ideologies unless are students at formative age are taught as to what is rights from wrong otherwise it would lead to indoctrination of thoughts or ideologies, as could one see in terrorist, criminals, anti-nationals, etc. People ought to differ as no two are identical or no two ideologies are same but neither this is not a time nor universities a place of experiment. No nationalist or patriotic person would accept others' point of view. Also studies and debates of ideologies over tv channels about religions, nationalism, pro-religions differ from crime as defined under the laws of land. The punishment according to law need evidence and it is the duty entrusted to police, certainly media trial and passing judgment on nationalism at least pseudo-nationalism as seen since last few years is nothing but as imposing views of tv channel owners over all others. As do politicians have their own agenda so have tv channels, as well anti-nationals which do try to infiltrate to institutions where youth in large number are easily found and are treated like a reserve army to proliferate ideologies and tap their talent and energy for furtherance of their intentions.

Dr. Ratnakar Gedam

No comments:

Post a Comment