Comments on: Journalist Needs Help

By: Patrix

Patrix — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:34:44 +0000

I agree. In fact, portals and platforms have been targeted before. But you must understand that plaintiffs will often attack individuals or organizations who lack the means to defend themselves and that cave easily. They use their success as a vindication to justify their actions.

By: Nikhil Pahwa

Nikhil Pahwa — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:43:57 +0000

Patrix – We've looked at it from a slightly different perspective – that as a community owner (and hence, on our opinion, a platform) will now be liable for prosecution as a platform. At the same time, isn't the platform on which a community is hosted (for example – orkut, myspace, hi5) also liable for prosecution? (not looking to pimp my blog, but a more detailed opinion at http://www.medianama.com/2009/03/223-editorial-sh… )

By: Patrix

Patrix — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:21:00 +0000

Lack of resources in terms of ability, time, and of course money – that's what the organizations and corporation aim on exploiting. Unfortunately the courts haven't recognized this asymmetry.

By: Kiran

Kiran — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:20:00 +0000

Yes, agreed that it would be really tough for someone to actually "win a case" against us bloggers. But, that is only if we have the resources to actually fight the case. Maybe the court will end up absolve Ajith of all charges. But that will happen only if he really takes the effort to fight. Can we, as individual bloggers, challenge the might and the battery of lawyers which these biggies flaunt? I dont think so, Unless we come up with an umbrella organization to protect the rights of bloggers.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:18:12 +0000

I don't think you should be too nervous about this ruling. Just read up on defamation and libel. Unless someone wants to really screw you over, you should be fine.

By: Kiran

Kiran — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 08:10:36 +0000

Patrix,

Loved this post. I wanted to post my opinion on the issue, but I guess you have said it all. And I had no idea about this Pallavi Paul on IBN. Why is it that some journalists do not bother to look up fact and do their homework before going public?

Needless to say, I also found the sarcasm and humor in this post very effective at putting across your point.

One final point – the ruling has succeeded in unnerving a lot many bloggers (myself included) a bit – regardless of how much we deny it and try to put a brave face.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:53:22 +0000

That's true. I blame the editors too but barring a few exceptions, this is typical of the general standard of the current crop of Indian journos. Of course, I don't purport to have superior writing skills which I don't but I'm sure most journos do and are making a living from it.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:51:09 +0000

Honestly, the more they seek to make the law clearer, the more ambiguous and specific it gets. Note the exceptions to freedom of speech; they are extremely broad and generic.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:49:55 +0000

I know but I don't tell my readers what to search for.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:47:41 +0000

I would be more than happy if the journos hold themselves to the standards that they want to hold the bloggers to. Right now, it is a free-for-all and driven entirely by TRP ratings which is fine if it was purely a business and not a profession.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:42:23 +0000

You never know…sarcasm is a little-understood art.

By: Aditya

Aditya — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:13:03 +0000

Sssh! Did you just say a journalist needs help?! Doesn't this mean you suggested the journalist might be mentally inept? Couldn't this then be considered as libel? Couldn't this put you in jail because of the Supreme Court ruling?

Be afraid, Patrix. Very, very afraid. :)

By: Debashish

Debashish — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:27:34 +0000

But Wikipedia would still consider Newspaper articles (and not blogs) as citable for notability purpose :) Write-ups on blogging & new media are on demand and usually the younger journos are assigned the task who would at the best talk to 2-3 "noted" bloggers and file a story (and most of the time even these bloggers would have read about the incident only on Wikipedia). That's why Dalai Llama on twitter story becomes top-page news and in the frenzy they even forget to cross-check it with Dharmasala, a basic check point for a journo.

By: Vivek

Vivek — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:04:13 +0000

[Sorry, Completely OT] The popular searches on your blog right now show.. Vinod Kambli, wife, adult movies.. in that order.

By: Tanuj Lakhina

Tanuj Lakhina — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:05:43 +0000

I actually found it amusing with the mention of "x,y,z.." laws being broken in the Ajith case.I just hope the supreme court can make the law of freedom of speech clearer rather than have a double stand on it and making people with affluence able to voice their opinions and not face the wrath of such political bullies but common man being dragged to court for "public disharmony"(I wonder if violent attacks against people of other states of the same country is disharmonious or no!)

By: Sherene

Sherene — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:44:33 +0000

I can't help but physically cringe upon reading that article – how can editors allow her to publish that under their masthead? The childishness of her writing style reminds me of the primary school essays that kids write from a single point of view, peppered with oodles of simplified examples and nothing much else.

By: Patrix

Patrix — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:38:03 +0000

Well, I see that too but that would make sense only if she had provided context. No mention of the Mumbai attacks or no mentioned of media coverage makes hard to make that connection for the layperson. Omission of libel that was essentially NDTV's primary reason for making Kunte apologized was glaring.

By: bloghopper

bloghopper — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:34:05 +0000

Was about to say the same thing that Rohit said.

By: Rohit

Rohit — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:23:24 +0000

''Cheytanya Kunte blogged against journalists revealing vital info on TV.''

I think what she meant was that kunte blogged against journalists revealing vital information and that is why he was sued…and then forced to apologize.

She is a bad writer too.