Read the article here.
http://www
My comments:
I feel the defence of Rajdeep Sardesai and barkha Dutt are justified. The tainted journalists seem to be listening to their sources and getting the NEWS, but nowhere it is indicated that they actually acted as mediators or got something for their own from the either side. It is not what it seems like, there is no corruption involved the way it is being looked at. Why have the tapes surfaced now, why are they targetted at Tata, Barkha Dutt, Vir Sanghvi (people who are very very powerful but have unblemished public image). Who made the tapes surface in public? Is there any motive other than what meets the eye. I feel something is fishy abt this. The other day, i was listening to barkha dutt's panel discussion on the same issue. She had invited all the concerned, including Vinod Mehta of Outlook, for an open debate. He refused to participate. I might agree to someone's error of judgment (that they could have reported the story of some PR agent trying to broker deals between political parties). But what where is the corruption in this? I see none. I haven't heard the tapes of Prabhu Chawla and Vir Sanghvi, but for Barkha Dutt, the case seems simple. She reported her facts in the news broadcast without allowing her mind to become biased because of her "source". What she didn't report is not important. Question should be, did she hide anything to benefit someone, or did she broker the political deals? Answer is, No, she didn't. That should rest the case. Rajdeep, U are right.
No comments:
Post a Comment