tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6482064654402855982.post4805402643606122769..comments2024-02-16T12:35:50.497+05:30Comments on My Take: Why the New Indian Express is speaking in two Voices?Arun.N.M.http://www.blogger.com/profile/11255908292437790693noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6482064654402855982.post-82443766336936440192009-01-04T23:15:00.000+05:302009-01-04T23:15:00.000+05:30Welcome to this blog Femin Susan.Thank you happy 2...Welcome to this blog Femin Susan.Thank you happy 2009 to youArun.N.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11255908292437790693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6482064654402855982.post-74450122012869164222009-01-04T06:39:00.000+05:302009-01-04T06:39:00.000+05:30Hi,Your blog is really interesting... Good Luck......Hi,<BR/>Your blog is really interesting... Good Luck...keep writing.Femin Susanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06261731875448040555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6482064654402855982.post-25053830495538432092009-01-04T02:24:00.000+05:302009-01-04T02:24:00.000+05:30Thank you for the comment.Reading Indian Express f...Thank you for the comment.Reading Indian Express for the last 15-20 years I know what the editorial team in NIE is up to.I summed it up in last 2 lines of my post. Of all the newspapers I read NIE was in fore front in advocating war.I gave the links of op-ed by its own editor and other columnists expressing similar views. Only a blind person[or one who willingly close his eyes] can fail to understand the suggestion behind the headline.No need for an investigation to find out the 'anonymous copy editor'. It would have been much better for NIE and those who advocate war to be open about it.Rather than hiding behind a camouflageArun.N.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11255908292437790693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6482064654402855982.post-77502773212800069412009-01-04T01:59:00.000+05:302009-01-04T01:59:00.000+05:30I have some knowledge of working of a daily newspa...I have some knowledge of working of a daily newspaper. Though I am a journalist, I don't work for NIE nor I hold any brief for the paper or media in general. I thought I might just try to explain the paradox you are refering to.<BR/><BR/>News pages reflect facts, edits reflect the views of the publication.<BR/><BR/>"Israel strikes, India dithers" is a fact. If you remember with troops being amassed on the border and the service chiefs' unusual meetings with the PM and defence minister, there was talk of surgical or precision strikes (actually unlike what now Israel is doing.) So, seen objectively, Israel did strike and India did dither.<BR/><BR/>All statements of facts are open to interpretation from various angles and against various contexts... Like you have done. What you interpreted is definitely fair and I don't think anyone can object. That's your personal interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Now, whether that headline hid behind it any suggestion that India should have struck like Israel... like you suggest... will be known only if we find out that anonymous copyeditor or headline writer who gave that crisp headline.<BR/><BR/>Now edits are viewpoints, analytical and interpretative. Here unlike the headline there is no ambiguity. Again, here one is free to agree or disagree with the views, just as one is free to interpret facts in any which way.<BR/><BR/>All media outlets disseminate information of various kinds. Going beyond the headline or reading between the lines, can get a bit confusing only because of the sheer volume of information that is packed and the complexity of hues.<BR/><BR/>Here my attempt has been only to give a dispassionate, objective, journalistic explanation of the point you raised. I am in no way making a judgement or comment on the interpretation you have made.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6482064654402855982.post-32298513529578987522009-01-03T02:15:00.000+05:302009-01-03T02:15:00.000+05:30hey, you beat me to it. i was planning to write ab...hey, you beat me to it. i was planning to write about israel striking and india dithering and the volte face by the same paper the next day :D. <BR/>yes strange isn't how any paper can indulge in such blatant doublespeak. your explanation that the reader who is likely to get easily provoked doesnt read the oped page seems to be the answer to this shameful behaviour of the NIE.<BR/>thanks for the greetings.<BR/>happy new year to youkochuthresiamma p .jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01320086308375078739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6482064654402855982.post-91773215813752092322009-01-03T00:58:00.000+05:302009-01-03T00:58:00.000+05:30Thank you Atticus. The editorial was saying sense ...Thank you Atticus. The editorial was saying sense but the headlines were insane.Many do not read their newspapers carefully.So the newspapers and Channels get away with anythingArun.N.M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/11255908292437790693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6482064654402855982.post-36520938516026582382009-01-02T11:33:00.000+05:302009-01-02T11:33:00.000+05:30Brilliant observation. Yes this is plain hypocrisy...Brilliant observation. Yes this is plain hypocrisy. The editorial sounds sane even when there is madness in the headlines.That way they keep their feet planted firmly on the ground. Newspapers should not be allowed to get away with it.They should be held accountable for their remarks because these are always calculated and never careless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com