Response to 'Trashing Sunanda Pushkar'
_150_200.jpg)
The three articles -- together with the comments of the readers -- speak for themselves.
Nonetheless, I would like to make a few brief points. When I spoke about an earlier age in journalism, it was not to sound self-righteously noble but to argue that some values and principles transcend time and place. To vigorously question and attack a point of view was and always will be valid. By the same token, meanness and slander can never become right. The Outlook article comes dangerously close to slander – and I’m not alone in saying this; the latest issue of the magazine devotes a page and a half to letters that are unequivocal in deploring the tone and language of the Sunanda Pushkar profile. (If the letters are manufactured, what does it say about Vinod Mehta?)
The rejoinder portrays critics of the Outlook profile as frumpy feminists living by outmoded mores. If being modern means showing open class bias, then I’m sure most of us would happily settle for being called staggeringly boring frumps. Take this paragraph in the original article: "Sure, it’s hard to make friends when you are living between two cities, but as a hostess sniffs, "Sunanda invites people she meets on a plane for an intimate dinner with the minister. It may be first class but this is not
The quote is an unapologetic call for birth-based discrimination. Implicit in it is the assumption that people can never rise above the circumstances of their birth; that those born to privilege will always rule over those succeeding by hard work. If this is acceptable language, then I obviously have no defence.
The problem with this rejoinder is that it confuses between lively writing and libelous writing. It places reporters in rigid blocs allowing no mobility between them. Traditional reporters travel in packs, essentially writing the same story. Smart writers, on the other hand, stand the risk of inviting questions of impropriety. Did I or anyone else say that journalism has to be turgid and dull to qualify as good journalism? Or that reporters ought to do copy-cat writing? Writing styles must and do change with time. Newer and livelier forms of reportage have attracted the young to the media, drastically transforming the newsroom and altering the readership profiles of newspapers and magazines. Trend-spotting has gone beyond fashion and is now considered a vital aid in understanding politics. Who can cavil at these fascinating and very necessary changes? If via my article I come across as inflexible and tied to unbending notions of good and bad, then I am obviously a very poor communicator.
The rejoinder mixes up my comments with the author’s own quotes. A re-reading of my article will clear the confusion.
I also want to clarify that my article was not intended as a personal attack on Ms. Gopinath. The references to the Pushkar profile were part of an overall article on tendentious writing. It was about a principle and not a person.
Finally, I reproduce the following comment from Outlook, dated
"Sunanda is one of my best friends and I have known her for over 20 years, since 1989. Her husband Sujit Menon was also a dear friend. Here are a few facts. I have always known her as Sunanda Pushkar and not Poskar. She did not change her name to Sue. Her close friends called her Sue since early 1990. She did not adopt a new style. She always had a great sense of style. She is a good person, loving, intelligent, smart and hardworking and does not deserve to be depicted as a vamp or slut that you have made her out to be.
"Ms. Gopinath, your article is an example of poor journalism. Where did you get your information? Your comments about her leaving her friends and husband behind, her hyper hunger, eagerness to be accepted, insatiable ambition, etc. is outrageous. It is unjustful to print inaccurate information without proper investigation. Get your facts straight first. You have attempted to ruin my friend’s reputation and life with your unsubstantiated comments and in the bargain ruined your own professional reputation."