Trashing Sunanda Pushkar
_150_200.jpg)
Outlook carried a profile of Sundanda Pushkar by Vrinda Gopinath (Got a girl named Sue), which invited sharp responses from fellow journalists. Vidya Subrahmaniam, writing in the Hindu (This Journalism Requires no Sweat) called it new-age reportage which crosses the boundaries of decency. Tehelka quoted extensively from Outlook without naming it, and wrote, "Facts, evidence, the line between public and private • all the good, old-fashioned gears of journalism no longer have any place."
Gopinath wrote a rejoinder to Subramaniam which The Hindu declined to publish. The Hoot carries it here, along with links to all three original articles.
There’s something platitudinous when a critique begins with "Years ago, a newspaper editor taught me…" for it instantly conjures up a golden age, of the good old days of righteousness and decency, a nostalgia for virtue and fair play, but really, was it all so perfect then? And is the opposite only true today?
It is the latest article ("This journalism requires no sweat" The Hindu,
Earlier, the weekly journal, Tehelka, which scooped an interview with an assertive Pushkar, bemoaned the media juggernaut that crushed the lady with every tidbit of her life, real or imagined, "men she has and has not married; men she has and has not slept with; money she has and has not made; jobs she has and has not done." It was titled, Parable of the Vamp. At least, Tehelka got her to speak and, no surprises, it confirmed every fact the Outlook profile had carried based on reliable sources.
It is crucial to quote the Hindu article for its sham in exposing "new age reporters." After sermonizing in the first few paras, the writer abandons, in stunning embarrassment, all criteria of so-called good journalism, and instead weaves, tangles and synthesizes her very own, subjective conclusions of the Outlook profile, as the published version.
It says, "The author could have been Ms Pushkar herself, considering the easy and expert access she seemed to have to her subject’s mind." How did the writer decide the facts were so fantastical that they must be conjured up and therefore, cannot be verified? Did the Hindu take the trouble to call up Ms Pushkar to expose the facts as falsehoods? If it could not have access to Pushkar, did it try to find reliable and credible sources close to Ms Pushkar to demolish the article? No, apparently the writer does not have to sweat it out to get to the truth.
Neither did the Outlook profile say that Pushkar had "ensnared her husband’s best friend," has a "talent for acquiring a procession of companions" or was "aided by heavy make-up, false eyelashes, seductive couture," and that "pedigree-obsessed
It’s a pity that a valid debate between traditional, standardised reports and clipper, torpedo journalism was knocked out by dated doctrine and frumpy feminism. The moot question should have been: Do public figures have privacy rights? Should reporters travel in packs, writing essentially the same story because anything different will raise questions of impropriety?
The Outlook profile was not an authorised history of Pushkar, but can one legitimately investigate a person's private life in the light of her association with a Union Minister and Memebr of Parliament, who lost his job because of alleged impropriety in the IPL deal? Can the media ask questions about her professional qualifications for her to warrant the Rs 70 crore sweat equity for her services to IPL? Or scrutinise why she was exempted from Company Law Board laws despite winning the sweat equity?
It is now sanctioned and fashionable in journalism to gather anecdotes and use personal experiences of friends and family to context the subject. Reporters also use language and stylistic devices to bring insight and depth into news stories in mainstream media. As long as accuracy is not junked for puffery, and the story is truthful, a narrative can probe the inner lives to offer sharp, provocative insights to caricature the person.
For instance, Ms Pushkar’s hair and make-up and the rest is a pastiche of
Then in a stunning admission, Subrahmaniam says she is relieved that good taste prevails outside metros. Quoting the reader response in Outlook magazine, she points out that most of the letter writers have called my article vindictive, libelous and sexist. Now, as any rookie reporter knows about the realities of journalism is that letters can be rigged • it is difficult to verify where they come from, whether they are prompted, or planted. Political parties have used professional letter writers to whip up a frenzy on issues close to their hearts, some have even been made MPs by grateful leaders. However, every publication welcomes them, as it is a recognition of the power of the published article.
But the most pointed attack is that because Ms Pushkar is now established as a woman, "without virtue….. and ambitious to boot," she is being pilloried. There’s nothing more judgemental, medieval and outmoded than the above statement. In fact, poor Ms Pushkar, who once brassily declared she was not just ambitious, but loved making money too, was pushed by the moral brigade to become the victim and simper that the media is painting her as a slut, and that she goes to temples more than parties.
How did the critics come to the conclusion that Ms Pushkar is not virtuous? Is it because she flaunts her companions? Or the way she dresses? Why does the very mention of men conjure up visions of a vamp? Haven’t women progressed to make pro-choices about their lives and bodies? In today’s world of fashion vixens and Madonna makeovers, who says dressing up seductively, outlandishly is a code for looseness? Why should women always be polarized between virgin and slut? As celebrated feminist Naomi Wolf observed in her book, Fire with Fire, power feminists are tolerant of other women's choices regarding sexuality and appearance; victim feminists are "judgmental," even puritanical about them. Feminism, it seems, lies in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps it’s time everyone loosened up and embraced their inner Barbie.
The original articles
Outlook
Got A Girl, Named Sue
And she knew just what to do. Sunanda’s eye-popping life-story.
Vrinda Gopinath on Sunanda Pushkar
Now, why does Sunanda Pushkar sound preposterous when she says it’s insulting to present her as just a proxy for good friend Shashi Tharoor, minister of state for external affairs, in the multi-million dollar IPL franchise sale? Because it’s a bit ambitious on her part to claim she’s a businesswoman in her own right when her present job profile says she is a mere sales manager at TECOM Investments, a commercial real estate company in Dubai. But you’ve got to hand it to Pushkar, for her spunk and drive that took her from a gawkish girl from small-town Jammu two decades ago, to becoming swell Sue in Dubai and Toronto, to contriving her new image as swanky Sunanda, the brassy, bold entrepreneur of the eye-popping Emirates.
The belle from Bomai, a small apple-growing hamlet in Sopore,
But it wasn’t Raina who took her to
She soon catapulted into the world of event management, of the C-class variety•of starlets and bimbos•but stunned her colleagues with her insatiable ambition. She figured out the magic formula and began networking hard and fast•tying up with artists, getting sponsors, and making a small, tidy profit from the enterprise. Her skills in occasionally getting well-known sponsors made her rivals green with envy but the snide bitching barely fazed her. Says a former rival acidly, "Sunanda would claw her way to a sponsor and have him eating out of her hands, she was not a girl’s girl."
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265098
The Hindu
This journalism requires no sweat
New-age reportage recently in evidence crosses the boundaries of decency and sets worrying new principles.
Vidya Subrahmaniam
Years ago, a newspaper editor taught me a few principles of story writing. "Never make direct personal attacks. Twist the knife ever so tenderly and you will be surprised at the results," he advised. His own favourite story was his description of Shiv Sena lion Balasaheb Thackeray as "the gentle Mr. Thackeray." The media veteran earned a torrent of abuse for it!
Rookie reporters also learnt other dos and don’ts: Attribute, confirm and hear out the other side • rules that could be set aside only when the story was a major scoop needing protection and secrecy.
But that was another world and another time, and as much hit me like a thunderbolt as the IPL mega scam exploded on television and print media alike. TV is by definition loud, fast and sensational. It is futile to expect a delicately mannered anchor with a commitment to facts and fairplay to beat the competition, much less bring the coveted TRPs. Most certainly not when a story breaks with the force of an avalanche as happened when Minister of State Shashi Tharoor was revealed to be complicit in a deal that offered a bounty to his lady friend. The Shahsi Tharoor-Sunanada Pushkar story was god’s own gift to the TV channels and they grabbed it with both hands, delving into Ms. Pushkar’s past with all the finesse of a rampaging bull.
http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article408791.ece
Tehelka
The Parable Of The Vamp
What does trashing Sunanda Pushkar say about our attitudes to women, asks Shoma Chaudhury.
AMIDST THE immense noise of the IPL controversy, away from public view, a woman has been confronted with a deeply personal crisis: she can no longer recognise herself. A massive juggernaut has rolled over her, crushed her out of shape, and moved on without a backward glance. She has been left to cope with the painful out-of-body experience of watching the mangled remains of who she used to be. Left to muse, in private bewilderment, why her image and the person she knew herself to be no longer matched.
Sunanda Pushkar, the woman in the tableau, was not hit by some unheeding truck. She was hit by the media. As Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, the doctor parents of the slain Aarushi, know only too well, this is not the first time it’s happened. In its feeding frenzy for 24 /7 excitement, the media has developed a curious way of turning fathers into murderers; women into vamps. Facts, evidence, the line between public and private • all the good, old-fashioned gears of journalism no longer have any place. Rash allegations are enough. The rear-view mirrors are gone. You can now recklessly ride over people and not look back.
Over the last two weeks then, every real and fictitious fragment of Pushkar’s life has been dragged onto airwaves and newsprint: Men she has and has not married; men she has and has not slept with; money she has and has not made; jobs she has and has not done. People have spoken with dripping scorn about her "eye-popping life", her "insatiable ambition", her work with "starlets and bimbos", her "vampire-like thirst" and her "Louis Vuitton victimhood". They have dissected her diaphanous saris and conjured clingy ones she’s never worn. The general consensus has been: She isn’t enough a girl’s girl. And for this transgression, she had to be crushed. So, overnight, Sunanda Pushkar was transformed from a living, breathing woman with a history of her own into a "proxy bimbette".
What did Pushkar do to merit this public mauling?
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main44.asp?filename=Ne010510coverstory.asp