Letters to Hoot: The Times of Indias response

Letters to Hoot: The Times of Indias response

The Times says "the said content" does not reside at it’s site.

The Times of India responds

This is with reference to your letter to Mr Dilip Padgoankar, EME, Time of India, dated March 22, 2002 in which you claimed that indiatimes had used some matter from your web site. I would like to inform you that the said content does not reside on our site. The matter was under investigation, hence the delay in replying.

Regards

Sapna Dogra

The complainant Shrisha Rao writes in response:

For just this occasion, I had archived and posted the ToI`s page at http://www.dvaita.org/toi , and will post a summary of events. Considering that there has been no apology, and indeed, there appears to be some effort at a cover-up, I think that is the proper thing to do.

The thrust of Sevanti Ninan`s argument (Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance 2001) is that journalists enjoy some special privileges that ordinary citizens don`t. Whereas common folk are required by law -- even before POTO came into existence -- to transfer to authorities any knowledge they maybe in possession of regarding the presence or activities of terrorists, Ms Ninan is arguing that journalists cannot be bound by any such restrictions.

That argument is flawed on two counts. One, conferring pri- vileges on journalists violates the principle of equality of all before law. It is ridiculous to argue that one acquires special rights by virtue of one`s profession. It`s almost like it`s a new kind of caste system, with the journalist as the new Brahmin, the all-wise, the all- knowing.

Unlike the old caste system however, all I need to do get to the top is to sport a badge that says `Press` and presto, I become a super-citizen! Are there at least any checks and balances to ensure that I do not abuse my super-citizenship privileges? Are there any mechanisms in place that bind me to a modicum of accountantability?

None whatsoever, not surprisingly. The second count on which Ms Ninan`s argument is flawed is this: implicitly, she is invoking public`s "right to know" to justify conferring privileges on journalists.

But apparently, these privileges include even a right to deny the public its right to know! For not revealing complete information regarding terrorists despite being in possession of such information amounts precisely to dishonouring the public`s right to know. Journalists can`t have it both ways: they either honour the "public`s right to know" or they don`t, period.