Importance of using Alleged Trial by media? The day after the attack on the Congress convoy, on May 26, all newspapers in question attributed it to the Maoists, without any doubt whatsoever. In a front-paged story headlined “Senior Congress leaders killed in Naxalite ambush”, Hindustan Times reported, “Maoists on Saturday targeted a convoy of Congress leaders in Chhattisgarh’s Jagdalpur district…”; The Times of India said: “In the most audacious attack so far in Chhattisgarh, Maoists on Saturday…” in a story titled “Salwa Judum founder among 17 killed in Bastar Maoist attack” on page 1; The Indian Express also labelled it among “the most audacious attacks in the history of the Maoist insurgency”. It was only 3 days later, on May 29, that the same newspapers reported that Maoists had claimed responsibility for the attack. Fairness would demand that the word “alleged” be used while attributing the attack to the Maoists before they actually claimed responsibility for it. Yet no newspaper did this, which raises the question: is this not trial by media? Is it not a case of pronouncing a party guilty of something without them claiming responsibility of it being established through incontrovertible evidence?
Posted on: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:39:11 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015