letter
Journalistic Standards in reporting
The following is the printed letter i couriered to The Editor-in-Chief of the Hindu.
September 18, 2008
Sender:
M.M. Seyed Ibrahim
xxxxxx
xxxxx
Chennai-xx
Phone: xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Journalistic Standards in reporting
This is with reference to the series of investigative articles, which appeared on The Hindu, on the activities of the so-called Islamist militants /terrorists/ separatists by Praveen Swami.
A word of admiration: Your editorials have always been balanced, and I agree with almost all of them. Where I don’t agree with is your opposition to death sentence. I believe capital punishment needs to be there for some people, including those “who really plant the bombs”, and the cruel rapists/murderers.
My understanding of journalistic standards (which I learnt from reading The Hindu) is that a report needs to present the views from all sides. I don’t see this standard in most of his articles. Almost all of his reports on “suspected terrorists” are based on police versions of the conspiracy theory. Don’t the journalistic ethics require him to try to get clarifications from the accused, his friends, his family, or his lawyers? And doesn’t he know how communal the police are in some states? Please don’t publish unverified and biased reports / articles.
Sometimes Mr. Swami doesn’t even present the two sides of police versions. For example, on Sep 15 he wrote an article (Page 14) “U.P. authorities stalled action against Delhi suspects” without even bothering to talk to U.P. police.
And, I suspect ulterior motives when he writes about Zakir Naik or other prominent Muslims. Though he doesn’t explicitly say that they were suspects or they induced the crimes, what is the need for mentioning them in articles that were about suspected terrorists? Character assassination by association?
Bush administration built their case against Saddam, by combining “9/11”, “WMD”, “Iraq” in many sentences. They denied making statements like “Saddam aided 9/11”. They are right. They never did. Most Americans were fooled by the closeness of those words, repeated over and over.
In http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/08/17/stories/2006081706120900.htm Mr. Swami writes “..Although there is no suggestion that Naik's Islamic Research Foundation itself played any role in the bombings, Sheikh and other Mumbai Lashkar operatives are known to have often visited the religious centre”. So what? Those guys must have visited the neighborhood grocery store (or tea stall) more often than Zakir Naik’s place.
In another article, http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/11/18/stories/2007111860431200.htm, he writes “Zakir Naik, a controversial Mumbai-based television evangelist whose admirers included 2005 Mumbai serial bombing-accused Feroze Deshmukh and Glasgow suicide-bomber Kafeel Ahmed”. Though it doesn’t say Dr. Naik induced Jihad, the association with Feroze Deshmukh and Kafeel Ahmed, will create that impression on the minds of readers. It is the same technique as the one used by Bush govt.
If the police were to find “Business Line” newspapers in the houses of some suspected stock brokers, would that mean “Business Line” has induced the crime? No. If some suspects have the videos or books of Dr. Naik, it doesn’t mean we should suspect him too. If the books or videos of Zakir Naik spread hatred, just like the mouthpieces of Shiv Sena, RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal, then they are definitely worth mentioning. Writing articles about suspects, who the communal police say read the books that are suspected to have induced crime, and so on, borders on FICTION. This is not the journalistic standard The Hindu has been espousing for over a century.
And finally, why is that there no investigative articles on the activities of Bajrang Dal, VHP and Sanatan Sanstha. There was an article “6 chargesheeted in explosion case” in The Hindu Dated 12th Sep, related to Sanatan Sanstha. The role of VHP and Bajrang Dal in the Gujarat genocide of 2002 needs no reference. Their recent violence on Christians in Orissa and Karnataka are well known. In Apr 2006 blasts in Nanded, Maharashtra two Bajrang Dal activists were killed while making bombs. A similar event happened in Kanpur on Aug 24. Why doesn’t ‘The Hindu’ dig deeper into these organizations and expose their leaders?
Regards,
Seyed Ibrahim
Notes:
1. Violence has no place in any religion. So, all those who espouse violence needs to be exposed, irrespective of their faiths. And, i dont like broad brushing any community (based on religion, language, region etc).
2. Praveen apparantly has a hatred against Dr. Zakir Naik. I'm not an admirer of him, but i need to expose Praveen's attempt to link Zakir to terrorism. Before sending this to the Editor-in-chief, i sent a similar email to the Reader's Editor.
3. Writing emails and letters are our responsibility, and within our control. Getting them published is not in our control. Like, conveying the truth is our role; whether the receivers accept them or not is not our business. So, results of my letters and emails are no big deal. Still, i have observed the below. Though the reason need not be my letter.
- The Hindu didn't carry any of Praveen's articles for the next 10 days. The one that appeared afterwards had a subdued tone. 10 days, during September is unusual, because there had been many blasts, arrests etc.
- Praveen Swami wrote an article, Purohit’s improbable path to becoming a terrorist, investigating Lieutenant-Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit’s role in Malegaon blasts, on Nov 6,2008.
But, his venomous thoughts appeared in another opinion piece related to Jamia Shootout. Bottom-line, we should be on guard, and tell the truth to others.