Critics outnumber admirers

http://www.hindu.com/2006/09/04/stories/2006090405521100.htm
After compiling all the admirers' views of CBCNN in the previous article, the critics' views are given here.
Marxists will indulge in ad hominem attacks to divert criticism. As expected, the article starts off with categorizing the criticism.
an avalanche of mail — some of them personal abuse
the denunciation that has a pattern to it
defamatory, not fit to print.
"campaign"
"hate" mail
organised flow of messages all containing the same idea, only slightly differently worded
obvious pattern
motivated missives

So this is how criticism is dealt with by the Reader's Editor -- identify a pattern, label it as a "campaign" or "hate" mail, delete it.
... the Readers' Editor of The Guardian does not read them and indeed has them filtered out of his inbox.


The common thread in many of these messages (from old, long-term readers) is that The Hindu is partisan and prejudiced. Some of the points they make are:

The paper has turned into an ideological document; there is disproportionate coverage to CPI(M) Polit Bureau members wherever they speak; a mindset prejudiced against all right-wing people; obsession for Muslims and their welfare; an anti-American bias. The demand is made that the paper should present "both sides of the ideological coin so that the readers would decide the merits and demerits of the issue." While conceding the paper's "entitlement to have its own ideology, prejudices, biases, etc.," a reader says it cannot have "pretensions of adherence to core values."

Absolutely no attempt is made to address these allegations. Notice that these are observations by old, long-timers -- people who have been reading this rag for decades. They all have these common complaints against this paper and this reader's editor thinks it is not worthwhile to address them. Pray tell me, what exactly is this guy doing if not answering these questions. He has attempted to answer only trivial questions:
the space devoted to national news is inadequate. You are averse to report on Kashmir, Nagaland, etc.

That is a sweeping statement overstating a partly valid case.

No balanced reporting

First, this is a blurring of views and news. "Balance in reporting" cannot be in the literal sense. It is impossible to be totally objective in this decision-making.

Thanks, but what about those important questions raised by those regular readers, who know about your rag so well. Scooooot... When cornered, Marxists run.

Well, actually they have one other strategy -- morality. As one reader pointed out, "... taking on the note of moral policing". Notice that this criticism is also ignored.
Here is how CBCNN's bias is justified. Critics are biased, so we can be biased too. Newspapers have the right to freedom of expression: ideological and political functions, preferences, inclinations and biases. So the reader better not complain. This is independence, marxist style; their independence.