I have no faith left in the prosecution and the government. I am not sayinghttp://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2020/stories/20031010002903700.htm
Article 356. You have to protect people and punish the guilty. What else is raj
dharma? You quit if you cannot prosecute the guilty. It is not your personal
property. If you cannot protect the property of the people you cannot continue
- Frontline October 10, 2003
At times, the news media project these oral observations — which, not beinghttp://www.hindu.com/2007/10/03/stories/2007100353901000.htm
even obiter dicta, are not part of the court record, have zero weight in law,
and cannot be cited in any meaningful way — in a manner that fails to
distinguish between what is relevant and binding in court proceedings and what
is not.
- The Hindu October 3,2007
What has changed from 2003 to 2007? The govt at the receiving end. 2003:BJP govt.2007:DMK govt
What has not changed?: Blatant anti-BJP bias, blind support for the DMK, giving objectivity a silent burial.That is CBCNN for you.
The first quote was the Supreme Court's observation against the Gujarat Govt in the Best Bakery case. Frontline did not publish an 'apology' for failing to mention that these were mere oral observations.It did not come up with a scathing editorial criticizing 'judicial overreach'. But, when the DMK government is facing the music, the choicest of words is reserved for the same court. Sample this:
No seeking the facts on the ground, no patience in hearing the other side — a
pre-emptive leap to an extreme provisional conclusion
The supreme court is supreme only when it takes on the BJP. When CBCNN's friends face the heat, it springs to their defence.Why this special treatment for the DMK? If this is not double speak, what is? So much for "objective journalism".
Posts
2 comments:
Well said and a very good expose of the double standards of Chindu's chief, who seems to be having different yardsticks for measuring issues. If not the Press Council, at least the Weights and Measures Dept. should take note.
Readers would have noted a sustained and virulent campaign orchestrated by Chindu against the Supreme Court Judge who passed the remarks against the unruly DMK govt. at Chennai. Thus, we see a hefty dose of Letters for several days in succession. As usual, the majority (with a good number of "minority" sounding names) favouring Chindu and a few, token letters against Chindu's stand.
And typically of mutual back scratching clubs, the DMK chief quotes extensively from Chindu's editorial criticising the judge's conduct.
Funnily, we never saw an editorial (nor a torrent of letters) on Karunanidhi's remarks against Sri Rama, affecting the sensibilities of Hindus.
The headline said it all. It was "Judge's outburst against DMK government" and not "SC wraps TN Govt".You see the headline and you know what to expect in the coming weeks.... A systematic effort to discredit the judiciary.
Post a Comment