The Bhushan attack, Times Now and The Hoot

BY hoot| IN Media Practice | 17/10/2011
There was no malicious intent. Nor did the writer Nupur Basu or the website intend to draw any nexus between Times Now and the attack through the article.
An apology from THE HOOT.
 
On October 14, 2011 thehoot.org received a legal notice from Times Global Broadcasting Company Limited, owners of the ‘Times Now’ channel. 
 
It said,
 
We have viewed and read with great shock, concern and dismay, the article titled “Anger on the air waves, attacks on the ground” (“Article”) by Nupur Basu, posted on your website www.thehoot.org(“Website”) on October 14, 2011 at 13:57:15 Hrs (a copy of which is enclosed as reference), which carried certain defamatory, offensive, malicious, misleading, factually and technically incorrect statements and inferences in relation to TIMES NOW’s coverage on the attack on eminent lawyer Mr. Prashant Bhushan, in his chambers at the Supreme Court of India on October 12, 2011 (“Incident”) and issue to you this notice (“Notice”).

The said Article carries baseless allegations/comments about our channel TIMES NOW and also targets our Editor-in-Chief Mr. Arnab Goswami with comments that are derogatory and disparaging in nature. These comments are written and published with a malicious intent against both TIMES NOW and Mr. Arnab Goswami. Under the garb of providing a platform for freedom of expression, you have permitted the publication of such a highly disparaging article that not only reduces our esteem in the eyes of our viewers but also casts baseless aspersions on our credibility as a news broadcaster and thereby seriously damaging and diluting the goodwill and image we have built over the years...

 While we are certain that you are fully entitled to write or publish any article on the subject of media and its role, this freedom does not clothe you with the right to publish defamatory, disparaging or demeaning remarks against TIMES NOW or any of its representatives. An organization such as yours, which encourages and invites comments from readers, including journalists, and is believed to have been set up to uphold and provide a platform for free expression, ought to have been doubly careful whilst publishing any article/remark against a reputable news channel and its editor.   

Our response:
 
 
We are in receipt of your Notice dated 14th October,2011 . At the very outset, we wish to state that the article titled “Anger on the air waves, attacks on the ground”, which appears to have upset you, was neither defamatory nor was it intended to defame or otherwise cause any damage or anguish to your reputable organization and/or its staff. The said article sought to raise important questions relating to media ethics and did not make exclusive reference to Times Now. There was no malicious intent.
 
 Nor did I, the writer Nupur Basu, or the website intend to draw any nexus between Times Now and the attack through the said Article. We apologize for any inferences that the Article may have conveyed.
 
In any event, the said article was removed from the website on_14 October, shortly after 11 pm  upon receipt of your Notice.  We offer an unconditional apology for any sense of hurt that your organization and/or its staff may have felt as a consequence of the said article and offer to you the opportunity to respond to the said article on www.thehoot.org in whatever manner you may deem proper.
 
 
Sevanti Ninan
Editor,
The Hoot
 
Nupur Basu
Writer
The Hoot
Subscribe To The Newsletter
The new term for self censorship is voluntary censorship, as proposed by companies like Netflix and Hotstar. ET reports that streaming video service Amazon Prime is opposing a move by its peers to adopt a voluntary censorship code in anticipation of the Indian government coming up with its own rules. Amazon is resisting because it fears that it may alienate paying subscribers.                   

Clearly, the run to the 2019 elections is on. A journalist received a call from someone saying they were from Aajtak channel and were conducting a survey, asking whom she was going to vote for in 2019. On being told that her vote was secret, the caller assumed she wasn't going to vote for 'Modiji'. The caller, a woman, also didn't identify herself. A month or two earlier the same journalist received a call, this time from a man, asking if she was going to vote for the BSP.                 

View More