What's good for the goose...

...should also be good for the gander. Ideally. But Ms. Barkha Dutt doesn't seem to think so. I am sure by now everyone has either written or read a post on how Ms. Dutt and NDTV sent a legal notice to a blogger Chetanya Kunte for expressing his views on how NDTV and Barkha handled the airing of the Mumbai attacks. He later took the post down and put up another post apologizing for the previous post.

So, coming back to the point. I remember reading somewhere that Ms. Dutt said if anyone doesn't like what is being aired on a channel they simply have to flick the channels and watch something else. Maybe somebody should tell Ms. Dutt that if she doesn't like what a blogger wrote, she should just click the "X" in the top right corner. Easy peasy!

Now, I agreed with Mr. Kunte's observations on shoddy journalism but me being me, I also wanted to know Barkha's stance on them so dug up (Okay, I Googled her name) this article and read through it (an accomplishment for attention-challenged me). And I still agree with Mr. Kunte.

To say we did it because no one stopped us from doing so is no f***ing excuse! Yes, there should have been guidelines and directives from the government on how to handle broadcasts on an issue of such sensitivity. If there weren't any, there should have been an awareness on the broadcasters' part as to what could possibly jeopardize people's lives or the rescue operations further. Other channels and people in media have criticized the way NDTV team covered the event. To bully just one blogger in that case seems to me to be an effort at face-saving. Not that it saved any faces. The outpouring of support for this blogger makes that evident.

Okay, so the family members and friends of the hostages wanted to speak to her. She didn't hound them as the general thought goes. Even then, if the conversation started veering towards something that could jeopardize people's lives or give away their location to the terrorists, measures should have been taken to stop the airing of that part. No? Oh well... And HOW does one justify the live telecast of the actions of the commandoes that were sent to intervene? How can a live telecast of their approach NOT jeopardize their operation?? "Someone" should have thought "Hmmmm.. Maybe we shouldn't telecast how or where the commandoes plan on entering the building?!" But no! Someone was probably more concerned about the shock value of the videos. Of how they would help increase the viewership. Or maybe they innocently, genuinely thought this was journalism at its best - bringing the news AS IT HAPPENS to the public. Don't worry if that hinders a rescue operation. The public has a right to know. Right?? Right!

It is easy to blame others for your messes. It is SO easy to say "But they didn't tell us not to..." But as I say to S, "Where was YOUR brain at that time?" If my 10 year old is old enough to grasp the concept, why aren't these experienced news hounds?

Nothing that Barkha says on her page convinces me that Kunte was in the wrong. He just expressed his opinion on HIS OWN blog. To quote her -

"Viewing preferences are highly subjective and always deeply personal choices, and the most fitting rejection of someone who doesn't appeal to your aesthetics of intelligence, is simply to flick the channel and watch someone else. The viewer, to that extent, is king. "

Barkha should just have clicked the "X".