Last Saturday, New Delhi (India) was rocked by three choreographed bomb blasts that killed more than 50 people. The bombs, believed to be the work of terrorists, went off in crowded market areas in the capital city -- areas that were particularly densely populated that weekend because of the upcoming festivals of Diwali and Id. The images of those killed and injured were horrible and the story itself left many people, including me, naturally outraged and upset.
But feelings of outrage do not justify the actions of the Times of India, one of India's most widely read national English dailies and a supposedly objective news source. On October 31st, the Times published an editorial that read more like a politician's speech than merely the opinion of the newspaper on an issue.
Right from the start, there was a combative tone to the piece, which urged the people of India to get angry and to forget about behaving as inhabitants of a "genteel and ‘civilised’" nation. Further on, the editorial all but declares war on Pakistan, despite the fact that, at the time of printing, there wasn't yet conclusive evidence that pointed to a particular terrorist group, Pakistani or not.
This is an act of war, doesn’t matter that it’s not been officially declared as one.
There are indications that the perpetrators of the serial blasts may have been schooled in jihadi hatred on Pakistani soil.
"Indications" are hardly evidence.
There is a little caveat in the last paragraph, acknowledging that we don't know for sure that Pakistan had anything to do with the blasts. But then the war mongering continues:
It may be premature to walk away from the negotiating table, at least not until such time as there is clinching evidence of Islamabad’s complicity. But New Delhi must tenaciously work at building a case that proves that Pakistani soil remains the springboard of terror attacks and go international with it.
The editorial's unnecessarily strident tone and the fact that it speculated about the perpetrators of the (admittedly terrible) crime makes this poor journalism. Even an editorial must stick to the facts. The Times has occassionally, in the past, stepped up to be the voice of the people -- it did this admirably during the Mumbai floods in July (very similar to the sort of reporting US audiences were getting from Anderson Cooper or Brian Williams). But this piece is not even some form of advocacy journalism -- it's just plain irresponsible.
krishna (not verified) @ November 6, 2005 - 1:44pm
A popular theory is that those with power want more power. The editors of major news publications wield more power than they know what to do with. But their power comes with strings attached. Those strings are the ones that we need to be wary of Rhea.
Irresponsible it may seem, and rightly so. But these guys have a job to do and aim to do it however they feel the need for it to be done.
One of the things that has been bothering in recent years is that I just can't stand to hear the popular opinion on anything that comes from the Media as there is always a Spin on the story.
What I mean to say is that I trust very little in the media.
BTW hi rhea it's krishna from tvs.
»