Did Express go overboard with SC verdict on quota story?

The Express cannot afford to shoot from the shoulders of the Supreme Court on a matter as polarising as affirmative action and mislead its readers. (Image: Wikipedia)

Many of the front page stories which featured last month in The Indian Express generated a nationwide response. Following the ink attack by Shiv Sena on former AB Vajpayee and LK Advani aide, Sudheendra Kulkarni, Express published a photograph of Kulkarni on the first page with the headline “Photo courtesy Shiv Sena” (October 13). The paper, edited by IITian Raj Kamal Jha, evoked a lot of buzz on social media owing to the creativeness and brevity which Express exhibited by aptly summarising Sena’s insane ink attack with the help of a subtle headline.

In another lead story, (dated October 16) titled “Muslims can live in this country but they will have to give up eating beef, says Haryana CM”, The Indian Express exposed the conservative mindset of Haryana chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar in an exclusive conversation. The 61-year-old leader’s remarks attracted intense criticism from political and social media circles.But the cover story run by the newspaper on the recent Supreme Court judgment concerning reservation in super specialised medical courses was an unlikely deviation from the high standards of reportage maintained by the publication.

The news report authored by IE‘s Utkarsh Anand was published with the provocative headline: “In national interest, scrap quota in higher education institutions: SC”. The lead paragraph of the report said, “Regretting that some ‘privileges remain unchanged’ even after 68 years of independence, the Supreme Court held Tuesday that national interest requires doing away with all forms of reservation in institutions of higher education and urged the Centre to take effective steps ‘objectively'”.

However, the news report then went on to contextualise the comments made by the Supreme Court, which were obviously in relation to a particular form of reservation vis-a-vis super speciality medical courses. If one peruses through the 58-page Supreme Court judgement delivered by Justices Dipak Mishra and PC Pant, one would find little evidence to claim that the Supreme Court directed the central and state governments to abrogate all forms of existing reservation in the realm of higher education.

On page 57 of the judgement, the Supreme Court referred to the case of one Fazal Ghafoor and quoted a previous judicial ruling which said: “In Dr Pradeep Jain case, this court has observed that in super specialities, there should really be no reservation. This is so in the general interest of the country and for improving the standard of higher education and thereby improving the quality of available medical services to the people of India. We hope and trust that the government of India and the state governments shall seriously consider this aspect of the matter without delay and appropriate guidelines shall be evolved by the Indian Medical Council so as to keep the super specialities in medical education unreserved, open and free.”

In this context, the court went on to add in succeeding point number 38 on pages 57 and 58: “The fond hope has remained in the sphere of hope though there has been a progressive change. The said privilege remains unchanged, as if to compete with eternity. Therefore, we echo the same feeling and reiterate the aspirations of others so that the authorities can objectively assess and approach the situation so that the national interest becomes paramount. We do not intend to add anything in this regard.”

Editorially, the Indian Express has a right to have a particular view on the reservation policy in higher education but that view has to be exhibited in the edit and opinion pages, instead of infiltrating into news reports on the front page. Nowhere, did the Supreme Court blatantly call for scrapping of reservations in higher education as theExpress headline claimed. All it disapproved of was reservations in super specialised medical courses and called upon the authorities to “objectively assess and approach the situation”.

The Press Trust of India copy on the Supreme Court judgement titled “SC reinforces no quota in super speciality courses” was far more responsible in its reportage of the ruling. Refraining from attributing any over the top comments to the Supreme Court, PTI’s lead said that “the Supreme Court has reinforced its earlier view that “there should really be no reservation” in super speciality courses in medicine in the general interest of the country.” PTI added, “It (SC) said at a time when the ‘privilege’ of reservation is ‘competing with eternity’ an objective assessment of the situation is required keeping national interest in mind”.

During a lecture held at my university, an editor of a long-form magazine described the Express as “a journalist’s newspaper”, a view echoed by many of my classmates since most of them happen to be its loyal readers. But, as it’s famously said, “with great power comes great responsibility”. The Express cannot afford to shoot from the shoulders of the Supreme Court on a matter as polarising as affirmative action and mislead its readers. Accuracy has to be maintained and a newspaper ought to refrain from reading too much into a judgement which simply talks about reservations in super specialised courses.

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/supreme-court-reservation-indian-express-journalism-raj-kamal-jha-higher-education-super-specialty-medicinal-courses/story/1/7154.html

(This article was originally published in DailyO.)

Will digital journalism survive?

Old school journalism which concentrated on more of reportage and less of opinion is ceding ground to opinion centric journalism. Whether it is DailyO, Huffington Post India or The Wire, such websites are mostly feeding on opinion. (Image: Simon Fraser University)

Shortly after the arrival of the second decade of the 21st century, Indian newspapers and news channels started taking note of what was being said on the web by publishing small snippets from Twitter and Facebook. But the past twelve months have witnessed a gradual increase in the overall acceptance of digital journalism by some of the leading players in mainstream media.

The Times Group has consistently dominated both the print and television sphere in India through its newspaper Times of India, the world’s largest circulated English daily, and Times Now, a news channel best known for its weekday debate show ‘The Newshour’ anchored by the fiery Arnab Goswami. Towards the end of 2014, Times Group forayed into the online space by joining hands with Arianna Huffington and thus launching Huffington Post India. The website is an interesting mix of news reports and daily blogs written by people from varied walks of life including politicians, entrepreneurs, journalists, writers and students.

The Times Group is not the only mainstream media house which has acknowledged the necessity of digital visibility. DailyO, an opinion website run by India Today Group, a media house with stakes across print and television with its flagship product in the form of the weekly India Today magazine, is another interesting example. Following his exit from Network 18, media mogul Raghav Bahl (often referred to as India’s Rupert Murdoch) started a website called The Quint which was billed as “media for mobile consumption.”

Two more names have joined the league of digital journalism ie The Wire and Catch News. The Wire is edited by Siddharth Vardarajan and Sidharth Bhatia, the former having served as the first “professional” editor of The Hindu having been appointed from outside of the first family that controls the newspaper which began publishing in 1878. Catch News, a Rajasthan Patrika Group initiative is led by Shoma Chaudhury who was formerly associated with Tarun Tejpal’s Tehelka.

Add to that list the names of Madhu Trehan, Seema Mustafa and Chitra Subramaniam. Madhu Trehan, one of the co-founders of India Today magazine runs Newslaundry, a media watch website while Seema Mustafa and Chitra Subramaniam edit The Citizen and The News Minute, respectively. Also it would be a sin to not mention the digital daily Scroll.in and Firstpost, a news website which was acquired by the Network 18 group, a media conglomerate owned by India’s richest man Mukhesh Ambani!

The involvement of such a large number of senior editors, journalists and big media houses in digitally driven initiatives hints at the mainstreaming of online news. It is a phenomenon which can no longer be dismissed as a platform for youth websites and campus media or left to the mercy of part time individual bloggers. Secondly, old school journalism which concentrated on more of reportage and less of opinion is ceding ground to opinion centric journalism. Whether it is DailyO, Huffington Post India or The Wire, such websites are mostly feeding on opinion.

The reader is looking for and reading more of opinion and the trend doesn’t seem to be changing anytime soon. In fact this is the reason why Raghav Bahl has been arguing since quite some time now that journalists can no longer afford to be generalists who are tasked with covering different beats. They have to develop an area of expertise so as to present an informed opinion which the online reader is diligently scouting for every time he logs on the web.

Another very interesting development is that the reader is no longer interested in being merely a reader. He wants to contribute and be a part of the narrative. Earlier readers had the option of writing letters to the editor which would be no longer than 100 words (150 if you’re lucky!) and it would find space on the edit page of a newspaper. But now readers are in a position to contribute full-fledged opinion pieces to websites. What is ironical is that while readers’ opinion is being given primacy on the web (HuffPost blog crowdsources it content), many of the leading domestic newspapers like Times of India and Hindustan Times hardly publish letters to the editor anymore!

This dichotomy is mainly because the online medium does not suffer from shortage of space as the print medium does. Secondly, the print space was effectively monopolized by experts ie academics, bureaucrats, ministers and journalists. The edit pages only showcased expert opinion. But the online space values diversity as it has given a platform to the most ordinary people to write and publish their views.

However, this has also created a problem. Too much of opinion has resulted into an information overload on the web and more dangerously, lack of informed opinion or rather pure misinformation in some of the cases. This is not to say that print medium hasn’t had its fair share of biased opinion writers but the checks and balances in the case of organized newspapers ensured that factual inaccuracies were taken care of and the views published were representative of different sides. This appears to be lacking in the case of online medium as many portals are often ideologically motivated and crowdsourcing from a particular pool of contributors which effectively increase chances of ideological indoctrination at the cost of facts.

Despite its excesses, there is no denying of the fact that digital journalism is thriving but the question is: will it survive? The average internet user in India likes to read content free of cost. Subjecting him to a paywall might be cruel idea and could end up lowering the prospects of rapidly growing industry. This leaves online journalism with the option of raising revenues through advertisements. The bulk of advertisements are definitely being controlled by news channels and newspapers but they could move towards the online space with increasing internet penetration and virtual invasion by both newspapers and news channels.

What remains to be seen is what will be the impact of the infusion of corporate money into digital media. Will it remain the same or will it succumb to the whims and fancies of advertisers which will invariably affect the nature and diversity of opinion coming out from it? We’ll have to wait and watch.

http://www.thecitizen.in/NewsDetail.aspx?Id=4503

(This article was originally published in The Citizen.)

Last evening proved media cares more about IPL than people dying

Geographical reach of news channels has to be expanded so that tragedies like the Andhra Pradesh stampede don’t go under-reported. (Image: The New Indian Express)

It’s nine PM! Just a few hours ago 27 people including four children and eleven women died following a stampede on the banks of the river Godavari during the first day of a religious festival in Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. News reports also suggested that more than 60 sustained serious injuries.

Significantly the same day saw the three-member Supreme Court appointed committee deliver the much awaited IPL verdict. The committee headed by former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha not only banned Chennai Super King’s Gurunath Meiyappan and Rajasthan Royal’s Raj Kundra for life because of their involvement in betting but it also banned their respective franchises Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals for two years from participating in the cash rich Indian Premier League.

The five English language news channels are gearing up for the all important nine O’clock show. Arnab Goswami’s The Newshour is slated to hold two debates. The first one is centred around the #IPLCleanUp whereas the second debate is on the struggle ensuing between Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav and IPS Amitabh Thakur. The relatively quieter Barkha Dutt is holding debates on the same two subjects on NDTV 24*7‘s The Buck Stops Here.

Nation At 9 on News X anchored by Athar Khan is also debating IPL with the hashtag #SaveOurCricket. Returning from a break after 45 minutes into the programme News Today At 9 which obviously debated the #IPLVerdict earlier, India Today‘s Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai proclaims that “there is another big story” referring to the Andhra Pradesh stampede and terms it a “tragedy”. This is followed by a short news package on the same which eventually makes way for speed news.

CNN IBN‘s India At 9 presented by Palki Upadhyay followed the herd by debating IPL and devoting a short news package towards the end to the Andhra Pradesh stampede in which they ran bytes of Andhra Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and Congress leader Chiranjeevi.

This was the news agenda of the five English language news channels. They were unanimous in their assessment of the #IPLVerdict as the biggest news story of the day. Channel after channel debated IPL during prime time and the stampede in Rajahmundry sadly became just “another big story”.

As media students we are often told how to determine the news worthiness of a particular news item. One of the determinants could be the number of people that the story affects. Hence, it was important for news channels to hold discussions in order to dissect the stampede in Andhra Pradesh. What caused the stampede? What precautions were in place? What do the victims have to say? How did the government respond? But these questions were surely left unanswered as the story was relegated to headlines and passing news packages.

Why did a tragedy of such a large scale lose out to the #IPLVerdict in terms of news value? The answer lies in the 3Cs ie Cricket, Cinema and Crime. IPL is an amalgamation of the 3Cs as also the “P” of politics. Together they trumped the other “C” which is the common man. Such lopsided news coverage seems to corroborate the words of former Press Council of India Chairman Justice Markandey Katju who argued that the Indian media was predominantly occupied with superficialities like Bollywood and Cricket.

Another important constituent of news worthiness is proximity. That’s where Andhra Pradesh clearly lost out. A stampede which occurs far away from Delhi or rather Sector 16 in Noida Film City where a large chunk of the domestic media stands is likely to be given a miss. The easiest way of running a news channel is to make it discussion-centric instead of revolving around reportage. Ground reports require extensive budgeting and hiring of media professionals to collate news from around the country and the globe. Indian channels clearly lack in terms of reportage coming in from the north eastern states or even a non-Hindi speaking state like Andhra Pradesh as they don’t have reporters at such places.

The reception to the Andhra Pradesh stampede would have been different had it happened in and around Delhi or if the loss of lives was a result of an act of terror. The chest thumping, ultra-nationalist elements within the media would have taken up the issue in a big way debating cross border terrorism on prime time. But it wasn’t a terror attack and thus, not much coverage.

Those who feel that the rot is limited to the electronic media need to think again. The front page of Hindustan Times (Lucknow edition) doesn’t even make a mention of the Andhra Pradesh stampede. They have rather decided to go with the #IPLVerdict, Prime minister Modi’s Ufa diplomacy and US-Iran nuclear deal. The front page of Times of India (Lucknow edition) has devoted a three-column news report to the stampede near the bottom of the page beneath IPL, nuclear deal, AAP’s plea for funds and Indo-Pak ties.

It’s high time for the domestic media to overcome hysteria. Stories revolving around the rich and the powerful are important. Court judgements and pronouncements ought to be covered. Foreign policy is news worthy and so is terrorism. But the people are most important. News has to be representative and not merely Delhi-centric. News channels and newspapers should invest more in reporting and increasing the headcount of reporting in areas like Rajahmundry where television cameras don’t reach that often. Geographical reach of news channels has to be expanded so that tragedies like the one in Rajahmundry don’t go under-reported.

http://www.dailyo.in/politics/rajahmundry-andhra-pradesh-stampede-chandrababu-naidu-media-news-human-tragedy/story/1/5003.html

(This article was originally published in DailyO.)

Islam and the Western Media

(Image: Newslaundry)

The world changed forever after September 11, 2001. After having been locked in decades of a power struggle with the communists, the United States of America (US) had found a new enemy in Islamist extremism, which had claimed the lives of thousands of innocent beings by attacking the World Trade Centre in New York.

In a recent speech delivered at the Summit on Countering Violent Extremism held on February 18, 2015, US President Barack Obama came out as a cautious orator and refrained from using the much controversial term “Islamic terrorism”. Instead Obama went on to proclaim that “we are not at a war with Islam”. His comments invited both praise and criticism.

In an opinion piece for The Washington Post (February 19, 2015), journalist Fareed Zakaria stated, “President Obama stands accused of political correctness for his unwillingness to accuse groups such as the Islamic State of ‘Islamic extremism’, choosing a more generic term, ‘violent extremism’. His critics say that you cannot fight an enemy you will not name.” Zakaria stressed on the “limits of the Islamic label” by mentioning that there were as many as 1.6 billion Muslims in the world while only around 30,000 Muslims happened to be part of the Islamic State. He wondered as to how “0.9% of Muslims” can come to represent the entire religion.

On the other hand, New York Post published an article titled “Obama refuses to acknowledge ‘Muslim terrorists’ at summit” (February 18, 2015) whose tone and tenor seemed completely dismayed with the President’s comments. The lead paragraph of the article stated, “They are burning and beheading victims in the name of Islam, but President Obama delivered a major speech Wednesday on combating violent extremism – while refusing to use the words Muslim terrorists.”

The dichotomy in the approach of the Western media while dealing with the phenomena of Islamist terrorism became evident soon after 9/11. Not much has changed 14 years down the line. The debate still revolves around as to who is really responsible for unfortunate terrorist incidents like the ones in Paris and Peshawar: Islam or misguided Muslims.

Following 9/11, Time Magazine (September 23, 2001) carried a piece by author Karen Armstrong titled “The True, Peaceful Face of Islam”. In her strongly-argued piece, Armstrong stated that the Quran only permitted fighting in self-defence and that “it would be a grave mistake to see Osama Bin Laden as an authentic representative of Islam.”

Harvard Professor Roy Mottahedeh wrote a piece on similar lines in The New York Times (September 30, 2001) in which he sought to play up the pacifist face of Islam by quoting Islamic injunctions against indiscriminate killings. He concluded his article with the following words, “The people behind these atrocities committed a crime against all humanity. Under the precepts of every great religious tradition, they and their sponsors must be brought to justice.”

However, there were some who found a problem with Islam and took a contrarian view. The UKTelegraph published an article with the provocative headline “A religion that sanctions violence” (September 17, 2001). Written by Patrick Sookhdeo, the piece drew a comparison between Islam and Christianity by stating, “Many horrific acts have been, and continue to be, perpetrated in the name of Islam, just as they have in the name of Christianity. But unlike Islam, Christianity does not justify the use of all forms of violence. Islam does.”

Similar anti-Muslim observations were made by Daniel Pipes in a New York Post article “Muslims love Bin Laden” (October 22, 2001). He wrote, “The internet buzzes with odes to him [Bin Laden] as a man of solid faith and power of will. A Saudi explains that Osama is a very, very, very, very good Muslim. A Kenyan adds that every Muslim is Osama Bin Laden.”

So what are we supposed to infer from the coverage Islam and Muslims got from the Western press immediately after 9/11. There is no denying of the fact that there exists a section of intellectuals who are deeply prejudiced against Islam. They view Islam as inherently violent and Muslims as actively supporting terrorism. But, importantly, there is another section within the Western press that realises the “true, peaceful face of Islam” as argued by Karen Armstrong.

To say that the Western media is entirely anti-Muslim is as wrong as stating that every Muslim is a terrorist. We need to go beyond maximalism and understand that the entire Western media is neither being completely hostile nor being overtly sympathetic towards Islam. The war against terrorism cannot be won by making enemies. If the war against extremism has to be won, it has to be won through engagement and friendship. The ideal engagement would be one which emphasises on the tolerant teachings of Islam.

The Western world has to become aware of what Islam really stands for. If people in the East, specifically Muslim societies, want that to happen, then they themselves have to shake off their anti-Americanism and realise the fact that there are individuals in the Western media who are objective enough to not indulge in the practice of muck-throwing on Islam and present the benevolent side of the faith.

http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/04/23/islam-and-the-western-media/

(This article was originally published in Newslaundry.)

The scandalous saga of Paid News & 2014 General Election

Representational Image via Newslaundry

In a statement issued to IANS in May 2014, Election Commission Director General Akshay Rout stated, “We (EC) served 3,053 notices, 694 of which were found to be genuine cases of paid news by our Media Certification and Monitoring Committee.” Considering the fact that the phenomena of paid news was rampant during the 2014 General Elections, it becomes essential to review the manner in which it influenced the overall democratic decision making process in the country.

Press Council of India’s report on paid news defined it as “Any news or analysis appearing in any media (Print & Electronic) for a price in cash or kind as consideration.” The report opined that the practise of paid news was “old” and “deep rooted in system” but it became largely visible during the 2009 General Elections.

The 2014 General Elections provided a historic mandate for the right wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The saffron outfit managed to gain a simple majority with 282 seats. Simultaneously, National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by BJP, registered a total count of 336 seats in Lok Sabha, the lower house of Indian Parliament. Journalist P Sainath noted that the 2014 elections led to “the biggest ever corporate-media drive in the favour of a single party and individual.” He further mentioned how corporate houses with stakes in media helped in propelling the Modi mania.

It has been four months since the 2014 General Elections concluded but so far the Election Commission of India has not yet forwarded any official statement about paid news to the Press Council. In the absence of such a statement, the PCI cannot issue show cause notices to the news organizations involved in paid news. With individual cases of paid news in 2014 General Elections still far from having surfaced in public domain, one is left with very limited options to figure out as to how it influenced the outcome of the same. However, on viewing the data presented by media organizations the picture doesn’t remain that gloomy.

As per data produced by CMS Media Lab, Narendra Modi received 2575 minutes of prime time television news media coverage during the months of March and April. Interestingly, other top leaders who were covered by the media including Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal just got 2046 minutes of coverage. Modi alone was drawing more coverage than all other leaders put together! In such sort of a media scenario, how can the voters have opted for someone else other than the one beaming on their television screens most often? Keeping in view the titled nature of prime time television coverage, Modi’s meteoric rise to 7 Race Course should not have come as a surprise for anyone.

The elections of 2014 were held in the backdrop of successive corruption scandals which included 2G Spectrum Scam and Coalgate. These scams had marred the credibility of the Manmohan Singh Government and were expected to play a critical role in determining the outcome of the elections. While the impact of these corruption scandals on the downfall of the Congress can certainly not be discounted, corruption remained far from being at the centre of the election debates. Since the very inception, the BJP sought to craft the elections into a personality contest between Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi. India being a parliamentary democracy should ideally have refrained from plunging into a presidential form of election but it didn’t happen so.

CMS’s analysis shows that while the issue of corruption received a meagre 3.64% of prime time coverage during March-April, personality related issues hogged 7753 minutes or 37.66% of media coverage. The facts in public domain clearly indicate how prime time television coverage helped in furthering the agenda of one man and party who eventually swept the elections.

Sam Balsara, Chairman and Managing Director of Madison Media had told Al Jazeera that the 2014 General Elections happened to be “one of the major reasons for 17 percent growth” in the advertising sector. The huge amount of money which the media was receiving in the form of advertisements did come at a cost. The elections saw many channels altering formats and airing interviews which appeared more of a PR exercise rather being journalistic in nature. A case in point could be Narendra Modi’s appearance on India TV’s show ‘Aap Ki Adalat’ on 12^th April, 2014. The interview, widely alleged to be fixed, led to the resignation of the channel’s editorial director QW Naqvi who was reportedly uncomfortable with the channel turning into a mouthpiece for Modi and BJP. However, India TV’s Rajat Sharma denied the allegations.

Similarly, the format of ABP News’s show ‘Ghoshna Patra’ was altered during Modi’s appearance on the programme. The show, which involved questions from the studio audience, was converted into a different sort of a programme dubbed as “interview-based-special-show” with Modi answering questions thrown at him by the channel’s editors. Why there was such a sudden change in the format was never explained. But the move nevertheless earned ire on social media.

News X too ran clips from Narendra Modi’s conversations with activist Madhu Kishtwar during her visit to Gujarat. Modi’s monologues, shot using a single camera, were aired by News X and billed as an “interview”. Why such concessions were being made solely towards one individual is definitely worth suspecting. With the arrival of the new government in Delhi, it seems like the Election Commission too has been crippled which best explains its lack of corrective action against errant media groups.

The fact that Congress’s Ajay Maken and Aam Aadmi Party’s Rajmohan Gandhi incurred election expenditure which was inclusive of paid news shows that the practise wasn’t limited simple to BJP and Mr Modi. However, the success which the BJP registered in elevating Modi to near-Messianic status using the media had no parallel. In the words of Rajdeep Sardesai, some journalists were doing “cheerleading or supari journalism” during the elections which ended up disturbing the electoral equilibrium and giving India its new Prime Minister in the form of Narendra Modi.

The Scandalous Saga of Paid News and 2014 General Elections

(This article was originally published in Beyond Headlines.)

 References:

Press Council of India. Report on Paid News. New Delhi, 2010

CMS Media Labs. It is Modi driven Television Coverage – 2014 Poll Campaign. New Delhi, 2014

Dhawan, H. “Editor quits over Modi interview, sparks row.” Times of India, April 16, 2014. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Editor-quits-over-Modi-interview-sparks-row/articleshow/33797939.cms

Umar, B. “Paid news clouds India elections.” Al Jazeera, April 21, 2014. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/04/paid-news-clouds-india-elections-2014416121619668302.html

“Almost 700 paid news cases detected in 2014 Lok Sabha elections.” DNA, May 18, 2014. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-almost-700-paid-news-cases-detected-in-2014-lok-sabha-elections-1989485

Sainath, P. “Many waves and a media tsunami.” NewsClick, May 21, 2014. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://newsclick.in/india/many-waves-and-media-tsunami

Bhakto, A. “Election Commission sleeping on paid news cases.” The Economic Times, September 14, 2014. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-09-14/news/53903988_1_paid-news-media-certification-ec-officials

“Rajdeep Sardesai and Arnab Goswami poles apart on future of journalism.” IndianTelevision.com, http://www.indiantelevision.com/television/tv-channels/news-broadcasting/rajdeep-sardesai-and-arnab-goswami-poles-apart-on-future-of-journalism-140608