Recent

The Real Abuse

Journalists and thought-leaders advocating online censorship because they can’t handle online abuse, need to suck it up.

Share on

online censorship

“Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.”

Ancient nursery rhyme by an annoying prick who probably had the crap beaten out of him immediately after he said this.

Newslaundry has launched a campaign with a pretty dramatic sounding name -Internet Inqalab. Cool huh? We aren’t expecting to do anything dramatic though. It’s not like geeks all over the country will usher in a binary coded revolution or align and form a Meshnet.

Unlike this tweet from Pankaj Pachauri from the PMO:

Pankaj Pachauri

we are under no illusion that almost half the country is online – and even if it were, that half is in any mood for a revolution. Take us for a ride? Maybe. A spin? Perhaps.  But revolutions make us dizzy.Our aim is more humble -to get people, especially journalists, to look at the horror that Section 66A and 79 of the IT Act are and come up with suggestions for a better legislation.

In the online space, what’s unfortunate and rather worrisome is that too many “thought leaders” (I use that phrase loosely even though I find it kind of silly but then I also watched Chennai Express and liked it), basically people who set the tone of a narrative – journalists, politicians, anyone with a seat reserved at aTV panel or column space in print,start the conversation for online freedom from a grumble about how abusive people are. Without necessarily spelling it out (some go that far even), they make a case for some sort of censorship or online control. That is depressingly not very smart at all.  The slew of arrests and harassment of citizens for innocuous tweets and facebook posts has demonstrated the real abuse is elsewhere. And it is very dangerous.

Journalists who should provide insight, clever takes, brilliant analysis and display the ability to listen-absorb-dissect and lead dialogue, seldom get beyond whining about how rude many people online are. Seriously? That’s the nichod you come up with from all that juice the online space offers?

A fact about crowded, impatient and uncouth India –the majority is abusive and rude in life. Not just online. Walk a hundred yards in any neighborhood or just stand at a bus stand and simulate a beep each time you hear a cuss word or nasty abuse. You’ll be one long shriek.

When the ones you’d expect to question the establishment flirt with the idea of Internet censorship and are often standing on the same side as a paranoid, control-obsessed government, something is very wrong.

That,I suspect is lack of exposure. Perhaps, it’s because like my late grandmother they don’t get out much. The bubble mentality not only afflicts the political class but the entire narrative setting-class, since they’re usually from the same tiny pond.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying being rude or abusive is fine. It’s not. It breaks down dialogue and compromises informed debate or a healthy exchange of views. Threatening people with any sort of harm online or offline is illegal and should be dealt with like threats are dealt with in life. There are provisions to deal with slander and defamation (Section 499)– put to good use by Barkha Dutt and Arun Jaitley.

The rude abusive Indian isn’t apost-Internet species that mutated from a genteel nuanced rabble. It wasn’t born when the Internet was invented. We were always like this only (remember Channel V told us that long ago),but the only voices heard were the ones in the large halls of studios, board rooms and policy maker’s oversized offices. Many of them as offensive, but with the veneer of sophistication which public schools and top-ranked colleges brush on.What is disappointing to note is the delusion of this lot that India just got nasty, or worse, the realisation that it was always like this so must now be shut up.

Delusion can lead to one manufacturing one’s own la la land reality, not a great idea if you’re discussing policy that impacts the real world. Politicians often exhibit this tendency. When the parliament attack happened in 2001, I was in Connaught place in New Delhi at a corner where aloo chat and chola bhature attract most office-goers around the area for lunch, or at least used to back then. The Parliament attack and gun-fight was in progress just a couple kilometers away that afternoon and was the hot topic being discussed by the non-organic veggie-eating riff raff while stuffing their faces with oily carbs. Did I hear outrage from people on the street saying –“Oh how dare they attack our beloved MPs?God please protect our leaders. Lets skip this unhealthy food and go and defend our MPs who are in trouble”? No.

But Advani-ji in his statement that night on the news spoke about how the whole country was worried about the MPs and that they were well and he was touched by the concern and prayers all of India showered on them and other such stuff.Lump-in-your-throat kind of stuff.Hearing him you’d think every street corner had a havan happening for our MPs’ long life and young men and women were picking up sticks and axes to rescue our netas. I’m not saying what I heard on the streets and markets and offices that day was desirable or decent or anything I agree with.  I’m saying that I was struck by the extreme disconnect with what was being said on the ground and the voices in Advani-ji’s head.

In any social gathering for the next two days, no matter how serious or genuinely concerned the conversation about the Parliament attack, there was always that one joke about what an incompetent bunch Pakistan sent that they couldn’t even take out 5 MPs before being shot dead.  There were guffaws of laughter from pot-bellied businessmen and shy giggles from meek government employees. Again, I’m not saying that’s a good thing. It’s insensitive and mean and not “patriotic” and we all know we must be patriotic – which means say only nice things about those given the mandate to govern. But that’s how it was.  I’m only calling it like I saw it. Distasteful and rude and uncouth, but should a Politeness Police have come around and shut them all up?That’s how people talk. That’s the shit that is street ambience. Now it’s online.

Reminder for thought-drifters, I’m not saying being rude or abusive or mean is a good thing. I’m saying that’s how it is and has always been. India chose democracy and free speech, nuance and ubiquitous aesthetic wit is a casualty.

For those discussing the need for online control, giving more than a passing mention (if even that) to the rudeness and abuse issue is shockingly short-sighted and nauseatingly self-indulgent and tweets dripping with self-pity don’t help “thought leadership” or leadership of any type (well-meaning tip: RT-ing abuse doesn’t attract sympathy, RT-ing compliments doesn’t attract awe. Both attract – Dude get over yourself.)

Potty-mouthed louts are the least of the dangers online. The bigger dangers are article 66A and article 79 and the appalling misuse of these pieces of legislation. Read and be horrified. If amidst all this you see online abuse as the danger then you’re as much of a provincial frog as the bureaucrat who often argues that RTI is not good for democracy because it’s a waste of his/her time and energy that could be better spent than responding to RTI applications. (Because, of course, he is good and honest and means well, so why the hell does he have to spend time and energy in accounting for the resources we give him).

My late Dadima was around 90-years-old when she once agreed to come for a fancy dinner with me on my birthday (we couldn’t celebrate hers since she didn’t know when she was born). This was rare, since she was extremely disciplined about her diet and for as long as I can remember ate shalgam and lauki and other gross stuff every single evening for dinner between 6:30pm and 7pm. So when we went to a fancy restaurant she was totally blown away, not by the food or service or ambience but by the prices. Dadimacould not get over a single dish costing Rs1000 and the total bill coming close to Rs5000. She didn’tget out much, other than the dailywalk and to buy me kites when I was a kid, which cost between 50paise and Rs 1 in the Eighties. I never got round to finding out what she thought of the meal since we never moved beyond how expensive the foodwas– In her younger days,10 kilos of flour was for Rs 5. She could run a full kitchen for her joint family household of eight in Rs 200 for a month.What we paid would have fed her household for the year.Are there places even more expensive? Do I go there? Etc etc. Each time I mentioned another dinner date with Dadi we’d never get beyond how much it cost. Everything about my birthday dinner was a non-issue,it was all about the cost.

Online comments is an ugly place so the likelihood of someone posting under this article that he’s glad my Dadima died and may she have to pay Rs 5000 for every meal in hell, is high. But that’s life. And death. Not reason to whine and complain that online voices should be controlled by poorly-drafted tyrannical laws. Our Comment Policy requires abusive comments to be deleted so if you want such a comment to stay make sure you don’t use any abusive words in communicating that sentiment, or else post the abusive version on your own facebook page or Twitter feed with all the cuss words you want – and tag me.

Dear people who are referred to as thought leaders,quit whining about abuse all the bloody time and say something smart. Boo hoo for you. Now get over it. There’s more at stake. Much more. Khadi-wearing Dadima had an excuse for fixating on the least important aspect of the meal. She was 90-years-old and had not stepped into the fine dining world which independent India’s post-liberalisation market has to offer.

You are young and can order the finest Pinotage and foie gras without the slightest hesitation.Ever since TV studios and column real estate lost monopoly, the price to get your voice heard has undergone inflation. So pay up, or stay home and eat shalgam and lauki.

Apne yug mein sabko anupam gyaat hui apni haala,

Apne Yug mein sabko adbhut gyaat hua apna pyaala,

Phir bhi vridhon se jab poocha ek yehi uttar paya,

“Abna rahe woh peene wale abna rahi woh Madhushala”.

Everyone found the wine from their age beyond compare,

Everyone found the cup from their era wonderfully unique,

And when asked, the aged had this one reply –

“Now you don’t find those connoisseurs of wine, now you don’t find those taverns”.

Contact-Abhinandan

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (49 votes, average: 4.51 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

 

More from Abhinandan Sekhri


  • Ravi

    While you were in CP I was trying to get to the Kendriya Bhandar opposite the Parliament gate ans finding the AIR road closed, I went to Rajpath,where a CRPF jawan finally told me of the ongoing “incident” and when I asked him of casualties, his spontaneous reply was” Sadly none of “them”” implying you know who !

  • G S

    Points can be made crisply in a few paragraphs instead of such a long ramble. I never got past the first few paragraphs…..hope it got interesting.

    • Kapoor

      i second that! keep things short and sweet..

  • TMM

    ‘The best way to be boring is to leave nothing out.’ said Voltaire and you couldn’t help but make your DadiMa part of your long winded ramble.

  • Himaja

    I seriously didn’t get the Dadima part…I completely agree with this though RT-ing abuse doesn’t attract sympathy, RT-ing compliments doesn’t attract awe. Both attract – Dude get over yourself. May be it would have helped if you could just mention a few points of article 66A and 79 which you feel are so dangerous and ill-intended. Also is it just online abuse that makes the “thought leaders” support these articles, if yes then they are doosh-bags. I feel there are more valid reasons and it would have helped if you explored that too.

    • P. Mathur

      Dude? Read it. Stop being lazy!

      • Himaja

        Chill man. You are not the only “intelligent mind” here.

        • P. Mathur

          Google kar lo bhaiya…. ek din baad reply kiya tumne. 5 min lagte hai tumhe google search karne me. Type karne jitna time.

  • The_Suit

    You got your own weird sense of writing Monsieur. But still you are hilariously good.

  • mangoman

    How many of the 485plus million go and vote, why do they bother?

  • MB

    Even though i got the gist of it, i would have liked a much comprehensive view over the 66A. I have no idea, why you people dont bring this topic much more.
    As for me someone trying to jump and snatch my right to speech is something i would want a comprehensive debate on, and not just a debate when someone is arrested for it.

    • Abhinandan Sekhri

      We’re doing a full campaign on this issue. THis was just kind of announcing what the campaign is about. Madhu is doing a discussion with experts on these laws and other internet laws around the world. Will be doing interviews with policy experts and legal experts as well. As part of this campaign every aspect will be dissected and discussed. Keep watching.

      • MB

        I did go through the whole campaign after this article. I am glad someone is raising the issue, when there was no one arrested.

        Also because you mentioned Madhu, please pass on the message that people are waiting for Clothesline, if it comes with such less frequency the interest is seeming to get lost.

        And i have to say, you guys are doing amazing work, you Madhu and the whole Team.

      • SaatthamuthuBoy

        Abhinandan jI, in your attempt to defend the rights of folk on the
        internet to voice their views, why do you have to brand a whole nation
        as majority uncouth?

        “A fact about crowded, impatient and uncouth India –the majority is abusive and rude in life.”

        I
        am not sure what kind of survey of the nation you conducted to come to
        this conclusion [a few gullies in Delhi? What happened to scientific
        sample selection methods and making raw data public? @AAPYogendraYadav], but I feel
        compelled, as someone who thinks otherwise about the majority of people
        in the country, to register my counter viewpoint :

        You are
        unnecessarily trolling the nation and being abusive. You have a right to
        do so and after all, you own part of Newslaundry. I hope I too have a right to make an observation in the
        insignificant comments section :)

  • shashank

    This could be the beginning of a whole series of “Yo Daadi so cheap… ” jokes :)

  • Jonty

    Good article, Abhinandan. I want to raise only one point and by raising it, I no longer want to make it a Congress vs BJP debate, so let me be clear about that.

    You gave an example of Barkha Dutt in your article regarding use of Section 499. Now, those who use Twitter regularly know that Barkha Dutt talks about regulating social media all the time and complains about “I am being abused” too frequently. But then NDTV interviewed Amaresh Mishra in their program “Truth vs Hype”. If you don’t know Amaresh Mishra, just google it and look at his tweets. I will leave it up to people to decide what his tweets can be called, decent or abusive? It is very ironic that NDTV anchors who shout about “I am being abused” all the time on Twitter and on their news channels, called Amaresh Mishra, the serial abuser and took his interview. Moreover, after taking his interview, they edited it and deleted it from their website. Someone pulled it back and now it is on YouTube.

    So apparently, for media, abuse can only come from Modi fans or BJP supporters or Sanghis, and not from anybody associated with Congress. Right? But if you think deeply, they are right. Why would Congress supporters abuse them when they are also speaking the language of Congress.

    That in my eyes are hypocrisy and double standards.

    • Abhinandan Sekhri

      Point taken. I know the Amresh Mishra case you’re talking about. This piece was about “thought leaders” advocating censorship or Gov control. I’m aware Barkha often complains about abuse and i have commented on those who do. But i have never sen her advocate Gov control like Sagarika has done. That is a dangerous thing in a different league. One is a personality thing of victimhood and complaining the other is advocating a policy which is irresponsible.

      • Shahenshah

        But is this not natural? The class of people who enjoying ‘ruling’ Indian instead of governing, id est, the apparatus of the State with all its tentacles from media to what-not, who had supported freedom in the days before internet without appreciating its potential implications would naturally be predisposed to reacting as medievally as they do. The Indian ‘ruling’ class, as I see them, do not have a liberal tradition. Perchance the purdah of it via Western education, but there has never been an agenda to nurture liberal ideas in the country. I should hasten to add that India is liberal not because of the State, but in spite of it. What I am trying to say is, why not address the real issue, which I see is the perspective of the ‘ruling’ classes? Why should a few be entitled to mold narratives to their fancies? Why are they so hung-up? To me it is not as interesting that they are as much as whyever they should feel persecuted. All in all, a great article. Also, since I am in the States, how should I access Newslaundry if you started charging?

        P.S. Why do people in India discuss government in terms of ‘ruling’ and what-not. I haven’t heard of such terms in a modern context in any other modern democracy. To that, why do the media, who should be fine appreciators of language and the contours thereof, persist in using such un-democratic terminologies? Just wondering. It really baffles me.

      • Jonty

        Agree. People like Sagarika Ghose are shame on quality of journalism. Many times, these anchors peddle their biased opinions as news. Every night at 9 PM, these media anchors sit in their studios to conduct debates and set the national agenda. Lot of times, an important news is brushed under the carpet which should have been really debated, and something inconsequential gets debated on their shows. They end up spreading canards and lies lot of times because of their own prejudices and biases. They try to direct the debates instead of moderating them, ask dubious questions and try to make participants say things, they want to hear by putting words in people’s mouths. Now, after all these years, ordinary people like us have got our voice and ability to express opinions through social media. Lot of people knew that these dubious media personalities were biased and wanted to respond but there was no medium to respond. Twitter changed that. People on Social Media are calling their bluff now.

        That is I believe the main reason why people like Sagarika Ghose are pushing for a government policy to control social media. It is very dangerous and irresponsible. Retired Justice Markandey Katju is a lunatic and megalomaniac in my eyes but when he talked about regulating electronic and print media, these same people were up in arms against him, while pushing for policy for Government to control and regulate social media. That is hypocrisy. The other reason for pushing for government control on social media, could be just towing the government line. Most of the time, these media channels are towing the government line anyways due to their ideological proximity, advertisement revenue or business reasons.

        Many media anchors are close to political leaders in establishment and in opposition. I am sure everyone has heard, Barkha Dutt and Nidhi Razdan calling Manish Tiwari by Manish, Sachin Pilot by Sachin, Ravi Shankar Prasad by Ravi, Jayanti Natrajan by Jayanti, Arun Jaitley by Arun, Omar Abdullah by Omar, Sanay Nirupam by Sanjay, Praful Patel by Praful etc. This is just a small example but how many times do you hear, media personalities calling political leaders by their first names on national television? It is very unprofessional and suggests that they are very comfortable with them and indicate a deep nexus.

        Now among all these, there are some on social media who indulge in abuses as well. I am in no way advocating and justifying the abuse and I believe that everybody must refrain from abusing others to keep the conversation civil and to maintain the flow of ideas. But lot of times, the abuse is directed at them because they are perceived as pro-government, towing the government line and very soft on establishment leaders, while unnecessarily demonizing other leaders. When people start seeing you as biased on national television persistently, all they can do is get frustrated, turn off the TV and utter few cuss words at most. But when the same person who is perceived as biased, comes on social media and start spreading the same opinions, people get a chance to respond to them. Some of them respond politely and sensibly, some in an abusive way.

        Internet reach and social media ownership is going to grow substantially in future. It is not only foolish but dangerous as well to advocate government control over it. I hope they get defeated in their demand for censorship.

      • kiddos

        In MTV roadies participants abuse each other all the time. when somebody talks against such shows they’re considered backward or conservative. Then media whines about freedom of speech Almost all news channels endorse such shows calling them attractive for youth.

        But when somebody abuses in hindi in websites suddenly they realise the need for a law. double standards? no? I can understand that the difference between tv show and abusing a person directly online. If Roadies isnt harmful in what way Internet Hindus are harmful? If we agree that netizens are giving wrong notion of religion then we should also agree that Roadies is encouraging western culture in a wrong way (western culture is not just about abusing and skimpy clothes)

        correct me if i’m wrong

  • Citoyen

    I remember travelling in the Bombay locals after the Parliament attack. People all around me were angry that the security guards died and the politicians didn’t.

  • Gaurav

    Very valid points Abhinandan … but maybe the writing can be bit better.

  • http://www.medianama.com Nikhil Pahwa

    if you believe that half the country is online, you are sadly mistaken. A little due diligence would have helped before accepting Pankaj Pachauri on his claim.

    We called his bluff last month: http://www.medianama.com/2013/07/223-calling-the-bluff-on-indian-govts-claim-of-485-6m-internet-users/

    Since our post, the TRAI has changed its reporting methodology, and the number is now down to 164.8 million http://www.medianama.com/2013/08/223-trai-164-8m-internet-subscribers-in-march-2013-143-2m-mobile-internet-subscribers/

    • Uday

      Dude, read the article. He calls Pachauri on his bluff.

  • NAVEEN DHIGHE

    when some journalists like burka and vir sanghvi were caught red handed pimping for the govt and some industrialists during the 2g scam instead of accepting the guilt they were arrogant and tried their best to create a halo of innocence and they also accused the people of being you guessed it ABUSIVE

  • K.Ravishankar

    The problem Mr.Sekhri is not that people are abusive. Now there are others equally well informed or better informed who are calling their bluff. Not everyone is doing it politely. More platforms are available. Their campaign is getting affected.

    Here is a sample. I write to a leading newspaper telling them that something is seriously wrong with the direction of our debates if we find more people “apparently” supporting terrorists and against giving them the strictest punishment while these people think it is normal for our soldiers to be shot down at the border for no reason. There is this particular journalist whose articles are derided by a majority of its readers, just short of abuse. Yet the newspaper persists with him. It suits the paper’s philosophy. It was a comment that got edited out.

    Now to them the internet is a threat if someone outside their control is able to build opinion against them. More importantly as I said earlier, call their bluff.

    In all your argument you missed a crucial point – why do they want only control over the internet, while all along they argue that it should be self control for themselves. That betrays their inherent fear. Abuse is an excuse, an alibi for control. Lies after lies have been exposed. Editing the truth out is a lie, isn’t it?

    Regards,

    Ravi

    • jatin

      @irregularexpression has pointed out above the” importance of brevity is the soul of wit” ,Ravi you have defined the same with your comment .Now this should make Mr Abhinandan to ponder ,who has definitely improved ,but still comes out as a prick .It is because of his veiled and unwieldy conclusion he draws at the cost of others .

      • jatin

        How come you dont learn from Madhu ,she is a sheer pleasure to watch and read

      • P. Mathur

        What do you expect from sekhri? he is a maoist and an anarchist AAP supporter. In the end the maoism leanings of him will want to shut freedom of speech because that is how every socialist/communist/leftist ends. For e.g. Nehru implemented section 19B – restricts freedom speech, Manish Tiwari – wants liscence for journalists and our beloved maoists/communist as their ideology is will want to make TV/Journalism/internet/Newspaper as tools of state propaganda and will not let any independent view or get punished for independent view like people get punished in China.

    • NAVEEN DHIGHE

      you are spot on ravi and you might have also noticed some of them read journalists who have being caught for misdeeds either once again make a backdoor entry sanghvi or or land in some rival newspaper ketkar

  • irregularexpression

    Abhinandan.. have you heard the phrase “Brevity is the soul of wit”?

    • Lal

      i must admit.. laughed hard at this one!

  • arun

    Good article :)
    True that there are abusive people on the net, equally true that they are there because they exist and are equally abusive in the real world ;)
    What is more important is that abuse is not “THE problem” but imposing censorship using abuse as an excuse is.
    I can feel that you have been slightly understated in your analysis particularly about the parliament attack. I was in Delhi that day too and everywhere the mango man had no sympathy for those targeted.
    I don’t think it has anything to do with patriotism but everything to do with the fact that are representatives have become our rulers and lost touch with those they were sent to represent :)

  • Paromadas

    Dear Mr Sekhri,

    Towards the end of your article, you have written, “Our Comment Policy requires abusive comments to be deleted so if you want such a comment to stay make sure you don’t use any abusive words in communicating that sentiment”. However, are you SURE that a comment would stay if the commentator makes sure that he/she does not ‘use any abusive words’? If deletions by you are ONLY the consequence of abuse by commentators, would you kindly explain why your NewsLaundry deleted (around 1:30 P.M. on 03 February 2012) the following comment of mine?

    Dear Natasha,

    Your article (‘Say Sorry to Shahrukh Khan’, 2 February 2013) seems to be at some VARIANCE from your blog (‘My Daughters’ Mum’).

    1. Towards the middle of this article, you have written, “our children are Hindu-Muslim”. However, in your blogpost dated 26 May 2010, you had written, “My parents are Hindus, my children Muslims.” Moreover, according to other blogposts of yours, your children are named Sahar Beg, Aliza Beg and Naseem Beg (I wish them well).
    When they are Muslim, as per your own blog, why have you written in this article that they are ‘Hindu-Muslim’? Will it not MISLEAD those people who read this article but not your blog? Isn’t it a DECEPTIVE show of secularism?

    2. In this article, you have mentioned, “My husband is a Muslim”, which would lead some readers to assume that you two make a secular couple. However, in your blogpost dated 11 November 2007, you had written, “The first year after we were married, we went over to my parent’s home and sat with them for the annual family Diwali puja. We sing a bhajan and do a small pooja. The second year, he was uncomfortable and he said, you go ahead and I will join the family later after the pooja is over. So he did not have to participate…… perhaps he felt coopted and pressurised to assimilate. The third year I refused to visit my parents on Diwali. I called it cultural confusion…. and it depressed me. As the evening progressed, he just did not feel right about it and very belatedly, when it was all over, we turned up at my parent’s home to meet on Diwali. They were almost already in bed by then. I cannot remember at all how we got through the 4th year….. which was last year. I think we attended, arriving decently after the pooja was over and just when the feast and firecrackers time started. This year was the 5th Diwali. My original plan was to get away from it all by arranging to be in Lahore on Diwali…. for a workshop I have been invited for. So I thought, its a good way to avoid the confusion on Diwali.”
    If your Muslim husband feels so ‘coopted’ and ‘pressurized’ even in being PRESENT for an annual festival by your Hindu parents, as per your own blog, why have you not mentioned it in this article when you mentioned his religion? Isn’t it a COVER-UP of communalism? Moreover, if YOU feel confused about attending ‘a small pooja’ by your parents, are you sure that you have not become as ‘uncomfortable’ about Hinduism as your husband is? On the other hand, you feel no ‘cultural confusion’ in happily celebrating EID with your mother-in-law according to another write-up of yours published on 11th November 2011. Are you sure that you two ARE a secular couple?

    3. While Shah Rukh had been detained at a western airport in 2009, your husband had been deported from one in 2001 (according to your blogpost dated 12 March 2010). Shouldn’t you have DISCLOSED this similarity in your article? Isn’t THIS a probable reason why you feel sorry for Shah Rukh?

    With regards,

    • Dev

      wonderful comment.. spot on. sometimes i feel leftists are mullahs in red garments..

    • NAVEEN DHIGHE

      parmodas you were very apt and at the same time explicit in exposing this total pseudo dishonest woman who knows her children are never ever going to be hindus

  • Mao di lal topi

    Wah suckri u may be a Maoist sympathiser and follower of that TOPI ANARCHIST but at least u don’t mind taking some abuse . LAL SALAM TO U

  • Nasir

    I am not, in any way, in favor of regulating any kind of media..but we do need some sanity while responding to articles and tweets. Lot of the time they are just obnoxious and sick (profanities, calling names etc.). More sensibility less censorship.

  • giddaluru veerendra

    You are right on money, Abhinandan. The fact these people whining were no less abusive and they weren’t hesitating to drag Hinduism into this debate and yet they complain about the abuse! Take Rajdeep Sardesai for example, I think he is the worst kind of troll as far as Narendra Modi is concerned, yet he casually tweets that “trolls are not welcome”.

  • Ashok Jahnavi Prasad

    Good job Abhinandan! In a Newslaundry column ,I has adumbrated the menace of abuse on the net but strongly opposed any statutory censorship which I believe would be counterproductive.

  • madhukar nikam

    The abuses in the social media is to be interpreted in clearly in two distinctive class ;-

    One pure senseless abuse for the sake of name calling ( No one likes it)

    Second variety, in which the person arguing is so fed up of getting treated as lay man he lets go’s
    his anger to especially the opinion makers in the newspapers write thrash without sufficient logical reasoning and data to support, they write as if readers are illiterate with IQ below 70. I can name many……most of the newspapers with old established opinion makers are finding it difficult to contemplate the emergence of Mr. Modi, do not have the grace to say few good things he would have done right, one may not agree with him, but, to demonize him all in the name of journalistic gospel is too hard to digest, similarly, trolls in the media go to ridiculous extent of defending un-defendable
    corrupt Union govt. It smacks of collective indignation to protect crony capitalism, be it journalist or an opinion maker many of them function as middlemen….it appears they are dreaded of the impending change and are taking shelter in the garb of affected party to the social media abuse. I don’t think the second variety is deliberate, but is a reaction to the harm the so called journalists are causing!

    Journalists must restrict as must possible in churning their interpretation as gospel, instead information dissemination must be the priority, journalists with ideological bandwagon are the worst variety when they give ideological spin to
    all damn things ! I justify once in a while a hit at the knuckle when the other man is misusing his pen & position.

    The loaded opinion of likes of Sagarika, Nidhi , bharka ,Bharkha……sinivasan jain……….Ramachandra Guha, Vinod Sharma…..Sidharath vardharajan……..Harish Khare……….the list is so long ,it appears that there is a completion
    to be seen defending the corrupt union govt and abusing the opposition ……I suppose the rewards must be far fetching …………..and if these luminaries get the lump back….I see no reason why one must worry…………………….. Even if it is an abuse??

    Radia tapes unleashed the anger against so-called opinion makers for good reason…………..I do hope the anger in the social media is interpreted correctly and necessary changes are brought in ,especially in self disclosures ……..its important that opinion makers in the media disclose their political stated positions and ideological affinity in their columns so that people don’t abuse them known their affinity!

  • madhukar nikam

    The abuses in the social media is to be interpreted in clearly in two distinctive class ;-

    One pure senseless abuse for the sake of name calling ( No one likes it)

    Second variety, in which the person arguing is so fed up of getting treated as lay man he lets go’s
    his anger to especially the opinion makers in the newspapers write thrash without sufficient logical reasoning and data to support, they write as if readers are illiterate with IQ below 70. I can name many……most of the newspapers with old established opinion makers are finding it difficult to contemplate the emergence of Mr. Modi, do not have
    the grace to say few good things he would have done right, one may not agree with him, but, to demonize him all in the name of journalistic gospel is too hard to digest, similarly, trolls in the media go to ridiculous extent of defending un-defendable corrupt Union govt. It smacks of collective indignation to protect crony capitalism, be it journalist or an opinion maker many of them function as middlemen….it appears they are dreaded of the impending change and
    are taking shelter in the garb of affected party to the social media abuse. I don’t think the second variety is
    deliberate, but is a reaction to the harm the so called journalists are causing!

    A good number of Journalists must restrict as must possible in churning their interpretation as gospel, instead information dissemination must be the priority, journalists with ideological bandwagon are the worst variety when they give ideological spin to all damn things ! I justify once in a while a hit at the knuckle when the other man is misusing his pen & position.

Menu
Read previous post:
Homepage image Assam Bandh
What’s there to celebrate?

Why the media should stop using India as a synonym for Delhi while writing on India celebrating Independence Day.

Close