Why Did We

Our recent piece on the Tehelka/Tejpal issue has received much criticism and brickbats. That is part of the territory of carrying various perspectives and views on evocative subjects, especially on issues that became huge media stories. This note is specifically for those who ask why we carried the piece at all.

All news stories have various points of view. It often happens that because of the nature of crime, profile of perpetrator, political climate or other reasons the narrative becomes uni-dimensional and more importantly, angry. Very angry. In such an environment there is the likelihood of no counter point of view being given space.

We at Newslaundry were among the first to comment on the reactions of the Tehelka senior management to the accusation. It was pointed out to us at the time the Tehelka/Tejpal story was front page/prime-time news that Newslaundry’s coverage of it was as one-sided as everyone else’s. At the time, Newslaundry received three articles voicing a counter-point. Alarmingly, each of the three writers requested us to carry their articles anonymously in fear of the backlash they would face professionally and socially – as tempers and passions were high. This is worrying. We refused to carry any piece anonymously on a subject of this nature. The piece we carried is the only one we have received since then where the writer did not request anonymity. It is a point of view which was bound to not be popular. But publishing it was important to us.

While television as a medium has the advantageous ability to line up a panel of four or five with one or two individuals representing the contrary point of view, the shortcoming of the medium is that it makes it impossible for those individuals to state their position without getting shouted down, made to feel like criminals for speaking their mind or just feeling embarrassed at being humiliated on air. The written text has the benefit that one can communicate one’s thoughts without interruption or feeling intimidated because of the presence of and interruptions from other panelists/anchors.

For us, it is important all points of view be heard no matter how offensive they seem to some, or how unpopular they be. At Newslaundry we will aim to provide that space both now and in the future.