Letter From Ashok Kumar

Hi, I am a subscriber of newslaundry. I don’t like certain things about hafta posted recently. I want to share my feedback with you. First of all I am fan of idea of independent media and agree with paying to keep news free. But I am not happy with quality of hafta nowadays. I do have following points to make 1. There is not much focused discussion. People keep intervening in between lot of times, and sometimes there is lot of incoherent babbling. Some of the jokes sounds very stupid and doesn’t go well with decorum of issue being discussed. 2. Swearing by Abhinandan, I mean I hate this guy, when you used his f, g and c words. That sounds so unprofessional. You are in business of news, and amid a serious discussion, his language is a real deal breaker. That sound so annoying. Not everybody likes gaalis . I am from haryana, uses cuss word a lot but not while having technical discussion in my office. I hope you got my point. 3. Last episode 107th was easily worst episode of newslaundry. There could have so many important discussion about lot issues, specificaly about legacy of Jaylalitha, and future of Sasikala, Importantace of politicians being convicted. Overall it was a disappointment. 3. I am specifically not fan of how your CEO try to plug need of subscription and need of independent media into every possible discussion. I think he overdoes it. That kills both this beautiful idea and that issue. It looks very petty. There shall be some balance. Since now hafta is beyond paywall, I don’t think he needs to repeat his mufatkhor thing 5 times in podcast. 4. You people have been doing good job, and have been pretty good over a period of time, but please remember one shall not be compliant. On your model lot of hopes of independent media is attached. I hope you understand I am trying to say despite my poor English. Thank you.

Letter from Pallavi Bedi

Hello Newslaundry Team!

My name is Pallavi and I am lawyer in Delhi. I have been wanting to write to you guys for sometime, but laziness and a general sense of inertia prevented me from doing so, which I have now finally managed to overcome. I am of course a subscriber and also a big fan of all of you guys, and most of the time, I agree with most, if not all that is discussed on the podcast, however, in the last few episodes, I have noticed that there have been quite a few factual/legal errors in the statements made by you guys. I understand that the podcast is an informal sharing/airing of your views on various issues, however, I do believe that it is necessary for you to be factually correct. 

This irritates me more when you guys discuss legal issues and at times the discussion is not aligned with the legal position/or takes a very simplistic interpretation of the law (I must say, Manisha is the exception to this, she usually does seem to have researched on the issue before commenting on it) Madhu and Ranga Uncle are the biggest culprits. For example, there have been instances when you have discussed legal provisions and ‘lazily’ referred the source of the position to be the Constitution of India, whereas that provision may have emanated from a completely different standalone statute. Similarly, Anand’s pet peeve about the first amendment to the Constitution, which according to him introduced the restrictions to free speech in India is not factually correct. There where restrictions present even in the original draft of the Constitution; there was never any concept of absolute ‘free speech’ in the Constitution.  Prior to the amendment in 1951, the restrictions were limited to ‘libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any other matter which offends against the decency, morality or which undermines or tends to overthrow the State.”. The amendment introduced ‘public order, friendly relations with foreign states or incitment to an offence’ as grounds for restricting free speech. One could argue that the amendment expanded the ambit of the restrictions, however, if one were to hear Anand speak, it would appear that the restrictions were only introduced by the first amendment; prior to that the Constitution provided for absolute free speech!

I don’t want to sound totally negative, I do genuinely enjoy listening to all of you on Saturday mornings (which has become part of my saturday morning exercise ritual) and I have learnt a lot about journalism and the nuanced difference between neutrality and transparency in journalism.

 Do keep up the good work. I look forward to listening to many more episodes of the Hafta! 

Letter from Satya Pandey

Hi NL,

my name is Satya Pandey.I am a postdoctoral researcher in biology currently working in Netherlands. I am a subscriber (after being tired of hearing mufatkhors from Abhinandan). Me and my friends do listen to your podcasts and follow NL quite regularly. I just want to say that we wholeheartedly support independent journalism especially in current state of post-truth.

I did my Phd from IGIB, New Delhi. In Hafta 106,Dr. Ranga discussed about Science journalism- a topic which I feel should be taken up by NL sooner than later.  The credibility of Indian science is being questioning owing to comments relating mythology with logic and experimental based science. Also I believe that science news is sometimes too sensationalised and the message is more hyped than the truth behind the studies. 

I would also like to know about any science writers apart from Prasad Ravindranath from The Hindu whom I do follow regularly. If and when NL takes up Science journalism seriously, I would be more than happy to contribute my knowledge and expertise to spread awareness and truth about scientific endeavours happening throughout the world. 

–

Satya Pandey