Hi everyone,

I have sent two emails prior to this that weren't read on Hafta which is fine, but they weren't even acknowledged which felt not okay.

First was regarding panellists saying NYT, Economist had no local reporters which is false as I pointed out in that mail. Second was regarding Manisha's tirade against Rana Ayyub. Both Manisha and Raman sir on Hafta said Rana hasn't reported from the ground which implied she was sitting at home and speaking on TV, which is again wrong. She may not have done ground reporting on Covid but she was in Dharavi and Navi Mumbai distributing rations and stuff. In the process, she even contracted Covid. After all this to suggest she wasn't on the ground is plain evil.

This is not to say I have lost faith in Newslaundry or have stopped loving Manisha's work or will stop subscribing. I haven't and will not. Errors are natural but ought to be corrected. Also since no one pointed these out on subsequent Haftas, I also wonder if I'm wrong in my reaction, so do correct me if that's the case.

Regards,

Dheeraj DK

***

Hi NL team,

I came across this news recently: the apex court asking lawyers that you should refrain from citing RTI documents in courts because they aren't reliable.

I understand that this law is misused a lot but what's the point of the RTI Act if you aren't getting proper information?

And if government data can't be trusted then which data will suffice in court? Why hasn't the apex court moved against the government or the appropriate authorities if they already knew this?

Abhinandan, you were an RTI activist yourself, if I am not mistaken. What should ideally be done here? And who is responsible?

Regards,

Vivek Mohan

***

Dear Hafta team,

This is an odd request, but I hope you can comply. I've often found Anand's inputs on the podcast longwinded and incongruent. This is probably because I don't understand his position beyond "conservatism". On the other hand, the positions of the other panelists seem clear to me, especially since they are sharp and concise. Could you consider interviewing each other to build a profile of the regular NL panellists so we as listeners can understand your overall worldviews? That way I'm likely to appreciate Anand's views beyond my own biases.

I have one more request. I understand that you want to read out all subscriber emails. The word limit, however, is a serious exercise in precision and is a barrier for me to reach out to you. Is there a way to find some middle ground? You can probably paraphrase the emails and quote specific sections from them. I have much to comment about but I can’t spend an hour trying to simplify my post so I fit all my thoughts in 200 words or whatever the word limit is.

Thanks!

Sumeet Moghe

PS: Phew that was under 200 words, including the PS!

***

It took me some time to get over my disappointment that Manisha thinks Mughal-e-Azam is a dull movie but Phool Aur Kaante is good!!!! Proves to me that all smart people don’t necessarily have good taste in art.

I would love for you guys to have a podcast on Indian cinema, as Abhinandan suggested, especially cinema until the 1980s with Anand sir and Raman sir.

Love & regards,

Suvarna Swain

***

Hello NL team,

Anand, please work on your miking, most of the time your voice sounds a bit muffled.

Abhinandan, I have heard you multiple times being critical of cricket, mentioning that it is not a sport. Could you spend two minutes to explain? I am a football enthusiast too and the reason I stopped watching cricket is the way matches are telecast filled with ads (side-screen, full screen, pop-ups) after every four, six, end of an over or fall of a wicket. Nowadays, they don’t even care to show the replay because they have to fit in more ads. Another reason why everyone should subscribe to the ad-free model of Newslaundry: to enjoy a clean experience. Not that football doesn’t have ads but you can at least concentrate on the game for 45 minutes.

Keep up the good work, NL team.

Cheers,

Hemant Chetty

***

Hafta team,

I couldn't help but laugh at the Hafta 336 subscriber email trying to make a weak case for restrictive land ownership. I laughed because this is the precise trope used by a certain Sena that beats up north and south Indians in addition to being the favourite rallying cry of my own father. "Sons of the soil", as they put it, must have first dibs on real estate and jobs merely for emerging from a birth canal on a certain segment of land. But ah, who was first?

I am from the East Indian community, one among the original inhabitants of the islands of Bombay. Am I a son of the Bombay soil? What of the Gujarati born in Pune? Should my Gujju-Punekar cousin or I be the "natives" eligible for India's most expensive real estate? By virtue of birth or ethnicity? Whose birth is more local? Whose roots are more deserving? How, for example, do you separate the Goans from the East Indians who, to all outsiders, are the same people. Can I masquerade as a Goan and buy up Candolim beaches with my dollars? Should I sell my Bombay land to Ms Shinde from Mangalore or Mr Pinto from Indore?

Let's be clear about the origins of this sentiment – xenophobia combined with healthy doses of supremacy and entitlement. No one is entitled to real estate. If you can't make a living where you are, move. Humanity has been doing that since time began. Regulate land development, plan it well – those are both fair gripes. Don't encourage tribalism-based exclusion as there will never be a true Scotsman.

Regards,

Eldrich Rebello