A review of NLHafta by Suraj, Sid and Manjari

Dear NL Team,

I just listened to Hafta 146 and I have some comments regarding the letter from Anonymous on Tamil news @newslaundry. I completely second her/his idea of having someone from Tamil Nadu on the panel when discussing TN-related news. I always thought I should write about it to you but never really did. But now, after reading this anonymous mail, I have more motivation.

I too have felt that when you talk about some TN issues, you are often not fully knowledgeable about the facts. I am not able to pinpoint concrete examples now, but I remember in one of the Haftas (quite long ago), Abhinandan brought up one such issue to the panel and said “so can somebody tell me what exactly is going on” (not quoting verbatim here) and everybody was just blank.

Then each one followed with “I think… blah blah”. I really felt like asking you at that time, why did you even bring up that issue if you have not read anything about it? And nobody read about it anyway because no one cared.

On your discussions on Jallikattu (Hafta 102) and OPS/Sasikala – I really felt you could have done more reading. But the Jallikattu discussion (Hafta 103) with Ramanathan on the phone was really good. I am sorry I am not able to point out more concrete examples because I don’t have the time now to listen through each Hafta and pick examples. But this feeling has always been there that you don’t put energy into TN issues with the same intensity as other news.

It is common for someone from TN to shout that the English news media sitting in Delhi doesn’t give equal importance to TN news. We have seen that in several cases before – like the Chennai floods of 2015. But neither do I put Newslaundry on the same footing nor am I shouting that you don’t cover TN news.

Newslaundry does really cool stuff and I don’t expect you to be reporting every single region-specific news or even region-specific news that may have national impact. But my feedback is that when you do decide to take up a TN issue on a Hafta discussion, you can definitely do a better job with the facts and background. Isn’t that fair expectation from a subscriber?

On your question of why I subscribed: I have said in an email before, which was also read out in one of the previous Haftas, that I really wouldn’t have paid if not for the paywall. I am still not entirely sure if the “pay-for-your-news” model is the best, or the future of media. I would save that discussion for a separate email.

But going forward, I am not sure if I will be renewing the subscription. The reason I pay is to be able to listen to Hafta. But in recent months, a lot of discussion on each topic happens in Hindi with Atul on the panel. Sometimes there are guests who speak only Hindi, for example, the journalist from Lallantop. My Hindi is good enough only to understand all your jokes and small talk. But my vocab is not so good as to understand everything that Atul says.

I am sure Atul and your guests are great people and have important things to say. But it just makes following the conversation difficult for me. So I am likely to discontinue my subscription at the end of its cycle – unless I get comfortable with it somehow.

Final feedback, at the start of each Hafta, you always have many topics but end up discussing only 4-5 of them. May I suggest that you allocate a separate 5-10 minutes at the end for a quick round of discussion on each topic that you are not able to fit in the available time? Because I feel that many interesting topics go untouched there.

Best regards,

Suraj Prabhakaran

Dear Hafta team,

A quick thank you for the wonderful episodes that you guys bring out week after week! A new subscriber, I am all praise for Newslaundry.

That said, I was disappointed by the quality of the debate on the #MeToo campaign, particularly the offhand manner in which one of the male panellists treated the issue of men coming out with #MeToo stories.

I also have ambivalent feelings about this; it can feel like men are hijacking a campaign that is primarily for women and by women. But beneath that, if we probe a bit, we see a pattern:

1. Most of these men tend to be gay.
2. The stories tend be from when they were young, during teenage or early youth, at their vulnerable worst, when they were probably struggling on a daily (hourly) basis to come to terms with their sexuality.
3. The abusers/molesters tend to be older men, who wield disproportionate power, not because they are physically stronger (which can be true as well) but because their victims in this context are emotionally and psychologically weaker. What if the boy’s parents find out that their son has had physical contact with a MAN? What can be the worst consequences? Kicked out of the family for being gay? Ostracised by friends? Or just looked at weirdly by everyone else around (or even just the constant, nagging, perception that you are being judged for something that you didn’t have control over)?

Most men of the liberal variety tend to have this air of casual machismo. While we may have learned (and can give) a lesson or two on sexism, we fail to see how we perpetuate it through attitudes best reflected by opinions such as “men are supposed to suck it up because they are men”.

I felt that this attitude prevented the male panellists from understanding the issue at hand (correct me if I am wrong). The women, on the contrary, emphasised the need to have compassion and understanding. That, to me, said something.

Love to all,

Sid,

Washington.

Hi Abhinandan and/or Team,

I am a subscriber and a PhD student in the US working on Artificial Intelligence. Wanted to share my opinion on a couple of things.

Why I pay to subscribe: I think paywalls and guilt-tripping are useful nudges. The mufatkhor lectures make me feel weirdly guilty even though I pay up!

Loss aversion (people’s tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains) is a useful explanation for my story of subscribing. Initially, my payment would be declined, so I would just postpone subscribing.

I didn’t stand to lose anything then and chose to be lazy. Once you guys started talking about the paywall, the prospect of losing access pushed me, and so I made the additional effort to get it done much before the paywall actually came up.

About your comment about it being okay for women to complain about certain kinds of harassment, but not for men: I’m a big fan of yours, and remain so, by the way. I understand that your experiences may have made you immune, so you don’t think inappropriate touching is a big deal. But if you say men shouldn’t claim to be traumatised by that situation, neither should women. As a feminist, I support equality. Gender doesn’t come into this.

Would you say that women should not say they were traumatised when Louis CK masturbated in front of them? You ask the man: “Haven’t you seen a penis before? What’s the big deal?” So have women, through (immoral) relationships, gym showers and other unwanted exposures. Why would seeing another penis traumatise them, it’s just an organ! Sure, it’s ugly, but traumatisingly ugly? Nah.

So, if equivalent unwanted harassment can be traumatic to women, let’s not shame the men who speak up either. Our standards for acceptable behaviour are improving, and I think that’s a good thing.

Some observations about Anand Vardhan:

1. Anand often brings forward what the Indian on the street thinks. His views often differ from the others, and he doesn’t seem to bother to question himself and his convictions much, but his views still help me think critically and have a balanced understanding of the situation, which is great. But I feel that sometimes when he has an unpopular view, he will not state it outright. He will talk about why something is happening, what the people are thinking and why, but not whether he thinks they are justified. It seems like he does have an opinion on the matter, but wants to avoid confrontation. Or perhaps he just wants to avoid talking! But if he himself is not confident enough in his views to state them outright, there perhaps isn’t much weight in his argument. Hafta was about letting us know where you stand on the issues. So should Anand.
2. I wasn’t thrilled by Anand saying “a man has the physical strength to run away”, implying that harassment happens when physical force is used. Every other woman has an experience to the contrary. And if it’s true, should we check the fitness levels of the man and woman to see if we should sympathise with them? I often run to catch the bus, am I disqualified from empathy? George HW Bush apparently groped women from his wheelchair, no sympathy for the woman there?

It’s not about strength. It’s about the power you wield in the world because you are rich, or the boss. It’s also the power the perpetrator has because he knows the victim will be shamed, blamed, ridiculed or punished. Trump can hope Ivanka would quit her job if sexually harassed, not everyone can afford to give up their job, perhaps risk their career for it.

And let’s not slot women into neat boxes: either helpless, selfless, innocent victims or manipulative “naagins” egging men on against other women.

Otherwise, I absolutely love the podcast and all its members, enjoy agreeing and disagreeing with them in turns. Thanks to everyone for their efforts!

Regards,

Manjari.