×
Home Companies Industry Politics Money Opinion LoungeMultimedia Science Education Sports TechnologyConsumerSpecialsMint on Sunday
×

Press freedom or tyranny?

Press freedom or tyranny?
Comment E-mail Print Share
First Published: Mon, Jan 19 2009. 09 10 PM IST
Updated: Mon, Jan 19 2009. 09 10 PM IST
Re: the Quick Edit, “Cameras and terror” (Mint, 15 January) on the government’s attempt to gag television channel coverage, I am amazed to see that your paper is joining the bandwagon of those against the “assault on freedom of speech”.
Where was the assault? In the name of press freedom, TV channels became the ears and eyes of terrorists during those fateful 60 hours in Mumbai. When society abhors the manner in which journalists try to eke out their living, those same journalists should not try to justify their unreasonable behaviour.
What we are seeing is media dictatorship and not freedom of the press. This is not an issue of government censorship, but rather of media tyranny.
—Sivaramaprasad Kappagantu
Re: Sauvik Chakraverti’s article “Reinventing our social science” (Mint, 16 January), contrary to Chakraverti’s assertion that individualism lies at the heart of every society, the science of a society is neither individualistic or collectivist. It is somewhere in the middle. Individualism loses out on the synergy of cooperation in a society, while a collective fails out on the ability of individuals to go beyond the requirements of the collective. Hence, a system that incorporates a level of cooperation among its members, while ensuring the talents of its members can be fully utilized, would be ideal. But it’s not as easy to achieve.
I do agree with the view that the government should be limited to certain functions and the private sector should step in for everything else. As I see it, the only function for the government is to provide security and ensure law and order. Everything else should be handled by private individuals.
—Ranjith Kollannur
Re: your editorial “Elect but don’t select Modi” (Mint, 16 January), there is no doubt over the fact that Narendra Modi is pro-industrialist and has made Gujarat progress. But industrialists do not have any say in deciding who should be prime minister. I do agree with your suggestion that Modi’s praise at the “Vibrant Gujarat” summit is an indication that chief ministers (CMs) in other states must stand and notice what the corporate world wants from them.
Industrialists want to see more Modis. If other CMs wake up and alter their approach, we will witness changes in the way corporate India sees politicians. Then, there will be no need to praise Modi as the exceptional CM who can become prime minister.
— Bal Govind
The success of Gujarat chief minister (CM) Narendra Modi in attracting investment assurances of more than Rs12 trillion within two days is a welcome sign in this time of recession. If there is a strong leader and a committed government, investors will flock to them, disregarding ideological affiliations. Modi has proved this.
One hopes that all CMs and their political parties follow suit so that investments from around the world pour into India. Young Indians are waiting for the day when it happens all around.
— M. Javed Aziz
Re: Anita Bhoir’s story “Icai probe of GTB-Price Waterhouse on for 4 years” (Mint, 16 January), the unreasonable delay on the part of the disciplinary committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in India (Icai) in awarding the appropriate penalty on the erring firm, Price Waterhouse puts that professional body in a poor light. According to your report, the explanation a member of the council of Icai gives for the delay is that these lengthy procedures are only normal. This shows us that the media has to be more alert in pointing out the lapses of not only the statutory regulators but also self-regulatory bodies such as the Icai.
—S. Subramanyan
Comment E-mail Print Share
First Published: Mon, Jan 19 2009. 09 10 PM IST