It’s right to be wrong?

The right wing is — judging by its Twitter presence — astonishing. In its ability to insist it is right even when it is wrong, that is.

A good 24 hours after the ‘Kanhaiya Kumar chanted azaadi’ slogans thing peddled by some channels was pretty thoroughly discredited, there’s still a bunch of folks — including, sadly, a few journalists — recycling that same adulterated video, and insisting on their original ‘sedition’ charge.

I get that it is hard — particularly when your loyalties are involved — to find out you’ve been wrong. But must you act like the guy who went to the zoo, saw a camel, shook his head and said “There ain’t no such animal”?

But then again — grace is not a characteristic anyone ever accused you of, so why should I be surprised?

The eyes of the law…

Bassi on lawyer Vikram Chauhan: As ordinary citizen you think he committed offence,but we’ve to see through eyes of law #BassiOnTheHotSeat

Read in tandem with this news report (emphasis mine):

The Delhi Police on Thursday registered two FIRs against unknown persons over scuffles in the Patiala House Court that took place yesterday.

“Unknown persons” — because when you see through the eyes of the law…

Um… no…

So 2 news channels boycott protests by journalists against attacks on fellow journalists. Time to name/shame them?

— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) February 16, 2016

Related, is the call for a boycott of Arnab Goswami and his channel.

You have the right to organise a protest. I have the right to not join it. Maybe it says something about me, that I am not prepared to stand up for my fellows — but that is my choice, and I will live with it. You, however, cannot mandate my presence, nor can you attach “shame” to my absence.

As for calling for a boycott of Goswami and his channel — what are you, tone deaf? You cannot preach freedom of expression, espouse the right of media to tell it as they see it — and then call for a boycott of someone who sees it differently from you. Sure, you can call out what you disagree with — but if you really believe in the right to free speech, you cannot call for the boycott of those whose views you disagree with.

For the record, I am appalled by the attacks on journalists and others — just as I am appalled by the various attacks on people and their freedoms that take place every day in this country.

Also for the record, I am apalled by Goswami’s show. I was a guest on that show on December 30, 2009. Since then, I have been invited repeatedly, and have always declined — that one experience was enough. That is my personal right — to decide whether or no I will take part in something. But a call for a boycott?

Really?

Read, weep…

One lawyer asked, “Kaun ho tum?” I said I was a Times Now correspondent. I showed them my SC pass. Other lawyers in the crowd snatched my SC pass and tore it up and started taunting me, “Ab le aao SC ko apne saath. Kahaan gaya SC iss waqt?”

Via Times of India’s legal correspondent Meenakshi Bhanja.

And when you are done reading, and maybe weeping, ask yourself this: From who, or what, do these lawyers derive their sense of entitlement? Why do they believe they can take the law into their own hands, even in defiance of the Supreme Court? What greater authority do they draw their power from? How do they know that cops posted to court premises under Supreme Court mandate will merely look on while they manhandle, taunt?

Which part of ’embed’ do we not get?

The point of embedding a tweet in a story is so we don’t have to quote it, no?

Check out this story.

Time and again, a tweet is quoted in full — and then the quoted tweet itself is embedded. WTF?

PS: This story is not a first offender. Examples abound, every day. And related, this site is not the only offender — again, examples abound.

 

Sedition, scene and heard

‘Hum leke rahenge aazadi’ — the slogan that was flashed time and again on news channels to judge, and condemn, Kanhaiya Kumar as anti-national; to charge him with sedition; to question the raison d’etre of a university and all who study there.

‘If it were so, it were a grievous sin, and grievously hath…’

If it were so.

Embedded in this story, a video worth watching. Because, you know, facts?