Dear Sachin, I must congratulate you on your extremely well-written analysis.
I do not know if Fred Noronha tried to rationalise (must have missed the post you refer to), but one thing I wish to say: Press freedom, like most ideals in life, is only a relative term. Not absolute. Not here in India nor, from the little I know, anywhere else in the world. Press freedom is not just a relative term but comes in layers. Freedom from whom, if one may ask (and as I have said before): from arm-twisting political dispensations, from newspaper managements who expect returns on their investment, from wily editors nursing their own agendas, or from the biases of journalists themselves? It is, I admit, a wider question. Regards/Valmiki From: "Sachin Phadte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:12 PM > It took me some time to decide how I should be responding to the various > exchanges on this line of discussion. The reason is that while we can > definitely appreciate the candour with which Ben has set out his experience, > I am a little puzzled with the rationalisation that seems to be floating > around. > > We have discussed, very rightly too, about the way the present dispensation > in Goa is trying to suppress the media. But it would seem to me, based on > what Ben wrote, that the rot has a long origin and is not of recent vintage. > And it would seem to me that some on Goanet do not find that aspect > disturbing as they rightly find the present situation disconcerting. I > would have thought that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. > > > Given the rationalisation of Ben's motivation and actions, particularly by > as senior journalist like Fred, would indicate to me that Prof Sen's > condition for a functioning democracy has not been in existence for a long > time. Of course, we should try and recover it, if it is lost. But this can > happen only when we do not indulge in rationalisation but in admitting the > facts as they are. If Lambert's whetting of editorials by the owners of the > journal he was writing is to be even obliquely justified, then surely it > would be difficult to condemn an editorial of any journal to be similarly > whetted today. > > Of course, two wrongs do not make a right. But we can come to this only > when we clearly admit that there was a wrong done earlier. Otherwise, we > lose the moral right of condemning the wrong today. After all, the one > doing today's wrong can turn around and say that he/she is following the > example set earlier. > > > Some will say that I am an idealistic person. But is not idealism necessary > for a healthy democracy? > > If I have touched on a sensitive matter in an insensitive manner, I would > like to apologise right here. > > > Sachin Phadte ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
