The lack of an inbuilt procedure to correct inaccuracies that continually surface is a matter of concern for the Indian (and probably other) media ... but it's something that goes beyond two random examples (the Siddis and the Daman bridge) which repeatedly get used by JC as arguments against anything that shows Portuguese colonialism in Goa in poor light.
JC's largely correct in the details. But the way he won't let go of these examples for years together -- one of the reporters has meanwhile passed away -- says more about him and his perception of pre-1961 and post-1961 Goa. These cases are just stray straws that one can clutch on to, though, to my mind, it doesn't particularly reveal anything other than the unseeming haste with which news stories get written. Even if bias exists, one would need better cases to make the point. In any case, hasn't the media largely been known to support the status quo, whether it was the Portuguese-language press in colonial Goa or the post-1961 press of our times? JC's "logic" involves ad hominen attacks, needless needling, stacking the deck in favour of points which support his view whether these are significant or not, building false dichotomies (assuming that errors in the press he spots are due to anti-Portuguese bias and nothing else), placing the burden of proof on somone else, resorting to rhetorical questions, even while accusing others of LIES (all CAPS!) A recently-graduated lawyer should know better! ---FN
