Dear all, You may remember that I have, on several occasions, written about the dangers of relying too much on news-reports. One does not know it the reports are accurate, spiced up or perhaps a result of Journo incompetence, bias or even a difficulty in the English language. You may also have noted that the journos in question, when shown up, have become defensive and justified their bogus reporting. We do not need to go there again ...do we? Our Goan journos have decided to hide under the 'nome' " From a Staff Reporter"
That having been said .....here are two articles relating to the same SIT report. The two articles speak for themselves. The CAPS are mine, and so are the questions at the foot of this msg. Sincerely jc [1] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4396986.cms In an April 14, 2009 article headlined: "NGOs, Teesta spiced up Gujarat riot incidents: SIT" - Dhananjay Mahapatra wrote the following: NEW DELHI: The Special Investigation Team responsible for the arrests of those accused in Gujarat riots HAS severely censured NGOs and social activist Teesta Setalvad who campaigned for the riot victims. In a significant development, the SIT led by former CBI director R K Raghavan TOLD the Supreme Court on Monday that the celebrated rights activist cooked up macabre tales of wanton killings." It is noted that somewhere in the middle of the report, Mahapatra includes the words 'advocate Mukul Rohtagi, said quoting from the SIT report' However, a few lines down, Mahapatra continues: The SIT also FOUND no truth in the following incidents widely publicised by the NGOs: etc etc. This gives the impression that Mahapatra was quoting from the document. Was He? [2] http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=954c5708-79ee-47d0-8272-795b79946cd5&Headline=Gujarat+riots+witnesses+not+tutored%3a+SIT The April 22, 2009 Hindustan Times report by Nagendar Sharma headlined: Gujarat riot witnesses not tutored:SIT says:" The Special Investigation Team (SIT), probing major cases of 2002 anti-Muslim Gujarat riots on Tuesday slammed reports that riots witnesses were tutored to give false evidence for exaggeration of the situation, by activists and organisations helping the victims. The SIT rebuttal followed the alleged leak of its report recently, which was submitted to the Supreme Court in March. The SIT response to the reported leak came on a day, when the Supreme Court termed the leak as a “betrayal of the faith reposed in those to whom the report was allowed access”. A news story in an English daily last week ( possibly Mahapatra's) claimed access to the confidential SIT report, and allegedly quoted from it, that the “rights activists cooked up macabre tales of wanton killings”. A clue comes within the article:"The SIT sources said the alleged leaks appear to have been based on statements of state police officials and “cannot be termed as findings of the report.” Comment: Until the Courts decide, we will not know the true fact of the case. The questions for the moment are: [1] Did Mr Mahapatra read the SIT report? [2] If so, did he read it in full? [3] If not, why did he use such determinative language in his script? [4] Is it just a 'difficulty' with the language, or a bias?
