Consider this sequence of events:
The next obvious question is: what did NDTV find objectionable in Kunte's original blogpost? Besides the obvious anger and venom that Kunte directs at Dutt and NDTV, there are two claims which raise red flags. The first is the implication that Dutt's behaviour was unethical, and resulted in the exacerbation of the hostage situation at the Taj. The second is a quote from Wikipedia, which alleges that Dutt's coverage of the Kargil episodes resulted in the death of Indian soldiers by giving away their locations. Both these allegations are enough for NDTV's lawyers to get into the act and invite Kunte to the legal equivalent of a staring contest, which they duly did, and won.
The furore amongst the bloggers comes mostly in the form of outrage against the perceived censorship of Kunte's commentary by Barkha Dutt and NDTV. I don't know how much of it is considered opinion versus knee-jerk responses to us-versus-them impulses. It staggers me to find that very few have actually addressed the question of NDTV's right to legal redress, but have instead chosen to condemn them for bullying a lone blogger with their legal might. If one stops to consider whether they had a case, maybe a clearer line may be drawn. Freedom of speech is protected only to the extent that one's comments do not damage the reputation or the welfare of the subjects being spoken about. Satire is given a slightly longer leash, but it is by no means infinitely long.
Kunte's statement that Dutt's on-air conversations were responsible for making a bad situation worse is the first of his problems. If he could not substantiate that claim with proof, he had made a libelous claim. It was made infinitely worse by his quote, excerpted from the Wikipedia entry on Barkha Dutt. He quoted:
Bloggers value their opinions, but do not always feel obliged to back up those opinions with the necessary rigour to support and substantiate them. It is time that this obligation was picked up and applied to blogposts in the same way as columns and news reports do. It is a valid argument that some of our leading publications do not adhere to the prescribed rigour, and it is a valid comment to criticize them for this laxity, but it is not a valid justification of abjuring the same rigour when voicing one's own opinions. The consequences of such oversight can be quite damaging, as Kunte's experience has no doubt shown him.
It is also a prevalent opinion in the blogosphere that Kunte was bullied into submission by NDTV. Perhaps this is true. However, it was his choice to make: whether to stand up to the bully and put his money where his mouth was, or to back down and apologize. Maybe he didn't think it was worth the hassle to fight, and backed off. Or maybe he accepted that he had made a mistake. I cannot tell based on the available evidence. The upshot, however, is that in making some unwise comments on his blog, he invited trouble upon himself, and found himself unable to fend it off altogether.
Meanwhile, what has NDTV achieved? In attempting to silence the libelous post, they have succeeded in proliferating it across several blogs and websites, thus making their problem worse many, many times over. It has resulted in severe damage to the NDTV brand and to Barkha Dutt's own image as a crusader for the freedom of the press. Their attempt to muzzle negative commentary has now portrayed them as hypocrites, in addition to the wholly accurate popular belief that Dutt is shrill, opinionated, excessively aggressive and self-absorbed in her journalistic style. It is one thing to call her incompetent and self-indulgent (opinion), and entirely another to claim that she was responsible for casualties (unsubstantiated fact). The former will get you rolled eyeballs, while the latter will get you a lawsuit. Choose wisely, as they say.
- Barkha Dutt provides the shrillest, most over-the-top, inconsiderate and insensitive coverage of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai known in the popular vernacular as 26/11.
- Several bloggers call her out for this terrible show of journalism. Amongst them, Chyetanya Kunte, who is particularly harsh on Dutt's shoddy journalism.
- On 26 Jan, 2009, Kunte's post entitled Shoddy Journalism disappears (above link from the Google cache), and a withdrawal statement appears. The Indian blog community and Twitterverse explodes into a flurry of censorship-related condemnation of NDTV and Barkha Dutt.
The next obvious question is: what did NDTV find objectionable in Kunte's original blogpost? Besides the obvious anger and venom that Kunte directs at Dutt and NDTV, there are two claims which raise red flags. The first is the implication that Dutt's behaviour was unethical, and resulted in the exacerbation of the hostage situation at the Taj. The second is a quote from Wikipedia, which alleges that Dutt's coverage of the Kargil episodes resulted in the death of Indian soldiers by giving away their locations. Both these allegations are enough for NDTV's lawyers to get into the act and invite Kunte to the legal equivalent of a staring contest, which they duly did, and won.
The furore amongst the bloggers comes mostly in the form of outrage against the perceived censorship of Kunte's commentary by Barkha Dutt and NDTV. I don't know how much of it is considered opinion versus knee-jerk responses to us-versus-them impulses. It staggers me to find that very few have actually addressed the question of NDTV's right to legal redress, but have instead chosen to condemn them for bullying a lone blogger with their legal might. If one stops to consider whether they had a case, maybe a clearer line may be drawn. Freedom of speech is protected only to the extent that one's comments do not damage the reputation or the welfare of the subjects being spoken about. Satire is given a slightly longer leash, but it is by no means infinitely long.
Kunte's statement that Dutt's on-air conversations were responsible for making a bad situation worse is the first of his problems. If he could not substantiate that claim with proof, he had made a libelous claim. It was made infinitely worse by his quote, excerpted from the Wikipedia entry on Barkha Dutt. He quoted:
During the Kargil conflict, Indian Army sources repeatedly complained to her channel that she was giving away locations in her broadcasts, thus causing Indian casualties.The trouble with quoting Wikipedia, of course, is the dreaded [Citation needed] tag. It breaks all possible links with credibility, and puts the burden of proof on the person quoting the offending text. Kunte might have believed the Wikipedia quote, but when he published it under his name, even with attribution, he put his lot in with that statement. When called upon to substantiate it, he was probably at sea. But this is the difference between journalism and blogging. The more seriously the latter wishes to be, the more it must resemble the former in rigour and choice of language.
Bloggers value their opinions, but do not always feel obliged to back up those opinions with the necessary rigour to support and substantiate them. It is time that this obligation was picked up and applied to blogposts in the same way as columns and news reports do. It is a valid argument that some of our leading publications do not adhere to the prescribed rigour, and it is a valid comment to criticize them for this laxity, but it is not a valid justification of abjuring the same rigour when voicing one's own opinions. The consequences of such oversight can be quite damaging, as Kunte's experience has no doubt shown him.
It is also a prevalent opinion in the blogosphere that Kunte was bullied into submission by NDTV. Perhaps this is true. However, it was his choice to make: whether to stand up to the bully and put his money where his mouth was, or to back down and apologize. Maybe he didn't think it was worth the hassle to fight, and backed off. Or maybe he accepted that he had made a mistake. I cannot tell based on the available evidence. The upshot, however, is that in making some unwise comments on his blog, he invited trouble upon himself, and found himself unable to fend it off altogether.
Meanwhile, what has NDTV achieved? In attempting to silence the libelous post, they have succeeded in proliferating it across several blogs and websites, thus making their problem worse many, many times over. It has resulted in severe damage to the NDTV brand and to Barkha Dutt's own image as a crusader for the freedom of the press. Their attempt to muzzle negative commentary has now portrayed them as hypocrites, in addition to the wholly accurate popular belief that Dutt is shrill, opinionated, excessively aggressive and self-absorbed in her journalistic style. It is one thing to call her incompetent and self-indulgent (opinion), and entirely another to claim that she was responsible for casualties (unsubstantiated fact). The former will get you rolled eyeballs, while the latter will get you a lawsuit. Choose wisely, as they say.
