Editor's Note: Perhaps gone are the days when national dailies and periodicals took pride in publishing the other point of view even if they did not agree with what the writer has done. Rejoinders were, as a rule, published invariably.

But, of late, a new trend has developed in the national print media. They publish one side of the story, one point of view. But when somebody volunteers the other point of vie, there is no space with them. The media seems to have been squeezed to one dogma, where there is no space for the other point of view. And, surprisingly, this is the very media that is very loud in its professions of right to freedom of expression. But freedom of expression cannot be to the exclusion of the other, divergent point of view.

Our Editors today seem to have forgotten Voltaire who said: "I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The Statesman had the distinction of publishing every piece that was critical of the editorial of the paper. Late Mr. C. R. Irani was very particular and he saw to it that the point of view divergent to his did find a place in the paper. Till 15-20 years back, the Times of India, The Tribune, the Indian Express and others did maintain this tradition.

On November 2, 2009 the Mail Today published an article "End Hussain's agony now" by the eminent jurist Rajeev Dhavan. This writer sent an article as a rejoinder the very next day. Not to speak of publishing, the Editor did not have the courtesy even to acknowledge it and say that he did not agree with his views.

This article is now being published in our columns to give the readers the opportunity to go through both the opposite points of view and make up their own opinion. This is necessary for healthy journalism. Self-righteousness is no virtue, at least in journalism in a democracy.

Last update : 07-11-2009 16:26

Keywords : Also Assuage Hurt Hindu Sentiments, AMba Charan Vashishtha

Average user rating

   (0 vote)