There has been a fair amount of traffic on my twitter TL on an article that was taken down in the DNA . People have, rightly, asked for an explanation.
Fact checking, misrepresentation of facts etc all good excuses/explanation to give when u pull down an article. However, they all sound rather silly – especially given that you have published it. Sometimes silence is better than a hastily cobbled together justification. And, everything doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theory. Nor does everything have to be high drama. Sometimes there are simpler explanations.
I could say editorial prerogative. But, that would be arrogance. I could blame the author, but that would be cowardice. I could blame the government or my ‘bosses’ but that would be a lie. I could say i didn’t know it went up, but that would be cop out. Fact remains, I should have caught onto something that was in the piece, but I didn’t. I did exactly what I have ranted about, and outraged about for the last decade – that is in the need for speed, the desire to be first, to put out a piece, I didn’t look at it with the attention that it deserved. We have run far more scathing pieces by the author on Mr.Shah and they are still on-line. If I pulled down this one, it was for a good reason, and that reason is not fear.
I can understand readers ire on this, and appreciate the author’s anger – i would have felt the same way if i was in her place. If I had the time on the day to make a call and sort it out, I would have. Unfortunately, I didn’t. I was in a very long conference, where our phones were tucked safely away in our bags. Which is also the reason why I couldn’t respond to newslaundry.
Now to something else – when other TV editors/websites write about this, they obviously suffer from selective amnesia. they have pulled out, pulled back, changed tack on issues. Was it fear, favor or fickleness? Or all three – that made them do this? And i am not even going into other areas of breach of ethics such as the cash for votes sting, or radia tapes, I am simply looking at spiked stories, and stories that disappeared. Seriously, i can appreciate reader ire, I can’t figure the hypocrisy of other media professionals. They know exactly what they had suppressed in their entire career Am sure if you follow any good news monitoring website you will know some of what has been taken off, what they have changed tack on, and where they have spiked their own stories.
I have not responded to this on twitter as there are no 140 character explanations for things like this. Hence, this blog.
And finally, far as the ToI piece is concerned – cute, very cute. Must be the first time that the ToI has run a piece naming a competitor without routing it through medianet.
Care to tell us why you *did* take it down? Factual inaccuracies? Or any other reason?
combination. especially vis-a-vis the role of the judiciary
I read have news reports which bear out what ayub says about the judge’s reaction. the innacuracy or rather contradiction appears to be with regards to shah’s lawyer giving an explanantion (political work). if he had given a reason the judge wld not have said exemption was sought without stating a reason. Is there anything else?
I think you should also specify which statements are inaccurate etc. Ms Ayyub has been making a martyr of herself. On reading her piece I was actually shocked that such a factually incorrect, slanderous and full of motives article is actually published.
Thanks for your explanation though!
I too read an article and found nothing factually incorrect, slanderous. Could you tell me what article you found factually incorrect or you are just making a cosmetic statement to fool gullible readers..
That’s what it sounds like – general blanket of factually incorrect without saying what is factually incorrect
According to the article DIG Vanzara was sentenced for murder! Is that factual? Isn’t is enough reason to pull it down?
Read this for a point-by-point rebuttal of most of Rana Ayyub’s “facts” http://theagonyandecstacy.blogspot.in/2014/07/come-on-msayuub.html?
we are with u , we know that article was peace of rant on personal bias , we know who are these people behind this “Outrage” same who did hide , pulled , pushed many serious matters on their channel and newspapers but actually doing politics and selective outrage at wrong place . Only mistake DNA did was: it should have never appeared on website .
You don’t actually say why you took it down. It would be good to understand why editors make the decisions they do.
Wish you had remained silent, that would have been more dignified. But those who succumb to the lightest pressure or fearful of what may happen to them when they publish material objectionable to ruling party often lack a sense of dignity.
we run a lot of pieces that are anti-government (be it this one or the last one). the issue is not about opinion or bias, it is about accuracy. It is ok to dislike amit shah – but not ok put out wrong information
There you go with the victimhood complex again! Face it: the article was poorly research and full of inaccuracies.
instead removing, the information should have been edited. and since the article was published, the publication should publish on the “why” factor rather a lengthy blog post that’s got nothing worthy to read. what if it was published on the newspaper? wouldn’t dna publish a letter of correction sort of thing next day explaining why we should ignore the information on the piece.
i cannot rewrite an opinion writers’ piece. but, we could have put out a note when we took it down .
oh sure you can – or at least you can ask the author to correct an error and then reup it, flagging it has been corrected. all sympathy for you gone. the only folk you are making are crazy trolls online!
If far more scathing pieces by the author on Mr.Shah are still on-line, why was this one not edited to remove the ‘factual inaccuracies’ and the article left on the site with a suitable note attached?
It is the same crap Rana Ayyub wrote 1239 times since 2002 with only change in the title. and DNA published it all the time. She got a pathological hatred towards Shah and no newspaper would like to entertain her personal vendetta at the cost of loosing readership and facing legal issues.
dont worry.. no one cares about her usual rant.. Good that pulling down brought her nice publicity. as she is searching any tweet that supporting her.. let her enjoy this brief period where she is feeling herself as a super woman..
Are you saying that article she wrote was factually incorrect? If yes than you should have first checked it before publishing it. And if true than why Rana Ayyub is crying foul.
Anyways I know she is good at sensationalizing things but this article is about her personal anger against Amit shah. We know what she said in Ishrahat case. These terrorist sympathizers should not be allowed to use national level platform.
Warped are the minds that characterize journalists challenge the state’s narrative as “terrorist sympathizers”. Luckily we still have a Constitution that allows people to express their viewpoint on village/town/city/district/state/national level platforms, even if said viewpoint not to the liking of many cult-worshippers.
It would be great if the specific errors/inaccuracies in the piece were actually mentioned. Most professional publications do in fact make corrections all the time. They just don’t take pieces down in the middle of the night. Because doing so (and offering belated explanations) would make them look craven and stooges of the state.
28 lines but where is “The reason”. You were busy, other ppl don’t care about their actions but yours, ppl ranted but where is “The reason”. You don’t fear, other media houses jumped on the wagon, you were doing your duty, but where is “The reason” to take it down.
this explanation shd suffice but it wont. for two reasons –
1. though the author did not intend it, but the pulldown was a godsend for her. even in her wildest dreams she cudnt hv asked for such a chance. now she has no reason to backtrack from her imaginary moral highground. hence the author will not shut up.
2. the article on ToI sums up the schadenfreude of the jealous rivals. hence the other outrageds will also not shut up.
but neither wud we, the objectors to all hypocrisies … so bring it on.
And so the reason is… ?
Come to the point dear fellow citizen.
i’d be rather in favour of the press freedom journalists enjoy here in india. and this has been so correctly made up on a blog post here.. http://rupasubramanya.blogspot.in/2014/07/a-case-study-in-selective-outrage-in.html
I don’t see the mistake is done by one end, dna editorial actually underestimated digital media that eventually led to this.. all in all i’d like to say all commenters here and those following this poorly defined story, that if you’d really want to read a better piece than this post and the ‘low politics’ one, Rupa Subramanya has one for you
U have explained everything except why you have taken off the article…. do u think we are fools to accept your stories
Harini, why such vague accusations of inaccuracy in the article? Could you not have pointed them out clearly? Also, could you please tell us what caused you to re-read the piece? Do you often go back to published pieces and re-appraise them?
Come clean on this one, Harini, or all you will be left with is the far right.
Still waiting for clarity on why it was taken down.
Inaccuracies in the article should have been pointed out specifically and published thereof- in case there were any. This sort of mudslinging on writers/journalists appears to be motivated. Don’t know what yours is? I’m willing to keep an open mind. it does look like someone asked you to re-look the article and make the CUT! As of now your accusations are too vague to be valid.
“Shah managed his way out with a tried and tested formula of transferring judges, practiced brazenly in his home state of Gujarat through his tenure as home minister.” – Excerpt from Rana Ayyub’s article.
Please note: ‘Practice’ and ‘Practise’ are two different words for us who speak Queen’s English. (Not that we care about the Queen so much).
So forget these snowballing conspiracy theories, a grammatically correct article would be a great read, you know, if it ever finds its way into your publication.
P.S. That would’ve been a better explanation of why the article was TAKEN DOWN (taken off is more like it – another lesson in language). Imagine, if you’d come out with a one-line blog piece that says, “I won’t tolerate any travesty of language!”
Over and out, journalist… (ahem)
I would like to ask the holier than thou ToI group: Have they not published paid news before and have they not taken one down later without explanation? Also, likewise, exactly as the story had some judiciary angle to it? Was or wasn’t R Sundar of TBSL (medianet’s new bottle) on the advisory board of the foreign corporate? If the Sundar link is deniable well the fact that M.Mirror took down a front cover article is not.
If that’s a puzzle begging for further clues… glad to oblige.