Inherently biased system?
The CNN-IBN news story on the diversity profile of newsrooms around India paints an intriguing picture. The disproportionally represented profession comes as no surprise as casteism was originally founded on choice of vocation. 70% of 'key posts' in editorial/ newsroom jobs are held by Hindu upper caste men who the article says only form 8% of the total population.
In the context of the 'Reservation debate' that has assumed gigantic proportions, the objective reporting of journalists has definitely come under question. The reservation debate is implicitly 'subjective' and a neutral view point may have not been presented to us. This is evident from the lack of coverage on medical situations when doctors and medicos went on strike for more than two weeks.
posted by Manu S at 7:10 PM
1 Comments:
1. Mentoning one side of the story while plastering pictures on the front page of the other side does not constitute fair and objective reporting of news.
Just because you and I know what the facts might be does not justify biased journalism. In that case, what's the purpose/ role of today's media?
2. About the debate-
Just because a proportion of OBCs have done well in the 'general' category does not make a sound argument against reservation. It's like saying because some poor people have become millionaires, we should not have any benefit schemes for the other poor people.
Reservations have not been around for 57 years. They were nominally introduced in 1960 (~15%) and then increased to (22%) in late 1970s. Then Mandal Commission suggested that there needed to be a greater proportion of reservation after a comprehensive socio-economic study in early 1980s. The suggestion was passed through the Parliament in Dec 2005 and looks like it may not be implemented anytime soon.
3. Regarding the question of merit, I refer you to http://launchingpad.blogspot.com/2006/04/achieving-equality-through-unequal.html
1:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home