Explaining India (i.e. Empowering India) by fudging?

29 February, 2008:

Did Indian Express steal content from blogs for its oped-page? So claims indiauncut.blogspot.com, a blog run by the Mumbai-based Amit Varma.

S Manjunath, an IIM graduate working with Indian Oil as sales officer in Gujarat was brutally murdered, apparently by an oil adulteration lobby. On November 22, Amit Varma who runs indiauncut.blogspot.com had carried a post on his blog about the murder. The next day, Rashmi Bansal, editor and publisher of JAM youth magazine, (also an avid blogger) wrote an article condemning the murder on her blog youthcurry.blogspot.com, a popular blog. As with many blog posts, this post too received many comments from readers. So much for the background.

The Indian Express edition dated November 25 carried several stories on the Manjunath murder, including a package of letters on its op-ed page, condemning the murder. "We have received an outpouring of letters from readers in India and overseas, many of them former classmates of the slain Manjunath," Express said at the top of the page.

However, many of the "letters" were stuff which had already appeared in Youthcurry and Indiauncut. In Youthcurry, there was this Rashmi Bansal's article, followed by comments from Vasanthi, Venkat, Anthony and Anna in that order. The Express "letters" started with excerpts from Rashmi Bansal's comments, followed by comments by Vasanthi, Venkat, Anthony and Anna in the same order! Among the letters was also a comment by Amit Varma which he had posted on his blog Indiauncut.

Amit was quick to take offence, and slammed the "lift" on his blog, putting a link to the Indian Express webpage which carried the story. Indian Express swiftly changed the contents of the page. The blogger noticed the cover-up and posted it on his blog.

However, as of now (9.00 PM, November 28) the duplicate content still remains on Indian Express e-paper. To see this, register free for the Indian Express e-paper, go to the edition dated November 25 and check out the oped page. The content is still very much there.

Since Express changed the contents of the page after the blogger linked to it, I am not taking a chance - Click here for an image of the Express e-paper which shows the disputed content.

The issue must have reached some of the higher-ups in Express. The next day, Express carried a mockery of a clarification, as following:

"Some of the comments carried yesterday were sent to us by Manjunathan's IIM batch mates. These comments were originally posted on a blog. All of today's letters come directly to The Indian Express. If you want to share..."

Express did not admit its mistake. Express did not make an apology.

Amit and Rashmi did not send their blog posts to Express for publication. It was picked up from the Net by some smarty-pants who thought no one would notice.

Express owes an apology to Amit Varma of Indiauncut and Rashmi Bansal of Youthcurry for using their content on its paper without permission. It also owes an apology to its own readers for selling content sourced from others without permission. Indian Express, like most other publications, has a policy of not allowing its staffers to write for other publications without permission from its senior officials. Why should it be any different when it comes to taking matter from others? Empowerment does not happen when you try to fudge the issue saying the comments were originally on a blog.

========================================

Daily fire

Britain's tabloid Daily Telegraph is facing fire over something it did in good faith - accepting photographs from readers and publishing it in the paper.

Britain's media is increasingly sourcing content from Internet blogs and "citizen journalists" for amateur photographs which its own photographers may not be able to shoot. This was starkly evident in the aftermath of the London bombings, when many newspapers tapped readers and the general public to get photographs for publication.

However, Daily Telegraph got into trouble over its terms of accepting such content. According to the terms set by Telegraph, all copyright and publicity rights of the photos will vest with the newspaper. This condition has enraged other media organisations, especially news photo agency services, which are expected to be hit.

These days, with the proliferation of camera phones, anyone can easily photograph news events around them. Many bloggers post news photographs which hold enormous news value. Many citizen news hounds are keen on publishing their pictures in the general media, but have little access to them. Media organisations fear that Telegraph is exploiting its readers' goodwill and enthusiasm to grab copyrights of original work.

Even now, many publications have systems in place to accept photographs from the public and publish them. However, they do not claim copyright over the sourced pictures. Theoretically, with the new terms, Daily Telegraph can source photos from the public, publish the same and claim copyright over them. It can launch photo-collections, sell them to advertising agencies or other media organisations which are in need of pictures and make money in the bargain - without paying a cent to the original photographer.

Obviously, not everyone is happy.

========================================

ET sews up Rothschild deal for Enam

In financial media, big deals always make for front-page news. Especially for Economic Times, which vows by "The power of prior knowledge". So it was no surprise when ET front-paged a story which claimed that investment banking firm NM Rothschild was planning to enter into a joint venture with Enam Financial Consultants. As part of the deal, ET claimed, the advisory business of Enam will be merged with Rothschild in India. The tie-up, ET said, would be announced within the next 10-12 days.

Click here for the ET report

We did not have to wait for 10-12 days. The day the story appeared, Rothschild denied the ET report in a statement issued to the press. ET ate humble pie, carrying a small clarification in an inside page.

In the ET story, there is no effort to contact either Rothschild or Enam for an official view. the ET story merely quotes highly-placed officials, who are always anonymous.

The clarification (Read it here) itself is interesting, saying the Rothschild statement has been in response to "some recent press articles," whereas the only paper which carried the disputed story was ET.

========================================

Seventeen till I dye!

American girls’ magazine Seventeen had its brush with controversy last week when an article on female anatomy which appeared in its latest issue prompted a leading retail chain to withdraw all copies of the magazine from its shelves.

The article Vagina 101 detailed the female sexual anatomy, with illustrations, photos and captions. It sought to change misconceptions, illuminate, educate and comfort. Unlike usual girl magazine stuff like "how to lure the rich bachelor next door" and "tips on shooting home sex video", the feature dwelt seriously, at length on the topic of its choice.

However, not everyone thought so. In liberated America, Albertsons store chain received complaints from some of its clients. What followed was an immediate withdrawal of copies of the magazine from the 2500 shops run by Albertsons. No questions asked.

Albertsons felt it had to keep the sensibilities of its clientele in mind. If some esteemed customers complained at the stuff Albertsons was hawking, they had every right to remove it, just the same way they would get magazines to clients on request. The customer is supreme.

However, the pertinent question remains. Is sex education for girls above 15 in a medical context inappropriate in a girl's magazine? Many superstore chains in US, including Albertsons, hawk books and magazines which publish even more adult stuff without a care. Perhaps no one has complained about them before, which is why they could still be there - we don’t know.

However the case may be, the author of the controversial article is enraged: "this was basic health information about anatomy every Seventeen reader has, packaged for a magazine audience and illustrated with a straightforward drawing. Every girl who wanted to look could see what was pictured. The difference is, instead of being a poster in the doctor's office which you wouldn't be caught dead studying, it was a magazine you could read in your bedroom," she says.

However, liberal America, or sections of it, is still not fully prepared to accept that argument - and till they reach that level of maturity, Albertsons won’t sell such stuff. Period.