Media In India/elsewhere -3

[Guest]

http://indiamediawatch.livejournal.com/

[Shambhu]

I want to collect names of *print* media in Bharat that are non-psec. Any language....***with comments and additions from Offstumped and Sandeepweb readers

Organizer (Eng)
Pioneer (Eng)
Dainik Jagran
Sanatan Prabhat
Saamna (Marathi, Mumbai)
Panchajanya
Tarun Bharat
News Today (Chennai)
***OdishaToday (Local english paper from Odisha)
**The Sunday Indian (Eng)

**New:
Dinamalar(Tamil)
**Dhinamani (Tamil)
Thuglak(Tamil)
India Today (seen as becoming more and more anti-psec)
Janmabhumi (Malayalam)

---------------------
The New Indian Express is a newspaper with its head office based in Chennai, India. It started life in 1932 as the Indian Express under the ownership of Chennai-based Veradharajulu Naidu. In 1999, following the death of the then owner Ramnath Goenka, Goenka’s family split the group into two separate companies. The northern editions, headquartered in Mumbai, retained and renamed Indian Express into The Indian Express title ,whilst the southern editions became The New Indian Express.

The Sentinel - from NE Bharat, gives balanced coverage.
http://www.sentinelassam.com/

Deccan Herald, from Bangalore <b>????</b>
http://www.deccanherald.com/
Wikipedia site says, Political allegiance Left-wing. But I found DH is quite balanced.

The Deccan Herald is the largest English-language daily newspaper in the Indian state of Karnataka. It is published by the Printers (Mysore) Private Limited and has a number of editions in Bangalore, Hubli, Mysore, Mangalore and Gulbarga.

**i’m not sure if Deccan Herald belongs in this list. used to subscribe to that when i was in Bangalore, and found it fairly psec.
------------------------


Sanjay, blogger who translates Hindi papers into English to give English readers a feel for what is really being said in non-English papers, adds:

Most vernacular newspapers are nationalists. (Ignore the Hindi editions of English newspapers such as Navbharat Times, etc.)

Here is the list of Top 10 newspapers of India in terms of readership (according to National Readership Survey 2007). Not a single English newspaper figures in the list.

1. Dainik Jagran 17,114,000
2 Dainik Bhaskar 12,514,000
3 Hindustan 9,052,000
4 Malayala Manorama 8,837,000
5 Daily Thanthi 8,351,000
6 AmarUjala 8,255,000
7 Eenadu 7,233,000
8 Mathrubhumi 6,961,000
9 Rajastan Patrika 6,946,000
10 Lokmat 6,874,000
http://www.chronosphere.biz/IMO/36/dailies.htm
---------
My addn: Washington Post 700,000; 950,000 Sundays
USA today: 2,200,000
Times of India: 800,000
-------------------------------------

****TV:

In: E TV (Gujarati)
India TV (Hindi)
Sree Sankara

<!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:unsure:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How is Vijaya Karnataka (Kannada)? Been taken over by ToI, but still had article (Bhyrappa's) against missionaries...

[Guest]

<b>TV channels under House panel’s fire</b>
<i>Statutory regulations needed to curb media’s irresponsible behaviour’</i><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The committee of petitions, headed by M Venkaiah Naidu, tabled the report in the Rajya Sabha on Friday. It stated, “The committee is in favour of having statutory regulations in place — covering the print and electronic media, in the larger interest of the society — on the model of the Press Council of India vested with more powers.”

This observation came a day after several Elders criticised the television channels for the manner in which these had covered the Mumbai terrorist carnage. In fact, <b>CPM leader Sitaram Yechury remarked that the media was not “breaking news” but “breaking the unity of the country”. </b>He made these remarks during the debate in the Rajya Sabha on Mumbai attacks.

Participating in the same debate, JD(U) leader Sharad Yadav said the television channels had singled out politicians for the outrage, whereas the political class was the only institution that was accountable. “However, other institutions — like the <span style='color:red'>judiciary and bureaucracy — always got away and in the case of Mumbai, were indulging in blame game,”</span> he added.

Meanwhile, the parliamentary panel in its report stated that it “apprehends that the live footage shown by TV channels to the viewers could also have been used as free intelligence input by the perpetrators, who allegedly guided the attackers, sitting far away from the place of the incident.”

The report said the live coverage showing commandos being air-dropped “directly endangers” the success of operations and the safety of hostages as well as security forces.

“The committee expects the media to treat information of sensitive nature carefully and endeavour to ensure that the interest of nation and lives of security forces and hostages in such types of operations are not jeopardised by live telecasts,” it added.

The panel, however, noted that the live coverage was partially restricted later because of “some good sense prevailing with suitable advisories”. Needless to mention, self-regulation by media was otherwise not in place, it added.

“Self-regulation is an ideal situation but it may not be effective to regulate the media, particularly in the scenario of growing competition among the channels for supremacy in the business of ratings,” the committee stated.

“The committee is, therefore, in favour of having statutory regulations in place, covering the print and electronic media, in the larger interest of society on the model of the Press Council of India vested with more powers,” the report stated.
.........
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Babus should be punished, their jobs should be terminated, those who were involved in buying bullet proof jackets, buying guns, training Police, coastal guards.
Everyone should be punished, but now Babu is appointed as PM, don't expect anything.

[Bodhi]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>'The BBC cannot see the difference between a criminal and a terrorist'</b>

Sheela Bhatt in Mumbai | December 14, 2008 | 18:10 IST

The British Broadcasting Corporation, a state-sponsored but independently run, media organization has attracted sharp criticism for having "double-standards" in its coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks. Most times the BBC reporters referred to the terrorists who attacked Mumbai as "gunmen" or "militants".

Well-known thinker and editor-in-chief of Covert magazine, MJ Akbar has taken up the issue seriously. Since November 27, Akbar has refused to appear on BBC to speak about the Mumbai attacks.

Many British politicians have also taken up the issue with the BBC management. Steve Pound,a British Parliamentarian who represents North Ealing, has issued a strong statement against BBC's biased policy by saying that it was "the worst sort of mealy-mouthed posturing."

Akbar, had gone a stepahead and has written a strongly-worded e-mail to Richard Porter, head of Content, BBC World News. On December 6, Akbar wrote to Porter that, "I just want to let you know that after decades of friendship and association with the BBC, I refused to give an interview to the BBC over the terrorist outrage in Mumbai. The reason is simple: I am appalled, astonished, livid at your inability to describe the events in Mumbai as the work of terrorists. You have called them 'gunmen' as if they were hired security guards on a night out."

Akbar further argued that, "When Britain finds a group of men plotting in a home laboratory your government has no hesitation in creating an international storm, and the BBC has no hesitation in calling them terrorists. When nearly two hundred Indian lives are lost, you cannot find a word in your dictionary more persuasive than 'gunmen'.

Akbar articulated many Indian fans of the BBC when he said," You are not only pathetic, but you have become utterly biased in your reporting. Since we in India believe in freedom of the press, we can do no more than protest, but let me tell you that your credibility, created over long years by fearless and independent journalists like Mark Tully (I am privileged to describe him as a friend), is in tatters and those tatters will not be patched as long as biased non-journalists like you and your superiors are in charge of decisions. Shame on you and your kind."

Akbar's e-mail was not ignored by BBC. A courteous and very British response did arrive in his mailbox on December 11. Porter had argued that, "The guidelines we issue to staff are very clear-we do not ban the use of the word terrorist, but our preference is to use an alternative form of words. There is a judgement inherent in the use of the word, which is not there when we are more precise with our language. "Gunman", or "killer", or "bomber", is an accurate description which does not come with any form of judgement. However, the word is not banned, and is frequently used on our output-usually when attributed to people. I heard it being used on numerous occasions during our coverage from Mumbai." BBC staffers have guidelines which are a public document

Without going into specifics Porter claimed, "There is no inconsistency in the way the BBC has reported the attacks in Mumbai, compared to what we have done with events in the UK. If we are to be serious about upholding our policy, then we cannot make a distinction between events in any country."

In India most critics have pointed out that how BBC termed the July 7, 2005 attackers in London as "terrorists" without hesitation. While in case of Mumbai they used "gunmen" and at odd places "suspected terrorist."

However, Porter, journalist of 27 years standing, argues, "This policy is the opposite of bias...but it is a difficult one to uphold and is the subject of many discussions within BBC headquarters. Clearly we had the discussion once again in the wake of the Mumbai attacks--and comments like yours are taken very seriously by my editorial colleagues."

In short, the BBC wants its viewers and readers to use their own brains. Porter wrote, ' I believe those audiences can make their own mind up about the people who carried out the attacks in Mumbai and don't need us to give them any label to reach that judgement."

Obviously, Akbar has not accepted these arguments. After thanking "courteousness" of Porter's e-mail to him Akbar asked, " But your response does not answer my question: how does the BBC find it easy to define a terrorist when trains and buses in London are attacked, but must slide towards "non-judgmental" definitions when there is a blatant and murderous display of terrorism in Mumbai? Are you serious when you say that you leave it to audiences to make up their own minds? Then why did you not leave it to audiences to make up their own minds after 9/11? "

Akbar, wrote, "I assume the makers of BBC policies, such as they are, understand English. There is a clear distinction between gunmen and terrorists. Criminals use guns, and can be called gunmen; criminals use guns in the service of crime. Terrorists use guns and worse in the random killing of innocents in pursuit of a political agenda or personal agenda. The killers who came to Taj and Oberoi and the Chatrapati Shivaji railway station and a home where Jewish people lived, did not come to steal art, or railway property or money. They came with the declared purpose of murder and mayhem."

When Akbar was in London, the tabloids were full of headlines about young people being knifed. Akbar says , " that was crime committed by "knifemen". Al Capone was a "gunman" and I am sure the East End of your city once used to produce "gunmen" who committed crimes.

Akbar told Porter, " It is a shame that the BBC cannot see the difference between a criminal and a terrorist, and chooses in fact to protect the terrorist by giving him the camouflage of a criminal. This is not a matter of semantics.Terrorists are always happy to fudge the definition."

http://www.rediff.com//news/2008/dec/14mum...rror-attack.htm
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Separating the Terror and the Terrorists</b>
By CLARK HOYT December 14, 2008

THE PUBLIC EDITOR

WHEN 10 young men in an inflatable lifeboat came ashore in Mumbai last month and went on a rampage with machine guns and grenades, taking hostages, setting fires and murdering men, women and children, they were initially described in The Times by many labels.

They were "militants," "gunmen," "attackers" and "assailants." Their actions, which left bodies strewn in the city's largest train station, five-star hotels, a Jewish center, a cafe and a hospital — were described as "coordinated terrorist attacks." But the men themselves were not called terrorists.

Many readers could not understand it. "I am so offended as to why the NY Times and a number of other news organizations are calling the perpetrators 'militants,' " wrote "Bill" in a comment posted on The Times's Web site. "Murderers, or terrorists perhaps but militants? Is your PC going to get so absurd that you will refer to them as 'freedom fighters?' "

The Mumbai terror attacks posed a familiar semantic issue for Times editors: what to call people who pursue political, religious, territorial, or unidentifiable goals through violence on civilians. Many readers want the newspaper, even on the news pages, to share their moral outrage — or their political views — by adopting the word terrorist, with all its connotations of opprobrium. What you call someone matters. If he is a terrorist, he is an enemy of all civilized people, and his cause is less worthy of consideration.

In the newsroom and at overseas bureaus, especially Jerusalem, there has been a lot of soul-searching about the terminology ofterrorism. Editors and reporters have asked whether, to avoid the appearance of taking sides, the paper bends itself into a pretzel or risks appearing callous to abhorrent acts. They have wrestled with questions like why those responsible for the 9/11 attacks are called terrorists but the murderers of a little girl in her bed in a Jewish settlement are not. And whether, if the use of the word terrorist can be interpreted as a political act, not using it is one too.

The issue comes up most often in connection with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and to the dismay of supporters of Israel — and sometimes supporters of the other side, denouncing Israeli military actions — The Times is sparing in its use of "terrorist" when reporting on that complex struggle.

The reluctance carried over when the Mumbai attacks began. Graham Bowley, who was writing for a Times blog, The Lede, said, "I'm aware very much of the sensitivity around the word, so I knew they had to be 'attackers' " until the paper knew more. One of his editors, Andrea Kannapell, told me she was much more focused in the early hours on who the people were and what they were doing than on what to call them.

Readers like "Bill" were having none of it, and as Jim Roberts, the editor of the Web site, read their comments, he began to think they had a point. "Indiscriminately shooting civilians seems on its very face to be an act of terror," he said. How, Roberts wondered, could you separate the act from the actor?

He conferred with Kannapell, Paul Winfield, the news editor, and Phil Corbett, Winfield's deputy. Winfield talked with Ian Fisher, a deputy foreign editor. "Terrorist" became an acceptable term in the Mumbai story. "We jointly decided we didn't need to be throwing the word around flagrantly, but we didn't need to run away from it, either," Roberts said.

Ilsa and Lisa Klinghoffer, whose father, Leon, was shot and thrown from a cruise ship by Palestinian terrorists in 1985, wrote a letter to the editor asking why The Times was referring to Lashkar-e-Taiba, the shadowy group that apparently orchestrated the Mumbai attacks, as a "militant group." "When people kill innocent civilians for political gain, they should be called 'terrorists,' " the sisters said.

Susan Chira, the foreign editor, said The Times may eventually put that label on Lashkar, but reporters are still trying to learn more about it. "Our instinct is to proceed with caution, not rushing to label any group with the word terrorist before we have a deeper understanding of its full dimensions," she said.

To the consternation of many, The Times does not call Hamas a terrorist organization, though it sponsors acts of terror against Israel. Hamas was elected to govern Gaza. It provides social services and operates charities, hospitals and clinics. Corbett said: "You get to the question: Somebody works in a Hamas clinic — is that person a terrorist? We don't want to go there." I think that is right.

Ethan Bronner, the Jerusalem bureau chief, said, "Our general view is that the word terrorist is politically loaded and overused." But he said that sometimes, "when a person's act has been examined and its intent and result clearly understood, we call him a terrorist." Thus, a front-page story last July called a Lebanese man about to be exchanged for two dead Israeli soldiers a terrorist. The man, a fighter for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, had slipped into Israel nearly 30 years before and murdered a man and his 4-year-old daughter.

James Bennet, now the editor of The Atlantic, was The Times's Jerusalem bureau chief from 2001 through 2004. After his return, he wrote a two-page memo to Chira on the use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" that is still cited by editors, though the paper has no formal policy on the terms. His memo said it was easy to call certain egregious acts terrorism "and have the whole world agree with you." The problem, he said, was where to stop before every stone-throwing Palestinian was called a terrorist and the paper was making a political statement.

Bennet wrote that he initially avoided the word terrorism altogether and thought it more useful to describe an attack in as vivid detail as possible so readers could decide their own labels. But he came to believe that never using the word "felt so morally neutral as to be a little sickening. The calculated bombing of students in a university cafeteria, or of families gathered in an ice-cream parlor, cries out to be called what it is," he wrote.

The memo said he settled on a rough rule: He would use the words, when they fit, to describe attacks within Israel's 1948 borders but not in the occupied West Bank or Gaza, which Israel and the Palestinians have been contending over since Israel took them in 1967. When a gunman infiltrated a settlement and killed a 5-year-old girl in her bed, Bennet did not call it terrorism. "All I could do was default to my first approach and describe the attack and the victims as vividly as I could."

I do not think it is possible to write a set of hard and fast rules for the T-words, and I think The Times is both thoughtful about them and maybe a bit more conservative in their use than I would be.

My own broad guideline: If it looks as if it was intended to sow terror and it shocks the conscience, whether it is planes flying into the World Trade Center, gunmen shooting up Mumbai, or a political killer in a little girl's bedroom, I'd call it terrorism — by terrorists.

The public editor can be reached by e-mail: public@nytimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/opinion/...agewanted=print
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Shambhu]

http://sarvesamachar.com/click_frameset.ph...2008-11-13.html
As regards entry of religious bodies into broadcasting activities, TRAI has recommended that religious bodies may not be permitted to own their own broadcasting stations and teleports. This would be in conformity with the secular fabric of the Constitution. TRAI has, accordingly, recommended that the disqualifications as contained in the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting Bill, 1997 as regards disqualification of religious bodies may be incorporated in the proposed new legislation on broadcasting. However, such disqualification should not be construed to mean that religious contents in the broadcasting channels is to be disallowed. Such religious content should be in conformity with the appropriate content code or programme code as prescribed from time to time by the Government. In case permission has earlier been granted to such a religious body for a television channel, then the recommendations provide for an appropriate exit route within a time limit of three to four years to such religious bodies.

[Shambhu]

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/5997.html

Sri Sankara channel started Dec15

[Guest]

Heap of evidence to nail Pak lies

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->LeT terrorists Abu Hamza, Abu Kaza and Zarar Shah were in constant touch with the marine jihadis. Reports in the western media say that Zarar Shah has confessed that he had been in touch with the terrorists by phone as the 60-hour gunbattle raged in Mumbai.

According to investigating agencies, instructions were passed on minute-to-minute by the three from Pakistan after monitoring the Mumbai happenings on television. They were in touch with the attackers in Taj, Nariman House and Trident Oberoi.

The instructions were in Punjabi. Since they had the advantage of 24X7 TV coverage of the attack, they could even direct them to "lob the grenades" and "set the place ablaze" from their location in Pakistan.

Even the news of the killing of Hemant Karkare was relayed to them, but the LeT masterminds did not have any idea that he was the chief of the Maharashtra ATS. "You have killed the commissioner", was one of the messages.

The jihadis also had information about the operation by Marcos and NSG commandos as they were monitoring television news. They were also occasionally directed to have dates and even to take turns to sleep

...
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Husky]

http://hamsa.org/akbar.htm
Scroll down somewhat to get to:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Indian Media's War on Hinduism</b>
by Swami Jyotirmayananda

   1. The Indian media: Its adverse role
   2. The Indian media: Why it is partial
   3. Christian sponsorship of Indian media: An example
   4. Countering the propaganda unleashed by the Indian media<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>3. Christian sponsorship of Indian media: An example</b>

Here is a case study wherein the ‘Sify.com’, a major online Indian media outlet is working with ‘World Vision’, an evangelical body openly indulging in unabashed proselytisation with huge funds at their disposal for this purpose [Rs 256 crores this year according to Home Ministry records]. Details about Sify.com’s partnership with the ‘World Vision’, patently a missionary agency, are online at: sify.com/news/antichildlabourday/
<b>On this page, they are blatantly fundraising for them without informing the Indian public that they are missionaries. ‘World Vision’ also regularly advertises on Sify. It should be noted that the ‘World Vision’ has been implicated in induced conversions in Orissa and in Sri Lanka during the Tsunami.</b> Look at a quote from the World Vision's website regarding their “noble” mission: “Wherever we work, our prayer is that our efforts will be used by God to heal and strengthen people's relationships with Him and with one another. We do this by demonstrating God's unconditional love for all people through our service to the poor — which includes providing for daily needs, working to build peace and promote justice, and partnering with churches and individuals to encourage spiritual transformation.” <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->TOI and other christian-owned media in India have already been plastered with World Vision's adverts since some months at least now.


http://hamsa.org/world.vision.htm
<b>The truth about World Vision</b>

[Shambhu]

O ye disbelievers: Do you doubt the sagacity, brilliance, and General wisdom of the Effulgent One? Great is his IQ, even greater is his You Q. Trust in the Messiah that We have sent down, and ye shall be saved. For every hundred saved, twelve more shall be added. And they shall be called Interest. So has it been said, so shall it be done.

<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo-->


------------------------------------------------
Media Watch Kerala Focus Bharath Focus World Focus Communist / Cult Agenda Dharma Smriti Seva HK Special

<b>Hindus in Cyber World : Trends and Developments</b>
04/01/2009 12:17:13 HK Correspondent


According to much of the recent media reports after the Jihadi massacre in Mumbai, India is adrift being pushed around by our distracters and enemies. In the name of globalization, Islamic appeasement and pseudo secularism, cultural nationalism and news about Hindus are pushed out of the mainstream media. Our media, financed, managed and directed by vested interest groups from India and abroad provide no definite direction and overriding shape or plan for India. Hindus and our sacred spiritual culture are denigrated or presented in negative terms.

It is widely agreed that the starting point for the current Indian identity crisis is the medias manipulation, and the control of the TV and newspapers, as well as the movie industry by anti national mafia gangs.



In the midst of what could be considered largely politically determined trends in the media, several individual and organizations have launched websites to provide authentic information on our cultural, national and political events with a Hindu perspective.



The following websites provide the media coverage of the Indian political scene, cultural affairs and Hindu organizational activities . The reports and articles in these websites address debates and analyses from the field of current events, politics, religion and culture with a nationalist perspective.



Haindava Keralam readers are requested to browse through the following websites. They provide a well informed overview of current events, analysis, news and cultural issues with a Hindu perspective.



www.archivesofrss.org

www.hindujagruti.org

http://sites.google.com/site/hindunow/

http://dailypioneer.com/

www.jaia-bharati.org

www.vhp.org

www.hvk.org

www.hinduhumanrights.com

www.sarvesamachar.com

http://www.vijayvaani.com/

http://dailypioneer.com/


www.hinduvoice.co.uk

www.hinduvoice.net

http://www.christianaggression.org/

www.hinduunity.org

www.india-forum.com

www.newstodaynet.com

www.vivekajyoti.blogspot.com

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/

http://hinduvoicemumbai.blogspot.com/

www.hindustan.org

www.sookta-sumana.com

http://Offstumped.nationalinterest.in

http://indiaview.wordpress.com

http://pseudosecularism.blogspot.com

http://gurumurthy.net

www.HindusArise.com
www.offstumped.blogspot.com
www.Senthilraja.blogspot.com
www.stephan-knapp.com
www.intellibriefs.blogspot.com
www.sanghparivaar.com

http://nationalinterest.in/

http://varnam.org/blog/

http://www.vigilonline.com/

http://www.sabha.info/





Malayalam

http://janmabhumionline.net/

http://www.kesarionline.org/www/index.php

http://www.punnyabhoomi.org/cgi-bin/printEdition.cgi

http://kaanaappuram.blogspot.com/

http://www.koosism-exposed.blogspot.com/

http://marumozhy.blogspot.com/

http://poilkave.blogspot.com/

http://ahamkaram.blogspot.com/

http://pratishedham.blogspot.com/

http://keralaterrornews.blogspot.com/

If Readers submit further News Link under Comment Section, HK will add it to current list




http://www.haindavakeralam.com/HkPage.aspx...EID=7936&SKIN=M

[Shambhu]

http://www.sandeepweb.com/

Sandeep's oped in Pioneer about Hindu Holocaust and his Two Seminars piece.

[Shambhu]

Swami Ramdev’s spokesperson S K Tijarawala told TOI that the two 24-hour channels will be launched by April. One will explore Indian traditional and devotional music like bhajans and the other will propagate Indian culture through the learning of the Vedas.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/S...two_TV_channels

[Guest]

It is very much possible stupid anti-Hindu Congress Party will impose their version of "secularism" on this channel as they did with Astha and other channels.

[Shambhu]

^^

Yep, very possible..and now our secularists are in overdrive, trying to denigrate pro-hindu blogs, sites, papers, channels. What was the phrase..ah, "blogs spewing venom" ..sagarikaghoshuvacha.

[Guest]

We need like this for India:
http://news.muckety.com/

I had created a small text file making connections between several Indian media personality. Nothing earth shattering just the normal ones that we talk about. I was looking for a software to create such an user interface.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Swamy G+Jan 9 2009, 09:15 PM-->QUOTE(Swamy G @ Jan 9 2009, 09:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We need like this for India:
http://news.muckety.com/

I had created a small text file making connections between several Indian media personality. Nothing earth shattering just the normal ones that we talk about. I was looking for a software to create such an user interface.
[right][snapback]92864[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We had one on political criminal family of India -Gandhi-Maino-Nehru-Vadra.

[Guest]

Few weeks back, I spent some time and just noted down some of the relationships; some of the obvious ones that everyone knows.

______
Suzanna Arundhati Roy is Neice of Prannoy Roy (CEO of NDTV)
Prannoy Roy married to Radhika Roy
Radhika Roy is sister of Brinda Karat (CPI(M))
Brinda Karat married to Prakash Karat (CPI(M) - General Secretary)
CPI(M)'s senior member of Politbro and Parliamentary Group Leader is Sitaram Yechury.
Sitaram Yechury is married to Seema Chisthi.
Seema Chisthi is the Resident Editor of Indian Express
Burkha Dutt works at NDTV
Rajdeep Sardesai was Managing Editor at NDTV
Rajdeep Sardesai married to Sagrika Ghose

Dilip D'Souza was member of PIPFD
Teesta Setalva member of PIPFD
Teesta Setalvad married to Javed Anand
Javed Anand is General Secretary of Muslims for Secular Democracy { ?? }
Javed Akhtar is spokesperson for Muslims for Secular Democracy
Javed Akhtar married to Shabana Azmi

Karan Thapar owns ITV
ITV produces shows for BBC

Sandeep Pandey co-founder of Asha for education (ASHA)
ASHA endorsed by FOIL
PROXSA mothr-ship of FOIL
Dr. Angana Chatterjee part of PROXSA
Dr. Angana Chatterjee is married to Richard Shapiro
Richard Shapiro is Director and Associate Professor of the Grad. Anthropology Prgm at CIIS
Shubh Mathur co-wrote a letter with Angana on 'Humanitarian Crisis in J&K'
FOIL co-founder Biju Matthew
ASHA has association with AID
AID works with FOSA
FOSA started by a Muslim Pakisnai - Ali Hasan Cemendtaur.
Amitava Kumar associated with FOIL
______________

[Shambhu]

<!--emo&:bhappy--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_woot.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_woot.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:bhappy--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_woot.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_woot.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Jai Hind!

A Nationalistic portal from Poschim Bongol (WB)!!
http://www.eswastika.com/main.htm

<!--emo&:bhappy--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/b_woot.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='b_woot.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Karan Thapar owns ITV
ITV produces shows for BBC<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Karan Thapar's father was General Pran Nath Thapar COAS during 1962 war, when India lost under his watch.
Karan Thapar's Mama was married to Nayantara Sahgal, daughter of Vijayalakshmi Pandit . Later Nayantara eloped with someone.
Karan Thapar was very good friend of B. Bhutto and Zardari.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Karan Thapar's father was General Pran Nath Thapar COAS during 1962 war, when India lost under his watch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Didn't Gen Thapar loose his job in disgrace from IA.Reason Karan ran a witch hunt on TV last year collaborating with that Paki Gobar Khan's accusation of some moles in IA during '65 war - all to besmirch the good name of army.
(from vague memory - will edit this post if incorrect)


SwamyG: excellent list, please build on this - other's pitch in too. It's so easy to see the vested interest of these individuals.

Amar Singh's donated to Clinton's foundation - disclosed recently as part of the Clinton confirmation. WTF!! Amar Singh and Clinton!!

Dilip D'Souza's father was Cheif Sec of Maharashtra govt in 60s or 70s. After retirement started some business with those very same politicians he worked with.

Rahul Bose (lousy actor and even lousier blooger/writer) is brother-in-law of Khalid Ansari - editor of Mid-day, Mumbai.

Prof. KN Panikkar, Harsh Mander, Shabnam Hashmi - founders?/members of ANHAD



FOIL co-founder along with Biju Matthew is Vijay Prasad.... co-authors of attack on IDRF along with Angana Chatterjee. Coincidence?
ASHA endorsed by FOIL... ASHA was founded by California based "Ekta"something.
All these Ekta, FOIL, FOSA etc have opposed edits on California text books with support from Harvard Witzel. Court documents and disclosure has proved open collaboration between these entities and missionary groups like Texas based Dalit something run by some American women who resembles a tub of frozen lard.

We have seen the CA text book thread, Witzel and his buddies linked to Khalistanis and FETNA and Pakistani groups.


Check links between Narmada gig and Ford? (or was it Goldman) Foundation and you'll see a nice picture emerging.

[dhu]

Steve Farmer- ex-CIA.