Journalist

Text size:
A-
A +

New Delhi: Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Ashraf Haidari, denounced a BBC social media correspondent on Sunday over the journalist’s comments on violence in Afghanistan.

“The Taliban are closing in on a number of Afghan towns, launching major military assaults on them… but at least from what I’ve seen, they don’t seem to be using suicide cars – previously a favored tactic. … Are they withholding this until September? Or just stop them? (sic) ”, Secunder Kermani, BBC correspondent in Pakistan and Afghanistan for four years, posted in a tweet.

Haidari replied: “A typical BBC journalist, hardly daring to adhere to the basic principles of balanced journalism …”. “Referred to as the State which owns this enterprise”.

A typical BBC journalist, barely daring to adhere to the basics of balanced journalism, which a) would report Taliban victims by 100 per day, b) foreign madrasas that brainwash young people and send them to die and destroy, and c) name the State owner of this enterprise. https://t.co/WGIjXv2gyD

– Ambassador Mr. Ashraf Haidari (@MAshrafHaidari) August 1, 2021

Since the United States and its allies began withdrawing troops from Afghanistan last month, there has been an upsurge in violence in the region as fighting between the Taliban and Afghan security forces escalated. . No less than 2,000 civilians have been killed since April 14 and 2,200 injured.

The Taliban also captured several districts, including Takhar, the northeastern province of Afghanistan, and seized key border crossings.

Read also : India has the right to wait until the Taliban are visible. No need to rush into an “Afghan strategy”

BBC presenter and chief international correspondent Lyse Doucet responded to the ambassador by distinguishing social media from journalism.

“Thank you for following the BBC coverage. Please don’t judge us on very short tweets that can’t say the same. We are all trying to get as much information as possible. Thank you for your contribution, ”she said.

Thanks for following the BBC coverage. Please don’t judge us on really short tweets that can’t say the same. We all try to get as much information as possible. Thank you for your contribution.

– lyse doucet (@bbclysedoucet) August 1, 2021

To this, Haidari said, “In today’s world of instant information sharing, very few care about the link in the tweet but what the tweet itself reports.”

Amid the recent violence, Taliban negotiators who held peace talks with the Afghan government attempted to project a “softer” image of the group by promising that girls can go to school and that women will be allowed to go to school. work when they come to power.

In early July, a statement allegedly issued by the Taliban ordering villagers to marry their daughters and widows to the group’s infantrymen was shared on social media.

Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesperson for the group, denied issuing such a statement. “These are baseless claims… These are rumors spread using fabricated papers,” he said.

(Edited by Manasa Mohan)

Read also : The Taliban in Afghanistan have not changed. Just ask women

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and Telegram

An Associated Press photojournalist was beaten by officers in Communist Cuba while covering freedom protests over the weekend.

While capturing footage of the protest against the Havana regime, Ramon Espinosa was accosted by Cuban police on Sunday and left bloodied.

Photos of fellow journalists captured the attack, Business Insider reported:

PA photographer Ramon Espinosa can be seen in a photo taken Sunday by AFP photographer Adalberto Roque grappling with a policeman as he is surrounded by a group of people.

Another photo, also taken by Roque, showed Espinosa with wounds covering his face and a camera still in hand. Roque wrote that Espinosa was “attacked” by police during the protests.

Cubans took to the streets on Sunday to protest against the repressive Communist regime, demanding their freedom.

The New York Times called the protests “amazing”.

“In a country notorious for suppressing dissent, the rallies were widely viewed as astonishing,” the Times report said. Activists and analysts said it was the first time that so many people have publicly protested against the Communist government since the so-called Maleconazo uprising, which exploded in the summer of 1994 in a huge wave of Cubans leaving the country by the sea.”

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a Cuban-American, spoke about the protests on Monday, highlighting the failure of socialism and communism.

“In 62 years of Communist tyranny on the island of Cuba, we have never seen, never have been, which is now up to 40 towns in which people have taken to the streets so organic, unorganized, grassroots, to demand an end to this tyranny, ”Rubio said.

“The first lesson we must learn from this is that Marxism, socialism, do not work,” said the senator. “The way socialism, the way Marxism has always worked, the way it has always empowered itself, is that it goes to the people and immediately divides them. He says there is a class of oppressors and there is this class of victims and these evil oppressors, the capitalists, in the case of socialism or traditional Marxism, they oppress the victims.

“Socialism and Marxism have done in Cuba what they have done everywhere in the world where they have been tried,” said Rubio. ” It’s a fail. He failed. They either gave up their freedom, or they were told, “Give up your freedom in exchange for a world-class health care system.” It is not a world class health care system. In fact, it’s a healthcare system that doesn’t even have the capacity to deal with COVID at its very basic level. “

“[The Cuban government] says, ‘Give up your freedom for economic security.’ What economic security? People are hungry; houses are collapsing, “continued the Republican.” There is no economy. There is no real economy in Cuba. “Give up your freedom and you will have an education. Free education for all. This education, number one, you are a doctor. You can drive a taxi in Cuba and earn more money. Or number two, you are sent, forced, to go abroad and work mostly on a salary. slave, no wages – hardly any wages at all. “

Related: Massive Protests Break Out in Cuba As Citizens Call for End to Communist Dictatorship: “We Want Freedom!

Related: America’s Far Left Is Silent As Cubans Call For Freedom From Communist Dictatorship

The Daily Wire is one of the fastest growing conservative media companies in the United States and a counter-cultural media for information, opinion and entertainment. Get inside The Daily Wire by becoming a member.

Awkward BBC reporter confuses Bill Cosby with Bill CLINTON as she reports artist release from prison – forcing Huw Edwards to issue embarrassed apology to viewers

• BBC News presenter Huw Edwards reported on Bill Cosby’s release from prison
• But journalist Michelle Fleury confused the artist with President Bill Clinton
• Edwards was then forced to apologize for the on-air blunder
• Cosby, 83, had his sexual assault conviction overturned due to a violation of his self-incrimination right

By William Cole For Mailonline

Posted: 01:11 BST, July 1, 2021 | Update: 08:33 BST, July 1, 2021

It’s the awkward moment a BBC reporter mistakes disgraced comedian Bill Cosby for Bill Clinton live on air.

Journalist Michelle Fleury was reporting on the artist’s shock release from prison – but accidentally referred to the former US president instead.

The huge blunder forced BBC News presenter Huw Edwards to apologize to viewers for the blunder.

It came just hours after Cosby, 83, was allowed to return home just two years after his 10-year sentence for sexual assault due to legal technicality.

Journalist Michelle Fleury was reporting on disgraced artist Bill Cosby’s shock release from prison – but accidentally referred to former US President Bill Clinton instead

In the video, news anchor Huw Edwards introduces Ms Fleurry, live from Philadelphia, Pa., To give the latest update on Cosby’s conviction overturned.

But in her opening sentence, she manages to confuse the comedian with a former commander-in-chief.

“Huw, the past two years, that’s where Bill Clinton called home,” she said, gesturing to a state correctional facility behind her.

She continues: “But tonight he will sleep in his own bed after the explosive decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to overturn his sexual assault conviction on the grounds that his 5th Amendment entitlement – that is, the right not to self-incriminate – has been violated. “

The huge blunder forced BBC News presenter Huw Edwards to apologize to viewers for the blunder

After finishing the report, the camera returns to a frightened Edwards in the studio who is forced to quickly apologize.

“Just to clarify what was said in Michelle’s introduction to the story, when she mistakenly said Bill Clinton instead of Bill Cosby, we apologize for the mistake,” he said. .

“The story is of course about Bill Cosby the artist.”

Ms. Fleury, a BBC reporter for 23 years, generally covers American economic and economic news.

The misidentification was quickly spotted on social media, with one person writing: “Clarification I didn’t expect to hear on @BBCNews tonight, apologies for reporter confusion between Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton. “

Another added: “This mistake on the BBC with them referring to Bill Cosby as Bill Clinton will have conspiracy theorists foaming at their mouths.”

Cosby was released on the grounds that a former prosecutor had promised him he would not be charged in 2005 and instigated him to incriminate himself.

The 83-year-old sent a peace sign to news crews as he returned home after being released from prison in Pennsylvania, hours after the court overturned his conviction.

He then tweeted: “I have never changed my position or my story. I have always maintained my innocence.

“Thank you to all of my fans, supporters and friends who supported me during this ordeal. Special thanks to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for upholding the rule of law. #BillCosby ‘

The decision to free Cosby – once known as the “Father of America” ​​- has “shocked and disgusted” his accusers.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahman called the decision “mind-boggling”, adding: “It is extremely rare”. It is unprecedented.

Edward Mortimer, who died at the age of 77, had several high-profile careers, as an academic, author, journalist and UN official, where, as director of communications, he was the speechwriter for Kofi Annan from 1998 to 2006, and had a great influence on the leadership style of the UN Secretary-General.

He was born on December 22, 1942 in Burford, Oxfordshire, the family home. He was the son of Robert Mortimer, who served as Bishop of Exeter for almost a quarter of a century. There were four children, the youngest of whom, Kate (1946-2008), was as formidably intelligent as her brother – three of them, including the eldest, Mark, graduated from Oxford Firsts. Friends remember the Latin jokes and Greek epithets on cornflakes at the Episcopal Palace.

After Summerfield Preparatory School in Oxford, he went to Eton as an academic and then to Balliol College, Oxford, in 1962, where he graduated in 1965 with a first commendation in history, winning an All Souls scholarship. This year’s prize until 1972. He was fluent in French, having spent a year before university volunteering in Senegal, teaching English in a high school.

To Balliol, said his friend Lord Patten of Barnes (Chris Patten), “he was the brightest of us, and not just an intellectual, but a good person.” In the summer of 1965, the two (and another pair of Balliol) received Coolidge Atlantic Crossing Awards, also known as the Pathfinder Fellowships, endowed by Balliol graduate Bill Coolidge, a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, which consisted of in a generous amount of cash and American Express and Hertz credit cards.

They stayed with alumni of Balliol, including Coolidge, and intended to drive around America, although Mortimer left for Salt Lake City to enter the All Souls’ Prize Fellowship competition.

In France, as a junior reporter at the Paris office of The Times, Mortimer covered the events of May 1968, publishing copies not only on the student uprising but also on the declining years of President de Gaulle. He succeeded in drawing from the experience a learned and very readable book, La France et les Africains, 1944-60: une histoire politique (Faber & Faber, 1969).

The Times editor-in-chief recruited Mortimer to its team of editors in 1973 as a specialist in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern affairs, in which he was increasingly interested. This showed in his next book, Faith and Power: The Politics of Islam (1982), mainly on the Islamic revolution in Iran, but also on the politics of the Arab world, in which he brought scholarship, clarity and common sense to these Questions.

In 1984 he published a book on the rise of the French Communist Party, when the phenomena of Eurocommunism in Italy and Gorbachev’s perestroika had drawn his critical attention and detached his sympathy.

Sir Geoffrey Owen, editor of the Financial Times, was looking for a chief foreign affairs expert, and in 1987 he appealed to Mortimer, whose appointment, Owen said, “brought authority and experience [that] dramatically improved our game in international business.

He stayed with the FT for 11 years, writing a signed column as well as many leaders. Particularly noteworthy was his series on the “fault lines” of European borders, where the historic break-up of the Roman Empire left factions and national minorities with unresolved disagreements and grievances.

In a series of tweets on June 8, Virginia Heffernan, a columnist trained at Harvard to The Los Angeles Times, wrote: “Real estate listings should include the prevalence of gun ownership within a 50 mile radius and the number of annual mass shootings in the area. It’s time to change what a “bad neighborhood” is. In follow-up tweets, she added: “… and introduce a significant tax on guns and gun violence. No one should say “this is a great place to raise kids” in neighborhoods where even one person has an assault rifle. “The idea is to take” race, class [and] politics out of the real estate equation.

There are so many flaws in this piece of lopsided idiocy that it’s hard to know where to start. Perhaps the most neutral point is to consider the implementation of its new approach to “bad neighborhoods”.

Heffernan’s “gun ownership measure” calls for disclosure not just for a particular neighborhood, but for every location within a “50 mile radius.” Using Los Angeles as a base, the 50 mile zone would include the cities of Long Beach, Santa Ana, Anaheim, Glendale, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Pomona, Torrance, Rancho Cucamonga, Garden Grove, and dozens more. The real estate disclosure in Washington, DC is expected to cover several sensitive federal facilities (including the White House, ATF headquarters, and the Pentagon) as well as cities in neighboring Maryland and Virginia. Is it realistic or relevant?

Another problem (even assuming that this information would never need to be updated) is how the “prevalence of gun ownership” in a given area would be determined. There is no national gun registry or federal license required to own a gun. While a recent request regarding Hunter Biden is a reliable indication, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) says he is prohibited from disclosing his records under the Freedom of Information Act where “the subject of the request for records is a third party and a private citizen ”, unless the individual has authorized the disclosure or“ the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the personal interests of privacy ”of the individual.

Many states protect their own records of firearms licenses, permits and the information they contain, and criminalize the disclosure of these records to anyone other than law enforcement or other authorized personnel engaged in law enforcement. specific official functions. Real estate agents, potential homeowners, or ordinary snoopers can’t scan public records to see if authorized people are keeping firearms nearby.

Expecting voluntary disclosure to make this weirdo proposition work is fancy in the extreme. Criminals – the class most exposed to gun violence – are as likely to comply with voluntary disclosure requests as they are with existing mandatory gun laws (and therefore are unlikely to appear on a property card of firearms owners). Those in legal possession of firearms may have their own good reasons for not wanting to disclose this fact, not least of which are the distorted value judgments of people like Heffernan. (Heffernan, in case you forgot, wrote a column in February comparing her Trump-friendly neighbors to Hezbollah mafias and Nazi sympathizers because the “Trumpites” had the nerve to clear an alley for her, in telling him “Free aisle work, as though it is, is just not the same motto as justice and truth.”)

More fundamentally, Heffernan’s proposal ignores the fact that in America the freedom to exercise constitutionally protected rights does not depend on the approval of its neighbors or the opinions of (what passes for) the media. information.

In addition to the practical and legal shortcomings, Heffernan’s tweets expose his contemptuous assumptions that all gun owners are immoral or at least undesirable (“it’s time to change what a ‘bad neighborhood'” is) , as are all firearms, even legally owned ones (“No one should say ‘this is a great place to raise kids’ in areas where even one person has an assault rifle”). Less obvious is the underlying argument for universal gun registration, the usual end game for gun control activists, as the success of his proposal depends entirely on identifying the owners of guns. guns in a given location. With such a program in place, how long will it be before gun owner areas face Heffernan’s “significant gun tax” or other forms of gun tax? financial penalties for this gun control version of redlining?

Heffernan’s assertion that his idea takes “race, class [and] politics outside the real estate equation “crumbles given his response, detailed in his February column, to the” Trumpites next door. “Owners of weapons or not, they do not deserve” absolution. ” for the offense of having supported the elected president. Heffernan makes the banal observation that “[l]Loving your neighbor is obviously much easier when your neighborhood is full of people like you. As a record number of Americans choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights and acquire firearms, we predict that it will become increasingly difficult for her to find a place where she can wholeheartedly love her. like-minded neighbors.

Edward Mortimer, who died at the age of 77, was the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator from 1987 to 1998, speech editor Kofi Annan, former UN secretary general from 1998 to 2006, and distinguished fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.

Journalist, author, scholar and international civil servant, Mortimer managed to combine an extraordinary variety of careers, with a cohesive theme that bound them all: he had a passion for defending human rights and protecting minorities, resolving conflicts and the promotion of better understanding between countries and communities.

He was a political activist who had previously run as a candidate for the European Parliament and as a Liberal Democrat for Oxfordshire County Council. He was also a committed Christian, although he never wore his religion on his sleeve.

Mortimer’s father, Robert, was Bishop of Exeter, and he grew up in a highly intellectual family. A young visitor remembers quotes from Latin literature spread over the breakfast table in the Episcopal Palace. He could easily have become a full-time scholar, having been one of the top scholars in history at Balliol College, Oxford, winning a first-class congratulatory diploma, followed by the scholarship award to All Souls.

“The first thing people think of Edward is how smart he was,” said Lord Chris Patten, a longtime and contemporary friend. ” It was true. He was by far the smartest of our generation. But he was much more than that. He was a good, decent, sympathetic, generous guy, with sane views on almost everything.

He was also intensely curious. A year volunteering in Senegal before college gave him a mastery of French and a fascination with the dirt and dust of the real world, including all the issues of decolonization. He left academia and became a journalist.

His first job was as a junior reporter at the Paris office of the Times newspaper, covering the dramatic events of the May 1968 student revolt in Paris. He kept his connection to All Souls and found the time to write a scholarly but eminently readable book on France and Africa after filing reports on student riots and President Charles de Gaulle’s years of decline.

In 1973, he was persuaded by William Rees-Mogg to join the leading writers of The Times in London, commonly known as the “College of Cardinals”, where his university education suited him well.

Over the next decade he wrote a seminal book on the politics of Islam, Faith and Power, centered on the Islamic revolution in Iran but also encompassing the Arab world. His writing combined scholarship and experience, a rigorous attention to story with a journalist’s ability to illuminate a story that many readers find opaque.

It also caught the attention of the FT, whose editor-in-chief Sir Geoffrey Owen was looking for a foreign chief commentator. In 1987 Mortimer joined the FT. “He brought authority and experience [which] dramatically improved our game in international affairs, ”said Owen.

His tall figure and gray hair, gentle humor and generous willingness to listen to any argument combined with a determination to pay attention to human rights and conflicts; these turned out to be an addition to the document’s natural emphasis on global finance and economics. One of his major projects was a series of reports on the “fault lines” of European borders, where the ancient borders of the Roman Empire had left unresolved friction between national minorities.

After writing another book on the rise of the French Communist Party in 1984, he was fascinated by the rise of Eurocommunism in Italy, just as Mikhail Gorbachev was launching perestroika in the Soviet Union.

After 11 years at FT, he was persuaded to start a new career at the UN, as Annan’s speechwriter.

Mark Malloch-Brown, who became Annan’s chief of staff, was skeptical of the appointment. He expressed doubts that “this very intellectual and cerebral journalist, a member of All Souls, would be a good match. [for Annan]”.

He was wrong. “It was a wedding made in heaven,” he said. Mortimer has managed to adapt his prose – always a model of clarity – to the seemingly informal and African vernacular of the secretary general in a low voice.

Jean-Marie Guéhenno, head of UN peacekeeping at the time, said he brought more than keen intelligence to the UN. “I think he contributed a lot to Kofi Annan’s unique style of leadership: he had a capacity for indignation, which is rare in the UN, but his deep sense of ethics was never authoritarian nor condescending. He was a modest man with a passion for ideas, and Kofi Annan’s speeches reflected that.

After leaving the UN, Mortimer became Senior Vice President and Program Director of the Salzburg World Seminar, bringing his passion for human and minority rights advocacy to the conference circuit.

He was also rapporteur and lead author of a report on “freedom and diversity” for the Council of Europe, focusing on issues of the integration of immigrant communities in the rich countries of Europe and America. North. The lessons he learned about the importance of citizenship in promoting integration and the need to treat religious beliefs with special respect remain extremely relevant today.

He returned to All Souls, the great love of his university life, where he still did not hesitate to argue. In a sermon in the college chapel in 2016, he dared to broach the subject of “contested historical legacies in the public space”. In the case of All Souls, that meant focusing on the academic wealth inherited from Christopher Codrington, a hugely successful slave owner. He dared to suggest that the college consider some form of reparation.

Mortimer is remembered in all his different incarnations as a human, tolerant and above all generous man. He was always curious to listen to others and delighted to mentor young journalists. He was funny and a great imitator.

It was anything but dry and dull. He will be sadly missed by his wife Elizabeth (Wiz), daughters Frances and Phoebe, sons Horatio and Matthew and seven grandchildren.

When a top reporter leaves a news agency, the rest of the team goes into a kind of mourning. The length of time they remain seated depends on the destination of the almost disappeared.

If the reporter finds himself in a larger, more profitable, and more prestigious store, his former colleagues may experience hopeful joy. Maybe the same will happen to them.

More often than not, the great reporter leaves the newspaper for another type of work, if not better, at least safer.

The talents of top reporters are in great demand. Pick your field: Marketing, Public Relations, Advertising, Public Information, Education, Technology, the Wide World of Nonprofits, Healthcare, Law, Fundraising, Government at All Levels.

If you have a good sense of the news, if you can think critically, if you are good at in-depth research, if you can inhabit social media. … Hey, I’m making it too complicated: if you can read, think, write and speak, you might not find yourself in the job you thought you wanted, but it just might be the job you have. now need a job that portends a happier life.

I recently followed a conversation on Twitter, in which an ace journalist announced her departure from a news agency. She loved her job and her colleagues, but felt her struggling journal was no longer able to maintain a productive work environment. Feeling overworked and underpaid was part of a larger feeling: that the world and the work you once loved was wasting away.

This feeling of atrophy is one of the ways in which individuals experience the larger existential crises that journalism faces. As a business, journalism has suffered the devastating loss of resources due to the collapse of its business model – advertising money – amplified by the disruption of the Internet and the growth of social media.

Who will pay for quality journalism in the future? Many experiments are under way, but no one has the answer. The loss of news and editorial power has left communities – entire states – undercover, depriving citizens of the information they need to make good decisions about their lives. Some places are so exhausted that they have been labeled as topical deserts.

But that’s only half. The other half of the existential crisis involves vicious attempts to decertify the press, to dismiss it as biased and unethical, to turn its reputation as a responsible watchdog into an enemy of the people. The act of blaming the messenger for delivering bad news is old, but in the modern world its effect has been to make the practice of journalism more daunting and sometimes dangerous.

So reporter Sam goes to law school. And off she went reporter Sally to work at the local college public information office. And off you go reporter Buffy to become a vampire slayer. The talk on Twitter about these movements is regretful and, in a way, regrettable. It is as if the journalist had abandoned a priesthood, was no longer a member of the tribe, had gone to the dark side. Often, this judgment is expressed, half jokingly, by the journalist who is about to walk through the door.

When I left the academy in 1977 and entered the newsroom, such stories were expressed as a kind of morality game. Journalists presented themselves as champions of the public good, controlling corrupt power, exposing secrets that citizens needed to know. The obstacles to doing this good job, in the eyes of journalists, were those in charge of public relations or public information. In the words of the former city editor, they were flacks.

The history of this term is revealing, if a bit speculative.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines “flack” as “a publicist, a publicist,” someone who at the time could promote a Hollywood film. Sometimes flacks created “publicity stunts” to highlight a project or a celebrity. (I learned this from watching countless episodes of “I Love Lucy.”)

But “flack” is also a spelling variant of “flak”, defined as “exploding shells fired from anti-aircraft artillery”. The word has developed a secondary and informal meaning: “excessive or abusive criticism”. Even today we could say, “I’m getting so much criticism because of this email I sent.”

The connection seems logical and lexical: it is the job of the public relations manager to catch criticism, that is, to protect the interests of the company and its leaders from criticism, and to mitigate the effects of bad news, when such called hatchet work is repelled by public relations work.

If this is your take on public relations, no wonder Jedi journalists are wondering if they have moved on to the dark side.

How sad, how narrow, how counterproductive. This is the story we keep telling ourselves, and if we were to tell it to a shrink, the good doctor would help us understand that it is a story that makes us sick and harms the public good.

What if we changed the story? What if we imagine that the journalist, the mayor’s speech writer, the public school grants editor, the hospital public information officer, were in fact members of the same tribe?

Let me name this tribe: Public Writers.

What do all public writers do? They collect important information. They check. They decide what is more important or interesting. They point it out. Along the way, they tell fascinating stories. They write on purpose for specific audiences.

Ah, I hear the cynics cringe in the valley of the shadow of death: But PR people do it for different reasons than journalists, and to protect different interests!

In their autobiographies, journalists see themselves as their main loyalty to the public. A common story of courage is when a journalist, blocked by an editor or publisher, shares a damning report with a rival news organization. This is supposed to be different from the person in charge of public relations, whose main loyalty, it is said, is not to the public but to the employer.

But the motivations of many individual journalists are less pure than they would admit. Journalists want scoops and surveys that will advance their careers. They work for companies that will keep a lot of secrets when it is in their best interests.

This is what I see: The curse is a blessing in disguise. The migration of good journalists to other fields increases interest in the welfare of important institutions. I know a lot of these “old journalists”, and they didn’t leave their skills and values ​​behind. They use them every day for the public good.

I want you to imagine how many writing workshops I have conducted for journalists over the past four decades, and how much I have learned from them. I honor these journalists and editors every day as champions of community and democracy. I have worked with news organizations in 40 states and on five continents.

Because the skills of journalists are widely appreciated, I have been asked to share writing tools with many non-journalistic organizations. These are schools at all levels of education. But they also include businesses, nonprofits, law firms, and government agencies. The list includes the World Bank, Microsoft, Hilton, NOAA, Disney, IBM, HHS, AAA, United Nations, to name a few of the most important.

Never has a workshop participant asked me: how can I hide things from journalists? Or how can I say this without actually saying it? Or how can I shift the blame from our business?

No, they asked me the same questions trusted journalists did: How can I tell better stories? How can I make the facts harder to read more easily? How can I make important things interesting? Can I still use semicolons?

Let me offer perhaps a crude analogy. During the 1960s and beyond, many Catholic men and women in religious life – priests, brothers, nuns – left their sacred orders, some to marry, others to exercise professions in the secular world. We spoke of the “loss” of these people who had “abandoned” their vocation.

But they didn’t. They have continued to serve the Church in countless ways, helping it enter the modern world, and instilling professions – including journalism – with a sense of mission and purpose.

What if we created a new organization – call it XJ (for so-called ex-journalists). We would provide these pilgrims with the moral support and continuing education they need to accomplish their mission – not as flack hunters – but as supporters of the public good.

How do you get people vaccinated? We need to get the message out about vaccine safety, availability and effects. Who is responsible for getting this message across? Journalists and other media leaders, of course. But also government officials at all levels, epidemiologists and other scientists, pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies, churches and civic organizations, as well as supermarket chains that make vaccines available.

In other words, not a small tribe of journalists. But a large tribe of public writers, of which journalists are essential members.

This article was originally published on June 1, 2021.

Text size:
A-
A +

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday overturned the sedition case filed against senior journalist Vinod Dua in Himachal Pradesh.

The verdict was delivered by a bench led by Judge UU Lalit on Dua’s motion to quash the case against him in connection with a video uploaded to YouTube last year. In the video, Dua criticizes Narendra Modi’s government’s handling of the Covid-19 lockdown.

The court relied heavily on the principles set out in Kedar Nath in awarding Dua relief.

The court said that the veteran journalist’s statement “if read in light of the principles emanating” from the judgment and “having regard to the circumstances in which they were made, can at best be characterized as an expression of disapproval of the actions of the judge. government and its officials so that the prevailing situation can be dealt with quickly and effectively ”.

The 1962 Kedar Nath judgment confirmed the constitutional validity of the sedition law in India. However, she said that freedom of expression, discussions on government functioning issues and their criticisms, and press freedom are “essential for the proper functioning of popular government processes.”

The court also said that every journalist will be entitled to protection under the judgment.

“However, it should be made clear that every journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh, as every prosecution under Articles 124A (sedition) and 505 (publication or circulation of rumors) of the IPC must be strictly in accordance with the scope and scope of said sections as explained in, and completely in accordance with the law established in Kedar Nath Singh, ”he ruled.

Prosecuting Dua for the alleged offenses would violate his rights to freedom of speech and expression, the court ruled.

Thursday’s verdict comes days after another Supreme Court ruled to review the interpretation of the sedition law, particularly in light of media rights and freedom of expression.

Read also : “Satisfy the conscience of the court”: when SC requested a situation report in the sedition case against Vinod Dua

The case of Vinod Dua

Judge Lalit’s bench dismissed Dua’s appeal to prevent state police from recording sedition cases against any media staff with 10 years of experience unless cleared by a committee composed of the president of the high court of the state or a judge appointed by him, the leader of the opposition and the minister of the interior of the state.

To allow such a plea would encroach directly on the domain of the legislature, the court said.

Dua had approached the court in May last year after Himachal Pradesh police asked him to join the investigation into the case which was registered on the basis of a complaint by the head of the BJP Shyam at Kumarsain Police Station in Shimla District.

In his complaint, Shyam alleged that Dua, in his video, accused Prime Minister Modi of using “deaths and terrorist attacks” to obtain votes.

According to the first news report, Dua, in his YouTube program “The Vinod Dua Show”, made statements that could have incited community hatred and led to a breach of the peace and community discord.

On June 14 of last year, the highest court protected the journalist from any coercive action in this case. However, he refused to suspend the ongoing investigation, asking Dua to join the investigation via video conference or online.

The judiciary reserved its verdict on October 6.

Read also: “Instrument of harassment”: Editors Guild condemns FIR against journalist Vinod Dua

Argument against sedition

Dua’s attorney, lead attorney Vikas Singh, challenged the charges and invoked the right to free speech and expression in his defense. He argued that as a journalist, Dua had the right to criticize the government.

“Sedition is committed when you incite violence, when you incite public disorder, but where is it then? Singh had submitted.

“Government allows public participation and this is a fundamental characteristic of a democratic country. Without it, no one will prosper if people don’t come out and share their views, ”he said.

In addition to asking for the FIR to be quashed, Dua, in the plea, also sought exemplary harassment damages.

He also asked the Supreme Court to order that no FIRs be filed against journalists with at least 10 years of seniority, unless authorized by a special panel made up of the Chief Justice of the High Court of the state or a judge appointed by him, the leader of the opposition. and the State Minister of the Interior.

A court ruling from the highest court on migrants also called the situation “alarming”

The judiciary also referred to an order from the SC, passed on March 31, on a PIL filed as part of the migrant movement after the national lockdown was imposed last year.

The ordinance, he said, also presented it as an “alarming situation” and “the magnitude of the problem which required that approximately 6,66,291 people be accommodated and 22,889,279 people to eat”.

He then spoke on Dua’s show on the same issue, which aired a day before the SC’s order, and said it was clear that large numbers of migrants were heading to their towns and villages. natals.

“Under the circumstances, there would naturally be some apprehension about the shelter and food to be provided for them en route,” the court said.

Recognizing his right as a journalist, the court added that Dua was not spreading false information or rumors.

“… it would be within his rights to say that as a journalist he was addressing issues of great concern so that adequate attention could be given to current issues,” he said, noting that the migrant movement had started long before Dua’s death. the show has been downloaded.

“The situation was definitely alarming around March 30, 2020 and as a journalist, if the petitioner showed some concern, could it be said that he committed the alleged offenses,” the court noted.

Dua also received a good blow for libel charges. During the hearing before SC, the state attempted to raise charges against Dua that were not specifically set out in the FIR. These concerned the violation of the Disaster Management Act and section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, which is used to prosecute someone who violates a government order.

The state had alleged that Dua’s talk show was against two state administration orders that prevented citizens from spreading false alarms. The court also dismissed these charges.

(Edited by Manasa Mohan)

Read also : Indian citizens and media have been sufficiently terrorized by the sedition. SC must end it now

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and Telegram

Sign up for the Swampscott Reporter newsletter.

“60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl described the first time she saw a career as a journalist as an eye-opening experience.

The Swampscott native was 25 and worked as a researcher for New York City Mayor John Lindsay’s speechwriter. The speech-writing team’s office resided in a town hall boiler room not far from where reporters wrote and archived copies.

“One day I went to a guy in the press room and I said, ‘What are you doing all day?’ Stahl recalls in a recent interview with the Swampscott Reporter. “And when he finished telling me what he did: covered the mayor – I just said, ‘Wow, how come nobody told me? [journalism]? ‘ It was like discovering a brave new world. I thought, ‘This is amazing.’ ”

She added: “And I was determined from that minute to be a journalist. I had no idea how to go about it. I didn’t know what skills were needed.

Today, some 55 years later, Stahl is one of America’s most trusted and experienced broadcast journalists with a distinct body of work marked by countless political scoops, exclusive interviews, reporting specials, surveys and foreign reporting.

She has won just about every broadcast journalism award: 13 Emmy Awards, including a 2003 Lifetime Achievement Emmy for Overall Excellence in Reporting, an Edward R. Murrow Award, an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Silver Baton, among others.

On “60 Minutes,” Stahl conceived, wrote and broadcast nearly 570 segments over the air.

The breadth and variety of topics are too many to list, but range from investigating a black market for buying babies in Romania to unprecedented access to Guantanamo Bay prison facilities in the United States.

April 14, 2021 marks the 30th anniversary of his first segment as a “60 Minutes” correspondent, according to CBS News. Founded in the 1960s, “60 Minutes” is the network’s flagship show known for its serious, hard-hitting investigative journalism.

Growing up in Swampscott

Stahl’s father, Lou, grew up in Peabody, his mother, Dorothy, in Boston. The couple actually met on a beach in Swampscott. They later get married and move into a house on Allen Road in Swampscott, where they raise their two children: Lesley and Jeff.

Although she has many memories of Swampscott, Stahl said she often cried when she thought of the city. All members of his immediate family are deceased. She sold the family home of Little’s Point after her brother died in 1999.

“It makes me really sad,” said Stahl, who lives in New York City with her husband, author Aaron Latham. “I miss it. I miss smelling the salty air… I’m stuck in Humphrey Street thinking of the Surf Theater across from Fisherman’s Beach – and I’m like, ‘Wow, that was a long time ago. ”

Stahl loved his friends not only in Swampscott but also in neighboring communities: “Swampscott and Marblehead were kind of a thing,” she said.

“I remember when I was young: driving all the way to Boston was a big deal,” she said. “We had to go over a drawbridge, so we weren’t even a suburb at the time. ”

Lou Stahl worked in the family business and his mother was a housewife. Her father was very civically involved in more than one way, from helping to found the Center communautaire juif de la Côte-Nord to devoting time to causes focused on serving seniors.

“My father was very involved in local politics,” she said. “He was fighting for what was going on in town. ”

His father was “a liberal from Massachusetts”; her mother was “very conservative,” so the Stahl children grew up in what one might consider a purple household.

“I remember they had vicious arguments about Stevenson versus Eisenhower – very big ones,” Stahl said. “Whoever was speaking – I’d be okay with that, so if my mom said anything, I’d be there shaking my head.” And then my dad would say, ‘Oh, wait a minute.’ ”

He would make his point and she said she would think, “Oh, that makes sense” as her head shook in agreement.

“And you know, I guess it was only natural that I became a journalist, isn’t it?” ” she said. “I have to be somewhere in between, listening to both sides.”

Stahl is a member of the 1959 class at Swampscott High School. She holds a BA in European History from Wheaton College, after graduating from Norton, Massachusetts College of Higher Education in 1963.

“I loved college,” she says. “I loved what I studied.”

Stahl said it was important for her mother that she pursue a suitable profession. She actually envisioned architecture before settling on a doctor’s trail. To prepare for medical school, she enrolled at Columbia University for graduate studies in zoology.

Why zoology?

“I needed to take my science lessons. I hadn’t taken too much from Wheaton, ”she said. “When I got there, I hit a wall. I was really unhappy.

A pioneering career

Stahl said she received some helpful advice from an NBC News executive while working as a researcher and editor for the London TV network in 1968.

“He said, ‘Do you think you’re going to start at the top? Go find a job downstairs and go upstairs. It’s the only way to get a job as a journalist, ”she recalls.

While she’s won just about every broadcast journalism award, Stahl is no stranger to rejection: Wire services, the New York Times, and the Boston Globe have all turned her down. In London, she approached American outlets without success.

“That’s when I decided to return home to Boston,” she said.

She got a job as a producer at WHDH-TV, a CBS subsidiary in Boston.

“I was there for six months and built a reel,” she said. “This is what I would use to apply to networks.”

This reel earned her a job as a general assignment reporter on CBS in Washington, DC. She arrived in the 1972 presidential election. The television network put its seasoned reporters on the campaign trail.

The news bureau would credit Stahl with a seemingly small story that turned out to be an explosive and promising story: the Watergate robbery. His thorough and relentless reporting of the 1972 break-in to President Nixon’s 1974 impeachment hearings earned him a solid reputation among political journalists. (She once followed President Nixon’s attorney into the men’s bathroom for answers.)

“I know my reputation,” she told Sky magazine. “I am tenacious, relentless, but I have a soul.”

She eventually became CBS News’ White House correspondent – the first woman to hold the network’s coveted position – in the early 1980s. She covered the Carter and Reagan presidencies and the first two years of George WH’s presidency. Bush.

Stahl would also inherit “Face the Nation,” CBS News’s public affairs program, which airs on Sunday mornings. She changed the format of the TV show to adopt what she said still exists today – where the moderator interviews – not three guests at a time but one.

“I noticed that everyone wanted their own questions. There was no time to follow up, ”Stahl said. “A guest could filibuster long enough until the topic changes.”

An in-depth one-person interview provided Stahl with follow-up opportunities if political guests dodged tough questions. Between 1983 and 1991, Stahl interviewed Margaret Thatcher, Yassar Arafat, most American officials, Vice President Dan Quayle among other foreign and domestic actors. She moderated the Sunday show while simultaneously covering the Oval Office during the regular week.

“Drop me off in paradise”

In 1991, Mike Wallace, a veteran reporter for “60 Minutes,” called Stahl unexpectedly.

“And he said, ‘It’s hush, hush: you can’t tell nobody, but if I asked you to come to ’60 Minutes’, would you take it?'” Stahl recalled in an interview in ” Archive of American Television. “” It was a shock to me. ”

While she had watched an article on “60 minutes” for a long time, she had given up on that prospect. After Wallace called, she was in agony for months.

“I waited and waited. Nothing happened, “she said.” It was a dream that I had suppressed. ”

She called Wallace back.

“I told him, ‘It won’t happen,’” she told him. “He said, ‘Just be patient. It will happen.

A few days later, she was invited to audition to join the “60 Minutes” team.

“It happened just at the right time for me,” she said. “I felt like a big hand from heaven had risen and gloriously ripped me off and dropped me off in heaven.”

KARACHI: Professor Syed Mateen-ur-Rehman Murtaza, a veteran journalist and former chairman of the Department of Mass Communication at the University of Karachi, was laid to rest in the university cemetery on Tuesday.

He died Monday evening as a result of surgery. He was 80 years old.

His funeral prayers were offered after Zohr at Masjid-i-Ibrahim, which was attended by a large number of university professors, his relatives and friends.

He is survived by a widow and three daughters.

An excellent Urdu prose writer, Professor Murtaza was best known for his rational, daring and analytical editorial writings, especially for the daily Jasarat and later the weekly Takbeer during the Ziaul Haq regime.

Professor Murtaza had migrated from East Punjab to Pakistan. He recalled his childhood memories of migration – during which he and his younger brother were separated from the family – in a booklet titled Me Ne Pakistan Bante Dekha. Its second edition is currently being published.

His other book is Sir Syed Ka Nazaria-i-Sahafat Aur Doosre Mazameen.

He joined KU in 1972 and served as Chairman of the Mass Communication Department from 1988 to 1991. As a committed teacher and head of the department, he helped train many students to become journalists who serve. now various public and private media organizations.

One of his major contributions to journalism was the translation into Urdu of at least 15 textbooks for English language courses, which are currently part of the curriculum of the mass communication department of different universities. In 1970 he joined Jasarat from Multan and then started working in Karachi. During this period he remained largely engaged in editorial writing.

“His independent and forceful views earned him the wrath of the Bhutto government, which shut down the newspaper several times and imprison Salahuddin Shaheed, the newspaper’s editor,” recalls Professor Tahir Masood, former chairman of the mass communication department. of the KU, adding that Professor Murtaza and the late Salahuddin were intellectually close to each other.

“This strong relationship became evident when Salahuddin Shaheed quit his job when Professor Murtaza was sacked by the administration, arguing that as editor of the newspaper he was responsible for what is published. They became one under Takbeer, a widely read weekly at the time, launched on March 23, 1984. ”

After retiring from KU in 1999, he laid the groundwork for the mass communication department at Jinnah University for Women and then Jamia-tur-Rasheed. Other journals he wrote for included Mashriq, Hurriyat, and Islam.

He also represented Pakistan at the United Nations and was the speechwriter for Nawaz Sharif during his first term.

“Ethical and moral values ​​were at the heart of his life and he taught us to sacrifice everything for your conscience, your beliefs and your freedom of expression,” said Professor Masood.

Dr Fauzia Naz, the current chair of the KU Mass Communication Department, also a student of Professor Murtaza, said: “He was both a great human being and a teacher. He helped me explore my hidden potential for which I would always be grateful.

Posted in Dawn, le 17 March 2021