The age of news has reduced in the digital media revolution. For smartphone holders, the morning newspaper is 70-80 percent stale. So an incident that took place 50 days before today is almost a part of history. But luckily or unfortunately this post is also the Truth era. This digital technology has also provided that weapon, with the help of which your past repeatedly stands in front of you.
About 50 days ago, senior journalist Punya Prasun Vajpayee had farewell from ABP News in unpleasant situations. On August 6, he wrote an article of about 3000 words highlighting the conditions of his departure, which was also printed on newslaundry. 50 days later, Punya Prasun gave a speech at a program of Committee Against Assault on Journalist. The things that were said in that article of Prasoon and the speech of 23 September are the words of two opposite poles. Here we will briefly compare those two situations, so that it is easy to say further.
What Were The Actions Taken?
Punya started her address this way- “There is absolutely no situation that anyone is being stopped from working.” We were not stopped. Manmohan Singh stopped at the time of Radia tapes but we showed. ”
Prasoon cuts himself badly in the very next sentence and creates a contradiction which suggests that there are many types of criticisms going on in his mind at the same time.
He said, “Sahara Papers came together with me and journalist Jozi Joseph. We did a sting operation. The left man was also taking money in it. Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dixit was also taking money and BJP people were also taking money. But that sting did not work. ”
Instead of completing this logic logically, he left it unconnected and jumped on a new thing. Obviously some questions arose from this. After all, why did his channel not run the sting, which he was claiming to do? Was there any political pressure or transaction working behind it? Obviously the answers to these questions can create unpleasant situations. But if no sting operation is carried out then it is a form of censorship. Know what is the definition of censorship of Prasoon.
Shortly after this, he said even more contradictory things, which is completely opposite to his own saying.
He said- “Do not take any illusions. We neither had pressure in Zee News, nor was there any pressure in Aaj Tak, neither in ABP News, nor in Sahara nor in NDTV. ”
There is a simple question on this, so why are they having to wander channel by channel? Here, a part of the article of Prasoon which he wrote after his departure from ABP would be appropriate.
“… the changing nature of the channel or the way the news was served encouraged the proprietor and editor-in-chief, but they were also telling that everything should go on and Prime Minister Modi’s name should not be there?” … After a long discussion, the directive came that the name of Prime Minister Modi is not to be taken on the screen of the channel anymore… So the picture of Prime Minister Modi should not be known in the ‘masterstroke’, his order will also come before 100 hours have passed. This thought did not go away, but it came to the fore. ”
The things said in Kot-Ankot are taken from the article of Punya Prasun Vajpayee itself. But now he says that there was no pressure on him? We leave it to our readers to decide which statement of Prasoon they want to trust and whom to reject.
Severe mental agitation
The subject of the session in which Prasoon was speaking was “Censorship and Surveillance”. It is evident that most of the speakers spoke in the same range. The same was expected from Prasoon. He started his talk with the same subject but in the middle he went completely off-track and then he gave a glimpse of the jump from one topic to another-
“You say there is constitution, I say no. You say there is democracy. I say no. When Emergency is mentioned, how does JP call upon the youth to fill the jail. Even in Morarji’s era, there was demonetisation. Even then a lot of things were said. The same is happening today. It is the largest audit company in the world which audits the Indian government as well as the ruling party. Recently he was told that an entry of Rs 350 crore has to be shown. There was mention of mining mafia. From Sonbhadra to Rajasthan, the entire country has been transformed into a business model. Congress has formed the manifesto committee. Including Kamalapati Tripathi’s great-grandson … ”
Wrapping so many subjects in one note, the virtues again come on surveillance and censorship. He says, “This surveillance and censorship is unimportant. This used to happen even during Indira’s era. ABP News has a picture of many politicians on its doorstep. It also has a picture of the ruling leader. So his picture should look good, for this he also calls. ”
At the end of this sentence, he stopped himself. He probably realized that his last sentence was going against his first sentence. What can a person who can call for his good picture do for bad news against him? See what Prasun himself has written on surveillance in his old article.
“… For this drug does not come down, a monitoring team of 200 people was put in place by the Ministry of Information of the Modi government. The entire work started under the Additional Director General of the Ministry of Information. Who would give direct report to the Minister of Information and Broadcasting. And the 200 people who monitor all the national news channels of the country would be at three levels. A team of 150 people monitors only, gives 25 monitored reports a form of government-friendly, and the remaining 25 finalists review the content of the monitoring. On this report, three deputy secretary level officials of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting prepared the report and the final report was sent to the Minister of Information and Broadcasting. Through which the PMO i.e. the Prime Minister’s Office would be active and keep giving the guidelines to the editors of the news channels, what to do, how to do it. ”
In such clear words, Prasoon had assumed that after this monitoring, the government gives directions to the editors of the channels. The bundle of contradictions of Prasoon was so great that it would greatly increase the weight of this article. Attention of people on web media spam is so low that it is not appropriate to put that much burden on the readers. At one place he says, “Journalists repeatedly raise questions that they cannot ask questions to this government. I say why we have to ask questions to the government. Our job is to keep the situation among the public. Why should we ask the government. Are we leaders? ”
That is, the journalist should not question the government. Now 50 years ago, see what Prasoon had written in his farewell article-
“BJP spokespersons do not come in political discussions on news channels. This start on ABP started from the last week of June. That is, BJP spokespersons stopped coming to the discussion. Two days later, BJP leaders stopped giving channels to the channel, and since the day Prime Minister Modi’s heart of truth was shown in the masterstroke, since then, his ideologues associated with BJP as well as RSS have also come on the ABP news channel. Stopped. ”
If journalists should not ask questions to the government, then the representatives of that government should not come to your program, why was the sadder crying for it?
This is a period in which the credibility of journalists is touching its lowest ground. Channels like Times Now, Republic TV, Zee News have fixed their roles as the government’s horns. We are going through such an extraordinary time where journalism has decided to question the opposition rather than the government, to set the opposition in the dock. Brokers, institutions, news traders, etc. are the new names of the media. This reversal of Prasoon must have given sufficient strength to those forces.