4 ms·

I don't see why it is a bad thing. I did not weigh any positives & negatives, but in India, TV needs to be properly censored. Many political parties have their

I don't see why it is a bad thing. I did not weigh any positives & negatives, but in India, TV needs to be properly censored. Many political parties have their own News Channels where they twist facts and make own party a hero. There is an example of Sakshi in Andhra Pradesh. This really needs an attention. And I think by brining TV into PCI, I guess he is trying to attempt to scrub bogus self-promotion of political parties. Please tell me why this would wrong?

pionar 14y ago
If you ever find yourself saying the words "x needs to be properly censored", you should get a bad taste in your mouth. I would.
potatolicious 14y ago
> "Many political parties have their own News Channels where they twist facts and make own party a hero." Your response to this would be to put everyone's speech in the hands of a select few who can filter and pick as they see fit?
madhadron 14y ago
We have news channels in the US which twist facts and make their own party a hero as well. One thing you won't find us calling for is censorship. Censorship for "someone's own good" doesn't work in practice. Work on education instead.
- tehwalrus 14y ago
  We don't in the UK, because we have complicated impatiality laws (if you mention a candidate in an election, you have to mention all the others, and you can have broadcast licenses revoked for being biased - I'm simplifying, but it's a real law. Some students at my old university radio station nearly got the MW license revoked for being dismissive/rude about candidates that they didn't like, and not mentioning everyone.) On the other hand, we have a rabidly partisan print media instead, which is now moving onto the internet (daily mail, guardian, etc).
kumarm 14y ago
>>There is an example of Sakshi in Andhra Pradesh. The other leading paper eenadu in AP is accused of projecting another leader for decades. (In fact Sakshi was started to counter the propaganda) :)

pionar 14y ago

If you ever find yourself saying the words "x needs to be properly censored", you should get a bad taste in your mouth. I would.

potatolicious 14y ago

> "Many political parties have their own News Channels where they twist facts and make own party a hero." Your response to this would be to put everyone's speech in the hands of a select few who can filter and pick as they see fit?

madhadron 14y ago

We have news channels in the US which twist facts and make their own party a hero as well. One thing you won't find us calling for is censorship. Censorship for "someone's own good" doesn't work in practice. Work on education instead.

tehwalrus 14y ago
We don't in the UK, because we have complicated impatiality laws (if you mention a candidate in an election, you have to mention all the others, and you can have broadcast licenses revoked for being biased - I'm simplifying, but it's a real law. Some students at my old university radio station nearly got the MW license revoked for being dismissive/rude about candidates that they didn't like, and not mentioning everyone.) On the other hand, we have a rabidly partisan print media instead, which is now moving onto the internet (daily mail, guardian, etc).

kumarm 14y ago

>>There is an example of Sakshi in Andhra Pradesh. The other leading paper eenadu in AP is accused of projecting another leader for decades. (In fact Sakshi was started to counter the propaganda) :)