Homepage Badaga Community Forum Index FAQ Search Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in Register
Badaga Community
Welcome to Badaga community forum
View next topic
View previous topic
Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
shalinisugumaran
Occasional poster


Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:44 am Reply with quoteBack to top

VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE .....

Who owns the media in India ?

Let us see the ownership of different media agencies.

NDTV: A very popular TV news media is funded by Gospels of Charity in Spain Supports Communism. Recently it has developed a soft corner towards Pakistan because Pakistan President has allowed only this channel to be aired in Pakistan . Indian CEO Prannoy Roy is co-brother of Prakash Karat, General Secretary of the Communist party of India . His wife and Brinda Karat are sisters.


India Today: which used to be the only national weekly which supported BJP is now bought by NDTV!! Since then the tone has changed drastically and turned into Hindu bashing.


CNN-IBN: This is 100 percent funded by Southern Baptist Church with its branches in all over the world with HQ in US.. The Church annually allocates $800 million for promotion of its channel. Its Indian head is RajdeepSardesai and his wife Sagarika Ghosh.


Times group list: Times Of India, Mid-Day, Nav-Bharth Times, Femina, Filmfare, Vijaya Karnataka, Times now (24- hour news channel) and many more... Times Group is owned by Bennett & Coleman. 'World Christian Council does 80 percent of the Funding, and an Englishman and an Italian equally share balance 20 percent. The Italian Robertio Mindo is a close relative of Sonia Gandhi.


Star TV: It is run by an Australian, who is supported by St. Peters Pontifical Church Melbourne.


Hindustan Times: Owned by Birla Group, but hands have changed since Shobana Bhartiya took over. Presently it is working in Collaboration with Times Group.


The Hindu: English daily, started over 125 years has been recently taken over by Joshua Society, Berne , Switzerland .. N. Ram's wife is a Swiss national.


Indian Express: Divided into two groups. The Indian Express and the New Indian Express (southern edition) ACTS Christian Ministries have major stake in the Indian Express and latter is still with the Indian counterpart.


The Statesman: It is controlled by Communist Party of India.


Asian Age and Deccan Chronicle: Is owned by a Saudi Arabian Company with its chief Editor M.J. Akbar.


Gujarat riots which took place in 2002 where Hindus were burnt alive,
Rajdeep Sardesai and Bharkha Dutt working for NDTV at that time got around 5 Million Dollars from Saudi Arabia to cover only Muslim victims, which they did very faithfully... Not a single Hindu family was interviewed or shown on TV whose near and dear ones had been burnt alive, it is reported.

Tarun Tejpal of < <http://tehelka.com/>Tehelka.com regularly gets blank cheques from Arab countries to target BJP and Hindus only, it is said.

The ownership explains the control of media in India by foreigners . The result is obvious.

PONDER OVER THIS. NOW YOU KNOW WHY EVERY ONE IS AGAINST TRUTH, HOW VERY SAD.

LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN TO EVERYONE.
View user's profileSend private message
sathish_water
Frequent poster


Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 130

PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 4:31 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Nice piece of info ... icon_cool.gif icon_cool.gif
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger
shalinisugumaran
Occasional poster


Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:24 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Thank you sathish icon_smile.gif ... Political parties started using media for themselves and utilise it for their own selfish ends.

There is an old saying that "money is the mother's milk of politics" , but in this post-modern age information is no less. Politics, money and the media are intertwined in the most unlikely situations, especially because of the power of information to fashion reality.
View user's profileSend private message
l_santhosh
Frequent poster


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:19 am Reply with quoteBack to top

One of the challenges of our modern internet era is the availability of tonnes and tonnes of information. It is a challenge because if the info is not dissected and analysed for veracity, consequences could be damaging.

More often than not, agencies with a hidden agenda propagate false info.
And sometimes, facts are true. But the truth is given such a spin that the unsuspecting reader will fall for it...thereby falling prey to the specious agenda.

When such articles are published, we would do well to analyse the nature of the source. And when they are copy/ pasted, the article's source should be mentioned.

I'm not disputing the facts of this article. Perhaps they are true. But neither am I accepting them as true...unless I know the source of each of the given facts. But I can bet that none of the facts mentioned are from SciAm!! icon_rolleyes.gif

Assuming that all are true, what is the motive of this article ?
It is not explicitly mentioned...rarely will it.
But the subtle fissiparous message is sent across as clearly as it possibly could.
Any unsuspecting reader will fall for it...and will end up having a bias towards "others".

So ask yourself "what is the motive" when you read something.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteYahoo Messenger
l_santhosh
Frequent poster


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:21 am Reply with quoteBack to top

You've mentioned it, Shalini:
Quote:
the power of information to fashion reality.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteYahoo Messenger
shalinisugumaran
Occasional poster


Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:52 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Well Santhosh..

Coming to ur first point about internet..tonnes and tonnes of information is posted in the internet by ppl like you and me.

This article is copy/pasted to share everyone's view,i never asked anyone's debit/credit account details to fall into the prey.

some x,y ,z is owner of this topic,im not forcing you to accept this,all topics posted in this forum is only for discussion so lets discuss and analyse ???

Of course,dont assume things,share your views so that it will be useful to
unsuspecting readers (like me ).i would really appreciate if you explain your views in detail.

Main motive of this topic is to discuss and analyse not to waste our
precious energy on gossips.

Always there are three sides in a conversation.
--> your side,
--> my side &
--> RIGHT SIDE.
View user's profileSend private message
nagulanjoghee
Starter


Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 16

PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:13 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Hi Shalini,
Good info. You seem to be collecting a whole lot of useful infos. Keep going .. The analysis comments are also too good. By the way.. I met N.Ram while me and Auntee were returning from Dubai in the Bangalore Airport. I had a chat with him for about 5 minutes. It was nice when he started talking to me in Tamil. It was a good experience. I am really addicted to The Hindu for the past 35 years, particularly The Hindu Crosswords.
God posting.. continue

Nagulan Uncle
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo MessengerMSN Messenger
l_santhosh
Frequent poster


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:21 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Ok Shalini,
Any article or a piece of writing is intended to either:
1. entertain or
2. inform or
3. affect your thought(convince you to buy a product or support a cause).

(1) in isolation is pretty harmless.
(2) in isolation is useful.
(3) cannot stand in isolation. If I tell you: 'Buy a Merc', you will not. I have to explain the brand's features, the cost, etc. to convince you to buy it. So I have to use (1) and/ or (2). But I'm affecting your thought. That's (3).

If you agree with that, tell me the intention/ motive of this article 1, 2 or 3.
BTW, I'm not doubting your motive. We are discussing the original author's motive behind this....or for that matter any written piece.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteYahoo Messenger
shalinisugumaran
Occasional poster


Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:20 am Reply with quoteBack to top

WOW !!! Thats Great uncle you met Narasimhan Ram..Conversation in Tamil ! (im impressed) icon_exclaim.gif .

Thanks for your comments uncle ..i love SUDOKU than crosswords.
View user's profileSend private message
shalinisugumaran
Occasional poster


Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:25 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Hmmm Santhosh..

Any article or a piece of writing is intended to either:

1)Suggest a specific solution to the problem.
2)Explain who caused the problem for unsuspecting readers.
3)Persuade the reader that there is a problem.
4)Explore the problem in detail to unsuspecting readers .

So now you decide the number for this article?

If you suggest me to get a 'MERC',Obviously you should explain its features and i'll not be convinced by your suggesstions alone so i have to discuss or analyse the same with my friends.its not going to affect my thought at any cost if i have analysed and discussed.

If any article is titled "Best dolls for 3 year olds", you could talk about the safety issues.If there are any hidden dangers, tell your visitor(me). This is a way to build trust so that THEY TRUST YOU.If they trust you, they are more likely to buy one of the toys you recommend.

If you think this particular doll(ARTICLE) that has button eyes that come off too easily, explain your visitors that the doll could pose safety issues for those under a certain age. Make a recommendation for a Barbie doll instead. It is perfectly acceptable to buy a Barbie Doll .

This is a way of funnelling or discussing about any "written piece".
and trusting your judgement because of the quality,discussion,features.
i will buy a pink Barbie doll.

If they are not, then it will be very difficult for your visitor to buy anything.
This is the difference between targeted traffic, and non-targeted traffic.

Alright santhosh,i perfectly agree with your defnition of an "article"(good one).

share your views lets discuss. icon_smile.gif
View user's profileSend private message
l_santhosh
Frequent poster


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:08 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Ok fine, Shalini. Let me come your way.
As per your classification, the article comes under (3): persuade the reader that there is a problem.

(A problem for me need not be a problem for you. Therefore, what the author calls a problem is only his view/perception. We have to objectively analyse the merits of the author's argument).

Do you agree it is (3)? What next? How would you like to proceed?
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteYahoo Messenger
shalinisugumaran
Occasional poster


Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:36 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Okay i agree.Yes,defnitely (3). icon_smile.gif

AGREEMENTS GET BETTER RESULTS THAN ARGUEMENTS !

Lets analyse the merits of the author's argument.
Go ahead and proceed the way you wish so that i can continue.. icon_smile.gif
View user's profileSend private message
l_santhosh
Frequent poster


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:24 am Reply with quoteBack to top

You are shrewd!! icon_exclaim.gif
Anyway...so the author is telling there is a problem: media ownership by foreigners that results in everyone being against truth .
Is that logical?
"media ownership"..."everyone"..."truth"
There is nothing which connects these logically.

Here is a parallel!! (Assume that I'm an American).
""" Citibank chief is an Indian, Vikram Pandit. Pepsico chief is an Indian, Indra Nooyi. The guy who is heading the $700b bailout effort is an Indian. There are many more Indians at various levels in America Inc. This is dangerous. In a few years, Indians will be ruling the whole of the USA(already an Indian by the name Bobby Jindal has been elected Gov of Louisiana). """

Anyone can pick facts and cook them up where needed to suit their motives.

Okay, coming back to the main discussion - is it logical?
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteYahoo Messenger
shalinisugumaran
Occasional poster


Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:53 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Santhosh,Very very nice continuity to move ahead... icon_smile.gif

So,why it is not logical?
"media ownership"..."everyone"..."truth"
justification please?

it is logical...
CM's of MP's has donated 50 lakhs for press club. Why such payments??? Media is purely a business by industrialists whose main objective is to black mail people and to interfere in the private life of people. It black mails govt and the most important thing is this they are least loyal to any one.

Now the reporters (not everyone) have also started black mailing people.
Same ,shame and shame raise to any number.

The media is being financed by foreign funds and the media in reality belongs to dons and not with the right thinking people. Foreign dons are funding for the same. icon_rolleyes.gif

Mr.American icon_cool.gif ,i really understand you are so much bothered about your country..Yes,Vikram pandit,Indra nooyi,Neil kashksri(if im right) and Bobby jindal acheivements in US are truly remarkable..

your country is no more super power..may be India will be the next superpower provided everything in india is orderly arranged... icon_question.gif
View user's profileSend private message
l_santhosh
Frequent poster


Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 143

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:46 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Your question "So,why it is not logical?" reminds me of something my friend and I laugh about all the time.
When asked in an interview "What are your strengths?", he answers "Tell me what are not my strengths."(thereby questioning and confusing the interviewer).

LOL. icon_biggrin.gif

So, here we need to understand "what makes a logical argument".
BTW, I'm no professor to explain all this. Perhaps there are wiser people who are reading this who are more knowledgeable in explaining it. But these are what I've learnt in a few reasoning classes.

Here is a cliched method of explaining this.
1. I love everything that is red in colour.
2. There is a red shirt.
3. Therefore, I love the shirt.

(3) is the argument (or called the conclusion ).
I want to prove that I love the shirt...because that is what I'm arguing for.
How do I prove it?.
I must use (1) and (2).
Both (1) and (2) are called facts .
Facts are statements that can be verified/ checked.

The grass is green.(This is a fact...because one can verify that).......and it is true.
The grass is blue. (This is also a fact...because one can verify that)..and it is false.

If the facts are false, the conclusion will not hold. Read this again.
1. I love everything that is red in colour.
2. There is a blue shirt.
3. Therefore, I love the shirt.

Does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?
No, it does not. Certainly, it does not.
That is what we call a poor/incorrect/false argument.

The "red shirt" example is a logical argument.
The "blue shirt" example is an illogical argument.
The same logic extends to all and sundry.
Basically, the facts have to be true and the argument should be valid.

Coming to the media stuff, first of all, the facts given must be true. Then, the argument should be valid.

We will take it forward. But are you clear thus far? Or you want to fight over something? icon_wink.gif
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's websiteYahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:       
Post new topic Reply to topic

View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB All times are GMT - 7 Hours