| |
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON May 23, 2013 AT 15:07 IST
,
Edited At: May 23, 2013 15:07 IST
If you want to read only one piece on IPL today, make it a point to read this one by Mukul Kesavan, writing in the Telegraph: Much ado about nothing
The uproar about the IPL following the ‘revelations’ about S. Sreesanth and his erring teammates threatens to become farcical...
N. Srinivasan, the BCCI president, is a special target for dead-ender venom. Everything he does is designated nefarious. The fact that he is in charge of the BCCI and the owner of an IPL franchise is deemed a wicked conflict of interest. When Srikkanth wore two hats, one as the chief selector of the national team and the other as brand ambassador for the Chennai Super Kings, the franchise owned by Srinivasan, journalists sang the conflict-of-interest ditty like a theme song. Srinivasan’s decision to make Dhoni a vice-president of India Cements Ltd, a company he happens to own, apparently compounds this conflict-of-interest problem. This carping has got to the stage where not even a man’s business is his own business, if you see what I mean.
If men are known by the company they keep, Mr Srinivasan is in very good company; Anil Kumble has had exactly the same problem with sanctimonious critics. India’s greatest bowler, its most pugnacious captain, a man who has a traffic landmark in Bangalore named after him, had his integrity called into question merely because he started up a player management company at the same time as he became president of the Karnataka State Cricket Association.
Read the full article at the Telegraph: Much ado about nothing
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON May 23, 2013 AT 15:07 IST, Edited At: May 23, 2013 15:07 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Oct 22, 2012 AT 03:59 IST
,
Edited At: Oct 22, 2012 03:59 IST
Ashok Malik in the Asian Age:
In April 1992, Mushirul Hasan, then pro-vice chancellor of Delhi’s Jamia Milia Islamia, gave an interview to Sunday magazine in which he called for lifting the ban on Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses. “The banning of the book”, Mr Hasan said, “or any book for that matter, rarely helps. On the contrary, it lends the book greater notoriety”. The interview caused a storm. Students and teachers at Jamia protested. Mr Hasan was prevented from coming to work. When he attempted to do so after a prolonged period, he was beaten up. In reality, he had fallen victim to a Congress clique that wanted to “recapture” Jamia from academics allegedly affiliated to the CPI(M).
One of the Congress instigators was Mr Khurshid, then deputy minister for commerce. In The Book on Trial: Fundamentalism and Censorship in India, Girija Kumar writes: “(Khurshid) made the extraordinarily outrageous statement that the liberals like Prof Mushirul Hasan ‘should be willing to pay the price of a liberal’”. A CPI(M) statement of the time was categorical: “It is highly unfortunate that certain minority fundamentalist forces are being aided and abetted by certain Congress (I) leaders, including some ministers like Salman Khurshid”.
In his book, Kumar wonders why Sunday “interviewed a number of Muslim politicians and intellectuals on the subject of The Satanic Verses”. There was “much speculation about the reasons… to revive the dormant controversy”. In his report on the Jamia Milia incidents, Justice M.M. Ismail, who otherwise criticised Mr Hasan, too considered the Sunday article, Kumar writes, “as motivated, and ‘an attempt at deliberate adventure’”. Was the article calculated to provoke a reaction? Only the person who wrote it can clarify. It carried the by-line of Louise Fernandes.
Read the full article at the Asian Age: Khurshid & MaCaulay
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Oct 22, 2012 AT 03:59 IST, Edited At: Oct 22, 2012 03:59 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Oct 14, 2012 AT 18:44 IST
,
Edited At: Oct 14, 2012 18:44 IST
For those who came in late, the backgound:
Dr Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust, an NGO run by law minister Salman Khurshid and his wife Louise Khurshid, has been at the centre of many allegations of financial misappropriation and forgery that have been refuted by the law minister and his wife.
Arvind Kejriwal, sitting on a protest at Parliament Street police station, has been demanding Khurshid be arrested for alleged misappropriation of funds from the Ministry of Social Justice by his trust, quoting a CAG report which alleges “misappropriation of a grant of Rs 71.5 lakh, interest of Rs 15.49 lakh thereon and the irregular release of a further grant of Rs 68.25 lakh”.
According to the report, on the basis of recommendations of the Uttar Pradesh government, a grant-in aid of Rs 71.5 lakh was sanctioned to Dr Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust Delhi, as a non-recurring grant in 2009-10 for distributing aid and appliances under a scheme to be implemented in 17 districts across Uttar Pradesh.
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Oct 14, 2012 AT 18:44 IST, Edited At: Oct 14, 2012 18:44 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Oct 02, 2012 AT 23:58 IST
,
Edited At: Oct 02, 2012 23:58 IST
Javed Anand recently wrote in the Indian Express: On the other side of fear:
Yet there is something new and refreshing in the air. Read the statements of religious and political leaders as well as editorials and letters to the editor in Urdu newspapers. Take, for example, a letter by a Saudi Arabia-based Indian, Abdul Rehman Mohammed Yahya, published simultaneously as a boxed/lead letter in the Monday editions of three Urdu dailies in Mumbai: Inquilab, Rashtriya Sahara and Sahafat. The gist of the long letter is a rhetorical question addressed to fellow Muslims: “What did Prophet Muhammad do in the face of repeated insults heaped on him during his lifetime?” The answer: he forgave them.
It is a universal Muslim belief that the prophet never retaliated to repeated insults to him, through either word or deed. In fact, he taught his followers that “the wounds of words hurt more than the wounds of swords”. In other words, Muslims who hurt others through word or deed do violence to the teachings of the very prophet in whose name they claim to act.
Prof C.M. Naim responds in the same newspaper: Islamophobia and blasphemy
Surely, the present Muslim definition of “blasphemy” is not limited to “any insult to the Prophet of Islam”? Even in India, there are at least two prominent anti-“blasphemy” movements at play among the Muslims under the guise of “Tahaffuz” (Protection): Tahaffuz-i-Khatm-i-Nabuwat (Protection of the Finality of Prophethood), accusing the Ahmadis of “blasphemy”; and Tahaffuz-i-Namus-i-Sahaba (Protection of the Honour of the Companions of the Prophet), accusing the Shias of “blasphemy”. Not to mention the accusations of “blasphemy” against Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin. Second, while Anand is right in stating that it “is a universal Muslim belief that the Prophet never retaliated to repeated insults to him, through either word or deed”— and, indeed, the vast majority of Muslims live by that belief, and many may even try to emulate it in their own lives — it is also true that a few enemies of the Prophet were ordered by him to be mortally punished, including one or two who verbally abused him. A devout Muslim, therefore, may claim a right to follow whichever tradition suits his own inclination.
The issue should not be what the Prophet did or did not, for once we raise it we only fall into an easy trap. It becomes a conflict between only apparently equal claims of righteousness; quickly, it becomes another instance, at best, of sectarianism, and, at worst, of “blasphemy”. In any case, a devout Muslim may aspire to emulate the Prophet’s actions but by the same token can never claim to have done so. Yahya’s letter is a good sign, but so are also a few other articles. These are acts of personal piety, and one must be thankful for them. But the same boxed space — actually there is nothing special or prominent about it — in Sahafat (Delhi) that carried Yahya’s letter contained on September 29 a letter on the same subject of the video from a Muhammad Ziaur Rahman, department of Urdu, Delhi University, under the title: “Yahud wa Nasara Musalmanon ke Khullamkhulla Dushman (Jews and Christians are blatant enemies of the Muslims)”. Rahman claims, among other things, that on September 11 this year, the film Innocence of Muslims was shown in cinemas across the United States, and that the United States rained missiles on Iraq when a woman in Baghdad named Laila Al-Attar drew a cartoon of President George Bush [in 2003].
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Oct 02, 2012 AT 23:58 IST, Edited At: Oct 02, 2012 23:58 IST
POSTED BY Sundeep
ON Aug 25, 2012 AT 15:00 IST
,
Edited At: Aug 25, 2012 15:00 IST
Mr Sunanda K Datta-Ray writes in the Business Standard:
Word has just reached me by a circuitous route that N J Nanporia is dead. Somebody saw an advertisement announcing the sale of his art collection and told someone else who told me. It’s typical of the reclusive Nanporia that he should slip out of life so quietly. He would have endorsed my mother’s favourite lines of poetry, “And may there be no moaning of the bar/When I put out to sea.”
He was unique, the only half Indian (Parsee), half Japanese editor I know of. No one else since Robert Knight founded The Times of India in Bombay and The Statesman in Calcutta edited both papers. No other Indian I have known in 54 years in journalism has been so reluctant to push himself into the limelight...
Mr Vinod Mehta has often narrated a story involving Mr Nanporia:
One great editor of Times of India, Mr N.J. Nanporia used to buy things from Sunday chor bazaar. One day, in one shop a chap came and said, "Good afternoon, Mr Nanporia." He kept following him. He kept wishing him "good afternoon" wherever Nanporia went. At the end, when Nanporia was getting into his car, he said, "You are a very nice chap but who are you? The man replied: "Sir, I am your chief reporter..."
Mr Dutta Ray writes:
Hilarious stories about not recognising colleagues were untrue. Once when Nanporia was in my room, a colleague, who had just received an award, walked in, spoke to me and left. Nanporia stared unblinkingly out of the window. He recognised the man, he said, and knew of the award. But congratulations would have raised expectations of a salary rise. Nanporia was a canny soul.
R.I.P.
Read on at the Business Standard: Remembering Nanporia
Also See Outlook Archives for a collection of articles by N.J. Nanporia
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep
ON Aug 25, 2012 AT 15:00 IST, Edited At: Aug 25, 2012 15:00 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON May 12, 2012 AT 23:33 IST
,
Edited At: May 12, 2012 23:33 IST
1949: The above cartoon is originally published on 28 August 1949 in Shankar's Weekly
2006: It is included in an NCERT Textbook for Class XI, Indian Constitution at Work which was being taught without any change or controversy since then
2012 April: A controversy is raked up over the cartoon
2012 May 11: There is ruckus in Parliament. HRD minister Kapil Sibal "apologises" for the cartoon, calling it "objectionable" and says orders have been issued to withdraw it and stop distribution of these books. Mr Sibal goes on to say that the government will also examine whether any criminal offence was made out against those who drew or included the cartoon and also that there were many other "objectionable cartoons" of political leaders and that his ministry had decided to constitute a Committee of experts to look into cases of all such objectionable cartoons and remove them.
2012 May 11: Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar, Chief Advisers for all the Political Science textbooks of the NCERT from class IX to XII, resign to allow the "independent review process" pointing out "that the short, heated and not very well informed debate in the Parliament did not do justice to the responsibility that a democratic society has towards it future generations." They add: "While deferring to the supremacy of the Parliament we think it is our duty to dissent."
2012 May 12: The Pune campus office of Prof Suhas Palshikar is attacked and ransacked. A Republican Panther of India spokesman claims responsibility for the attack, saying the cartoon amounted to an "insult" to the Dalit icon.
Yogendra Yadav sums up the outrage of the nation: "For someone who has taught me Ambedkar, for him to be attacked in the name of Ambedkar...Nothing can be more farcical, tragic and sad then this."
Some reactions on Twitter:
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON May 12, 2012 AT 23:33 IST, Edited At: May 12, 2012 23:33 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Mar 16, 2012 AT 20:34 IST
,
Edited At: Mar 16, 2012 20:34 IST
Yes, yes, we know and totally agree with what Mukul Kesavan wrote last December:
The real cricketing illiterates are the people who believe that adding ODI centuries to Test centuries and arriving at a hundred gives you a heroic landmark. It doesn’t. This isn’t just a meaningless statistic, it’s a pernicious one because it equalizes two different orders of achievement.
...why are we going on like idiots about this non-event, this half-wit’s holy grail? Why can’t we be content to celebrate Tendulkar’s real achievement? Fifty-one Test hundreds… say that slowly because no one will ever score more. And if you must celebrate his 48 ODI centuries, do, but as a distinct and separate achievement. There’s no such thing as an international hundred. If you do want to join his Test centuries to some other figure to bulk out his numbers, add them to his 27 first class hundreds: at least those were made in the same four-innings format of the game.
So celebrate his 49th ODI hundred today and let others add 51 Test hundreds to it and allow others to think of it as some kind of a 100, when the real celebration should perhaps await his 50th ODI ton. As the man himself said, he feels 50 Kgs lighter already.
Meanwhile, let's just raise a toast and smile along with the Amul girl...
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Mar 16, 2012 AT 20:34 IST, Edited At: Mar 16, 2012 20:34 IST
POSTED BY Sundeep
ON Feb 29, 2012 AT 23:40 IST
,
Edited At: Feb 29, 2012 23:40 IST
Of the many TV shows, documentaries and discussions, the Last Word with Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN stood out, which discussed: Whether Narendra Modi still faces serious questions about his alleged role Is he the best administrator in the country? Or can both coincide?
Excerpts:
Karan Thapar: Does the good administration image wash away his role in 2002 or does it simply reveal that here we have a schizophrenic or Janus-like personality?
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep
ON Feb 29, 2012 AT 23:40 IST, Edited At: Feb 29, 2012 23:40 IST
POSTED BY Sundeep
ON Feb 27, 2012 AT 03:10 IST
,
Edited At: Feb 27, 2012 03:10 IST
Predictably, the short 25 questions in Dear Narendrabhai, Could You Please... has resulted in howls and whines of protest. Mr Shashi Shekhar, who writes the blog Offstumped, alleged on Twitter that these questions are an " obsession of the media to establish a conspiracy" rather than "establish the truth". I responded that I disagreed but that any honest attempt to answer these questions was welcome.
He has responded on his blog, with detailed, point by point "rejoinders". While these appear to be nothing more than an exercise in obfuscation, but because he has taken the trouble, instead of ignoring, shortening or paraphrasing, I provide below the original question, his rejoinder in full and then my quick response in red:
Question #1 – Mr Modi, in an interview on March 1, 2002, to Zee TV you said about the post-Godhra riots, “A chain of action and reaction is going on. We want that neither should there be action, nor reaction.” Don’t such statements echo the ‘earth-shaking’ rationalisations offered by Rajiv Gandhi after the 1984 riots?
Offstumped Rejoinder: How is this rationalization, it was a statement of fact if one pays attention to the ground situation as of 1st March 2002.
Reporting on the events of 1st March 2002, The Hindu newspaper on its front page in the edition dated 2nd March 2002 had its own version of “Action-Reaction” (ironical since S. Varadarajan made such a big deal about it, perhaps failed to look at his own paper’s Newtonian reportage):
“Despite the imposition of indefinite curfew, sporadic incidents of violence, group clashes and stoning continued throughout the night and during the day today in the walled city and labour-dominated eastern parts of Ahmedabad. But unlike Thursday when one community was entirely at the receiving end, the minority backlash caused further worsening of the situation …. Police presence had little impact on the two communities pelting stones at each other in Bapunagar, Gomtipur, Dariapur, Shahpur, Naroda and other areas from where incidents of firing had been reported. But there were no reports of casualty. Pitched battle was continuing between the two communities late in the evening.”
SD response: The March 1 interview which is referred above provides the context of what Mr Modi was referring to. My original question had to be edited down for the print magazine because of reasons of space. Mr Modi is not referring to "stone pelting" etc in Ahmedabad but, as he himself spells out in that interview:
‘people from the Godhra area have criminal tendencies and had earlier killed lady teachers also and now they have committed this heinous crime, for which the reaction is being felt.’
Is this a statement of fact when the charge is that his administration was complicit in the "ground situation" that followed - for which the "reaction is being felt"?
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Sundeep
ON Feb 27, 2012 AT 03:10 IST, Edited At: Feb 27, 2012 03:10 IST
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Jul 20, 2011 AT 23:45 IST
,
Edited At: Jul 20, 2011 23:45 IST
Background blogs:
A day after the Supreme Court chose to steer clear of the Hindu’s internecine war and directed the Company Law Board (CLB) to hear the case on a day to day basis, there was a spate of resignations.
At the meeting of the Hindu's Board of Directors today, Mr Siddharth Varadarajan was formally appointed Editor of The Hindu by a majority of 7 to 5, over the objections of Mr N. Ram's brothers Mr N. Murali and Mr N. Ravi, and their cousins, sisters Ms Malini Parthasarathy, Ms Nirmala Lakshman and Ms Nalini Krishnan.
Mr Varadarajan is the first non-dynastic professional to be appointed Editor of the paper, but his appointment in stead of being celebrated as a new landmark in the paper's history has led to resignations from Mr N. Ravi as Editor, Ms Malini Parthasarathy as Executive Editor, and Ms Nirmala Lakshman as Joint Editor who had objected to his appointment.
Earlier, the CLB had ruled in favour of the objecting parties, but N. Ram and others had gone to the Madras High Court and obtained a stay on the CLB order. The objecting parties had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court, which declined to step in and asked the CLB to proceed with haste.
Mr N. Ravi, in his resignation letter as Editor, "protested the unseemly hurry in pushing through the appointment of Siddharth Varadarajan as Editor" which, he said, had made his " continuance as Editor untenable" and stressed:
... the board clique that removed the responsibilities of N. Murali was indicted by the Company Law Board in CP 25 of 2010 as lacking in probity and good faith. The same lack of probity and good faith is on display now in dealing with the reorganization of the editorial side and the actions of the board clique have been challenged in a company petition. While the SLP before the Supreme Court stands disposed of without a stay but with directions for expedited hearing, the company petition is still pending before the CLB.
The resignation letters were made public by Ms Malini Parthasarthy through her tweets. Mr N. Ravi went on to say:
After having sworn by tradition and continuity for so long, to suddenly seek to remove highly qualified shareholder family members from the posts they have been holding for decades reeks of vindictiveness and the pursuit of colourable personal agendas. A combination of megalomania and a crass disregard of the values that The Hindu has always stood for has brought the institution to this sorry state. It is shocking that some of the board members should want to run a media institution like a company producing plastic buckets with purely commercial considerations and unethical practices overwhelming editorial interests and values, thereby damaging the credibility of the newspaper.
The whole exercise of removal from posts on the editorial side is sought to be carried out in the guise of professionalisation as if the family shareholders holding positions on the editorial side are not in themselves qualified professionals. Also, any claim of professionalisation is a sham as the separation of ownership from management is being applied selectively to some shareholders even as some other shareholders including wholly unqualified persons are being allowed to continue in high positions. Ironically, the board clique that now speaks of professionalisation has been resisting suggestions to frame norms for the selection of family members to different posts and has been continuing to distribute responsibilities as largesses arbitrarily and without regard to qualifications.
The same arbitrary, non-professional procedure was followed even in the case of the appointment of Siddharth Varadarajan: his name was announced for the first time at a board meeting and passed without any discussion in a few minutes. There were no selection procedures or prior consultation or evaluation of candidates that are normally followed in any well run company.
In other words, the start of the so called professionalisation process has itself been carried out in a wholly arbitrary, non- professional way...
In the letter announcing his retirement on reaching the age of 65 on August 11, 2011, as Senior Managing Director, Mr N. Murali wrote:
Such a brazen and crude display of factionalism, vindictiveness, vote-bank and opportunistic politics and personal agendas by various board members as seen over this period, has not only seriously eroded the quality, reputation and credibility of our family run newspaper, The Hindu, but also has severely impaired the competitive ability and profitability of the whole enterprise.
If the faction of the board that has perpetrated the gross injustice and vindictive acts persists in its unsavoury ways, the institution and the iconic 132-year old newspaper would have a very bleak future indeed.
Ms Parthasarthy wrote that she was resigning from the post of executive editor since her " continuance has become untenable with the Board seeking to humiliate" her " by putting a junior professional like Siddharth Varadarajan" over her as editor:
In bringing in Siddharth Varadarajan, an outsider with no familiarity with the Hindu’s rich editorial inheritance and no particular institutional loyalty, in the guise o f “professionalising and contemporising”, what is sought to be done is to eliminate qualified successors from the family. I deeply regret that my legitimate professional aspirations, especially as I had no hidden personal agenda nor any other stake in The Hindu were so belittled and so rudely rebuffed.
I am also deeply worried for the future of the newspaper given the scheme that is being contemplated by a group of directors who want to reduce the role of the Editor to another functionary in the company, sitting along with business side executives, treating the editorial operations as another branch of the corporate banyan tree. By no means is this contemporising or professionalising editorial operations. This is only legitimizing the incursions of personal agendas into editorial operations. While being market-friendly is certainly necessary, succumbing to a range of dangerous personal agendas including gross self-promotion is not in the interest of this great newspaper.
Ms Nirmala Lakshman who resigned as Joint Editor wrote that "the present Board of Directors has used a tenuous majority" to force her out of her position as Joint Editor of The Hindu:
With the appointment of Siddharth Varadarajan as Editor it has become untenable for me to continue as Joint Editor of The Hindu.
I would like to state for the record that I strongly protest this manner of trying to reorganize the company; with little foresight, complete insensitivity, and a lack of grace and decency. Opportunistic factionalism has taken precedence over concern for the institution's welfare and progress as demonstrated in recent months. Under the guise of professionalizing, experienced and professionally trained family members who have worked conscientiously and tirelessly for this institution for decades have been jettisoned to serve the self interest, the misguided perceptions and the personal agenda of a few. With competitors making alarming inroads into our territory, functioning in this cavalier manner and playing the numbers game does not bode well for the future of The Hindu.
While Mr N. Ram and the newly appointed Editor Mr Siddharth Varadarajan have maintained a studied silence and did not tweet on the issue at all, Ms Malini Parthasarathy also had a series of tweets on the subject:
Post Script: July 23:
We have been able to get a copy of the e-mail Mr N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief sent to his colleagues at the Hindu on July 21 that provides the counter-perspective and explains the recent changes at the Hindu:
This is to inform you that, at my initiative, the Board of Directors of Kasturi & Sons Ltd. at its meeting of Wednesday, July 20, 2011 "resolved that July 30, 2011 be the date on which the appointment of Siddharth Varadarajan as Editor of The Hindu reporting to N. Ram, Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu, will come into effect."
You will recall that Siddharth Varadarajan's appointment as Editor, The Hindu had already been decided by the Board and approved by the Shareholders of the Company and only the date of the appointment taking effect had to be fixed. That has been done now. This is the first stage of the editorial succession or transition we are carrying out in a planned way.
The next stage will see Siddharth taking over as Editor responsible for the selection of news under the PRB Act consequent on my stepping down from my editorial position. I don't see this taking long and the date for this will also be decided on by the Board alongside other changes under way on the business side. The search for a CEO is on and a CEO should be in place fairly soon.
Siddharth's mandate will be to build on the great traditions of The Hindu as India's most respected newspaper, lead and strengthen our editorial team and other editorial assets, induct fresh young talent, and take new initiatives. It will not of course be a one man show because we have a wonderful editorial team, with distinguished and committed senior and experienced journalists and a large number of talented young journalists. I don't want to say more and increase the pressure of expectations on Siddharth. He will have a free hand within the framework or Code of Editorial Values adopted by our Company, which can be read at our website. This is part of the process of professionalising and contemporising our flagship newspaper, our other publications, and our Company on the editorial as well as business sides.
As you may be aware, following the adoption of the above-mentioned resolution by the Board of Directors, N. Ravi submitted his resignation as Editor, The Hindu, Nirmala Lakshman submitted her resignation as Joint Editor, The Hindu, and Malini Parthasarathy submitted her resignation as Executive Editor, The Hindu. They will continue as Wholetime Directors of Kasturi & Sons Ltd. I don't wish to say anything on this development involving people who have worked with us for so many years except to note that nobody on the Board asked for these three resignations and they were made of their own free will, in writing, and have taken effect. I also wish to assure you that we are clear-sighted and strong in our resolve to go forward in our strategy of professionalising and contemporising all the operations of The Hindu and our other publications.
Our long-term vision for The Hindu, our other publications, and our Company is to build on our greatest asset -- the trust we enjoy by virtue of being associated with India's most respected newspaper, with a great history behind it. But we can't rest on this history and let events take their course. We need to shape our future based on the values of integrity, freedom, independence, and social responsibility, values which are reasserted and safeguarded in our Code of Editorial Values. We need to innovate, espouse forward-looking ideas, and adopt the most advanced methods. We need to ensure a sustainable path of growth and commercial success. We need to seize new opportunities offered by digital journalism and new technologies because they will be key to what is unfolding before our eyes. In other words, we will need to ensure that what lies ahead will match our history.
I am confident that this future will be very bright since we are making the right strategic decisions in time.
Read Full Post
|
POSTED BY Buzz
ON Jul 20, 2011 AT 23:45 IST, Edited At: Jul 20, 2011 23:45 IST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cricket |
| Cricket - BCCI |
| Cricket - IPL |
| Elections |
| Harsha Bhogle |
| Incredible India |
| Mahendra Singh Dhoni |
| Mukul Kesavan |
| N. Srinivasan |
| Pakistan Politics |
| Pakistan: Polls |
| Police & Security Forces |
| Ravi Shastri |
| Sriram Srinivasan |
| Sunil Gavaskar |
| Taliban |
| Uttar Pradesh |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go |
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|
| | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|