Anchors such as Navika Kumar, Arnab Goswami, Zakka Jacob, and Vasudha Venugopal held lengthy discussions on Ranveer Allahbadia. CNN-News18 devoted three debates to him in a single night.
All the trumpeting of Trump 2.0 on Indian news channels was soon muted by Trump’s executive orders on illegal immigration and ending birthright citizenship.
With the focus on ‘Rituals, Reverences, Rites,’ news channels barely have time for other stories. The Delhi Assembly election campaign occasionally peeks in and out.
Midway through 2024, Hindi and English news channels found their sense of balance. Once Congress lost Haryana and Maharashtra, they went back to openly supporting the Modi govt.
For TV news this week, ‘Allu Arjun vs Revanth Reddy’ was a clash of the titans of Telangana politics and Tollywood—and they were not going to miss out on any of the action.
Since the communal disturbances last month, Sambhal and its temple trouble have remained in the news. Still, the non-stop coverage of the Hanuman temple and the three idols is exceptional.
The indignation became shriller as news channels replayed Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s remarks last week on ‘Babur, Bangladesh and Sambhal'.
Today’s news headlines reflect a very different Rahul Gandhi, Congress, and INDIA compared to June, when his every step and word were closely followed by the media and the public.
New CPI series will take 2024 as base year, will provide more accurate measure of inflation, spending on digital services. Expected to enhance representation and reliability, says Saurabh Garg.
The agreement, signed after meeting between Rajnath and US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on sidelines of ADMM-Plus in Kuala Lumpur, aims to deepen bilateral ties in the critical sector.
This world is being restructured and redrawn by one man, and what’s his power? It’s not his formidable military. It’s trade. With China, it turned on him.
The Opinion piece bring about some good points, including why highlight the crass comments and publicize it further.
But one thing I don’t at all agree with is the last section, where the author is questioning the call for regulation. I was surprised by that because I felt there is no logical argument/ comparison there.
Af fas as I know, The TV and Print media are owned by a group of people, who along with the editor take care of the self-regulation part of it. Editors, especially have experience in the field.
Can we expect the same from the editor of Ranveer or Samay’s shows? Do they even have an editor who looks into these things? If so, shouldn’t they have edited the creepy comments from Ranveer in the first place?
I believe they only look at what kind of content gives them the maximum views and clicks.
Or do we expect youtube to self-regulate? The amount of content that’s dumped on YouTube makes it almost impossible. Unless there is a law, there is no incentive for YouTube to even try!
How come this was not considered when the author wrote that last paragraph??? Please help me understand if I am missing something
enough over analysis of this crappy pervert //Hang all of them along with this writer .
The Opinion piece bring about some good points, including why highlight the crass comments and publicize it further.
But one thing I don’t at all agree with is the last section, where the author is questioning the call for regulation. I was surprised by that because I felt there is no logical argument/ comparison there.
Af fas as I know, The TV and Print media are owned by a group of people, who along with the editor take care of the self-regulation part of it. Editors, especially have experience in the field.
Can we expect the same from the editor of Ranveer or Samay’s shows? Do they even have an editor who looks into these things? If so, shouldn’t they have edited the creepy comments from Ranveer in the first place?
I believe they only look at what kind of content gives them the maximum views and clicks.
Or do we expect youtube to self-regulate? The amount of content that’s dumped on YouTube makes it almost impossible. Unless there is a law, there is no incentive for YouTube to even try!
How come this was not considered when the author wrote that last paragraph??? Please help me understand if I am missing something