Over the last 24 hours, my attempt to highlight class discrimination as a space-agnostic phenomenon has been hailed as a classic example of unethical, click-baity journalism, or even worse, a cheap publicity stunt. It was none of this.
Conservative clerics warned Muslims against garba as impermissible; now Hindu right-wing groups call their presence provocative—different reasons, same outcome.
SEBI probe concluded that purported loans and fund transfers were paid back in full and did not amount to deceptive market practices or unreported related party transactions.
There were no plans to have Mk1A version. However, compromise was reached between HAL & IAF in 2015 since original plan for getting Mk2 would've been time-consuming affair.
Many really smart people now share the position that playing cricket with Pakistan is politically, strategically and morally wrong. It is just a poor appreciation of competitive sport.
This is journalism? Sensationalising, shaming and standing on a high horse. What is the difference between this nonsense and the village gossip pointing fingers at how other people live? If there is a class divide between sitting on a seat and on the floor, what about the class of the people who are standees? What class did you belong to? If a public place is truly agnostic, the public should be too.
I would have been screaming in your defence if you had bothered to write a good piece on class and caste discrimination referencing what you saw in the Metro. Without the picture. But no. That would require effort. Why write a 1,000 words when a picture can get you the limelight. Let the editor write those 1,000 words instead because he knows his shit and you dont. If the real intention was to highlight the problem and not malign the woman, then why not blur the faces in the photo? You did not even bother to blur the baby’s face, who will now forever be a face of this saga despite not giving you his consent. If the doctor can’t speak on behalf of her nanny, neither can you. Caste and class discrimination is a real problem. Please don’t steer the narrative away from it with such attempts to familiarise the editor with your name. I’ll now find it hard to digest any copy with your byline.
Well, out of authority or closeness one assumes over their employees or family members the educated ones or the talkative ones always will be the ones to respond on their people behalf whether it’s a servant or a family member, questioning that itself outright rubbish and journalist herself claims that doctor was polite and friendly then how can one assumes something and draw conclusions.
In fact, If that women had no problem sitting with the luggage while her employer takes care of her child, what problem does this journo have?
In this particular case, you are shifting goalposts; behalf-ism, shot as a commentary etc. A more dignified closure would be to apologize to this private citizen and move on.
Brazening it out demonstrates stubborness.
The story, at best, is incomplete and at worst, is just wrong.
I am sorry but shouldn’t you have verified the story before shooting it off on Twitter and then writing a piece on it. That is plain and simple lazy journalism of the worst form. It is all very well to justify ends but at what cost – your credibility or someone’s privacy or both. The 4th pillar is fast losing credibility.
I don’t buy doctors explanation. This is her after thought reply being caught in this situation. She was doing this which is very normal to do. No body thinks it. As the reporter has clicked her she is now taking about infringement of her rights. She rumpled the rights of her nanny. She being in much better social position has more to answer. If this story adds in bettering the situation of nannies is worth without caring much about doctors so called privacy
The Swarajya Magazine has pointed out the fallacies in your argument. So I would not repeat them. But this I can say, by refusing to apologise for your article, you have diminished your stature as a journalist and next time you pen another article, it would be seen as fake news. Live with it.
THis is a perfect example of painting a simple scenario in a caste biased, racist biased, labour biased cases….. Thats what report doing this time….And when they caught, like this article they very fluently show to people that there intention is not this and that and bla bla bla…. Shame on u…
The reporter seems to be talking about her own biases using the unfortunate doctor and her servant. If she thinks the doctor should not speak on behalf of her fellow passenger, the nanny, what makes the reporter talk on her behalf ? Some God given authority ?
Desperate attempt to find something to relate the original article too. Sometimes you guys go over the top in your fight with the shadows. You related it to caste? But did you even know her caste? Did you ask the nanny her caste?
Any answer pieces on explaining this prejudice?
We need social justice warriors but with a more balanced approach and not the people who over enthusiastically hammer things to take out the core and fix it inturn breaking all of that existed.
I agree with the servant divide point you wanted to make, but why could you not tell this through as an anecdote without posting the picture. While you say that you are not judging the lady in picture but as she is clearly visible in it, people are bound to make opinions about her based on your limited character comment on this via twitter. You are stubborn about this, so be it, but this is clearly unethical.
Classism within Indian society is a huge issue – the unwritten rules of everyone ‘knowing their place’. We will probably need a few generations to overcome this. However, the journalist is projecting her own notions of justice upon the nanny. In all likelihood, the nanny comes from a background where all that she has ever known is her ‘inferior’ place in society. Many people (usually laborers, domestic workers etc.) will choose to sit on the floor even if a seat is empty on the Metro. While this is unfortunate and symbolic of our classist society, we can’t expect everyone to understand (and then act) based on our privileged understanding of socio-economic issues. That in itself, can be viewed as classist and part of the problem! And it’s okay if the nanny chooses to make a living rather than battle centuries of socioeconomic class warfare on the Metro.
Moreover, it’s surprising to see the photo be used without explicit permission of the Doctor, AND THE NANNY! Smacks of the privileged “I know what’s best for you” nonsense that the journalist is apparently trying to address.
What about the lady’s privacy ? Did you take her consent before taking her photo? If not , how different are you from the guy who was video taping a girl without her knowledge or permission? Who gave you consent to use that pic and malign her name? Did the maid explicitly came to you and told you that she had a problem ? Privacy is a two way street. its not just for “liberals” like you.. its every one. Of course you stand by it.. because you clearly know that the lady has neither financial wherewithal nor time away from her job and family to take you guys to court .. you shame less morons..
I have one more question.. in the entire journey, did the lady stop her maid from sitting on a seat? Do you have any proof of her doing that?
regarding ” who we happily give euphemistic names to and call “helps”, but cringe every time they enter our homes with slippers, use our bathrooms, or eat in the same utensils as us. ” .. dont generalize things madam.. may be you cringe everytime your maid enters your homes not every one does.. yes.. everyone may not be hugging and loving their maids… but they do not hate ( or cringe) their maids either..
Dont extrapolate everything in your head to all Indians and take us on a guilt trip.. it is you who is indulging in class bias.. the way you have responded to the lady and the people who criticized you shows it all.. nobody other than you and your “the print” is supposed to have any opinion.. only you higher beings are supposed to think for all of us
This is journalism? Sensationalising, shaming and standing on a high horse. What is the difference between this nonsense and the village gossip pointing fingers at how other people live? If there is a class divide between sitting on a seat and on the floor, what about the class of the people who are standees? What class did you belong to? If a public place is truly agnostic, the public should be too.
I would have been screaming in your defence if you had bothered to write a good piece on class and caste discrimination referencing what you saw in the Metro. Without the picture. But no. That would require effort. Why write a 1,000 words when a picture can get you the limelight. Let the editor write those 1,000 words instead because he knows his shit and you dont. If the real intention was to highlight the problem and not malign the woman, then why not blur the faces in the photo? You did not even bother to blur the baby’s face, who will now forever be a face of this saga despite not giving you his consent. If the doctor can’t speak on behalf of her nanny, neither can you. Caste and class discrimination is a real problem. Please don’t steer the narrative away from it with such attempts to familiarise the editor with your name. I’ll now find it hard to digest any copy with your byline.
Well, out of authority or closeness one assumes over their employees or family members the educated ones or the talkative ones always will be the ones to respond on their people behalf whether it’s a servant or a family member, questioning that itself outright rubbish and journalist herself claims that doctor was polite and friendly then how can one assumes something and draw conclusions.
In fact, If that women had no problem sitting with the luggage while her employer takes care of her child, what problem does this journo have?
In this particular case, you are shifting goalposts; behalf-ism, shot as a commentary etc. A more dignified closure would be to apologize to this private citizen and move on.
Brazening it out demonstrates stubborness.
The story, at best, is incomplete and at worst, is just wrong.
I am sorry but shouldn’t you have verified the story before shooting it off on Twitter and then writing a piece on it. That is plain and simple lazy journalism of the worst form. It is all very well to justify ends but at what cost – your credibility or someone’s privacy or both. The 4th pillar is fast losing credibility.
I don’t buy doctors explanation. This is her after thought reply being caught in this situation. She was doing this which is very normal to do. No body thinks it. As the reporter has clicked her she is now taking about infringement of her rights. She rumpled the rights of her nanny. She being in much better social position has more to answer. If this story adds in bettering the situation of nannies is worth without caring much about doctors so called privacy
Journalist assumed whole many things without verifying single one, Jumped to conclusions..
Poor standards of journalism.. lost credibility..
Abused a position, victimised a person and clearly there is no balance in the article
At least editor should be sensible enough while screening the article
The Swarajya Magazine has pointed out the fallacies in your argument. So I would not repeat them. But this I can say, by refusing to apologise for your article, you have diminished your stature as a journalist and next time you pen another article, it would be seen as fake news. Live with it.
THis is a perfect example of painting a simple scenario in a caste biased, racist biased, labour biased cases….. Thats what report doing this time….And when they caught, like this article they very fluently show to people that there intention is not this and that and bla bla bla…. Shame on u…
The reporter seems to be talking about her own biases using the unfortunate doctor and her servant. If she thinks the doctor should not speak on behalf of her fellow passenger, the nanny, what makes the reporter talk on her behalf ? Some God given authority ?
Desperate attempt to find something to relate the original article too. Sometimes you guys go over the top in your fight with the shadows. You related it to caste? But did you even know her caste? Did you ask the nanny her caste?
Any answer pieces on explaining this prejudice?
We need social justice warriors but with a more balanced approach and not the people who over enthusiastically hammer things to take out the core and fix it inturn breaking all of that existed.
Well done Sanya. Keep fighting,
Why should we believe you and not her?
I agree with the servant divide point you wanted to make, but why could you not tell this through as an anecdote without posting the picture. While you say that you are not judging the lady in picture but as she is clearly visible in it, people are bound to make opinions about her based on your limited character comment on this via twitter. You are stubborn about this, so be it, but this is clearly unethical.
Classism within Indian society is a huge issue – the unwritten rules of everyone ‘knowing their place’. We will probably need a few generations to overcome this. However, the journalist is projecting her own notions of justice upon the nanny. In all likelihood, the nanny comes from a background where all that she has ever known is her ‘inferior’ place in society. Many people (usually laborers, domestic workers etc.) will choose to sit on the floor even if a seat is empty on the Metro. While this is unfortunate and symbolic of our classist society, we can’t expect everyone to understand (and then act) based on our privileged understanding of socio-economic issues. That in itself, can be viewed as classist and part of the problem! And it’s okay if the nanny chooses to make a living rather than battle centuries of socioeconomic class warfare on the Metro.
Moreover, it’s surprising to see the photo be used without explicit permission of the Doctor, AND THE NANNY! Smacks of the privileged “I know what’s best for you” nonsense that the journalist is apparently trying to address.
What about the lady’s privacy ? Did you take her consent before taking her photo? If not , how different are you from the guy who was video taping a girl without her knowledge or permission? Who gave you consent to use that pic and malign her name? Did the maid explicitly came to you and told you that she had a problem ? Privacy is a two way street. its not just for “liberals” like you.. its every one. Of course you stand by it.. because you clearly know that the lady has neither financial wherewithal nor time away from her job and family to take you guys to court .. you shame less morons..
I have one more question.. in the entire journey, did the lady stop her maid from sitting on a seat? Do you have any proof of her doing that?
regarding ” who we happily give euphemistic names to and call “helps”, but cringe every time they enter our homes with slippers, use our bathrooms, or eat in the same utensils as us. ” .. dont generalize things madam.. may be you cringe everytime your maid enters your homes not every one does.. yes.. everyone may not be hugging and loving their maids… but they do not hate ( or cringe) their maids either..
Dont extrapolate everything in your head to all Indians and take us on a guilt trip.. it is you who is indulging in class bias.. the way you have responded to the lady and the people who criticized you shows it all.. nobody other than you and your “the print” is supposed to have any opinion.. only you higher beings are supposed to think for all of us