The Barkha Dutt-Manu Joseph Smackdown
Last night, NDTV hosted a special edition of The Buck Stops Here, turning the tables on host and group editor Barkha Dutt. A panel of male journalists—Open magazine’s editor Manu Joseph, and senior journalits Swapan Dasgupta, Sanjaya Baru and Dilip Padgoankar (Outlook editor Vinod Mehta declined to be part of the panel)—got to interrogate the visibly agitated Dutt, who looked like she wanted nothing more than to lunge across the table and sock Joseph in the face. The 47-minute uninterrupted, unedited segment about the fallout of the leaked 2G tapes was possibly the most entertaining thing we’ve seen in journalism in a while. Here a breakdown of what happened:
The Issue NDTV Thought This Was About
Poor Sonia Singh. As host, the managing editor of NDTV had to have known that pitting Dutt against her detractors in public would be a tad uncomfortable. But even she couldn’t have guessed quite how many times her panel would descend into a shouty, blathering mess. The rest of the panellists were merely icing on an already quite nutty cake, with the good stuff coming courtesy of Dutt and Joseph who spent most of the segment taking snide pot shots at each other. To recap, Joseph ran a cover story on the scandal, where among other things it was suggested that Dutt acted as a mediator between political parties and somehow also championed the appointment of A.Raja as Telecom minister. The putative issue, then, and the reason for this panel being assembled, was to consider whether Dutt had crossed the line by talking to lobbyist Niira Radia in the manner she had. In reality, this was NDTV’s cleverly staged version of a Spanish Inquisition, ingeniously angled to show that by throwing Dutt to the wolves, they had a) nothing to hide and b) were the only media outlet brave enough to tackle the issue head on.
The Issue Dutt Thought This Was About
Dutt, who seemed deeply incensed to be asked to defend herself to the all-male panel she later called misogynistic, went on the offensive almost immediately, neatly sidestepping journalist Padgaonkar’s first question about whether she had crossed an ethical line, and launching into a heated defence of her reputation. “In 16 years of my career, no one has cast doubt on my reputation,” she said. “And then two magazines come along and do so with impunity.” Dutt was the very model of passive aggression, making it abundantly clear that she thought Open and Outlook (whom, peculiarly she refused to name, calling it just “one magazine”) the journalistic equivalent of toilet paper. Her main contention seemed to be that both magazines used raw, unedited material without verifying it or calling to get her side of the story. Dutt said she texted Joseph when the story first broke, saying it sounded like a smear campaign, to which Joseph responded by assuring her that she had nothing to worry about as the tapes contained nothing embarrassing about her. Several times, the panel tried to get Dutt to admit she made a mistake, but the closest they got was a terse admission that she had made an error in judgement talking so freely to someone (Radia) she didn’t know very well. Everything else, Dutt maintained—namely her coverage of the cabinet shuffle—was done within the bounds of journalistic ethics.
The Issue That Joseph Thought This Was About
We have one suggestion for Joseph: stick to print. On television, he appeared incoherent and a little silly when he asked Dutt why she didn’t think that a corporate lobbyist mediating between two political parties was a story worth writing about. A valid question, but one that loses heft when it becomes the main thread of a seemingly vaster and more important story about media ethics. Dutt answered his question by saying she didn’t think it was much of a story, and that it was her judgement call to make. Either Joseph was mentally prepping for his next attack or zoning out because he spent the rest of the show heckling Dutt about not answering the question. For a man who wrote an impassioned op-ed about his decision to run the tapes and why he didn’t contact Dutt for her side (which, incidentally, he did not explain on air), Joseph seemed weirdly fixated by the most minor aspect of the whole issue. In the end, he finally admitted that all journalists have motives, and that he put Dutt on the cover to sell more issues.
What The Other Panellists Thought This Was About
Bless their old-school hearts, but it didn’t really seem to matter. Dasgupta wanted to know why Radia had chosen Dutt specifically (a weird question given the fact that Radia had spoken to more than a dozen journalists). Padgaonkar thought Dutt should distance herself from those in power, while Baru thought she should apologise to her viewers. Like we said, this was the Dutt and Joseph show, and rest were just there to pad out the panel.
Did It Work?
Partly. In so far that it showed NDTV to be the only media organisation serious about addressing the accusations in public, it probably did (even if Dutt at one point, a tad ludicrously, claimed that NDTV would never have aired the raw tapes had they gotten hold of them). Dutt also partly exonerated herself when she wasn’t getting huffy about having her integrity questioned by two magazines whom she clearly seemed to detest. You wanted to believe her when she said she had never heard of Radia before she called her, and that she really was just playing to get more information, but the methods and means still seemed dubious. Dutt ended the segment by saying that she should not be called upon to answer for every journalist, and we’d be apt to agree. What do you think? Believable or a bunch of hooey? Watch the show here, and tell us in the comments section.
Comments (9)
Leave a comment
Featured Articles
The Vigil Idiot: Aurangzeb
May 20, 2013 by Sahil Rizwan
MB Recommends: ‘Dharavi The City Within’
May 20, 2013 by Nayantara Kilachand
Lessons To Be Learned From The Bandra-Worli Sea Link
May 20, 2013 by Pronoti Datta
MB Giveaway: Bacon Jam
May 17, 2013 by EditorsYou Might Also Like...
I had never in my life saw a jounalist was full of heat in her chest not because manu or outlook had published her statement but because whole india had visulized her punitively of low moral character.
Barkha Dutt is the Ugliest Man I’ve ever seen and his intellect is much uglier
There are words used to describe Ms. Dutt’s behaviour in the comments here:
Brazen
Shameless
Absolutely unrepentant
Bully
All of them are apt. One could add:
Corrupt…
…and not take the pains to substantiate it…none needed, to be honest.
A long way indeed for the young energetic reporter of yore, tainted (remember Kargill?), but worth hearing nonetheless. Not anymore. 26/11 was bad enough, insensitivity to life is not something one tolerates easily–and that too on air. This time the camel’s back is truly broken.
I make it a point to change the channel when she’s on air, and turn the page when I come across an article penned.
My own foibles, But there’s too much information in this world, and Ms. Dutt we can do without.
Gentlemen,
We don’t watch NDTV or Prannoy Roy for The
World This Week,Why don’t you guy’s check out your
Rating’s?
Sorry
I am sorry but the above article is totally biased and pro-barkha pro-ndtv… shame on the editors who came out with dis shit..!!!
Barkha and Vir Sanghvi had been romping in bed for long. Time they came out of their sheets to show how dirty they are under cover. Sad, NDTV has such fakes and so called journos in its stable as managing editors. Sad. As for Vir, haha, least spoken better. Man who can even screw a wall has not much left to imagination. May be screwing Radia for a story too. Sick man and lecherous too.
Barkha questions Manu on why he didn’t speak to her and corroborate on the tapes before publishing it and brands the act as unethical journalism. In the same breath, she says during her talk that lots of people call her up and ask her to play up/down a story and the only way out is to say ‘yes’, put the phone down and then do what must me done and not what the caller requests for. Now didn’t Manu do exactly what Nakhra does to all her callers who want her to bend a story? And the manner in which she repeated the phrase ‘error of judgement’ so many times, shows that she has prepared to defend herself with a striking line irrepsective of the truth. She thinks just because she is articulate, she can convince people on anything. Not this time! This is extremely unbecoming of a person of Barkha’s stature (now of course her name is dirt and she jolly well learn to live with it). She doesn’t intend to say sorry even when things are so obvious and as Dileep, I think suggested. How many times haven’t we seen politicians asked to resign and grilled on why they are not resigning even when allegations are flying thick and fast. In fact, many victims have resigned as mp’s/ministers/officers etc. even before charges were proved just to take the moral high ground. I think such best practices are not a part of her nonchalant ways. She is so frustrated that she accuses the panel of being misogynists. How many times do we hear journalists tear apart politicians when they use the caste card or gender card when facing allegations? No difference between the hypocritical politician and Barkha. She is now trying to create an impression that just because she is a woman, people are targeting her. Just the kind of street-smart tactic that rogue politicians employ when caught red-handed. In fact, Barkha is doing far better than some of our crooked politicians. All the respect I had for her is lost, partly because of her involvement in the controversy and even more because of her brazen, shameless and absolutely unrepentant attitude on the show. Also, I believe the venue for the debate should have been neutral. Barkha took full advantage of playing on home-ground. Also, NDTV made a half-hearted attempt by constituting an extremely soft panel comprising septuagenarians who are too old to possibly scream as loud as her. When NDTV finds big scams to grill bigwigs, they invite the hardliners from the opposition to add drama to the show. But here, the softest possible panel was created for convenience. Too obvious!
In that show Barkha’s answer to a question is another question…. not an answer…. She is thinking …everyone in this world is fool…. It is actually…opposite as it I see…
Sonia surrendered the show right off the bat to the bully and her senior, Barkha. Barkha contradicted herself all over saying that it was not an error in judgement on her part not to have published the larger story of a lobbyist for two telcom giants trying to fix the telecom minister who she says had been bribed but closing the entire discussion nonetheless on an ‘agreed conclusion (save Manu’s dissent)’ that it was error in judgement on her part.
Manu wanted to conclude (rightly, I think) that Barkha chose not to cover on TV the larger story because she herself was part of the story. There probably was quid pro quo of some sort although it may have been favours not involving money directly.
Baru and Dasgupta were a waste & had vested interests (Baru having been press secy to PM earlier and a cong sympathiser like Barkha while Dasgupta was a ‘regular’ – a paid one? – on NDTV discussion panels.
Padgaonkar made a good point or two but Barkha never allowed him or any other to ask probing questions as she simply monopolised the discussions.
For the serious observer, Barkha’s lack of depth and her perennial egotism were on full display yet again.