That the communal violence in Delhi is still declaring lives is an indicator of the overall breakdown of governance in the national capital. The editorial in The Hindu explained two matters of severe concern: credible accounts of the failure of the police and the Union government’s relocate to shield the law-enforcing firm from judicial scrutiny.
As the riots were raging, there were journalistic questions too. Readers wished to know how the ‘unmentioned media rule’ that reporters must not mention the faith of victims of violence came into existence. Why are neighborhoods involved in the riots referred to as “minority” and “majority”? Is there a social networks policy in media organisations that governs the social networks posts of employee-journalists? Can readers make a difference between an observation posted by a journalist and the views of the news organisation where he or she works?
The test of time for great reporting
My column, “Developing standards for reporting communal violence” (September 23, 2013), after the Muzaffarnagar riots in Uttar Pradesh defined how the norms for reporting riots progressed in time, since the Partition of India. During riots, federal government firms mention ‘restraint’ in reporting, which is a euphemism fo