[Reader-list] TOI's "Private Treaties"

[hasina hasan]

i nearly totally agree with that. porn sells big bucks yes but i'm not so sure we aren't all drawn to it in one way or another. i'm not a 100% sure about porn but the pornification of news is not alright. 

anyway i wanted to add here:
i hail from the hospitality sector and had met with medianet which is toi's sibling concern, a couple years ago. around that time also was privy to the fact that one can (and must) pay one's way to being reviewed therein and in other many more bought and sought after papers. of course i was disillusioned. pop went my bubblegum hopes of there being anonymous reviewers and honest write ups. heh. anyway so with wider open eyes i chose to stick to the alternate forms of reviews..which is the people's voice. word of mouth works better and feels better than stinky treaties. insha allah i will be able to continue keeping a low profile and not approach them noisepapers ever again.






--- On Sun, 29/6/08, Namrata Kakkar <namratakakkar1 at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
From: Namrata Kakkar <namratakakkar1 at yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] TOI's "Private Treaties"
To: b_a_r_u_k at yahoo.com
Cc: reader-list at sarai.net
Date: Sunday, 29 June, 2008, 1:30 AM

Fluff is everywhere.The point is,any pornographic magazine in hard or soft
copies sells, are read or viewed more than TOI or anything else, does that mean
we those who aren't the porn audience or addicts,  want pornography?
I don't think so. 


--- On Tue, 24/6/08, Baruk S. Jacob <b_a_r_u_k at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Baruk S. Jacob <b_a_r_u_k at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] TOI's "Private Treaties"
> To: reader-list at sarai.net
> Date: Tuesday, 24 June, 2008, 11:22 PM
> > from what I've heard, this is nothin new for ToI.
> If anything this is a
> > corporate relationship that perfectly mirrors
> arrangements that have been
> > in place for years.
> 
> thinking aloud:
> 
> many people i meet talk of how the ToI content is full of
> fluff. i have also heard these accusations of their being
> driven solely by profit. what worries me, however, is the
> fact that they continue to be the largest selling newspaper
> in the world(?). that seems to suggest that we WANT this
> fluff, that we honestly do not care about the deals our
> newspapers make with business, about how the quality of the
> information we receive is being compromised.
> 
> maybe this is what we WANT. and that's really scary.
> 
> ~baruk
> 
> http://bottlebroke.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to
> reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject
> header.
> To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive:
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>


      Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Go to
http://in.messenger..yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php/

_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>


      Explore your hobbies and interests. Go to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/groups/