[Reader-list] Fw: Sri Lankan Army war crime Video footage - News Channels responsibility

[Murali V]

Dear Sir,

As I had stated earlier, I am not questioning the right or wrong of
the act and who was responsible.

I had only stated that such ghastly presentations broadcast for public
viewing should be preceded by a warning.

Regards,
V Murali

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:20 PM, subhrodip
sengupta<sub_sengupta at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: subhrodip sengupta <sub_sengupta at yahoo.co.in>
> To: Murali V <murali.chalam at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 27 August, 2009 8:18:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Sri Lankan Army war crime Video footage - News Channels responsibility
>
>
> who can prove that raw was responsible and eventful in capture, a special team had set on at a special aircraft from delhi, refuelled at chennai, captured and tortured Prabhakaran, after which he died, off course for it's own sake of tamil nadu murdered prabhakaran in his growing power. Why should channels take responsibility, at all? Doesnt the government sponsor them to concot stories, doesnt the government sometimes blindly follow them as it fits it's needs, then why should they be responsible. Govt already has it's dark cells alive in Sri Lanka to tackle that, or does it want to be more oppressive, in which case this is not the right method, or venture international........
> at least there is some sensitisation in racially divided sri lanka....
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Murali V <murali.chalam at gmail.com>
> To: Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> Cc: Sarai Reader-list <reader-list at sarai.net>; Jeebesh <jeebesh at sarai.net>
> Sent: Thursday, 27 August, 2009 12:48:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Sri Lankan Army war crime Video footage - News Channels responsibility
>
> I have not mentioned that it is wrong. I only stated that TV channels
> must be more responsible.
>
> Regards,
> V Murali
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Rakesh Iyer<rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree on that part, which is why I said the warning is necessary. But
>> there can be cases where simply maturity is not important alone, or it may
>> not come even after 18 years of age as assumed. Therefore, showing it
>> without warning is wrong, but showing it with warning can and should not be
>> termed wrong.
>>
>> Also, while not films, sex education of some kind is advised to be given to
>> children to ensure that they are not sexually exploited, right from their
>> childhood. What do you think about that? Are they mature enough to
>> understand how is an action termed sexual exploitation?
>>
>> Therefore, while on this issue there can be a consensus, on many others
>> there can't be. Let us not mix issues, and instead go into one issue in
>> detail. So forgetting army actions for one, let's look at whether the
>> warning is necessary, and yes it is. But hiding that information forever
>> from people is something I am against.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rakesh
>>
>>
>>
> _________________________________________
> 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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> start: 2008-06-21 end: 0000-00-00
> ________________________________
> See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out Yahoo! Buzz.
>
>
>      See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out Yahoo! Buzz. http://in.buzz.yahoo.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: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>