Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Underprevileged

Is it legal nevertheless to mention moral, to display a picture of a young girl presumably a minor as a front page article in the Hindu? No matter what the law says Nazma is a victim of abuse and her identity should have been kept confidential. It is quite clear from the picture that Nazma is semi-conscious (or probably unconscious) and she would not have given her assent to being photographed in a hospital bed. In my eyes, the photo is unjust and immoral. It goes without saying that it violated her privacy.

I am also sure that the Hindu genuinely wanted to bring attention to her plight and not to hype media ratings which are practiced by some irresponsible media outlets. Even though a picture speaks 1000 words, I am unsure if the same would have happened to her if she hadn't been poor.

Check out http://www.hindu.com/2007/02/08/stories/2007020822010100.htm
at

2 comments:

  1. DriverFebruary 7, 2007 at 9:42 PM

    The Hindu is part of the same media. There is no reason to defend them. To survive in the world of the filth media now, the Hindu is following suit and we don't have to defend our once favorite medium.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sriram VaradharajanFebruary 8, 2007 at 12:08 AM

    I am giving them the benefit of doubt, because it is not in their books to be vulgar.

    ReplyDelete