1. The article addresses directly the mass media inIndia -- not world-wide.2. The article appears to address only massmarket newspapers -- not radio or TV broadcasting,not books or other commercial cultural products, andnot the Internet (worth mentioning since it is organisedand funded differently from the way the traditional massmedia are organised and funded.)Examples of what it says:3. "The media barons act in the most irresponsible andunprofessional ways. The same newspaper that curses arapist on the first page, prints offensive pictures and semi-nudemodels on the third. They generate their own content, createtheir own stereotypes and always intervene in state mattersto gain more power and control."4. "Media is supposed to be the watchdog and guard the society,the people behind the real enforcing agencies. Its role as such ismore like an active monitor who restricts any undue consequencesand disorder."Comments.A. The comments quoted above are unoriginal, i.e. saynothing that was not published 50 years ago in The NewYorker by A.J. Liebling, and read 50 years ago andcontinually by students in journalism schools etc.B. The article takes for granted certain ideals e..g. the"watchdog" role of newspapers or other media: butseems not to appreciate how these ideals actuallywork in society, e.g. how controlling editors allocatespace (between politics, crime and pin-ups) and howeditors deal with other social policemen as well aswith their readers and advertisers. There is a lot inprint about this too, e.g. memoirs of newspaper andradio editors, TV executives etc.C. Although vernacular languages are one mediumof the media (the others being still and moving pictures)there is no allusion to what is already in the libraryconcerning this theme (whether by Lenin or George Orwell.)

media should act as that shopkeeper who gives its customers the complete truth and the takes the money.the image of the complete media fraternity is spoilt due to tv media .they give only tailored news.

Truly the article written by Mr. Hamid is heartning nd does take us to the darker side of the press, nd in a better way so giving illustrating examples, but what the learned writer fails to explain is why the media has been going to dogs all these years.Surely the quality and content of the newspapers have changed with every other political party or a NGO having there very own printing press. Even before independence the newspaper was an integral part of the political set-up, and no wonder that it sill is a very much part of the system. For ages the very state owned DD channel has been more than a spokesperson of the ruling party than the voice of the nation as a whole. The emergency period just sounded the death knell to the news network, yet the blank editorial printed by the Indian Express stands out has a master piece in the history. The only point now left is how much do we take from the newspapers? Or are we better off with it for once and all? The major newspapers like Indian Express, Times of India etc are sold due to there own market value, other regional papers like Sammna, Lokmat etc for there ideological value and also due there party allegiance, while the rest like Mid-day, Mumbai Mirror for every other article that is anything but news. The sate of the newspapers being baised can be best explained by the recent controversy surrounding Mr. Rajdeep Sardesai and the Uttar Pradesh assembly. The �honorable� house members where offended by the news report carried on CNN-IBN channel. The house unanimously called upon criminal proceedings against the editor for that report. He was called into the assembly and 'ordered' to say sorry to them. Now with all this can u help by informing on whose side do you fall, the �fair� report or the �honorable� house?In a country where for every thing from the admissions to death certificates, you got to shell out money, no wonder we have reached a point where newspapers are said to be biased, now we just got to figure out if its for us or against us...???