Times now Official websiteTime now Official Website
Times Now has totally relinquished its ethical credentials in the struggle for a larger public and its disappointment on Republic TV ("Times Now's Tape marks a new low point for journalists. It' s getting more and more important for the public to get involved and put an end to this madness.
Even if it exists in the shape of alternate mediums, the confidence of the current public is decreasing every time. Channel like Times Now and Republic TV are forcing audiences to get used to recording messages with a dash ofalt. So, while you refer to enlightenment as complicity in the acceptability of falsified and prepaid messages, I concur, but I think there are much more basic issues with state enlightenment that lead to this acceptability and inactivity.
Again, I agree that as a non-Indian who has not been studying in the educational system of India, I may speak unscheduledly and deceive myself about the functioning of the educational system. However, I can confidently say that the development of crucial thought processes would lead to less passive and less accepting of forged and prepaid messages and would be beneficial to all.
It' s timely that the ICICI Bank' s never-ending history be ended in order to secure the confidence of citizens in the bank industry in India, which is already heavily burdened and to some degree re-established after the fraud uncovered at the state-owned Punjab National Bank ("Market regulatory SEBI is sending a message to ICICI Bank CEO Chanda Kochhar about a credit to Videocon Group").
Time limits should be laid down for dealing with requests from several agents dealing with accusations against the ICICI Bank.
Time Now' s parallel attempt in the Tejpal case, which apparently interfered with justice.
Editorial discussion reached a new low when Times Now had a terrible discussion about CCTV material in the Tarun Tejpal case of violent crime, shamelessly resisting judicial rulings and applicable legislation. On May 28, the 28th, the debate took place after a drastic build-up of popular press with the spectacular hash tag "#TejpalTapes".
Times Now's "unprecedented videocassettes " showed two people (who the Kanal alleges are Tejpal and the complainant) getting into and out of an elevator inside a buildingobby. CCTV material was shown several times, and the anchor lured their panelists with their own personal interpretation of the bodies peech of the individuals shown in the material.
It was the turn of the panelists either to attack Tejpal or to disparage the plaintiff on the basis of their assumptions from the film material, which lasted only a few seconds. Judgement infringed by broadcasting videotapes. In June 2017, the Goa Tribunal, which was seised of this case, issued an order prohibiting the disclosure of legal actions.
However, the judge ruled that his trial will take place "in camera", which means that the trial will not be open to the general public. However, the trial will not be open to the general public. Therefore, the trial will not be open to the general public. 2. This order was issued by the Tribunal in order to protect the inherent rights, esteem and private life of both the entrepreneur and the defendant. Videotape is proof of the case on which both the prosecutor and the defense rely to back their version.
In response to the breach by the canal, Supreme Tribunal prosecutor Rebecca Mammen John John found: Times Now could not retrieve the videomaterial with the legally known means. Access to the film material by other clandestine means is obviously unlawful and inadmissible if it is part of judicial proof.
One of the many evidences in the process is the videotape of a few seconds. Videotape does not refer to the supposed events inside the lift. Therefore, it is an act of presumption to deduce blame or virginity on the basis of the physical languages of the individuals portrayed in the film material, without being independently documented as such.
Conducting a high-ranking discussion on the grounds of that single item of circumstantial evidence without referring to other pieces of circumstantial proof is manifestly inadmissible. There is a process in which a testimony is discredited on the grounds of proof and declarations presented in front of a judge after the testimony has been cross-examined. It is inappropriate at this juncture for a canal to present opinions aimed at disparaging the victims, especially if the whole body of evidentiary material is not publicly available.
The following shall be set out in paragraph 12(a), 12(b) and 41(A) in Part A under the headings'Caution in critical of legal actions','News reports on legal proceedings' and 'Trial by the media': - Apart from the fact that the tribunal "sits in front of the camera" or otherwise decrees, it is open to a paper to make a fairly, accurately and appropriately statement of ongoing legal actions.
However, it may not disclose anything which, in its immediate and immediate effect, presents a significant threat to seriously impede, obstruct or prejudice the proper exercise of the law; or it has the inherent characteristics of an ongoing remark or discussion, or notes the newspaper's own observations containing suspicions, considerations or commentaries on matters before the courts concerning the function of the courts or the personality of the defendant charged with the commission of a criminal offence.
- Newspapers may not warn, publicise or annotate evidences gathered as a consequence of investigation conducted by journalists if the tribunal is confiscated after the arrest and indictment of the accused: - it is not anticipated that the press will carry out its own concurrent procedure or predict the judgment that will put unreasonable strain on the tribunal, judges or witness or disadvantage a party to the procedure.
The above policies have been breached by Times Now's Show. This high-tension discussion, which is flanked by its massive publicity through societal news outlets, has the capacity to influence the heads of innocent spectators who may not be well acquainted with litigation. Nor can the justice system be fully isolated from the pressures exerted by press reports in the press.
In Nature of the Judicial Court, Justice Cardozo, one of the great magistrates of the US Supreme Court, stated that magistrates are unconsciously affected by several powers. Concurrent litigation conducted by the Kanal on the grounds of piece by piece evidentiary has distorted perceptions of the case and this could act as unjustified outside pressures on the court case.
Considering the fact that even non-state players such as the mass media can violate the right to privacy, the Supreme Tribunal of Kerala ruled: "It would be necessary to classify the recently recognized basic right to one' s own personal sphere, which also includes the right to the protection of one' s own image, as a basic right which does not safeguard the person from indiscriminate state intervention, but also from the intervention of other individuals, such as the print press or the media".
It was in the case of rogue robbery against the former Prime Minster of Kerala, Oommen Chandy, where the tribunal first thwarted the press by releasing the content of the Commission's work. Monitoring was prompted by the Supreme Justice in Justice Puttuswamy v. Union of India ruling that the right to private life was a basic right.
Simultaneous proceedings by a broadcaster, conducted without respect for equity and without occasion for those concerned, violated the right to the private life of both the defendant and the victims. Panellists spoke without power of representation on behalf of the individuals concerned and they caused irresponsible harm with their brazen mud battles.
None of the lawyers who came to the Times Now last evening to discuss the benefits of film material from an on-going lawsuit against women rapists argued against the brutal irregularity of acting and repeating it. There' s a warrant out there that says the material can't be viewed. It also gives the press the opportunity to inform themselves about the limits to be respected in the discussion of outstanding cases.
Interventions by the press in cases such as the Jessica Lal case, the BMW hit-and-run case, etc. are often seen as supporting the need for a "media experiment". However, these cases had some blatant cases of investigation gaps and attempted to undermine the process, which would not have been rectified, but for press activity.
Otherwise there was also no editorial pertinence, as this was not an opportunity to hold a discussion about an on-going process at this point.