Should not we be concerned about yellow journalism regarding Bangladesh?
Ref: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/98368
I am really intrigued by statements of Sunita Paul regarding Bangladesh. It is not difficult to assume that if Joy had a meeting with Taj the matter happened closed-door, away from any eaves-dropper, much less the presence of someone like Sunita. However, the way Sunita writes it gives the impression that she has had the first hand info on such private conversations between the two gentlemen of the Awami League. That is too much for anyone to swallow who cares about knowing facts and not mere rumors. I wonder if she is not copycatting Judith Miller in yellow journalism! E.g., just read her statement below to draw your own conclusions:
What was the agenda of discussion of Joy with junior minister Sohel Taj? The discussion was mostly on fixing strategies of international media campaign centering the BDR massacre. Sohel has provided most of the information to Sajib Wajed Joy, which he received from Abdul Kahar Akhand, the investigation officer with Criminal Investigation Department, probing the BDR massacre case.
Who told Sunita what Taj and Joy discussed?
Sunita goes onto write: "Joy was very dissatisfied to see long list of Awami League leaders and activists as collaborators and conspirators of the massacre, which came out from the statements of the BDR jawans during interrogation. He gave=0 Ainstructions to Sohel Taj to brief Kahar Akhand on twisting the information for trying to salvage as many as possible BAL men. There were also discussions on strategizing to save Barrister Fazley Noor Taposh, Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, Sahara Khatun, Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, Jahangir Kabir Nanak, Mirza Azam, Liakot Sikder and other BAL men."
How does Sunita know all such information about Joy? Are we supposed to assume that this woman who was born deaf and dumb is also a psychic?
My suspicion is that Sunita is trying to hem a story on the Peel Khana massacre that is mostly based on speculation and innuendos that may have little to do with actual facts. Personally, I have no problem if a writer were to state clearly that he/she suspects, or feels, or believes that such and such might have happened, which allows the reader to consider such as possibilities. But when the words are used in such a way that puts one as an all-knowing insider to the event (even of a private conversation), something that Sunita does consistently, truth gives way to falsehood. I have problem with such yellow journalism.
I am really intrigued by statements of Sunita Paul regarding Bangladesh. It is not difficult to assume that if Joy had a meeting with Taj the matter happened closed-door, away from any eaves-dropper, much less the presence of someone like Sunita. However, the way Sunita writes it gives the impression that she has had the first hand info on such private conversations between the two gentlemen of the Awami League. That is too much for anyone to swallow who cares about knowing facts and not mere rumors. I wonder if she is not copycatting Judith Miller in yellow journalism! E.g., just read her statement below to draw your own conclusions:
What was the agenda of discussion of Joy with junior minister Sohel Taj? The discussion was mostly on fixing strategies of international media campaign centering the BDR massacre. Sohel has provided most of the information to Sajib Wajed Joy, which he received from Abdul Kahar Akhand, the investigation officer with Criminal Investigation Department, probing the BDR massacre case.
Who told Sunita what Taj and Joy discussed?
Sunita goes onto write: "Joy was very dissatisfied to see long list of Awami League leaders and activists as collaborators and conspirators of the massacre, which came out from the statements of the BDR jawans during interrogation. He gave=0 Ainstructions to Sohel Taj to brief Kahar Akhand on twisting the information for trying to salvage as many as possible BAL men. There were also discussions on strategizing to save Barrister Fazley Noor Taposh, Sheikh Fazlul Karim Selim, Sahara Khatun, Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, Jahangir Kabir Nanak, Mirza Azam, Liakot Sikder and other BAL men."
How does Sunita know all such information about Joy? Are we supposed to assume that this woman who was born deaf and dumb is also a psychic?
My suspicion is that Sunita is trying to hem a story on the Peel Khana massacre that is mostly based on speculation and innuendos that may have little to do with actual facts. Personally, I have no problem if a writer were to state clearly that he/she suspects, or feels, or believes that such and such might have happened, which allows the reader to consider such as possibilities. But when the words are used in such a way that puts one as an all-knowing insider to the event (even of a private conversation), something that Sunita does consistently, truth gives way to falsehood. I have problem with such yellow journalism.
Some eyeopeners:
ReplyDeletehttp://rezwanul.blogspot.com/2009/04/that-shameless-plagiarist.html
http://shadakalo.blogspot.com/2009/04/serial-plagiarism.html
http://www.docstrangelove.com/2009/04/14/sunita-paul-continues-to-plagiarize/