Media is increasingly coming across as a participant in this process and not as a mediator for the process.

I think there is a change in approach of most channels. I guess the all round criticism of al people have woken them.

Surprising Shameena named Arnab of Times Now as bad moderator. Coincidentally I too find him really funny. He does not seem to have in him the ammunition of a moderator, much less the editor of a channel.

Pandianarjun analogy of dragging the people blindly is perfect. Such channels force-feed viewers. It is a way of corruption. Surprising Team - Anna has no issues with it. Shows the hollowness of Team - Anna's commitment to anti-corruption.

i agree with u shameena

I shall request you to refresh your memory and agree with the Idea that no two stories and two circumstances can be same. When you are bribed by foreigner you are anti national but if bribed by a person of a party, you act as worker of that party. Matter concerning Anna's movement: India against Corruption should not be viewed and compared with any less important happenings than the Freedom movement lead by Gandhiji. Some statements coming from persons sitting in important positions spoil the taste and some make it more sensible.

The possibilities of mediation are possible only where both the parties are permanent(or atleast appear like) but when Political parties, acting as Government are tried to bring to table for mediation they never get ready AND WHILE AWAY TIME OF THEIR tENURE. Media can only reflect the picture honestly and leave the rest to be decided be Indian Electors and elected.

When you find that concerned agencies do not perfor their duty and Society is suffering Media becomes the mirror and shows the real face and innovative Media acts within the framework of constitution, some vested interests view this process differently which is far from the facts.

Media Baron and Rulers want to use Media as their Publicity Agents and wheever they succeed absence of Media activity is visible.

MEDIA can never play God unless they are shown standing with people and that too the sufferings of people. When Media stands with Leaders and Rulers, they are only acting as servants, trying to earn livlihood by keeping eyes shut and broad casting HIS MASTERS VOICE, and the are not seen as God but Slave.

LOT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEDIA AND MEDIATOR IS THERE

Media, by its nature of fuctions has no role to play as a mediator. Media is a plural of the words means and medium through which we are able to know something.

On the other hand mediator means negotiator, intermeary or arbitrator which plays the role of patch up between two parties. Even otherwise also, media had ever been playing part of fuel to the fire in almost every matter.

BUT, in the particular single case of Anna's movement for corruption, the media has really been trying to paly its real role of medium to bring forth what is in the minds and nefarious designs of  the political leaders, which otherwise people would not have come to know.

THE MEDIA, IN REAL SENSE, ARE EXPOSING EACH LEADER, WHICH WE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE COME TO KNOW.

MEDIA CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO PLAY A ROLE OF A MEDIATOR AT ITS OWN, UNLESS BOTH THE PARTIES SPECIFICALLY NOMINATE THEM AS THEIR COMMON MEDIATOR. Moreover, pertinent question would arise, which of the several news channels should be selected to play the role of a reliable mediator?

NATURALLY, in such a movement, no political party or even Anna team would like to share credit with the third party, the media.

Dear Munshi Ram Chand,

To know the real role of media, you may need to study journalism and would definitely be able to know that media is not meant to act as a mediator in any dispute between two parties. However, if you know rules of journalism, you are welcome to prove that media has a role to act as a mediator to settle any dispute between two parties, specially the Government and public? There are several members, who are correspondents, sr, correspondents and principal correspondents from whom you may also confirm that.

About your other question, you perhaps don't view some baseless rumours being spread by the media at times. One of the media group through its news channel had been severally heard repeating, "Dilli ka paani pani mat peena, ismein zahar hai, mar jaoge." The other day one meda had been spreading rumour "Kailey mat kahna, mar jaoge." Another day media on the death of a doctor who drank vegetable juice, used to repeatedly say the whole day, "Kaddu mat khana, mar jaoge." Still on one day, it stated Ice Cream mat khana, mar jaoge." That means, according to media, you should not eat fruits, you should not eat vegetables, you should not drink water, you should not drink milk, as if their correspondents and owners do not eat and drink anything.

What more proof you desire? If you still need more proof start viewing the news analytically at the news channels from today itself and see if that fits your common sense or not. If you ask other members of this forum, they may also be able to point out towards some such exxagerated news items of the media. You may also like to give me your email ID, if you want me to send you a few of the news items in near future to come, as a proof for you.

Dear Makesh,

Have you seen the original unedited contents of Munshi Ramchand (now already edited by him) on which my earlier comments were based and now quoted in reply to his twisted latest post?

It seems you have posted your query just on the basis of my latest post and have not seen several original posts made so far by both of us. IF SO, that is clearly a case of reading between the lines by ignoring the facts.

My cooments were not based on the contents of Lokpal or Janlokpal bill, but on his comments where he alleged that the media would have shared its revenue with Anna's Team, which is clearly a defamation of Anna's team, but without without any proof in support of his reply. With my comments, I just cautioned him to restrict his statement to the extent on which he had any supporting proof, so that he may not fall prey of the legal community attached with Anna.

Better recheck related replies first before posting any comment. BUT, if you people have decided to twist the facts to the extent you like, I can only wish you good luck.

Mr. Dhingraji, Where was this array of lawyers when they drafted the draconian Jan Lok Pal bill. Surely they are frivilous and used to acting impulsively and without logic.

As for dragging any of the people in the debate to court, please abstain from making such statements. There have been far more personalised arguments than those made by Mr. Munshi here. And for Kiran Bedi, she is already feeling the heat for use of unparlimentary words. The MPs across party lines may take the same lady to court.

Annaji language is also pretty rainbow. They swing from Red to Blue in a matter of hours. Just remember what Jesus, the Christian phrophet had said. Those who liveth by the sword shal die by it. I guess Anna has started realizing that freedom of speech is a two edged sword. It cuts both ways.

Mr. Munshi please use sensible language and stop posting unwanted comments. Your words should be like the sword. It should be few and rare. But should have power whenever it is uttered. Please don't loose your credibility by posting unwanted matters and debate your point in a impersonal and dignified manner.

Dear Munshi,

Really you have the art of twisting not only the facts but also the statement of others. It seems either you do read other's message properly, or do that intentionally.

JUST POINT OUT WHERE DID I SAY "Media is represented by well know lawyers who can drag you to court"? I stated Anna's team, NOT media represented by. THIS CLEARLY PROVES THAT YOU TRY TO TWIST EVEN MY STATEMENT. Had you not been afraid of such lawyers of Anna's team you would not have edited your own statement.

BETTER RE-READ MY STATEMENT, WHICH STATES, "even in Anna's team three of the members are experts in law, like Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan, who are very senior advocates and Kiran Bedi, as a retired police chief. Any one of them, if come to know, can take you to the court of law for claiming damages for publically insulting them without any slight proof against them.”

If you want replies to your other questions also, just to expose yourself in this public forum, I don’t have any objection to reply those questions. I have replies to all of your questions. BUT in that case, this forum would prove just a fighting arena, NOT a knowledge forum, as I you don't seem to hesitate in making more and more objectionable statements.

Dear Munshi Ram Chand,

That is fine for you. Keep it up if you are so adament to maintain your views without having any proof about what you say.

Dear Munshi Ramchand,

In one message you showed the intention to fight with me on my questioning your statement and in the latest message you have stated that you have edited the objectionable sentence to satisfy me. It is not the question of my satisfaction.

Dear, in fact, you have not taken any clue of my sincere advice out of my questioning your statement. I did not have any objection, even if you post even the most objectionable statement, but, it is my elderly advice that you post only fact in your statement, which is known to you and you really have any proof about that, as it is a public forum.

You don't know, even in Anna's team three of the members are experts in law, like Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan, who are very senior advocates and Kiran Bedi, as a retired police chief. Any one of them, if come to know, can take you to the court of law for claiming damages for publically insulting them without any slight proof against them. Moreover, media can also take a very serious note of that and make hype of that, as you have made allegation against them also.

Dear Munshi Ram Chand,

Why not ask members what is their interpretation of the sentence, as follows, which you used? That clearly indicates your specific judgment & views about Anna's integrity:

"In that process media pushed its TRP and advertisements, ultimately sharing the revenue with Team Anna."

Dear Munshi,

Please re-read your own statement, where the independent part of which reads as under:

"In that process media pushed its TRP and advertisements, ultimately sharing the revenue with Team Anna."

The sentence is quite independent of the previous sentence to investigate whether media and Anna team were cohorts and also you used the word, "MUST", but has no relation with your second sentence. This clearly suggests that you know that ultimately the media has shared its revenue with the team Anna.

Further, I never said whether the revenue was shared or not. It was your own contention, which only you need to prove in support of your own statement.

what should i say, it works as both as opening the eyes common man and it sometime may peep into more what is actually required.

Dear Munshi Ram Chand,

Do you have any proof that any or all of the  media companies ultimately would have shared the revenue with Team Anna, or you are just spreading rumour like Parliamentarian Manish Tiwari, who ultimately ended with apology in public through media only.

You speak only about what you have evidence in support of your statement.

TRP is something different, as every commercial company tries to enhance its revenue and profitability by one or the other tactic. Particularly, the media tries to gain popularity by taking more and more of the advantage of the crisis like situation, as people like to hear spicy stories..

Dear Vinoy,

You have contradicted your own arguments by posting one argument in favour of the media and the other against it, both opposite to each other. You should have stuck to your one argument, either in favour or against that.

Surely mediating as a neutral is better than coming across as biased when reporting news.

BUT, nobody has come forward so far with the plea under what rules of journalism, the media has to play the role of a mediator by keeping aside their real job as media prefessionals?

I request Mr. Vinoy, the initiator of this thread, to quote any such proof in support of his statement.

That is valid argument. Every institution has its job cut for itself in India. This problem of media, Team Anna losing their focus is because of our parliamentarians. They did not even have decent sittings in the house.

Naturally their was a large political vaccum created. Even in television debates and press releases the political partes came across are lazy and non participating.

However the media has to regulate itself or it will face the same credibility crisis that ails the Indian parlimentarians.

Dear Vinoy,

Media has already lost its credibility by adding fuel to fire even in trivial matters earlier due to its continued efforts by creating a hill out of a mole almost every time.

BUT, when you have stated, "the journalist carries weight when he presents him in a dignified manner. And dignified journalism is one o f  the pillars of the our nation. It has to be more reasonable and  non-partisan," we must not expect them to unnecessary poke their nose as a self made mediators by shunning their real  role of media.