Are they now our more sleazed-up, glossified, anglicised replacement for the Bhajpaa-and-associates run moral policing mafia?
TOI was never the model newspaper, but now they've just gone ahead and won themselves the smutty-tabloid-of-the-year title. It would’ve been okay had they just stayed at their bordering-below-respectable position. But marketing decided that recycled barf bags are far more lucrative that plain old boring honest reportage.
They’ve broken every code in the book.
1.) First, they published the most skewed interview with RS, taken by some cocky bulge-in-his-pants adolescent who couldn’t get over his lower half to actually consider that the person he was interviewing had made a career choice to present her persona in a certain way, which does not necessarily mean that she’s going to allow any wandering p****** into her pants at any given time. These are the sort of people who think that a sex-worker should not complain if her clients brutalise her, simply because she’s a sex-worker and has therefore given up all rights to being a human being. [And the poor brain-deprived idiot actually tries to make a display of his fine-wit with some priceless wise-ass questions. Funny boy]
2.) Then they bring out glossy spreads on Sunday to drive the point home. [aah]
3.) And then, they print an obscene colour-image of the offender having a go at RS. Did you know spike-brain, that it is a moral offence to publish anything in a newspaper/ magazine etc. [any other mass-medium that you’ve considered defiling] that might cause discomfort/ offence to the defendant/ the survivor of sexual harassment? You could be sued for it Mr. [Messrs] Non-compos-mentis.
What are they trying to prove? That they’ve hired the most prejudiced, blinkered people out there to write for them? And worse still, that their editorial team lacks the clarity to weed out juvenile coloured sexist reportage?
Just because there’s a stupid-arse J-run money-laundering evil operation out there that’s willing to put any crap in print, it seems to be generally acceptable that stringing two words of English or Hindi together is sufficient qualification for anybody who fancies herself/ himself a ‘journalist’. Have they forgotten the meaning of 'Responsible Writing'?
If it's so beneath them to consider the points-of-view of people like RS, then why write about it even once, let alone publish their next few editions around the issue? If they think it's merely a publicity stunt, then why indulge the whim?
Fact: ‘Journalism’ is the most abused word in the dictionary.