The link given in Murali's last post is Surjit Bhalla's Web response (Less than a grain of truth<http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051021&fname=surjitbhalla&sid=1>) to Sainath's article "Lost the compass?<http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051017&fname=CP+Sainath&sid=1>" appeared in Outlook magazine in Oct 2005.
Sainath's article was all about the Indian Media's ignorance towards the Indian poor, and its support for elitism. In fact the article was excerpted from the book released later, *The Indian Media: Illusion, Delusion and Reality'* (Edited by Asha Rani Mathur. Published by Rupa & Co, New Delhi). Sainath, examined how the media portrayed a shining India, and used up its time and space in reporting the glories (both glorified achievements and glorified drops - read sensex) of India, selectively excluding debates on issues such as the Growing suicide rate among farmers, Distress migration from villages, Foodgrain availability, India's rank in Human Rights Index, etc. Issues that should have otherwise been concerns of vigilant journalists. With examples taken from lives of rich and poor across the length and breadth of India, Sainath presented certain "giant processes" gripping the countryside, but gained almost no attention in the Indian media. Sainath's sample of giant processes included Social inequality, Growing hunger among the poorer sections, Privatisation of basic services, Assaults on the livelihoods of the poor, Forced displacements of people, etc. The cases he presented to illustrate these processes were further substantiated with statistical data/reports from regional, national and international sources. Sainath comments that the Indian media have lost their compass, hence the compassion. Today we have McMedia, that tastes everywhere the same. Now, let us see what Surjit Bhalla's article talks about. The article that is given here as an example of how Sainath "dishes out wrong data and outright lies as eternal truth". Surjit's article pretends to attend Sainath's grief that the Rural India is "a giant canvas begging the media to do a portrait, many portraits. We failed that challenge—and resoundingly", by quoting it before starting his scrutiny. However, he never discusses any of the issues that Sainath has illustrated. Instead, he narrows down that whole subject to a single issue of "Foodgrain availability" by stating: > But the one "woman bites dog fact" of Sainath that grabs genuine attention > is his startling and shocking claim that "foodgrain available per Indian > fell almost every year in the [economic] 'reforms' period. And by 2002-03, > it was less than it had been at the time of the great Bengal famine [of > 1943]". > In fact, though Sainath had mentioned the issue Foodgrain availability should have been a matter of concern for the media, he never discussed it in detail. Sainath's discussion on foodgrain availability was limited to those two sentences that Surjit has quoted. The article "lost the compass?" was 8 pages long. One may argue that Surjit wanted to point out one factual error that Sainath (deliberately) made. Surjit starts to analyse the Foodgrain issue by using Engel's observations: > The fact that the consumption of foodgrains is highly income inelastic—i.e. > consumption of foodgrains increases very little with income, once an > individual is sufficiently beyond starvation levels—is a well-known > occurrence, at least since the time of 19th century German statistician > Ernst Engel, ... > This is a stylised fact which, after centuries of growth among centuries of > countries, has not been violated. Engels' law does not state that absolute > per capita consumption declines with income growth, only that the rate of > increase slows down. > > An absolute decline of consumption does occur with many goods —these are > called "inferior" goods, and foodgrains is just such an inferior good. > and states that: > So Sainath's point that foodgrain consumption declined in the 1990s would > be consistent with the poor actually having higher incomes after the > reforms! > While it is questionable to apply the criteria "once an individual is sufficiently beyond starvation levels" in a country where 6000 children die of starvation everyday<http://www.ibnlive.com/news/in-booming-india-hunger-kills-6000-kids-daily/62220-17.html>, and the way Engel's law interpreted here can be debated, Surjit himself states in the following paragraphs: > Per capita consumption (strictly speaking, availability) of foodgrains > averaged 364 grams per capita per day in the 1950s, and 391, 398, 420, 441 > and 419 in subsequent decades with the last number being for the period 2000 > to 2003 (all data from the widely and easily available Government of India, > 2004-05 Economic Survey, Table S-17). > > Contrary to Sainath, per capita availability of foodgrains peaked in the > decade of the reforms. What about the particular year Sainath mentions, > 2002-03? It turns out that in that year the availability was a high 457 > grams a day! > So the purpose of the Surjit's argument is clear! Declaining foodgrain consumption means poor have become richer - Sainath is wrong. But the foodgrain consumption actually not declained - So Sainth is wrong again! Whether this way or that way! In a much detailed analysis of the case that both Sainath and Surjit presented, one of the readers of both articles does this interesting observation: > Bhalla has a relatively stronger case that Sainath failed to report > correctly on the second "fact." However, that too is murky and unclear. The > government statistics that Bhalla cites, to the extent they are reliable, > show an erratic pattern of net availability of food grain measured in > grams/day. From 1990 to 2003, that figure zigzagged from 476, 510 to 469 to > 464 to 471 to 495 to 475 to 503 to 477 to 465 to 416 to 494 to 436. Bhalla > using decennial averages to argue a steady improvement. However, Sainath, if > he were capable, could argue that in 1954 figure of 458 hadn't improved > substantially despite the intervening "green revolution." If he were > economically and statistically literate, he could also point out that there > is an unmistakable trend in substituting of cheaper "cereals" for costly > "pulses" in this time period in calculating this figure. No wonder Disraeli > said, "there are lies, damned lies and statistics." > > - (from the post by the reader OLD MAC, UNITED STATES) > In fact, Both Sainath's and Surjit Bhalla's articles were well debated by the readers (net edition). Links to both articles and discussions are given at the end of this post. I am sorry this is a long post. But, when Surjit says "journalists have a responsibility to not betray the trust, or at least not to betray it so blatantly.", and Murali forwards it with a note "he dishes out wrong data and outright lies as eternal truth", it seemed important to examine. Was it Sainath actually betraying and lying?. Links: (Readers discussions in Outlook net edition are presented in the descenting order they are posted, with latest appearing first. So read from last page, upwards. Links given are for last pages) Lost the compass? - Sainath, Oct 17, 2005 http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051017&fname=CP+Sainath&sid=1 Readers feedback http://www.outlookindia.com/rantsmag.asp?fodname=20051017&fname=CP%20Sainath&sid=1&pn=7 Less than a grain of truth - Surjit S. Bhalla, Oct 21, 2005 http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051021&fname=surjitbhalla Readers Feedback http://www.outlookindia.com/rantsmag.asp?fodname=20051021&fname=surjitbhalla&sid=1&pn=3 In Booming India, Hunger Kills 6,000 Kids Daily. CNN-IBN, Mar 29, 2008 http://www.ibnlive.com/news/in-booming-india-hunger-kills-6000-kids-daily/62220-17.html On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Murali K Warier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let me add this one comment, perhaps the last in this thread: > Sainath's problem is not that he frames issues in an ideological frame > work. Nor is it that he sensationalizes issues way beyond the limits. The > issue is that he dishes out wrong data and outright lies as eternal truth : > http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051021&fname=surjitbhalla&sid=1 > Is this a manifestation of the 'been there, seen it' arrogance? Maybe. > > Best regards, > Murali > > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Bobby Kunhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I break my promised silence to ask only one question - who does not work >> within ideological frameworks? S A Aiyyar, Bobby Kunhu or Murali Warrier. >> Sanath stands out only beacuse he is in the field when writing his >> "journalistic" pieces as against Mr Aiyyar. >> I would rather let others respond rather than this becoming a conversation >> between the both of us. >> >> p.s. when i do find the time, i would respond personally >> >> Best >> >> >> > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't > want to hear. > > > -- Regards Abdulkareem അബ്ദുല്കരീം Blog: നമുക്കു ചുറ്റും http://kareemsblog.blogspot.com/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
