On 14 December 2011 17:34, Kiran K Karthikeyan <kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are you making the argument as follows: > > I have the right to free speech, and have therefore started a newspaper > People don't want proper news, just what passes for a news > I will therefore provide what the people want, while still being a > newspaper, and enjoying all the constitutional and legal protection provided > for newspapers to do proper news
What constitutional and legal protection designed for newspapers that do proper news do you think the Times of India should not quality for? (Not being facetious -- this is a serious question.) > Tags do mean a lot. It means you are qualified and expected to discharge > your duty honorably and is someone that can be trusted. If a guy in > plainclothes stops your car and asks to see your license and registration, > would you or would you not ask to see his badge? So, calling the Times of India a newspaper is what you have trouble with? Not the content but the fact that it calls itself a newspaper, which by your definition it is not? Venky.
