Ranjitha's Life in Danger?

Dinakaran and TV9 carried news of Ranjitha's life being in danger.

                                        Link to complete article

Dinakaran in a May 1st, 2010, article claimed that Ranjitha's mother spoke to the Karnataka police and expressed Ranjitha's fear of life if she were to meet (the cops) and give a statement against Nithyananda. The Karnataka cops are said to have assured her that Ranjitha will be given protection. The source of this information is (again) attributed to the police.  This news was also carried by TV9 and other news media.  

So, what really happened?  Ranjitha's mother has not talked to any cops, police or CID.  The police will not provide such false information which can easily be verified.  Hiding behind 'police sources' to fabricate news does not absolve the reporter or the magazine.  Another ratings game being played out...

Ranjita in Captivity?

In the SUN TV Nijam program interview, Lenin categorically stated that Ranjitha was held in captivity by Nithyananda.
As close friend of the family, I can say that the lady is emotionally distressed at such blatant use of her name and the rumor mongering happening in the press, especially by a person whom she hardly met. Her friends and her family know that she is with her family.
Lenin claims he does not know her much, yet he does not hesitate to claim that he knows that she is in Nithyananda's custody. All this makes us wonder his real motive and what else he is capable of lying.

Is Personal Privacy still a Fundamental Human Right?

Article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations)

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attack

This right is provided to every individual, however celebrities are discriminated against and denied this fundamental right

Celebrity Privacy Vs Freedom of Press is a catch 22 situation; where the privacy of a public figure is restricted by the freedom of the press. The fine line between the public and private life is often washed away by journalists for their 15 minutes of fame. Media created scandals are on the rise and these in turn are blamed on the voyeuristic tendencies of the society.

The media and the society, in general, feed off the misery of the celebrities who are crucified for their “fame and success” in life. Behind the veneer of success and fame, the hard work, personal sacrifices and vulnerability of public figures is often not recognized by the public.

The treatment of the alleged scandal by the Press is a classic example of a media circus which has assumed dinosauric proportions with print, e-media and visual media wanting their pound of flesh

March 2nd 2010:
Sun News, a regional network in Tamil Nadu with a world-wide audience, in their breaking news, telecasted a video, alleged to have been shot by a person, who surreptiously recorded events in a bedroom. The news channels were liberal with the names of the individuals, one of them being actress Ranjita and the other head of a spiritual organization. They claim to have telecasted this tape in the public interest. If that was true, wouldn’t it have been better left to the law enforcement authorities to investigate and do the needful? In a grab for ratings, they showed reckless disregard for the safety of the alleged individuals and other impacted parties.  Traumatized by the allegations, the constant media attention, and the one-sided verdicts and disruption of normal life are some of the effects on the impacted individuals, families and friends. To report an incident does not require the airing of such videos or making commerce by availing the said content on news websites. Ruining reputations is very easy and needs only a rumour in these days of internet village and that was done very effectively with this scandal – a professional actress’ years of hard work has been destroyed by one allegation. It is a moot point to talk about ethics and responsibility of the press since the guidelines of the Press Council of India stand violated in this case by a number of print, visual and electronic media. It is up to the affected individuals to seek redress via tedious litigation against powerful media houses. Is this what we are progressing towards – a developed economy and society where individual rights are overlooked with such ease?

Ranjitha's Interview?

Kumudam Reporter, in its March issue, published an interview with actress Ranjitha.  Shortly after the telecast of the video by Sun TV, the writer traced her to Thrissur, Kerala.  The article details the phone conversation between the writer and Ms.Ranjitha.

Link to interview (needs subscription): http://www.kumudam.com/magazine/Reporter/2010-03-14/index.php

Ms.Ranjitha, in her statement issued by her lawyer, categorically denied giving any interviews to media persons since the breakout of the scandal on March 2^nd, 2010, and has specifically mentioned the Kumudham Reporter’s interview as fabricated.

This is a magazine that has over the years gained reputation for its authentic news and has a large following across all age groups, including the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Dr.Karunanidhi who stated his admiration for the magazine.

When a magazine like Kumudham publishes an interview, its cloak of respectability automatically authenticates the interview and has far reaching consequences.  Freedom of Press does not justify malicious venom in the name of press freedom.

Impact of the interview:

The interview was carried by a number of online media from cine news sites such as kollywoodtoday.com, indiatimes.com, Times of India online, India’s First Citizen Journalisn News Portal, UK Tamil News, Kuwait NRI site and Star News,  and other visual media had a field day with this interview amply supplemented with their  innuendos.

Rumors, rumors and rumors!

Let's look at the rumor mongering that did the rounds and were carried by a number of media houses. They would be laughable except for the extent of media coverage they received. It proves that if juicy news wasn't available, it would be created.

• Rumour: Did Ranjitha attempt suicide?
• Fact: Luckily for the media, this is one time they could not drive a person to suicide.

• Rumour: Ranjitha has two children
• Fact: That is news to her, but if the press insists maybe they can find her “children.”

• Rumour: Ranjitha is a divorcee
• Fact: Only according to the media. Ranjitha is married.

• Rumour: Ranjitha filed for divorce and the matter is pending court.
• Fact: She did not. She has been married for twelve years. However, if the author of the article knows otherwise, please furnish the particulars so legal proceedings may be initiated against such impersonation.

• Rumour: Ranjitha visited Nithyananda after suffering from depression due to the marriage failure
• Fact: There was no marriage failure, so the premise of 'suffering from depression due..' does not apply.

• Rumour: Ranjitha created the tape to blackmail Paramhamsa Nithyananda
• Fact: There are easier ways for an actress to make money than the tedious and stressful blackmail process.

• Rumour: Lenin was close to Ranjitha and they worked together to trap Paramhamsa Nithyananda
• Fact: Ranjitha was not close to Lenin, so the question of working together does not arise.

• Rumour: Lenin called Ranjitha 'anni'(sister-in-law) occasionally.
• Fact: Ranjitha barely knew Lenin, so the question of addressing by any special name is impertinent and a lie.

• Rumour: Ranjitha blackmailed Nithyananda with the video for 50 crores
• Fact: Since she did not create the video, where does the question of blackmail arise?

• Rumour: Ranjitha organized AIDS awareness programs for Nithyananda and his Ashram
• Fact: Unfortunately, she did not organize any AIDS awareness programs for the Ashram.

The relevant question here is where did all these rumors come from and what purpose do they serve? Food for thought....

What is the Role of Media?

Media is an important platform as a social reform in today’s world. It is a powerful tool in shaping the minds of people. Mass media today is driven more by the politics and economics than by the journalistic ethics. Ratings, advertisements and the rush for commercial success are fast spiraling the media out of control.

                                          

One of the most recent victim of the media trial is a popular and  respected south indian actress Ranjitha.
Without even confirming the originality & the validity of the video recording the media released it on TV channels. Within 2-3 days of this episode the print media wanted to get their share of limelight, the result of which they fabricated interviews given by Ranjitha. All this was primarily because the person in question, Ranjitha did not talk to the media.

The consequences of this whole episode are that, the media earned their rightful rating which they thought they deserved. The print magazines sensationalized it bit more and probably sold enough copies of their magazines. Did anybody know what are the consequences faced by their prey?  For the simple reason that she did not choose to talk to the media???

Ratings can be good for movies but dangerous for news. By creating a sensational and one sided news to get a top rating, they only put pressure on the judiciary and the police. If only the media steps back a bit, put themselves as an individual in the shoes of the person in question, would they understand the mental anguish caused by such irresponsible acts.

Has anyone spared a thought to the actress and the rest of the family members???