Foreign Affairs
Related: About this forumIndia asks YouTube to remove Delhi rape film
Source: Reuters
NEW DELHI Thu Mar 5, 2015 7:15am EST
(Reuters) - India has asked YouTube to remove all links to a controversial documentary about the gang rape and murder of a woman in Delhi after banning its broadcast, a government official told Reuters on Thursday.
Leslee Udwin's "India's Daughter" features an interview with Mukesh Singh, one of four men sentenced to death for the rape and torture of a 23-year-old woman on a moving bus in December 2012.
Comments released to the media show that Singh blames the victim for the crime. He says that women are more responsible than men for rape.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
It was still possible to view the documentary on websites such as YouTube after British broadcaster BBC aired it outside India on Wednesday.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-india-rape-film-idUSKBN0M11AF20150305
chervilant
(8,267 posts)All I can find at the link is:
"We just forwarded the court order and asked them (YouTube) to comply," an official at the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology told Reuters.
I wonder who is behind this "request."
(Oh, and Reuters seems rather a sensational source, noting the headline: Embattled Hillary Clinton urges State Department to release emails. The entire article is as bad as the headline.)
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)From this source:
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/government-sends-notice-to-bbc-for-interviewing-convict-for-commercial-use-744553
Also, Aloke Verma, the director general of prisons, Tihar, has served a legal notice to BBC for violation of contract - which include using the opportunity to interview a convict for commercial use, showing content that violates the dignity of women and airing the documentary with without his approval.
<snip>
Earlier on Thursday, Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh had said, "We had asked to not release the documentary, but BBC still released it. We will investigate and the MHA will take action accordingly." "Conditions have been breached by BBC," the Minister alleged. Sources said the Home Ministry had on Wednesday afternoon sent a copy of a court order prohibiting the telecast of the documentary to BBC.
It is fascinating to me that people complain about the validity of a given news source but will not take a minute to locate an alternative to answer their question. It is almost as if they are more concerned about the presumed bias of the source - for reasons completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
Odd, that.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Not complaining. I do look for other sources, but wondered what agenda(s) might be motivating Reuters. Who owns Reuters, do you know?
And, I am glad that this documentary is getting publicity, regardless of how "questionable" might be Reuters.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)A Canadian company that started as Thomson Corporation and took the new name when they merged with Reuters in 2008.
http://thomsonreuters.com/en/about-us/company-history.html
I don't consider Reuters a problem. "Embattled" is a pretty accurate depiction of HRC's position at the moment. It has nothing to do with whether or not she deserves the scrutiny; it's just an observation that she is having to marshal her forces to combat the questions and accusations flying around her head. Suggesting that someone is surrounded by the "enemy" (per the definition of the word) isn't a slur.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)and intended to set a tone. I find journalism du jour distasteful and slanted, almost always.
(And, my observations are not intended to denigrate Eugene's OP or choice of sources, though I do find it interesting that you apparently feel defensive about my comments...)
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Defensive would imply that I feel "attacked" by your comments. Possibly accurate if I worked for Reuters, I suppose, or even in journalism at large. Since I don't, it doesn't apply.
Note that I didn't think you were criticizing the OP - my comment was addressing the odd, though common on DU, deflection from the topic to the source of the topic. Sometimes it is relevant to do so; using tabloid magazines as sources is one valid reason to address the source. Reuters is hardly a tabloid and it isn't owned by some nefarious group intent on destroying democracy. It's not always right - but then it is just one source. When in doubt, wisdom suggests verification before reaction.
We seem to disagree on whether or not the use of the word 'embattled' is slanted. You apparently find it so, as far as I can tell. I see it as a not inappropriate descriptive adjective. Perhaps HRC wouldn't choose that word - though I suspect that in private conversation, she may express feeling somewhat under siege a good bit of the time these days. Who wouldn't?
I'm not sure why you dislike the word (and 'dislike' may be too strong a word); in the end it is neither here nor there. My initial reaction to your post remains the same - mild wonderment at the ease with which some will shift the conversation (successfully, given our interplay in a thread that has nothing to do with either Reuters or HRC) away from the topic at hand to one that they find - apparently - more interesting.