10:59:00
The first interview begins with a request from Prasad to Naik answer honestly. In reply, Naik requests the journalist to use his replies “in the full context, without editing.” Over the next seven questions, Naik speaks freely. The second interview is distinctly combative in contrast. Naik quickly gets annoyed by Prasad’s prodding questions. He says at one point, “You asked me the same question the first time, and you, very nicely, heard the answer. And that interview was very nice. The second time, why are you interrupting me?” Later, he says, “First time you gave me the complete opportunity to speak. If you want I can send you the complete recording. I have it on my mobile.”
On 7th July, the channel ran a small part of the first phone interview. Sources in the channel have confirmed that there was a technical glitch, which is why only a portion could be used. However, this doesn’t explain why a second interview was conducted and why it wasn’t carried. The full audio recording of the two interviews surfaced on YouTube on July 10, three days after Times Now aired its interview. Since then, Naik’s supporters have been sharing it on social media and alleging that the second interview was necessitated because of pressure from Prasad’s “superiors”.
Predictably, online news portals picked up on this chatter. Times Now provoking a subject as controversial as Naik is, and that too now? That’s big news. Newslaundry tried to reach Prasad to get her response to the allegations, but after saying she would revert soon, Prasad has not done so. The article will be updated if we get a response from her. We also attempted to get in touch with Times Now editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami for his take on Naik’s and his supporters’ allegations, but have not received any explanation from him either.
There are many assumptions that are being made because there’s little that is verified. Newslaundry spoke to Asifuddin Muhammed, president of the Hyderabad-based Islamic Academy of Comparative Religion (IACR), on whose YouTube channel the recording was first uploaded. He said he does not have a formal association with Naik, but had got the audio from a friend. Speaking on the source of the audio recording, he said that it “might have been shared by Zakir Naik himself”.
So far, the channel has not issued any statement to the effect that audio may have been doctored.
Did the channel deliberately bait Naik and then stick to the old version because the channel didn’t want to risk the embarrassment that would result from Naik releasing his recordings? Why did Naik or his followers release the recordings when it was the first (acceptable) version of the interview that had been put out by Times Now? Why were there two interviews of Naik in the first place?
There are no answers to any of these questions since Times Now is maintaining a resolute silence. However the audio, if legitimate, raises some very uncomfortable questions about how partial or impartial media reportage is today and the kind of pressure that is exerted upon reporters by their superiors. With everyone needing to ‘score’ stories, there is a steady amount of editorialising that goes on. Recently, NewsX was accused of twisting facts to create a sensation prime time story. Was Times Now attempting something similar with Naik? While NewsX chose to not carry their contentious interview of Vikash Narain Rai at all, Times Now didn’t bury the interview with Naik.
However, it doesn’t explain why the interview was re-recorded or why the reporter’s tone changed so drastically, or how there was enough of the interview to be salvaged despite a “major, major glitch”. All it does suggest pointedly is a lack of transparency within our media.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment