Partisan Press

The speech read out by Jayalalitha at the felicitation function in Thanjavur on March 9, contained nothing but lies and blatant lies and false pride. All the insinuations made by her against Kalaignar were absolute lies, and still the newspapers, knowing very well the dubious veracity of her claims, dutifully gave wide coverage to it in their issues on March 10.
The pro-Jayalalitha daily ‘The New Indian Express” published her speech on the first page (3 columns) and on page 5 (7 columns almost 3/4th of the page) under the headline “Karunanidhi did nothing on Cauvery: CM” and “Thanks for calling me winner”. Of course, to please their benefactor, they published a two-page eulogy on her with sprinkling of photographs in the Magazine, under the caption ‘The new influencer’ which may even blush the megalomaniac.
The daily ‘Deccan Chronicle’ (which seems to be vying with ‘TNIE’ to seek her favour by publishing a 32 page supplement on her birthday) covered her function on the first and fourth pages one of the two headlines reading “Farmers promise PM seat in return”
‘The Times of India’ published on page6 (five column) under the heading “Delta farmers say ‘Jaya Ho’ to CM”.
‘The Hindu’ published 5 column report on page 6 with sub-heading as “Refuses to give any credit to M.Karunanidhi or DMK regime on Cauvery issue”.
The entire speech of her was full of accusations against Kalaignar which were false and highly defamatory. When newspapers publish such defamatory charges against any person, they are obliged, by ethics of journalism, to give the same coverage when the charges are refuted by the concerned person. Much more, such a right for coverage by the concerned dailies with the same prominence of publication of the defamatory report, is legally enforceable by the person against whom the charges made.
But the rejoinder to Jayalalitha issued by Kalaignar on March 11, was not at all published by the dailies ‘The New Indian Express’, ‘Deccan Chronicle’ and ‘The Times of India’. ‘The Hindu’ published a little on page 7. Whither Freedom of  Press?