Grassroot Journalist Vol.1 Issue 2

Grassroot Journalist ~ Talks & Tools ~ Creative Commons’ Exchange ●

Nov-Jan 2016 ● Vol. 1 ● Issue 2

●

Member’s Copy

●

Not for Sale

Free Basics FREE or FRAUD Read Share Enrich

Grassroot Journalist ~ Talks & Tools ~

Guidelines for the Contributors Grassroot Journalist is published for the purpose of research, study, interaction & communication, and to share 'talks and tools' related to the basic idea of journalism, to promote excellence and awareness among media professionals, students, researchers, individuals and experts.

We request to follow these points before any submission by our contributorsResearchers z Grassroot Journalist welcomes original research papers.

These articles must be no more than 5,000 words, including notes and references. Special articles should be accompanied by an abstract of a maximum of 150 words.

General contributions z Short contributions on contemporary subjects, developments, events ideally be between 1,000 and 1,500 words.

Notice Board z Notice Board section carries information and reports.

Information related to Fellowships, Admissions, Scholarships, Study Programmes, Workshops and general activities in the field of media and communication is to be sent us within proper time. It can be flashed on GJ website and in print according to relevance.

Confabulations and Assignments z GJ sends out books for review, assign interviews, plans subject centric discussions and dialogue, promote talks, confabulation and symposiums, encourage survey based reports and out of box stories. Grassroot Journalist does not normally accept unsolicited Interviews, Surveys or Book Reviews. Prior permission will help us to ensure the consideration.

Media communicators, Students and Institutions z Media communicators, students and institutions may share research and experimental activities on GJ Round Table section. GJ Website also tries to help as a sharing platform.

General z Contributions should be sent preferably by email. Receipt of articles will be acknowledged by email. z Contributions with immediate relevance would be considered for early publication.

Please note that this is a matter of purely editorial judgment. Editorial board reserves the final say. It is abiding to all. z Writers are requested to provide full details for correspondence: postal address, phone numbers and email address. z GJ posts all published articles on its website and may reproduce them in print. z Copyright of all articles published in the Journal belongs to the author or to the organization. No published article or part thereof should be reproduced in any form without prior permission of the author(s) and original sources. z A soft/hard copy of the author(s)'s approval should be sent to Grassroot Journalist.

Editorial Communication Address: 204 Paradise Garden A-25 Tilaknagar, Jaipur-302004

Vidyalaya

Email : grassrootjournalist@gmail.com Website : www.grassrootjournalist.org

Marg

Editor’s Block IMPACT to be noted

A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent Arnab Goswami Editor-in-chief, Times Now

What Nation Wants to Know

z

You sit there as an editor, trying to launch a new kind of journalism, and you are not resented, you are not mocked, but are seriously hated. This whole system hates you and when you start like that they want to crush you like a fly even before you have the chance to take wings. However, this disruption that we speak about today was born from the human necessity to change things.

z

I had no plans to do this with Times Now. Let me tell you, I was the most abject failure in the first ten years of my career. In 2002 I seriously thought of quitting journalism all together. I hated the system. I didn’t like this system of mutual cooperation, sycophancy and corruption that I witnessed. It made me so sad I regretted ever being a journalist.

z

I have seen enough hypocrites, corrupt people, sycophants and middle men in my own profession to believe that the kind of media you were given was the wrong media.

z

Journalism missed the strong element of idealistic activism and dissent that today drives the profession and what we do.

z

We disrupt the media in many ways. The first way is very simple: Ask the toughest question to the most important person. When face to face with an important person, ask yourself, which is that one question that if I ask this guy he may never give me an interview again. It may be Amitabh Bachchan who doesn’t want to be questioned about Salman; or Rahul Gandhi who doesn’t want to be questioned about a number of things.

z

What is neutrality? Am I going to float a Wikipedia on television? I don’t believe in it. This is a dated 17th century belief that journalism isn’t journalism; that it is, what in the Mogul era, was the job of a town crier. I am not a town crier and never will be.

z

If you want to be seriously neutral, I respect you, but I suspect that behind this whole concept of neutrality is this tendency to play safe, to be guarded… not to play the shot. Neutrality is a weakness because it perpetuates the status quo and doesn’t change it. It has no impact and journalism is an exercise in absolute futility in the absence of impact. To sit on a fence in the absence of any ambiguity, on a matter of public interest is basically nothing short of a crime itself.

z

Who decides what makes news? Conventionally, politics is first page; fiscal deficit is first page. My question is who decides the order of priority of news? There is no established order and there is no established story. There is nothing that is right (for priority) or wrong. Whatever impacts and touches my heart; whatever will affect the most number of people; that is priority journalism.

z

Stop creating ‘holy cows’ in our country; icons and legends who we are not allowed to be asked questions to.

Irreverence has to become a basic rule that the profession of journalism adheres to. Because you will not realise what is right and what is wrong without it. As Martin Luther King said, “Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle.” And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent.Politicians and people of power have ridden us and it has ridden the media because the back of the media has been bent. But we are gaining our supine strength once again.

Listen Arnab Goswami Follow this link- https://youtu.be/XpFP_SZD9rg

Excerpts from the speech* Indian Advertising Association India Chapter’s Silver Jubilee Summit at Kochi (Sep2015)

3

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

Grassroot Journalist ~ Talks & Tools ~ Creative Commons’ Exchange Quarterly / Vol. 01 Issue 02 / Nov-Jan 2016 / Winter Number GRASSROOT JOURNALIST is a not-for-profit publication.

It is a JOURNAL published for the purpose of research, study, interaction & communication and to share 'talks and tools' related to journalism, to promote excellence and awareness among media professionals, students, researchers, experts and individuals.

Copyright remains with the source; Knowledge sharing is at the core.

Membership & Subscriptions : Rs. 500.00 (For 1 year Community Membership inclusive all charges. Member Card Holders entitled for special offers) *Make payment in Name of GRASSROOT JOURNALIST *Please provide complete details ie. name, age, qualification, occupation, organization, postal address, email, website, contact no. etc. for office record.

Website : www.grassrootjournalist.org

E-mail : grassrootjournalist@gmail.com

Founder & Editor

5

The Fraud of Free Basics

6

India must choose facts over fiction

8

Response to Mark’s arguments

10

It is not Free, it is a Scam!

11

Why is Mark Zuckerberg angry at critics in India?

14

Five net neutrality myths busted

19

Frequently asked questions

22

Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ, ÿÊŸË ‚È‹÷, ÁŸÿ¥òÊáÊ-⁄UÁ„à ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U

25

4 Key Social Media Marketing Trends To Lead The Game

28

Bravo Anas! Well done

32

Journalism is more than algorithms

34

Meet the ” Diarygate” Experts

* All posts are honorary

Cover pic : Creative commons

Yashwant Vyas

● Grassroot Journalist Edited, Printed and Published by YASHWANT VYAS, 204 Paradise Garden, A-25 Vidyalaya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur-302004. * All posts are honorary Printed at Cosmos Printers, Madhyam marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur. A not-for-profit publication.

Window

6

Wednesday January 2016

The Fraud of Free Basics Posted by Grassroot Journalist in Lead Line

Free Basics by Facebook is on the top of the discussions in the new year. Have a look on some of the aspects. Start with the Opinion of The Hindu...

Caution on Free Basics ‘Free’ and ‘altruism’ are words that generally have a positive ring to them. But it’s clear that social media behemoth Facebook’s Free Basics programme, which it pitches as an altruistic endeavour to provide the have-nots a bridge to the Internet for free, fails to evoke such a feel. Not without reason, though. For starters, as critics have repeatedly pointed out, there is a huge difference between being a gateway to the Internet and being a gatekeeper to the Internet, and Free Basics worryingly has all the makings of the latter. So, it does have the potential to trap subscribers in the metaphorical “walled garden”, what with the immensely popular Facebook thrown into the free mix of offerings. That the whole package is offered free hardly surprises anyone with even a little knowledge of how business models in the digital world work. Free, by the way, is a business model that delivers returns in an unconventional way. There might be many variations of it but basically it is about accumulating millions and millions of new users by offering products free, in the hope that the build-up could be milked for revenue in the years to come. That’s the same tactic many start-ups use to show “traction” while pitching to big moneyed venture capitalists.

And where do you find an unrestricted Internet economy with millions yet untapped? Yes, India. There can be very little doubt that the haveshave-nots digital divide in India is stark, and needs to be bridged as soon as possible. Credit is due to Facebook for identifying this need and bringing a sense of urgency to addressing it. Credit is also due for the way its young founder Mark Zuckerberg has fought doggedly for the idea’s acceptance. It is close to a year now since he launched Internet.org, the earlier avatar of Free Basics, in India. And during this period, there has never been a dull moment in the exchanges between the critics of Free Basics and Facebook.

As it stands, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, the regulator, has asked Facebook’s Free Basics partner in India, Reliance Communications, to put the service on hold. The social media giant, showing little sign of backing off, has done all that it can (tweaked its dimensions, launched a comprehensive advertising campaign, and got its charismatic founder to pen articles) to get political and social acceptance to the idea. It’s both impressive and unsettling at the same time when one thinks about how a corporate, valued at over $300 billion, can spend so much money and effort on a controversial project that is not even avowedly a pure business venture. The problem has reached the doorsteps of policymakers. They have to not only decide the fate of services such as Free Basics but also find ways to deliver digital equality fast. For, Free Basics can’t be an excuse for the failures of the state in delivering universal access.

Editorial by The Hindu www.thehindu.com 5 May-2015

Grassroot Journalist

Path

6 Wednesday January 2016

To connect a billion people, India must choose facts over fiction POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

BY MARK ZUCKERBERG, SOURCE : FACEBOOK.COM

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and chairman of Facebook defends his move…

In every society, there are certain basic services that are so important for people’s wellbeing that we expect everyone to be able to access them freely.

We have collections of free basic books. They’re called libraries. They don’t contain every book, but they still provide a world of good.

We have free basic healthcare. Public hospitals don’t offer every treatment, but they still save lives.

We have free basic education. Every child deserves to go to school.

And in the 21st century, everyone also deserves access to the tools and information that can help them to achieve all those other public services, and all their fundamental social and economic rights.

That’s why everyone also deserves access to free basic internet services.

We know that when people have access to the internet they also get access to jobs, education, healthcare, communication. We know that for every 10 people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty. We know that for India to make progress, more than 1 billion people need to be connected to the internet.

That’s not theory. That’s fact.

Another fact – when people have access to free basic internet services, these quickly overcome the digital divide.

Research shows that the biggest barriers to connecting people are affordability and awareness of the internet. Many people can’t afford to start using the internet. But even if they could, they don’t necessarily know how it can change their lives.

Over the last year Facebook has worked with mobile operators, app developers and civil society to overcome these barriers in India and more than 30 other countries. We launched Free Basics, a set of basic internet services for things like education, healthcare, jobs and communication that people can use without paying for data.

More than 35 operators have launched Free Basics and 15 million people have come online. And half the people who use Free Basics to go online for the first time pay to access the full internet within 30 days.

So the data is clear. Free Basics is a bridge to the full internet and digital equality. Data from more than five years of other programs that offer free access to Facebook, WhatsApp and other services shows the same.

If we accept that everyone deserves access to the internet, then we must surely support free basic internet services. That’s why more than 30 countries have recognized Free Basics as a program consistent with net neutrality and good for consumers.

Who could possibly be against this?

Surprisingly, over the last year there’s been a big debate about this in India.

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 6

Instead of wanting to give people access to some basic internet services for free, critics of the program continue to spread false claims – even if that means leaving behind a billion people.

Instead of recognizing the fact that Free Basics is opening up the whole internet, they continue to claim – falsely – that this will make the internet more like a walled garden.

Instead of welcoming Free Basics as an open platform that will partner with any telco, and allows any developer to offer services to people for free, they claim – falsely – that this will give people less choice.

Instead of recognizing that Free Basics fully respects net neutrality, they claim – falsely – the exact opposite.

A few months ago I learned about a farmer in Maharashtra called Ganesh.

Last year Ganesh started using Free Basics. He found weather information to prepare for monsoon season. He looked up commodity prices to get better deals. Now Ganesh is investing in new crops and livestock.

Critics of free basic internet services should remember that everything we’re doing is about serving people like Ganesh. This isn’t about Facebook’s commercial interests – there aren’t even any ads in the version of Facebook in Free Basics. If people lose access to free basic services they will simply lose access to the opportunities offered by the internet today.

Right now the TRAI is inviting the public to help decide whether free basic internet services should be offered in India.

For those who care about India’s future, it’s worth answering some questions to determine what is best for the unconnected in India.

What reason is there for denying people free access to vital services for communication, education, healthcare, employment, farming and women’s rights?

How does Ganesh being able to better tend his crops hurt the internet?

We’ve heard legitimate concerns in the past, and we’ve quickly addressed those. We’re open to other approaches and encourage innovation. But today this program is creating huge benefits for people and the entire internet ecosystem. There’s no valid basis for denying people the choice to use Free Basics, and that’s what thousands of people across India have chosen to tell TRAI over the last few weeks.

Choose facts over false claims. Everyone deserves access to the internet. Free basic internet services can help achieve this. Free Basics should stay to help achieve digital equality for India.

Source : facebook.com

7

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

Values

18

Monday MAY 2015

Response to Mark’s arguments POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

BY HARSHATH J.R. , SOURCE : FANTOOSY.COM

You open your article by presenting Free Basics as analogous to other basic free services of a society like schools, libraries, health services and so on. But Mark, your analogy is flawed. A library aggregates AS MANY books as it can, and a hospital provides AS MUCH basic healthcare as possible. In fact, good public healthcare is the more socially developed countries (UK and many countries from mainland Europe). They key underlying principle is “as much as possible”. On the other hand, Free Basics provides as little as possible to qualify as an internet service. A real “free basic internet” would put in more effort, and definitely provide access to the real internet?—?for a restricted internet is not internet at all. You’ve mentioned before that it is not cost-effective to provide the real internet for free, but that is also not true. There are existing models of enabling internet access, like Aircel providing cheap and unrestricted internet. If all you have is philanthropy in mind and you do not care which conduit helps people out of poverty, I suggest you get behind one of them than peddle your own brand. And even if you must provide your own solution, don’t blame it on the money. Use some of the $42b you’ve set aside for charity.

Another problem is the power dynamics of your approach to providing internet access. With Free Basics, you hope to be the liberator of poor people from their poverty, but in fact in fact are perceived as a dictator, or worse, a tyrant.

When helping the vulnerable, you can never be in a position where you can take from them. Free Basics puts you in exactly that position. You provide internet access to these people, but strip away their freedom to access any service they want (while ironically calling it “Free” Basics). It also puts you in a position where you can dictate and control their access to any new services.

More than that, it paints you as disrespectful of these people’s freedom and dignity simply because they are poor.

Mark, if you know about our history, you’ll know that up until around 1990, India’s entrepreneurial sector was subjected to heavy licensing and permit restrictions. However in the 90s, we realized that an unfettered innovation landscape will help our country grow, and permits and licenses are only holding us back. A bunch of deregulations were implemented, and we’ve never looked back.

The same is true with internet. An unrestricted internet is the primary requirement to foster uninhibited innovation in online services. Gatekeepers and restrictions are bound to put a damper on them, and a model like Free Basics sets a very dangerous precedent, especially in India. It allows major ISPs to put up similar walled garden schemes, and to differentially charge for different services. All of this strongly reminds us of an era when our country was a lot less free and progressive. There have already been attempts by our existing ISPs at disrupting our freedom with schemes like zero-rating, and Airtel famously trying to change its customers separately for Skype. We’re in the middle of a battle for freedom on the internet, and Free Basics is caught in the crossfire. And we cannot risk allowing Free Basics in the midst of it all, for we cannot risk progress even for progress’s sake.

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 8

This also brings me to the subject of net neutrality. I don’t know what definition of net neutrality you go by, but you’re either being ignorant or disingenuous when you repeatedly claim that Free Basics fully respects net neutrality.

Net neutrality simply means that an internet provider provides you access to the entire internet, and no content is discriminated against. Instead, Free Basics provides access to a restricted version of internet, while simultaneously becoming the gatekeeper to success of new services. It places barriers on free and permission-less innovation on the internet?—?also a key tenet of net neutrality. This makes Free Basics inherently not neutral.

Lastly?—?you observe that there is “surprisingly” a debate on Free Basics in India. Surprisingly? Do I detect a tinge of condescension here? I should think that the debate is, if anything, most unsurprising. You’re talking about introducing a model of internet that is hotly debated around the world?—?in a country that possibly has the most technologically savvy people! I’m sure that the debates on net neutrality in the US (“Music Freedom” by T-mobile, the Netflix-Comcast fast internet lanes saga, etc) did not surprise you. Neither should this. And if you still think it is surprising, I recommend you introspect about your subconscious attitudes towards the backward and the poor.

People please stop sending message to TRAI about Free Basics. Digital Equality is exact opposite of Net Neutrality. Do not fall into the trap of facebook’s emotional and misleading advertisements. Please go to the website www.savetheinternet.in to understand the concept of net neutrality and to know why Free Basics of facebook is harmful for our country.

Source : http://fantoosy.com/point-by-point-rebuttal-to-mark-zuckerbergs-toi-article-in-support-of-free-basicsin-india/

Share talks ...

FREE BASICS: OLD FRAUD, NEW NAME Newsclick interviewed Prabir Purkayastha, Chairperson of the Society for Knowledge Commons, on Facebook’s Free Basics and TRAI’s Consultation Paper on Differential Pricing for Data Services. Prabir said that differentiating internet services in terms of content will be a violation of the basic principle of Network Neutrality. He added that zero rated services are but meant for ‘walled gardens’. Internet Service Providers should not act as gatekeepers for content generators. Purkayastha said that the consultation paper by TRAI focuses on tariff issues rather than safeguarding the principles of Net Neutrality. ‘Free Basics’, the renamed package by Facebook would only lead to discrimination and will curb innovation and creativity.

Listen the conversation published by newsclik on Dec29,2015 –

WATCH: DECODING NET-NEUTRALITY

Video Link : https://youtu.be/kTsnxtboSU?list=PLrDg7LoYgk9zB S00nim7HOgFpK0Mws7_C WATCH: FACEBOOK EXPLAINING FREE BASICS

Video Link : https://youtu.be/Y6vXJNVUDug

Share Talks & Tools within community. Send us your recommendations to Grassroot Journalist, the Creative Commons Exchange. www.grassrootjournalist.org grassrootjournalist@gmail.com

Video Link : https://youtu.be/rj3-5pUoosU

9

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

Values

29

Tuesday December 2015

It is not Free, it is a Scam!

POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

BY SHULANDA SINGH , SOURCE : PC-TABLET.CO.IN

Earlier called Internet.org, Free Basics is a misleading campaign by Facebook that is aimed at offering access to a limited number of Facebook-partnered websites and apps free of cost to the user. This campaign is promoted by Reliance in few states of India, namely Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Goa under the name Internet.org.

However, it was furiously opposed by Technology experts and analysts for a good cause.

To begin with, the name Internet.org indicates that Facebook considers itself as The Internet, which is not even close to the services it offers. Even the father of Internet, Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web, suggests users not to entertain scams like Free Basics.

Firstly, Free Basics is Internet.org, carefully wrapped in a fairytale name. While we are on the topic, Free Basics name itself is fraud. It is not free! Only those websites and apps that are partnered with Facebook will be accessible for free.

If you want to access any other site, you will have to pay Facebook. Now we just have one question. Facebook is supposed to teach the unaware the actual use of Internet. But how is Facebook planning to do that when it doesn’t want to let its users decide what is best for them? Ironically, Facebook “accidently” asked people outside India to vote for Free Basics and send emails to TRAI. It shows how impatient and greedy people at Facebook really are.

Facebook also launched a print and digital media campaign “Connected India,” asking users to give a missed call, automatically sending a message to TRAI in support of Free Basics. Facebook is now asking its users to send an e-mail to TRAI supporting “essential internet for all.” It lays the claim to have gained support from 3.2 million of its 130 million users in India. However, according to a few net neutrality volunteers, many of Facebook’s 3.2 million supporters for Free Basics were non-Indians. (Source: Business Standard).

Facebook then launched various campaigns in India using social media websites as well as every Billboards and advertising screens. Zuckerberg expected this to be a cakewalk before the unexpected protest he faced. He later thrown out agitated statements to Media saying he is providing free Internet to billions of Indians who are uneducated and still deprived of Internet.

Who are all against Free Basics? z z z z z z z

Father of Internet laid strong beliefs against Free Basics in an interview.

“Vijay Shekhar Sharma, founder of Paytm, the wallet turned e-commerce firm has called Facebook’s actions as similar to “East India company.”

IIT, IISc scientists, protest against Facebook’s Free Basics.

FSMI Hyderabad launches a campaign against Free Basics. The campaign also talked about alternatives to Free Basics, such as FreedomBox — a project that combines smartphone computing with a wireless router to create a network of personal servers and protect privacy during daily life.

Writing in the Hindustan Times, India’s Save The Internet coalition maintained that “Internet.org is Zuckerberg’s ambitious project to confuse hundreds of millions of emerging market users into thinking that Facebook and the internets are one and the same.”

Naveen Patnaik, CM, Odisha, said: “If you dictate what the poor should get, you take away their rights to choose what they think is best for them.”

Technology analysts Prasanto K Roy believes that Free Basics is good for Zuckerberg to consider India as a “great business opportunity” and pick up his next billion Facebook users.

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 10

Point

29

Tuesday December 2015

Why is Mark Zuckerberg angry at critics in India?

POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

BY SOUTIK BISWAS SOURCE : BBC.COM

Mark Zuckerberg is feeling the force of critics who believe his effort to provide Indians with free access to a limited number of internet services hurts India's democracy and violates net neutrality.

In an unusually pugnacious appeal in the mass-circulation Times of India, the Facebook founder forcefully defended introducing his Free Basics service, "a set of basic internet services for education, healthcare, jobs and communication that people can use without paying for data".

Facebook, Mr Zuckerberg says, has already launched the service in partnership with more than 35 mobile operators in more than 30 countries.

He says more than 15 million people have already come online because of the service. "The data is clear," he says. "Free Basics is a bridge to the full internet and digital equality."

So - in a tone which many say mocks critics - Mr Zuckerberg asks: "Who could possibly be against this?

"Surprisingly, over the last year there's been a big debate about this in India."

Stiff opposition After all, with more than 130 million users, India is Facebook's second biggest market in the world.

Mr Zuckerberg has been bear-hugged by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in California, and has visited India twice. He insists India will be crucial to getting "the next billion online".

Many believe Mr Zuckerberg possibly expected a cakewalk with Free Basics, and is now irate at being stonewalled by critics who are not convinced about his motives.

Earlier this month, India's telecom regulator directed a mobile operator that partnered with Facebook to put the Free Basics offer on hold following stiff opposition by the critics, who believe that it runs contrary to the principles of net neutrality and that data providers should not favour some online services over others by offering cheaper or faster access.

Last April, hundreds of thousands of Indians sent emails to the regulator and set up websites demanding a free and fair internet.

11

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

All this is not helping Mr Zuckerberg. So Facebook has launched a lavish campaign to canvass support for Free Basics, putting out expensive full-page double-spread adverts in leading Indian newspapers and putting up billboards in cities.

And on Monday, he lashed out against his critics here for continuing to "spread false claims - even if that means leaving behind a billion people".

"Instead of recognising the fact that Free Basics is opening up the whole internet, they continue to claim - falsely - that this will make the internet more like a walled garden," he wrote.

"Instead of welcoming Free Basics as an open platform that will partner with any telco, and allows any developer to offer services to people for free, they claim - falsely - that this will give people less choice.

"Instead of recognising that Free Basics fully respects net neutrality, they claim - falsely - the exact opposite."

But prominent tech activists are not convinced.

Nikhil Pahwa, a volunteer with savetheinternet.in, says the Facebook boss has not answered a critical question.

"Why has Facebook chosen the current model for Free Basics, which gives users a selection of around 100 sites (including a personal blog and a real estate company homepage), while rejecting the option of giving the poor free access to the open, plural and diverse web?," he wrote in a stinging riposte to Mr Zuckerberg's personal appeal.

'Open access' Mr Pahwa, a fierce defender of net neutrality, says research has shown that "less experienced, low-income groups prefer access to an open and unrestricted internet".

They should rather be given the choice, he writes, of "deciding what they want to access, with millions of websites and apps to choose from, for say, three days, over being given unlimited access to a limited selection".

Mr Zuckerberg possibly answers this question partially in his appeal.

He says "certain basic services" are important for people's well-being in all societies, so we have collections of free books in libraries, free basic healthcare - and not every treatment - which saves lives, and free basic education.

Ditto with free basic internet services, he argues.

But this is only a part of the story, say critics.

Mr Pahwa says Facebook and the Indian mobile partner Reliance Communications "reserve the right to reject applications from websites and apps for Free Basics, and forces them to conform to its technical guidelines".

"Services which compete with telecom operator services will not be allowed on Free Basics. It would need Facebook's permission (and hence, time) for a citizen-powered crisis-response effort such as Chennairains.org to be made available to those on Free Basics, and the flexibility and freedom with which such an effort can evolve would be restricted or limited by Facebook's guidelines."

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 12

'Disingenuous' More than half of India's 320 million internet users - 94% of whom are mobile - use Facebook and the instant messaging app WhatsApp, both owned by Mr Zuckerberg, every day, a study has shown.

The country is expected to have 500 million internet users by the end of 2017.

Technology analysts like Prasanto K Roy say it is all right for Mr Zuckerberg to look at India as a "great business opportunity" and pick up his next billion Facebook users.

"But he is being disingenuous with his Free Basics campaign. He is pushing what is essentially a corporate strategy, which is nothing wrong, and equating it with free basic education and healthcare," he says.

"Facebook is spending millions of dollars in the media to drum up support for Free Basics in India. What about using this money to subsidise internet access for the poor? Why is it dressing up what is essentially a corporate strategy as an altruistic mission?"

Source :http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35192184

APPLY FOR WPI FELLOWSHIP The WPI fellowship is offered to 10 journalists from countries around the world. It provides immersion into the governance, politics, business, media, journalistic ethics and culture of the United States for experienced international journalists, through a demanding schedule of study, travel and interviews throughout the country.

The program begins in mid-August and ends in mid-October. The 2015 Fellowship Program has ended.

Applications for the 2016 program will open on December 1, 2015 and close on February 15, 2016.

The fellows will spend three weeks in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, and then travel to several U.S. cities, including New York and Washington, D.C., for briefings, interviews and visits. They will return to Minnesota for the final week of the program. See the Program Review for examples of WPI events.

Journalism — in particular, the role and responsibilities of a free press in a democracy— is the primary focus of the WPI fellowship program. First-hand knowledge of the complexity and diversity of life in the U.S. is an equally important goal. Access is the key. Over the term of the fellowship, WPI fellows gain access to a broad range of individuals and institutions ranging from the world renowned to the ordinary.

Since 1961, WPI has brought almost 600 journalists from nearly 100 countries to the United States.

Selection is a competitive process. Each year hundreds of journalists apply to the program. Fellows are picked by the WPI selection committee, composed of journalists and corporate communications specialists, all with international experience. Candidates are not considered if their application package is late or incomplete.

WPI pays all program costs, including transportation to the U.S. and back, all transportation within the U.S. related to the WPI program, and all lodging costs. In addition, a modest daily per diem for food is provided. Personal expenses, such as cameras, film, postage and clothing, are the responsibility of the fellows.

See more at: http://www.worldpressinstitute.org/fellowship.htm#sthash.WRS0lXOi.dpuf

13

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

Analysis

04

Monday Junuary 2016

Five net neutrality myths busted POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

BY SMARIKA KUMAR SOURCE : THEHOOT.ORG

SMARIKA KUMAR is a legal researcher who was until recently with the Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore. She writes in thehoot.org : “Neither side in the debate fully supports the public interest in its entirety, only partially.”

Last year was a remarkable year for popular debates on internet-related issues in India. It saw the public outrage against Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 culminate in a well-reasoned judgment delivered by the Supreme Court declaring it unconstitutional. The year also saw popular media discussion on the fraught issue of net neutrality snowball. Whereas in February 2015 the average person would not even have heard of “net neutrality” or “internet.org” (as Free Basics was called then), by December 2015 a large segment of internet users had a strong opinion on both schools of thought.

And all this, thanks to a certain kind of media engagement with the issue which managed to break numerous hard-held myths about media debates.

Here are a few of them:

Myth: People are interested in the sensational, not the technical.

Reality: People are extremely interested in the technical, if pitched right.

What is significant is that something which started as a rather technical, regulatory policy discussion has, within the short space of one year, managed to catch public attention in ways that technical issues are not thought to do. In August 2014 when Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) like Airtel demanded in an industry meeting that TRAI regulate competing Over-the-Top (OTT) services like Whatsapp so that what they deemed to be a “fair” regulatory environment could be established, people did not care less.

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 14

But come December 2014 and later, when Airtel decided to “fairly” charge extra for VoIP/Whatsapp usage, people had an opinion on numerous technical matters of regulation like licensing, zero-rating and net neutrality. This proves that people are interested in technical matters and not just the sensational, as soon as they are able to connect the impact of the technical upon their everyday lives.

If the media can pitch complex technological issues in a way that makes them relevant to ordinary people, as the savetheinternet.in and John Oliver’s video segment on net neutrality could successfully do, they will find that people always want a say in technical policy regulation – nobody wants to be left out of technical decision-making. When important governance issues fail to be debated publically, the reason often lies in the media’s inability to explain technical issues in a way which feels relevant to common people, and not the latter’s disengagement with technical matters. It is the former issue which the media should aim to address, rather than dismissing the public as stupid. The public is only as stupid as the writer is.

Myth: The public is wrongly informed and uninterested.

Reality: The public is imperfectly informed and is willing to fight for its interests.

The TSP conglomerate has been baffled at why so many regular internet users chose to respond to the TRAI’s original Consultation Paper of April 2015. The Cellular Operator’s Association of India (COAI) went as far as to say that traffic management data and techniques should not be shared with the consumercitizen because such complex technical matters would only add to their confusion (page 15).

This is bullshit for the simple reason that we live in a democracy, and the very point of a democracy is governance by people for themselves. And such governance can only happen when common people are well-informed. The decades since the Second World War have increasingly seen a certain kind of reliance on “expertise” in deciding governance questions at the expense of democracy.

This is not to say that seeking an “expert” opinion is in any way bad, but if such opinions are deployed in ways whereby the public does not comprehend what technological design it is consenting to, it can hardly be called a democratic process.

“There is little consensus in the popular media yet about what constitutes this elusive ‘net neutrality’. “ What is heartening is that once certain expert contributions to the net neutrality debate were made comprehensible to the public in an accessible language and formats, people were more than willing to participate through somewhat obscure governance mechanisms such as public consultations to fight for what they understood as their interest.

That being said, the net neutrality debate might not have been explained to people in all its complexity within the popular media, but even with the imperfect information they had, the public responded most enthusiastically, not cynically, and what else can be more hopeful for the future of a democracy?

Myth: Nobody opposes net neutrality.

Reality: Net neutrality is an improperly defined concept in public debates.

What is net neutrality? Who knows! One theory is that it provides a level playing field for both established internet companies and new entrants. Does this mean that companies which send out spam should have an equally level play15

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

ing field? And if not, how does one create a regulatory design which minimizes only spam and not legitimate internet content? Will such a design be a violation of net neutrality? Opinions differ. Another floating understanding of net neutrality seems to imply equal internet access to everyone. But people who pay for a different plan also access different speeds of internet. Is that a violation of net neutrality? Opinions differ.

It is all because there is little consensus in the popular media yet about what constitutes this elusive “net neutrality.” Sure there is a certain understood definition for “net neutrality” among techies, but that often falls apart when faced with different kinds of business interests. Anyway why should the public choose either definition when it can carve out its own? It is in the nature of definitions and concepts to evolve with the needs of people and when they fail to do so, they are clearly dud concepts.

“As citizens, we need to decide for ourselves how to define net neutrality in a way which aids maximization of a gamut of public interests, including fair competition, low pricing, choice and access.”

The upshot is that net neutrality is, happily, an evolving concept in public debates. But confusingly, this can also cause all sorts of communication gaps.

So while TSPs like Airtel, Facebook and Savetheinternet.in all say they support net neutrality, they mean quite different things by net neutrality, with each claiming that theirs is the “true” understanding of net neutrality.

COAI’s version of net neutrality manages to support zero-rated apps by defining itself as: “No denial of access and absence of unreasonable discrimination on the part of network operators in transmitting internet traffic.” (page 9). This contradicts Savetheinternet.in’s version of net neutrality which is about preventing ISPs from providing a competitive advantage to any internet service/app either through pricing or Quality of Service, which rings the death knell for zero-rated apps. Facebook’s understanding of net neutrality respects this fair competition in general but makes an important exception for “essential” internet apps designed “for the poor.” As citizens, we need to decide for ourselves how to define net neutrality in a way which aids maximization of a gamut of public interests, including fair competition, low pricing, choice and access.

Myth: Free Basics will improve internet access in India.

Reality: It is difficult to predict without any hard, empirical data corresponding to the Indian context.

Briefly, the state of unbiased public research into user habits and the numbers associated with how people access the internet in India is in a shambles.

There exists a 2015 study conducted by Amba Kak of the Oxford Internet Institute in this matter, which tells us that low-income consumers in Delhi want to access the entire internet when they do. Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama has used this study to back the claim that Indian users do not want Facebook Free Basics. But conversely, this study can also be used to claim that Indian users will reject Free Basics, and therefore there is no need for an additional net neutrality regulation from TRAI because the market will correct itself.

Possibly.

My point is that in the absence of specific data, it is hard to say for sure which direction potential Indian users of Facebook Free basics will turn – will they use it, will they not, will they like to use it, will it improve access given how Indian users utilize the internet and given what they expect of the internet?

We do not know for sure. What we as the public can only do is make educated guesses with the small sample of publically available data. And upon such educated guesses, we can choose to frame policy. Such opinions, coming from

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 16

either Facebook or COAI, or savetheinternet.in then become a matter of personal inclinations in historical interpretations and risk aversions.

“What do we want to do in the absence of data? The most obvious response to this is fund the creation of public data on the issue. “ It is in this spirit that the UPenn-based internet academic, Christopher Yooadvocates waiting to see how differentially priced markets like those offering zero-rated apps act, before framing policy in this regard. And it is in the same spirit that Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore justifies the opposite – precautionary, principle-based regulation in the absence of data.

The critical question remains: What do we want to do in the absence of data?

The most obvious response to this is fund the creation of public data on the issue. There seems to be little movement in that direction from either the TRAI or the DoT. There needs to be a greater public demand for this. That being said, the creation of new public data on internet usage in India can only be a long-term response. What do we do now? To be honest, the importance of taking a decision on this right now only exists because of commercial pressures. While business is important, how far, as citizens, do we want to give into these pressures to make a hasty choice?

These are important questions we need to debate. But whatever we choose to do, it is important to be aware of the circumstances we are making those choices in, so that when the circumstances change, we have the free understanding to change our choices.

Myth: The Indian media finally spoke up for the public interest.

Reality: The Indian media spoke up for its own interests, which might have a few intersections with the public interest.

One of the popular stories going around the Indian media is that big, evil, foreign corporations want to destroy “net neutrality” in India and we need to fight them. Conversely the Facebook story is that it wants to help India to connect; it is no big, evil corporation but a benevolent philanthropicorganisation.

The reality, as usual, is way greyer. The truth of the matter is that net neutrality, like life, is not a Lord of the Rings movie with a good versus evil battle. It is true that good versus evil makes for an easy story to tell (I also call it lazy storytelling), but it has very little to do with facts. And the fact is that some 17

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

big corporations including Facebook and big TSPs like Reliance or Airtel might want to undermine a certain version of net neutrality given their business interests, and these interests can sometimes hurt a citizen internet user, and sometimes not, and may sometimes even help.

Considered comprehensively, the public interest lies in simultaneously maximizing innovation in both TSP and OTT markets, increasing internet access (by building infrastructure, reducing access prices, increasing access speeds), increasing media diversity on the internet, maintaining high, equal and fair competition in both TSP and OTT markets as well as low barriers to entry and, lastly, ensuring that internet content is not censored either by private companies, the government or anyone else.

“Media campaigns which try to speak in the name of the public interest, end up ignoring the complex nature of this interest.”

The reality is that absolutely no media debate is currently asking how can we design a governance mechanism which maximizes all these public interest parameters together? The reason is that the media (and within it different kinds and scales of media) is differently affected by such governance mechanisms because of differing interests from the public.

Much of the media industry might be interested, like the public, in maintaining competition and innovation but media diversity and battling censorship, for example, are not always a direct concern of the industry simply because such investments don’t give financial returns, and financial returns is what businesses are about. The public, on the other hand, is about much more.

It is sad but expected then, that popular, contradictory, but well-intentioned media campaigns like savetheinternet.in or Facebook Free Basics which try to speak in the name of the public interest, end up ignoring the complex nature of this interest. Each side justifiably advocates only those portions of the public interest spectrum which favour its own sustenance. In short, the public debate on net neutrality we are having right now is really a struggle of interests between established TSP/OTT corporations and upcoming startups.

Media campaigns which try to speak in the name of the public interest, end up ignoring the complex nature of this interest.

Sure, some the arguments of each favour certain aspects of the public interest (like Free Basics’ public interest angle of internet access or Savetheinternet’s public interest angle of equality) but neither of them is about the public interest as a whole, or per se.

The current media debate is not positioned in the public interest, rather certain ideas of the public interest are being read into the media industry’s own, often fraught interests. As citizens, rather than getting swept away by one camp’s arguments, we need to discern and separate our interests from the positions of all camps.

Source : http://www.thehoot.org/media-watch/digital-media/five-net-neutrality-myths-busted-9095

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 18

Frequently asked questions

Basics

06

Wednesday January 2016

POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

1

BY : TIMES NEWS SERVICE SOURCE : HTTP://TIMESOFINDIA.INDIATIMES.COM

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is an idea derived from how telephone lines have worked since the beginning of the 20th century. In case of a telephone line, you can dial any number and connect to it. It does not matter if you are calling from operator A to operator B. It doesn't matter if you are calling a restaurant or a drug dealer. The operators neither block the access to a number nor deliberately delay connection to a particular number, unless forced by the law. Most of the countries have rules that ask telecom operators to provide an unfiltered and unrestricted phone service.

When the internet started to take off in 1980s and 1990s, there were no specific rules that asked that internet service providers (ISPs) should follow the same principle. But, mostly because telecom operators were also ISPs, they adhered to the same principle. This principle is known as net neutrality. An ISP does not control the traffic that passes its servers. When a web user connects to a website or web service, he or she gets the same speed. Data rate for Youtube videos and Facebook photos is theoretically same. Users can access any legal website or web service without any interference from an ISP.

2

Some countries have rules that enforce net neutrality but most don't. Instead, the principle is followed because that is how it has always been. It is more of a norm than a law.

How did net neutrality shape the internet?

Net neutrality has shaped the internet in two fundamental ways.

One, web users are free to connect to whatever website or service they want.

ISPs do not bother with what kind of content is flowing from their servers. This has allowed the internet to grow into a truly global network and has allowed people to freely express themselves. For example, you can criticize your ISP on a blog post and the ISP will not restrict access to that post for its other subscribers even though the post may harm its business.

But more importantly, net neutrality has enabled a level playing field on the internet. To start a website, you don't need lot of money or connections. Just host your website and you are good to go. If your service is good, it will find favour with web users. Unlike the cable TV where you have to forge alliances with cable connection providers to make sure that your channel reaches viewers, on internet you don't have to talk to ISPs to put your website online.

This has led to creation Google, Facebook, Twitter and countless other services. All of these services had very humble beginnings. They started as a basic websites with modest resources. But they succeeded because net neutrality allowed web users to access these websites in an easy and unhindered way.

19

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

3

What will happen if there is no net neutrality?

If there is no net neutrality, ISPs will have the power (and inclination) to shape internet traffic so that they can derive extra benefit from it. For example, several ISPs believe that they should be allowed to charge companies for services like YouTube and Netflix because these services consume more bandwidth compared to a normal website. Basically, these ISPs want a share in the money that YouTube or Netflix make.

Without net neutrality, the internet as we know it will not exist. Instead of free access, there could be "package plans" for consumers. For example, if you pay Rs 500, you will only be able to access websites based in India. To access international websites, you may have to pay a more. Or maybe there can be different connection speed for different type of content, depending on how much you are paying for the service and what "add-on package" you have bought.

Lack of net neutrality, will also spell doom for innovation on the web. It is possible that ISPs will charge web companies to enable faster access to their websites. Those who don't pay may see that their websites will open slowly. This means bigger companies like Google will be able to pay more to make access to Youtube or Google+ faster for web users but a startup that wants to create a different and better video hosting site may not be able to do that. Instead of an open and free internet, without net neutrality we are likely to get a web that has silos in it and to enter each silo, you will have to pay some "tax" to ISPs.

4 5

What is the state of net neutrality in India?

Legally, the concept of net neutrality doesn't exist in India. Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for internet and Society in Bangalore, says that Trai, which regulates the telecom industry, has tried to come up with some rules regarding net neutrality several times. For example it invited comments on the concept of net neutrality from industry bodies and stakeholders in 2006. But no formal rules have been formed to uphold and enforce net neutrality.

However, despite lack of formal rules, ISPs in India mostly adhere to the principal of net neutrality. There have been some incidents where Indian ISPs have ignored net neutrality but these are few and far between.

Will the concept of net neutrality survive?

Net neutrality is sort of gentlemen's agreement. It has survived so far because few people realized the potential of internet when it took off around 30 years ago. But now when the internet is an integral part of the society and incredibly important, ISPs across the world are trying to get the power to shape and control the traffic. But there are ways to keep net neutrality alive.

Consumers should demand that ISPs continue their hands-off approach from the internet traffic. If consumers see a violation of net neutrality, they ought to take a proactive approach and register their displeasure with the ISP. They should also reward ISPs that uphold the net neutrality.

At the same time, as Abraham says, Trai needs to come out with a set of clear and precise rules that protect the net neutrality. "We have started seeing ISPs trying to take control of the traffic that flows from their servers but Trai can regulate them. It can keep the internet open and consumer-friendly by forming rules that protect net neutrality. These are early days so it is easy to do. If ISPs manage to change the system, it may become too late," he says.

Source : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/What-is-net-neutrality-and-why-it-is-important/articleshow/29083935.cms

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 20

Strokes

GJ Cartoonist of the quarter : Satish Aacharya

Satish Acharya about self

A self-taught cartoonist who wonders what they teach at cartooning schools. Passionate about all aspects of journalism.

Thankfully, friends and family no longer question my 'mad' decision to quit an MBA (finance) job to pursue cartooning. Other passions are cricket and cinema, both career candidates once upon a time. Blog here because it connects me with my readers. Love your comments; they help my cartoons shape up better.

@satishacharya www.cartoonistsatish.blogspot.com cartoonistsatish@gmail.com

Satish Acharya is a famed Indian cartoonist from Kundapura, Karnataka. Acharya recently featured as one among 24 thinkers named by Forbes India as best Indiabased intellectuals who are well regarded outside India. Self-taught cartoonist Acharya, as a student earned his pocket-money by contributing cartoons to Kannada publications like Taranga, Sudha, Tushar etc.Satish studied MBA in finance from Mangalore University .After completing MBA, Acharya moved to Mumbai and started job in an advertising agency as an account executive, but soon realized that his heart is in cartooning. So he quit MBA job to pursue his career in cartooning.

He got his first break as a political cartoonist with Mumbai-based English tabloid Midday. Satish's cartoon on Charlie Hebdo Massacre was regarded as the one of the most powerful cartoons on the tragedy by the foreign media.

Mein, Hum and AAP, Cartoonishta and Non-striker are his books.

Basics

15

Sunday November 2015

Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ, ÿÊŸË ‚È‹÷, ÁŸÿ¥òÊáÊ-⁄UÁ„à ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

’Ê‹ãŒÈ ‡Ê◊ʸ ŒÊœËø

BY BALENDU SHARMA DADHICH

»§‘§‚’È∑§ ∑§Ê ∑§Œ◊ •Áœ∑§ SflË∑§Êÿ¸ „Ù ‚∑§ÃÊ ÕÊ ÿÁŒ fl„ Á‚»§¸ Á⁄U‹Êÿ¥‚ ∑‘§ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ Ã∑§ ‚ËÁ◊à Ÿ„Ë¥ ⁄U„ÃÊ •ı⁄U Á∑§‚Ë ÷Ë ßë¿È∑§ √ÿÁÄà ∑§Ù ß‚ ¬ÊŸ ∑§Ê •Áœ∑§Ê⁄U ÁŒÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ– ß‚Ë Ã⁄U„, fl„ •Áœ∑§ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊ ∑§„Ê ¡ÊÃÊ ÿÁŒ ∞‚ ©¬ÿÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ mÊ⁄UÊ ∞ÄU‚‚ ∑§Ë ¡ÊŸ flÊ‹Ë fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ ∑§Ë ∑§Ù߸ ÁŸÁ‡øà ‚¥ÅÿÊ Ÿ„Ë¥ „ÙÃË ’ÁÀ∑§ Áfl‡fl ∑§Ë Á∑§‚Ë ÷Ë fl’‚Êß≈U ∑§Ù ∞ÄU‚‚ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ë •Ê¡∏ÊŒË ŒË ¡ÊÃË– ∞∑§ ¬¥ÁÄà ◊¥ ∑§„Ê ¡Ê∞ ÃÙ ÿ„ Á∑§ Ÿ ÃÙ ©¬ÿÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ ∑‘§ ‚¥Œ÷¸ ◊¥ •ı⁄U Ÿ „Ë fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ ∑‘§ ‚¥Œ÷¸ ◊¥ ∑§Ù߸ ‚Ë◊Ê ÿÊ ÁŸÿ¥òÊáÊ „ÙÃÊ–

»§‘‚’È∑§ Ÿ Á¬¿‹Ë Œ‚ »§⁄Ufl⁄UË wÆvz ∑§Ù Á⁄U‹Êÿ¥‚ ∑§êÿÈÁŸ∑‘§‡Ê¥‚ ∑‘§ ‚ÊÕ Á◊‹∑§⁄U ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U.•ÊÚª¸ ∑‘§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ∞∑§ •Ÿ∏ÍΔË ‚flÊ ◊È„ÒÿÊ ∑§⁄UÊŸË ‡ÊÈM§ ∑§Ë ÕË– ß‚∑‘§ Äà Á⁄U‹Êÿ¥‚ ∑‘§ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù ∞∑§ ∞¬ ∑‘§ ◊Êäÿ◊ ‚ x} fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ ∑§Ù ÁŸ—‡ÊÈÀ∑§ ßSÃ◊Ê‹ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ë ‚ÈÁflœÊ ŒË ªß¸– ÿ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ •¬Ÿ S◊Ê≈U¸»§∏ÙŸ ◊¥ ∑§Ù߸ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U «≈UÊ å‹ÊŸ ◊ı¡ÍŒ Ÿ „ÙŸ ∑‘§ ’Êfl¡ÍŒ ߟ fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÙª ∑§⁄U ‚∑§Ã Õ, Á¡Ÿ◊¥ πÈŒ »§‘‚’È∑§ ÷Ë ‡ÊÊÁ◊‹ ÕË– íÿÊŒÊÃ⁄U ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ Ÿ ß‚∑§Ê Sflʪà Á∑§ÿÊ ÄUÿÙ¥Á∑§ Á’ŸÊ ∞∑§ ÷Ë ¬Ò‚Ê ÁŒ∞ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑§Ê ßSÃ◊Ê‹ ∑§⁄UŸ ◊¥ ©Ÿ∑§Ê ∑§Ù߸ ŸÈ∑§‚ÊŸ Ÿ„Ë¥ ÕÊ– »§‘§‚’È∑§ ∑‘§ ŒÎÁc≈U∑§ÙáÊ ‚ ŒπÊ ¡Ê∞ ÃÙ fl„ •¬Ÿ ¬˝ÿÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ ’…∏ÊŸ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ß‚ ‚ÈÁflœÊ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÙª ∑§⁄U ⁄U„Ë ÕË– „Ê‹Ê¥Á∑§ ©‚Ÿ ‚Êfl¸¡ÁŸ∑§ M§¬ ‚ ÿ„ Œ‹Ë‹ ŒË Á∑§ fl„ ‹ÙªÙ¥ ∑§Ù ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑‘§ ‹Ê÷ ŒŸ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ∞‚Ê ∑§⁄U ⁄U„Ë „Ò– ß‚ Œ‹Ë‹ ◊¥ ‚ ÁŸ∑§‹Ÿ flÊ‹Ë äflÁŸ ÿ„ ÕË Á∑§ »§‘§‚’È∑§ ¬⁄UÙ¬∑§Ê⁄U ∑§Ë ÷ÊflŸÊ ‚ ∑§Ê◊ ∑§⁄U ⁄U„Ë „Ò– Á»§⁄U ÷Ë Ÿ Á‚»§¸ ÷Ê⁄Uà ’ÁÀ∑§ Á¡Ÿ-Á¡Ÿ Œ‡ÊÙ¥ (∑§Ù‹¥Á’ÿÊ, ¡ÊÁê’ÿÊ, Ã¥¡ÊÁŸÿÊ, ∑‘§ãÿÊ, ÉÊÊŸÊ •ÊÁŒ) ◊¥ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U.•ÊÚª¸ ∑§Ù ‡ÊÈM§ Á∑§ÿÊ ªÿÊ, fl„Ê¥ ß‚ ‹∑§⁄U ÁflflÊŒ π«∏Ê „Ù ªÿÊ– •Ê◊ ‹ÙªÙ¥ ∑§Ë ‚◊¤Ê ◊¥ Ÿ„Ë¥ •ÊÿÊ Á∑§ •ª⁄U ∑§Ù߸ ∑§¥¬ŸË ◊Èçà ◊¥ ∑§Ù߸ ‚flÊ Œ ⁄U„Ë „Ò ÃÙ ß‚∑§Ê Áfl⁄UÙœ ÄUÿÙ¥ „Ù ⁄U„Ê „Ò? ÿÁŒ ÿ„ Áfl⁄UÙœ »§‘§‚’È∑§ ∑‘§ √ÿʬÊÁ⁄U∑§ ¬˝ÁÃm¥ÁmÿÙ¥ ∑§Ë •Ù⁄U ‚ „ÙÃÊ ÃÙ ’Êà •‹ª ÕË ‹Á∑§Ÿ Áfl⁄UÙœ ∑‘§ ¬Ë¿ ∞‚ ‹Ùª Õ ¡Ù ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑§Ë ◊ÈÄà ¬˝∑§ÎÁà ∑§Ù ’⁄U∑§⁄UÊ⁄U ⁄UπŸ ∑‘§ Á„◊ÊÿÃË „Ò¥- ◊ËÁ«ÿÊ, ªÒ⁄U-‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄UË ‚¥ªΔŸ, ¡Ÿ¬˝ÁÃÁŸÁœ, ÁflmÊŸ, Ã∑§ŸË∑§ Áfl‡Ê·ôÊ, ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ¬⁄U øÁø¸Ã √ÿÁÄÃàfl, ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ÃÕÊ Ã∑§ŸË∑§Ë ˇÊòÊ ∑‘§ •Ÿ∑§ ‚¥ªΔŸ •ÊÁŒ •ÊÁŒ– flÀ«¸ flÊß« fl’ («éÀÿÍ «éÀÿÍ «éÀÿÍ) ∑‘§ Áfl∑§Ê‚∑§Ãʸ Á≈U◊ ’Ÿ¸‚¸ ‹Ë Ÿ ÷Ë •¬ŸÊ Áfl⁄UÙœ ◊Èπ⁄UÃÊ ∑‘§ ‚ÊÕ Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 22

•Á÷√ÿÄà Á∑§ÿÊ Á¡ã„Ù¥Ÿ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ ‚ •¬Ë‹ ∑§Ë Á∑§ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U.•ÊÚª¸ ÿÊ »§˝Ë ’Á‚ÄU‚ (ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U.•ÊÚª¸ ∑§Ê ŸÿÊ ŸÊ◊) ∑§Ù ‚Ëœ-‚Ëœ “ŸÊ” ∑§„¥– Á’˝Á≈U‡Ê •π’Ê⁄U ªÊÁ¡¸ÿŸ ◊¥ ¿¬ •¬Ÿ •Ê‹π ◊¥ ©ã„Ù¥Ÿ ∑§„Ê Á∑§ •ª⁄U ∑§Ù߸ ∑§¥¬ŸË ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑‘§ ŸÊ◊ ¬⁄U ©‚∑§Ê ∞∑§ ¿Ù≈UÊ ‚Ê Á„S‚Ê „Ë •¬Ÿ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù ©¬‹éœ ∑§⁄UÊ ⁄U„Ë „Ò ÃÙ ©‚ SflÃ¥òÊ •ı⁄U ‚fl¸‚È‹÷ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U Ÿ„Ë¥ ∑§„Ê ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ– ߟ ‚÷Ë Ÿ »§‘§‚’È∑§ ∑§Ë ß‚ ◊„àflÊ∑§Ê¥ˇÊË ÿÙ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê Áfl⁄UÙœ ß‚Á‹∞ Á∑§ÿÊ ÄUÿÙ¥Á∑§ fl ß‚ Ÿ≈U ãÿÍ≈˛ÒÁ‹≈UË ÿÊ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑§Ë •flœÊ⁄UáÊÊ ∑‘§ Áπ‹Ê»§ ◊ÊŸÃ „Ò¥– Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑§Ê •Õ¸ ‹ÙªÙ¥ ∑§Ù Á’ŸÊ Á∑§‚Ë ÷Œ÷Êfl ∑‘§, Á’ŸÊ Á∑§‚Ë L§∑§Êfl≈U ∑‘§, ∞∑§ ‚◊ÊŸ …¥ª ‚ ÃÕÊ SflÃ¥òÊ M§¬ ‚ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U •ÊœÊÁ⁄Uà ‚Ê◊ª˝Ë ÃÕÊ ‚ÈÁflœÊ∞¥ ©¬‹éœ ∑§⁄UÊŸÊ „Ò– ΔË∑§ ©‚Ë Ã⁄U„, ¡Ò‚ „◊ ≈U‹Ë»§ÙŸ ‚ÈÁflœÊ ∑§Ê ßSÃ◊Ê‹ •¬ŸË ‚ÈÁflœÊ ‚, Á∑§‚Ë ÷Ë ‚◊ÿ, ’⁄UÙ∑§≈UÙ∑§ •ı⁄U Á’ŸÊ Á∑§‚Ë ÷Œ÷Êfl ∑‘§ ∑§⁄U ‚∑§Ã „Ò¥– ∑§Ù߸ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ∑§¥¬ŸË •Ê¬∑§Ù ÿ„ Ÿ„Ë¥ ∑§„ ‚∑§ÃË Á∑§ •Ê¬ Á∑§‚ »§ÙŸ Á◊‹Ê∞¥ •ı⁄U Á∑§‚ Ÿ„Ë¥– Á∑§‚Ë πÊ‚ √ÿÁÄà ∑§Ù ≈U‹Ë»§ÙŸ ∑§ÊÚ‹ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ∑§◊ •ı⁄U ŒÍ‚⁄UÙ¥ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ •Áœ∑§ Œ⁄U Ÿ„Ë¥ ‹ªÊ߸ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃË– ß‚Ë Ã⁄U„ Á∑§‚Ë √ÿÁÄà ∑§Ù Á∑§∞ ¡ÊŸ flÊ‹ ∑§ÊÚ‹ ÁŸ—‡ÊÈÀ∑§ Ÿ„Ë¥ Á∑§∞ ¡Ê ‚∑§Ã– ÿ„ ÷Ë Ÿ„Ë¥ „Ù ‚∑§ÃÊ Á∑§ • ∑§Ù ≈U‹Ë»§ÙŸ Á◊‹ÊŸ ¬⁄U »§ÙŸ ’«∏Ë ◊ÈÁ‡∑§‹ ‚ ‹ª ÃÕÊ ’Ê⁄U-’Ê⁄U ∑§ÊÚ‹ ≈UÍ≈UÃÊ ⁄U„ ¡’Á∑§ ’ ∑§Ù ∑§ÊÚ‹ ∑§⁄UŸ ¬⁄U »§ÙŸ ÃÈ⁄U¥Ã Á◊‹ ¡Ê∞ •ı⁄U ’ÊÃøËà ’„Èà ‚Ë ‚ÈÁflœÊ¡Ÿ∑§ …¥ª ‚ „ÙÃË ⁄U„– Á¡‚ ÁŸÿ◊ ∑§Ê ¬Ê‹Ÿ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ ∑‘§ ‚¥Œ÷¸ ◊¥ „ÙÃÊ „Ò, fl„Ë ÁŸÿ◊ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ¬⁄U ÷Ë ‹ÊªÍ „ÙÃÊ „Ò •ı⁄U ÿ„Ë Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ „Ò– fl„ ‚ÈÁŸÁ‡øà ∑§⁄UÃË „Ò Á∑§ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U •ı⁄U ¬˝ÿÙÄÃÊ ∑‘§ •Ê¬‚Ë ‚¥’¥œÙ¥ ∑§Ù ∑§Ù߸ ÃË‚⁄UÊ ¬ˇÊ ¬˝÷ÊÁflà Ÿ ∑§⁄U– ‚flÊ‹ ©ΔÃÊ „Ò Á∑§ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ÿ∑§Êÿ∑§ ‚¥∑§≈U ◊¥ ∑Ò§‚ ¬«∏ ªß¸? „Ê‹ ∑‘§ fl·Ù¸¥ ◊¥ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑§Ù ‹ÙªÙ¥ Ã∑§ ¬„È¥øÊŸ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁR§ÿÊ ◊¥ ÃË‚⁄U ¬ˇÊ ∑‘§ Œπ‹ ∑§Ë ÉÊ≈UŸÊ∞¥ ‚Ê◊Ÿ •Ê߸ „Ò¥– ◊Ù≈U Ãı⁄U ¬⁄U ∞‚Ê ŒÙ Ã⁄U„ ‚ „Ù ⁄U„Ê „Ò– ¬„‹Ê- ∑ȧ¿ πÊ‚ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ÁΔ∑§ÊŸÙ¥ Ã∑§ ¬„È¥ø ∑§Ù ◊ÈÁ‡∑§‹ ÿÊ •Áœ∑§ πøË‹¸Ê ’ŸÊ ÁŒÿÊ ¡ÊŸÊ– ŒÍ‚⁄UÊ- ∑ȧ¿ πÊ‚ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ÁΔ∑§ÊŸÙ¥ Ã∑§ ¬„È¥ø ’„Èà •Ê‚ÊŸ, ÁŸ—‡ÊÈÀ∑§ •ı⁄U •Áœ∑§ ‚È‹÷ ’ŸÊ ÁŒÿÊ ¡ÊŸÊ– „Ê‹Ê¥Á∑§ ŒÙŸÙ¥ Ã⁄U„ ∑‘§ „SÃˇÊ¬ ∑§Ë ¬˝∑§ÎÁà •‹ª „Ò •ı⁄U fl„ ‹ÙªÙ¥ ∑§Ù •‹ª-•‹ª Ã⁄UË∑‘§ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁflà ∑§⁄UÃË „Ò ‹Á∑§Ÿ ŒÙŸÙ¥ „Ë ß¥≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑§Ë SflÃ¥òÊ ¬˝∑§ÎÁà ∑§Ù ŸÈ∑§‚ÊŸ ¬„È¥øÊÃ „Ò¥– ŒÙŸÙ¥ „Ë ß¥≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑‘§ ‚◊Íø Ã¥òÊ ◊¥ ÁŸÁ„à ‚◊ÊŸÃÊ ÃÕÊ πÈ‹¬Ÿ ∑‘§ •Áœ∑§Ê⁄U ∑‘§ ÁflL§h „Ò¥– ß‚ËÁ‹∞, ŒÙŸÙ¥ „Ë Ã⁄U„ ∑§Ë ∑§ÙÁ‡Ê‡ÊÙ¥ ∑§Ê Áfl⁄UÙœ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „Ò– »§‘§‚’È∑§ ∑§Ê ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U.•ÊÚª¸ ŒÍ‚⁄UË üÊáÊË ◊¥ •ÊÃÊ „Ò Á¡‚∑‘§ Äà Á‚»§¸ Á⁄U‹Êÿ¥‚ ∑‘§ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ¬⁄U ◊ı¡ÍŒ ∑§⁄UÙ«∏Ù¥ fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ ◊¥ ‚ øÈÁŸ¥ŒÊ x} fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ ∑§Ù ÁŸ—‡ÊÈÀ∑§ ©¬‹éœ ∑§⁄UÊŸ ∑§Ë ‚ÈÁflœÊ ŒË ¡ÊÃË „Ò– »§‘§‚’È∑§ ∑§Ê ∑§Œ◊ •Áœ∑§ SflË∑§Êÿ¸ „Ù ‚∑§ÃÊ ÕÊ ÿÁŒ fl„ Á‚»§¸ Á⁄U‹Êÿ¥‚ ∑‘§ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ Ã∑§ ‚ËÁ◊à Ÿ„Ë¥ ⁄U„ÃÊ •ı⁄U Á∑§‚Ë ÷Ë ßë¿È∑§ √ÿÁÄà ∑§Ù ß‚ ¬ÊŸ ∑§Ê •Áœ∑§Ê⁄U ÁŒÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ– ß‚Ë Ã⁄U„, fl„ •Áœ∑§ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊ ∑§„Ê ¡ÊÃÊ ÿÁŒ ∞‚ ©¬ÿÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ mÊ⁄UÊ ∞ÄU‚‚ ∑§Ë ¡ÊŸ flÊ‹Ë fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ ∑§Ë ∑§Ù߸ ÁŸÁ‡øà ‚¥ÅÿÊ Ÿ„Ë¥ „ÙÃË ’ÁÀ∑§ Áfl‡fl ∑§Ë Á∑§‚Ë ÷Ë fl’‚Êß≈U ∑§Ù ∞ÄU‚‚ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ë •Ê¡∏ÊŒË ŒË ¡ÊÃË– ∞∑§ ¬¥ÁÄà ◊¥ ∑§„Ê ¡Ê∞ ÃÙ ÿ„ Á∑§ Ÿ ÃÙ ©¬ÿÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ ∑‘§ ‚¥Œ÷¸ ◊¥ •ı⁄U Ÿ „Ë fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ ∑‘§ ‚¥Œ÷¸ ◊¥ ∑§Ù߸ ‚Ë◊Ê ÿÊ ÁŸÿ¥òÊáÊ „ÙÃÊ– ÿÁŒ ÿ„Ê¥ ©¬‹éœ ∑§⁄UÊ߸ ¡ÊŸ flÊ‹Ë ß¥≈U⁄UŸ≈U ‚ÈÁflœÊ Á∑§‚Ë ÷Ë ¬˝∑§Ê⁄U ∑‘§ ÁŸÿ¥òÊáÊ ‚ ◊ÈÄà „ÙÃË ÃÙ ÿ„ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑§Ë üÊáÊË ◊¥ •ÊÃË– ß‚∑‘§ Áfl¬⁄UËà ∑ȧ¿ ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ Ÿ ©Ÿ∑‘§ ◊Êäÿ◊ ‚ ∞ÄU‚‚ ∑§Ë ¡ÊŸ flÊ‹Ë fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ Ã∑§ ¬„È¥ø ∑§Ù ÁŸÿ¥ÁòÊà ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ë ∑§ÙÁ‡Ê‡Ê ∑§Ë „Ò– ÿÁŒ ∞∑§ ∑§¥¬ŸË ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ∑‘§ ‚ÊÕ-‚ÊÕ ß¥≈U⁄UŸ≈U ¬⁄U ‚◊ÊøÊ⁄U ¬Ù≈U¸‹ ÷Ë ø‹ÊÃË „Ò ÃÙ fl„ ∑§ÙÁ‡Ê‡Ê ∑§⁄U ‚∑§ÃË „Ò Á∑§ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ∑§¥¬ŸË ∑‘§ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ ‚◊ÊøÊ⁄U ¬Ù≈U¸‹ ∑‘§ ¬˝ÁÃm¥ÁmÿÙ¥ Ã∑§ Ÿ ¬„È¥ø ¬Ê∞¥ ÿÊ ©ã„¥ •Ê‚ÊŸË ‚ ∞ÄU‚‚ Ÿ ∑§⁄UŸ ¬Ê∞¥– ©‚ ß‚∑§Ê •Áœ∑§Ê⁄U Ÿ„Ë¥ „Ò ÄUÿÙ¥Á∑§ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ ©‚ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∞ÄU‚‚ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ÷ȪÃÊŸ ∑§⁄U ⁄U„Ê „Ò– fl„ ©‚ ß‚ ÿÊ ©‚ fl’‚Êß≈U ÿÊ ‚Ê◊ª˝Ë ∑‘§ ßSÃ◊Ê‹ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ◊¡’Í⁄U Ÿ„Ë¥ ∑§⁄U ‚∑§ÃË •ı⁄U Ÿ „Ë Á∑§‚Ë fl’‚Êß≈U Ã∑§ ¬„È¥øŸ ‚ ⁄UÙ∑§ ‚∑§ÃË „Ò– ©‚∑§Ë ÷ÍÁ◊∑§Ê ©¬ÿÙÄÃÊ ∑§Ù ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ‚ÈÁflœÊ ◊È„ÒÿÊ ∑§⁄UÊŸ Ã∑§ ‚ËÁ◊à ⁄U„ŸË øÊÁ„∞– ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ ¡Ù flSÃÈ π⁄UËŒ ⁄U„Ê „Ò, ©‚∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÙª fl„ Á∑§‚ Ã⁄U„ ∑§⁄UŸÊ øÊ„ÃÊ „Ò ß‚ Ãÿ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ê •Áœ∑§Ê⁄U Sflÿ¥ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ ∑§Ê „Ò, Á∑§‚Ë ‚flÊ ¬˝ŒÊÃÊ ∑§Ê Ÿ„Ë¥– fl„ ÿ„ √ÿflSÕÊ Ÿ„Ë¥ ∑§⁄U ‚∑§ÃÊ Á∑§ ÿÍ-≈U˜ÿÍ’ ¬⁄U Œπ ¡ÊŸ flÊ‹ flËÁ«ÿÙ íÿÊŒÊ Ã¡Ë ‚ «Ê©Ÿ‹Ù« „Ù¥ª ¡’Á∑§ »§∏‚’È∑§ ¬⁄U Œπ ¡ÊŸ flÊ‹ flËÁ«ÿÙ ∑§◊ ⁄UçÃÊ⁄U ‚ «Ê©Ÿ‹Ù« „Ù¥ª– Œ‡Ê ◊¥ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑§Ê ◊ÈŒ˜ŒÊ ‚Ÿ˜ wÆvy ∑‘§ ’ÊŒ ‚ •π’Ê⁄UÙ¥ ∑§Ë ‚ÈÁπ¸ÿÊ¥ ’Ÿ ⁄U„Ê „Ò– »§⁄Ufl⁄UË wÆvy ◊¥ ÷Ê⁄Uà ◊¥ ∞•⁄U≈U‹ ∑‘§ ◊ÈÅÿ ∑§Êÿ¸∑§Ê⁄UË •Áœ∑§Ê⁄UË ªÙ¬Ê‹ Áfl^‹ Ÿ ∑§„Ê ÕÊ Á∑§ S∑§Ê߬, ‹Êߟ, √„Ê≈U˜‚∞¬, „Êß∑§ •ı⁄U ß‚Ë Ã⁄U„ ∑‘§ ŒÍ‚⁄U ÁŸ—‡ÊÈÀ∑§ ◊Ò‚Á¡¥ª ∞å‚ ∑§Ù ©‚Ë Ã⁄U„ ÁŸÿÁ◊à Á∑§∞ ¡ÊŸ ∑§Ë ¡∏M§⁄Uà „Ò ¡Ò‚ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ ∑§Ù Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „Ò– ∑§„Ÿ ∑§Ë ¡∏M§⁄Uà Ÿ„Ë¥ „Ò Á∑§ ◊Ò‚Á¡¥ª ∞å‚, ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U •ÊœÊÁ⁄Uà ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ •ı⁄U ©¬ÿÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ Ÿ ß‚ ’ÿÊŸ ∑§Ê πÊ‚Ê Áfl⁄UÙœ Á∑§ÿÊ– ‹Á∑§Ÿ •ªSà ◊¥ ∑§¥¬ŸË ∞∑§ ∑§Œ◊ •ı⁄U •Êª ’…∏ ªß¸ ¡’ ©‚Ÿ ∑ȧ¿ •ãÿ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ ∑§Ù ‚ÊÕ ‹∑§⁄U ¬˝SÃÊfl Á∑§ÿÊ Á∑§ ◊Ò‚Á¡¥ª ∞å‹Ë∑‘§‡ÊŸ ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ ∑§Ù •¬ŸË •Êÿ ∑§Ê ∞∑§ Á„S‚Ê ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ •ı⁄U ‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄U ∑‘§ ‚ÊÕ ’Ê¥≈UŸÊ øÊÁ„∞– flÙ«Ê»§ÙŸ ߥÁ«ÿÊ ∑‘§ ‚Ë߸•Ù ◊Ê≈U¸Ÿ ¬Ë≈U‚¸ Ÿ ‚ȤÊÊfl ÁŒÿÊ Á∑§ »§‘§‚’È∑§ •ı⁄U √„Ê≈U˜‚∞¬ ¡Ò‚Ë ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ ¬⁄U ∑§⁄U ‹ªÊÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑‘§ ÃÊÁ∑§ ©Ÿ∑‘§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÷¡ ¡ÊŸ flÊ‹ ‚¥Œ‡ÊÙ¥ ‚ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ ∑§Ù ŸÈ∑§‚ÊŸ Ÿ „Ù– ÷Ê⁄UÃËÿ 23

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ÁŸÿÊ◊∑§ ¬˝ÊÁœ∑§⁄UáÊ Ÿ ߟ ‚ȤÊÊflÙ¥ ∑§Ù ΔÈ∑§⁄UÊ ÁŒÿÊ– ‹Á∑§Ÿ ∞•⁄U≈U‹ ¬⁄U ß‚∑§Ê πÊ‚ •‚⁄U Ÿ„Ë¥ ¬«∏Ê Á¡‚Ÿ ÁŒ‚¥’⁄U wÆvy ◊¥ w¡Ë •ı⁄U x¡Ë «≈UÊ ¬ÒÄU‚ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ •¬ŸË ‚flÊ ‡ÊÃÙ¸¥ ◊¥ ’Œ‹Êfl ∑§⁄U ÁŒÿÊ– ∑§¥¬ŸË Ÿ ∑§„Ê Á∑§ ߟ ¬ÒÄU‚ ∑‘§ ¡Á⁄U∞ ßSÃ◊Ê‹ Á∑§∞ ¡ÊŸ flÊ‹ ÁŸ—‡ÊÈÀ∑§ «≈UÊ ◊¥ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U •ÊœÊÁ⁄Uà flÊÚÿ‚ ∑§ÊÚ‹ ‚flÊ∞¥ (flË•Ù•Ê߸¬Ë) ‡ÊÊÁ◊‹ Ÿ„Ë¥ „Ò¥– flË•Ù•Ê߸¬Ë •ÊœÊÁ⁄Uà «≈UÊ ‚flÊ•Ù¥ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ©‚Ÿ w¡Ë ∑‘§ Äà øÊ⁄U ¬Ò‚ ¬˝Áà Œ‚ Á∑§‹Ù’Êß≈U •ı⁄U x¡Ë ∑‘§ Äà Œ‚ ¬Ò‚ ¬˝Áà Œ‚ ∑‘§’Ë ∑§Ë «≈UÊ Œ⁄U Ãÿ ∑§⁄U ŒË Á¡‚∑§Ê •Õ¸ ÿ„ „È•Ê Á∑§ ∞∑§ ªËªÊ’Êß≈U «≈UÊ «Ê©Ÿ‹Ù« ∑§⁄UŸ ¬⁄U ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ ∑§Ù Œ‚ „¡Ê⁄U L§¬∞ ŒŸ ¬«∏Ã– ∑ȧ¿ ÁŒŸ ’ÊŒ ∞•⁄U≈U‹ Ÿ |z ◊ªÊ’Êß≈U ∑‘§ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ¬Ò∑§ ÷Ë ¬‡Ê Á∑§∞ Á¡Ÿ∑§Ë flÒœÃÊ •flÁœ w} ÁŒŸ ÕË •ı⁄U ◊ÍÀÿ |z L§¬∞ ÕÊ– ߟ ‚÷Ë ªÁÃÁflÁœÿÙ¥ ∑§Ê ◊Ò‚Á¡¥ª ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ ∑‘§ ‚ÊÕ‚ÊÕ ◊ËÁ«ÿÊ •ı⁄U Ã∑§ŸË∑§Ë ŒÈÁŸÿÊ ◊¥ ÷Ê⁄UË Áfl⁄UÙœ „È•Ê– •ÊÁπ⁄U∑§Ê⁄U w~ ÁŒ‚¥’⁄U wÆvy ∑§Ù ∞•⁄U≈U‹ Ÿ •¬ŸË ÿÙ¡ŸÊ∞¥ flʬ‚ ‹ ‹Ë¥– ©‚ ‚◊ÿ ÷Ê⁄UÃËÿ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ÁŸÿÊ◊∑§ ¬˝ÊÁœ∑§⁄UáÊ ∑‘§ •äÿˇÊ ⁄UÊ„È‹ πÈÀ‹⁄U Ÿ ∑§„Ê ÕÊ Á∑§ ∞•⁄U≈U‹ ∑§Ê ∑§Œ◊ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑‘§ Áπ‹Ê»§ ÕÊ „Ê‹Ê¥Á∑§ ÿ„ •flÒœ Ÿ„Ë¥ ÕÊ ÄUÿÙ¥Á∑§ ÷Ê⁄Uà ◊¥ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑§Ù ‚ÈÁŸÁ‡øà ∑§⁄UŸ flÊ‹Ê ∑§Ù߸ ∑§ÊŸÍŸ ◊ı¡ÍŒ Ÿ„Ë¥ „Ò– ©‚ ÉÊ≈UŸÊ ∑§Ù ‹ª÷ª ∞∑§ ‚Ê‹ ’Ëà ¡ÊŸ ∑‘§ ’ÊŒ ÷Ë ÷Ê⁄Uà ◊¥ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑‘§ ‚¥Œ÷¸ ◊¥ ∑§Ù߸ ∑§ÊŸÍŸ ◊ı¡ÍŒ Ÿ„Ë¥ „Ò– ÿÊŒ ⁄U„, •◊Á⁄U∑§Ê ◊¥ vw ¡ÍŸ wÆvz ‚ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ‚¥’¥œË ÁŸÿ◊ ‹ÊªÍ „Ò¥– „Ê‹Ê¥Á∑§ Áfl‡fl ∑‘§ •Áœ∑§Ê¥‡Ê Œ‡Ê •÷Ë ∞‚Ë ∑§Ù߸ ¬„‹ Ÿ„Ë¥ ∑§⁄U ¬Ê∞ „Ò¥– •‚‹ ◊¥ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑‘§ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ∑‘§ Œı⁄U ◊¥ ∞‚ ∑§Ù߸ ÁŸÿ◊ Ÿ„Ë¥ ’ŸÊ∞ ª∞ Õ Á¡Ÿ∑§Ê ¬Ê‹Ÿ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ‚flÊ ¬˝ŒÊÃÊ (∑§ŸÄU‡ÊŸ ¬˝ÙflÊß«⁄U) ’Êäÿ „Ù¥– ’„⁄U„Ê‹, íÿÊŒÊÃ⁄U ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÊ¥ πÈŒ „Ë ß¥≈U⁄UŸ≈U ‚flÊ ÷Ë ◊È„ÒÿÊ ∑§⁄UÊ ⁄U„Ë ÕË¥ ß‚Á‹∞ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑§ŸÁÄU≈UÁfl≈UË ¬⁄U ÷Ë ‹ª÷ª ©‚Ë Ã⁄U„ ∑‘§ ÁŸÿ◊ ‹ÊªÍ „Ù ª∞ ¡Ò‚ ≈U‹Ë»§ÙŸ ‚ÈÁflœÊ•Ù¥ ¬⁄U „ÙÃ „Ò¥– „Ê‹Ê¥Á∑§ ŒSÃÊfl¡Ë Ãı⁄U ¬⁄U ∞‚ Á∑§‚Ë ÁŸÿ◊ ∑§Ê •ÁSÃàfl Ÿ„Ë¥ ÕÊ ‹Á∑§Ÿ ∞∑§ ¬Á⁄U¬Ê≈UË ÕË Á¡‚Ÿ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ‚ÈÁflœÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù ’⁄UÙ∑§≈UÙ∑§ ©Ÿ∑‘§ ©¬ÿÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ Ã∑§ ¬„È¥øŸ ∑§Ê ◊ʪ¸ ‚Ȫ◊ ’ŸÊÿÊ– •’ ∞‚Ê ‹ªÃÊ „Ò Á∑§ ÷Ê⁄Uà ‚Á„à ‚÷Ë Œ‡ÊÙ¥ ∑§Ù Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑§Ù ‚¥SÕʪà M§¬ ‚ SÕÊÁ¬Ã ∑§⁄UŸ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ∑§ÊŸÍŸË ∑§Œ◊ ©ΔÊŸ øÊÁ„∞– ∞‚Ê ∑§⁄UŸÊ Ÿ Á‚»§¸ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ ∑‘§ Á„à ◊¥ „Ò ’ÁÀ∑§ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U •ÊœÊÁ⁄Uà åòÊ ∑‘§ Áfl∑§Ê‚ ÃÕÊ SÕÊÁÿàfl ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ÷Ë •Êfl‡ÿ∑§ „Ò– Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ‚¥’¥œË ÁŸÿ◊Ù¥ ÿÊ ∑§ÊŸÍŸÙ¥ ∑§Ê ÁŸ◊ʸáÊ ß‚ ’Êà ∑§Ù SÕÊÿË M§¬ ‚ ‚ÈÁŸÁ‡øà ∑§⁄UªÊ Á∑§ ÷Áflcÿ ◊¥ ∑§÷Ë ©¬ÿÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ ∑§Ù ©Ÿ∑§Ë ¬‚¥Œ ∑§Ë fl’‚Êß≈UÙ¥ ÿÊ ‚Ê◊ª˝Ë Ã∑§ ¬„È¥øŸ ‚ ⁄UÙ∑§Ê Ÿ ¡Ê ‚∑‘§– ŒÍ‚⁄UË Ã⁄U»§ fl„ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑§Ù ∞∑§ ÁŸc¬ˇÊ ÃÕÊ SflÃ¥òÊ ∑§Ê⁄UÙ’Ê⁄UË ◊Êäÿ◊ ’ŸÊ∞ ⁄UπŸÊ ÷Ë ¬P§Ê ∑§⁄UªÊ– ÿÁŒ •Ê¬ Á∑§‚Ë fl’‚Êß≈U ÿÊ ∞å¬ ∑§Ê ÁŸ◊ʸáÊ •ı⁄U ‚¥øÊ‹Ÿ ∑§⁄UÃ „Ò¥ ÃÙ •Ê¬∑§Ù Á‚»§¸ ©ã„¥ ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ÿÊ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ◊Êäÿ◊Ù¥ ¬⁄U ©¬‹éœ ÷⁄U ∑§⁄UÊŸ ∑§Ë Áø¥ÃÊ ∑§⁄UŸË „Ò– ©‚∑‘§ ’ÊŒ •Ê¬ •¬Ÿ ◊Í‹ ©Œ˜Œ‡ÿ ¬⁄U äÿÊŸ ∑‘§¥ÁŒ˝Ã ∑§⁄U ‚∑§Ã „Ò¥– •Ê¬∑§Ù ß‚ ’Êà ∑§Ë Áø¥ÃÊ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ë ∑§Ã߸ ¡∏M§⁄Uà Ÿ„Ë¥ „ÙŸË øÊÁ„∞ Á∑§ •Ê¬∑§Ë fl’‚Êß≈U Á∑§‚ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ Á∑§Ÿ ‹ÙªÙ¥ ∑§Ù ÁŒπÊ߸ Œ ⁄U„Ë „Ò ÿÊ Ÿ„Ë¥ ÿÊ Á»§⁄U •Ê¬∑§Ê ∞¬ Á∑§‚ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U •ÊÚ¬⁄U≈U⁄U ∑‘§ ∑§ŸÄU‡ÊŸ ∑§Ê ßSÃ◊Ê‹ ∑§⁄UŸ ¬⁄U ‚„Ë …¥ª ‚ «Ê©Ÿ‹Ù« „Ù ¬Ê ⁄U„Ê „Ò ÿÊ Ÿ„Ë¥– ‡ÊÊÿŒ •Ê¬ ¡ÊŸÃ „Ò¥ Á∑§ ÷Ê⁄Uà ◊¥ ≈U‹ËÁfl¡Ÿ øÒŸ‹Ù¥ ∑§Ê ‚¥øÊ‹Ÿ ∑§⁄UŸ flÊ‹Ë ∑§¥¬ÁŸÿÙ¥ ∑§Ù •¬Ÿ øÒŸ‹Ù¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝‚Ê⁄UáÊ ‚ÈÁŸÁ‡øà ∑§⁄UŸ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ÁflÁ÷㟠«Ë≈UË∞ø •ÊÚ¬⁄U≈U⁄UÙ¥ ∑‘§ ‚ÊÕ ’„Èà ◊‡ÊP§Ã ∑§⁄UŸË ¬«∏ÃË „Ò •ı⁄U ∑§„Ê ¡ÊÃÊ „Ò Á∑§ ©ã„¥ ß‚∑‘§ Á‹∞ ÷Ê⁄UË ⁄U∑§◊ ∑§Ê ÷ȪÃÊŸ ÷Ë ∑§⁄UŸÊ „ÙÃÊ „Ò– Ã÷Ë ÁflÁ÷㟠«Ë≈UË∞ø •ÊÚ¬⁄U≈U⁄UÙ¥ (Á«‡Ê ≈UËflË, ∞•⁄U≈U‹, flËÁ«ÿÙ∑§ÊÚŸ «Ëw∞ø, ‚Ÿ •ÊÁŒ) ∑‘§ ‚≈U ≈UÊÚ¬ ’ÊÚÄU‚ ∑‘§ ¡Á⁄U∞ ©Ÿ∑‘§ øÒŸ‹ ©¬÷ÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ Ã∑§ ¬„È¥ø ¬ÊÃ „Ò¥– Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑§Ë ’Œı‹Ã fl’‚Êß≈U ‚¥øÊ‹∑§Ù¥ ∑§Ù ß‚ Ã⁄U„ ∑§Ë ‚◊SÿÊ ∑§Ê ‚Ê◊ŸÊ Ÿ„Ë¥ ∑§⁄UŸÊ ¬«∏ÃÊ– Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑§Ê ◊ÈŒ˜ŒÊ ÷Ê⁄Uà ◊¥ ‹ªÊÃÊ⁄U •„◊ „ÙÃÊ ø‹Ê ªÿÊ „Ò– ∑§Ê¥ª˝‚ ©¬ÊäÿˇÊ ⁄UÊ„È‹ ªÊ¥œË ß‚ ◊ÈŒ˜Œ ∑§Ù ‹Ù∑§‚÷Ê ◊¥ ©ΔÊ øÈ∑‘§ „Ò¥– ⁄UÊíÿ‚÷Ê ‚ŒSÿ ⁄UÊ¡Ëfl ø¥Œ˝‡Êπ⁄U Ÿ ÷Ë ß‚ ÁflflÊŒ ∑‘§ ÁflÁ÷㟠¬„‹Í ©¡Êª⁄U Á∑§∞ „Ò¥– •ı⁄U Á¬¿‹ ÁŒŸÙ¥ ¬˝œÊŸ◊¥òÊË Ÿ⁄U¥Œ˝ ◊ÙŒË ∑‘§ •◊Á⁄U∑§Ê Œı⁄U ∑‘§ ‚◊ÿ »§‘§‚’È∑§ ‚Ë߸•Ù ◊Ê∑§¸ ¡È∑§⁄U’ª¸ ‚ ÷Ë ß‚ ’Ê⁄U ◊¥ ‚flÊ‹ Á∑§ÿÊ ªÿÊ ÕÊ– Ã’ ¡È∑§⁄U’ª¸ Ÿ ¡flÊ’ ÁŒÿÊ ÕÊ Á∑§ »§‚’È∑§ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ¬˝ÁÃ’h „Ò– ßœ⁄U ≈˛Ê߸ Ÿ Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑‘§ ◊ÈŒ˜Œ ¬⁄U •Êª ÁŸÿ◊ ’ŸÊŸ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ¡ŸÃÊ ∑‘§ ÁfløÊ⁄U ◊Ê¥ª Õ •ı⁄U ∞∑§ ∑§¥‚‹≈U‡ÊŸ ¬¬⁄U ¡Ê⁄UË Á∑§ÿÊ ÕÊ– ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ¬˝ÿÙÄÃÊ•Ù¥ Ÿ ÷Ê⁄UË ©à‚Ê„ ∑‘§ ‚ÊÕ ß‚∑§Ê ¡flÊ’ ÁŒÿÊ •ı⁄U ≈˛Ê߸ ∑‘§ ¬Ê‚ Œ‚ ‹Êπ ‚ íÿÊŒÊ ß¸◊‹ ‚¥Œ‡Ê ¬„È¥ø– ‹ÙªÙ¥ ∑§Ë ÿ„ ÁŒ‹øS¬Ë ߥ≈U⁄UŸ≈U ∑§Ù SflÃ¥òÊ ÃÕÊ ‚fl¸‚È‹÷ ’ŸÊ∞ ⁄UπŸ ∑‘§ ¬˝Áà ©Ÿ∑§Ë ’øÒŸË ∑§Ù ¡ÊÁ„⁄U ∑§⁄UÃË „Ò– ©ê◊ËŒ ∑§Ë ¡ÊŸË øÊÁ„∞ Á∑§ ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ÁŸÿÊ◊∑§ ¬˝ÊÁœ∑§⁄UáÊ •ı⁄U ŒÍ⁄U‚¥øÊ⁄U ◊¥òÊÊ‹ÿ ¡ÀŒË „Ë Ÿ≈U ÁŸ⁄U¬ˇÊÃÊ ∑§Ù ‚ÈÁŸÁ‡øà ∑§⁄UŸ ∑‘§ Á‹∞ ΔÙ‚ ∑§Œ◊ ©ΔÊ∞¥ª– ÿ„ ∞‚Ê ◊ÈŒ˜ŒÊ „Ò Á¡‚ ¬⁄U ‚¥‚Œ ◊¥ ÷Ë ÁflÁ÷㟠Œ‹Ù¥ ∑‘§ ’Ëø ◊ÃÒÄUÿ ’ŸÊŸ ◊¥ ∑§Ù߸ Áfl‡Ê· ¬⁄U‡ÊÊŸË ¬‡Ê Ÿ„Ë¥ •ÊŸË øÊÁ„∞– ‚˝Ê× (http://www.prabhasakshi.com

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 24

Future

19 Thursday November 2015

4 Key Social Media Marketing Trends To Lead The Game in 2016 POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

BY : ELENA PROKOPETS , SOURCE : HUFFINGTONPOST.COM

The same laws of attraction have never governed the social media marketing scene for too long.

Just as one Tweet changes another, so does user preferences when it comes to consuming online content. New social media rise and fall quickly and this yearSnapChat and Periscope already shown a great influence on the marketing landscape. With new players entering the field and old companies rushing to introduce new features and innovations, the rules of social media play hardly ever stay the same.

In 2016 we should expect to see new exciting trends and changes in the social scene and here are the top 4.

1. IN-THE-MOMENT UPDATES WILL PREVAIL The obsession with live streaming and instant updates will continue to grow exponentially. Think SnapChat, Periscope and Blab. Virtual Reality is close to going mainstream, meaning more and more apps will battle for users’ full attention and struggle to satisfy their crave for full immersion in the event.

Sure, Facebook still does good job with keeping users updated on the latest news, however the platform cannot offer in-the-moment content that live steam apps offer.

What does it mean for marketers?

Unless you have already jumped on the visual marketing bandwagon, it’s a high time to do so.

Get ready to show the human face of your business and start thinking of how you can leverage your brand with instant updates. Here are some ideas to get you started: – – – – – –

Team at work and behind the scene snaps.

Product updates and exclusive product sneak peeks.

Time sensitive discounts and special offers.

Short tutorials and webinars.

Sweepstakes and collaborations with influencers.

Real time Q&A sessions

25

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

2. CULTURE WILL STILL BE KING No matter how compelling ad messages become, people will continue to care more about the culture, rather than the product.

Having a good product is not enough. Having a brand story and unique brand values is a now a necessity.

With the rise of Big Data Internet marketers have access to huge amount of information about consumer preferences, interests and spending habits.

Services become highly personalized and you already heard how important it is to build quality relationships with your users and offer them unique experiences.

Digital storytelling campaigns have won the hearts and minds of billions consumers this year. Think H&M Garment Collecting initiative, the viral video and active response on the social media. Or The Last Selfie Snapchat campaign by WWF that raised a massive buzz and resulted into a leveraged worldwide branding and drastically increased donations for the month.

What does it mean for marketers?

Your business needs a story and a shared cause with your target audience.

Swipe through your online marketing persona profiles; identify the values that most of your buyers’ share and that resonate with your brand.

For instance, you are marketing to millennials. You know the target group within actively supports eco friendly technologies and materials. Stress that you are using 100% recyclable packing and donate a fraction of each purchase to a sustainable development NGO in Costa Rica. Make sure those statements are not blunt. The community will be ruthless if you get caught in being fake.

Not sure what exactly your consumers crave for and what does your brand lack? Check out Kinnect2 platform that brings brands and consumers together to share their opinions and receive real feedback on their product, strategy or brand story.

3. PRIVACY CONCERNS WILL CONTINUE TO RISE. The shock of the notorious Ashley Madison hack will prevail in the society for the next year and most probably onwards.

In fact, one of the reasons for SnapChat’s popularity is that the app offers a more secure and private environment for communication and engagement.

Facebook rolled out a new set of privacy awareness tools, most probably to compensate a major dissatisfaction after the forced Real name policy implementation.

What does it mean for marketers?

When offering customer support via social media, make sure you don’t ask your users to disclose any private information publicly. Always use private messages only.

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 26

Respect and highlight your privacy policy and make sure you are informing your users about the use of cookies and other information they agree to share with your service.

Switching to more private and personalized communication channels e.g. email marketing is another smart move. With the estimated ROI of $40 for every $1 spent, email marketing continues to leverage the marketing game for most brands.

4. SOCIAL NETWORKS MORPH INTO SEARCH ENGINES Up to 80% of consumers are influenced by online reviews and comments, created by other consumers. They are no longer typing into Google, they go straight to YouTube, Facebook, Yelp and Pinterest for advice and opinions.

In fact, 87% of recent survey respondents claimed that Pinterest helped them decide what product to purchase. As this social network is mainly dominated by woman in their 30s, known to show the most active shopping habits, no wonder the number is so high.

The holiday season is approaching more and more people scout social media directly in search of discounts, special deals and gift ideas.

What does it mean for marketers?

While SEO is not going anywhere, identifying social media as a search channel as well, means you can potentially double your revenue.

Use your social media channels to share special discounts, limited-platform promo codes and feature actual reviews and testimonials from your users.

Case studies and client success stories are now actively published by a lot of brands to show the real value of their product through the eyes of an average user, rather than a glossy promo material.

Partnering with social media influencers (bloggers, vloggers, Instagramers and creatives alike) is another trend on the rise. As users crave for peer-to-peer advice, inviting Internet famous brand ambassadors on board can drastically leverage your brand and online visibility. At the end of the day, users are now prone to the traditional advertising techniques, but are always keen to hear a friendly advice from a person they can relate to.

Follow Elena Prokopets on Twitter: www.twitter.com/elenatravelgram

Source : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elena-prokopets/4-key-social-mediamarket_b_8589968.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in

27

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

Person

10

Thursday December 2015

Bravo Anas!

POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

Rakesh Goswami

Senior Journalist Rakesh Goswami explains how Anas brings down the edifice of justice in Ghana through 500 hours of sting operation on judges

Former UN secretary general and one of the most famous Ghanaian Kofi Annan said ‘Bravo! Well done’ to him before remarking that “when you have 34 judges who are caught on tape with a prima facie evidence that they may have taken bribes, it is an indication that there’s something hopelessly wrong with the system”.

The current presiding bishop of Methodist Church Ghana, Rev Emmanuel Asante, called it the “biggest scandal in the history of our country”.

An undercover investigation spanning two years has caught 12 Ghanaian High Court judges accepting bribes to alter justice, in many cases, resulting in the release of murderers and rapists.

Nothing is known about the man who did this massive investigation to expose corruption in the judicial system of the country in West Africa’s Gulf of Guinea – except his name: Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

He works in disguise. Over the course of his career as an investigative journalist, Anas has masqueraded as a bartender, a psychiatric patient, a prince, a trader dealing in contraband, and a madman. Very few people have actually seen his face and he has rightly been nicknamed ‘chameleon’.

Reports of his sting operation on the country’s judiciary began leaking out in the first week of September 2015 and in less than three months, 20 magistrates and circuit court judges of Ghana had been sacked. Country’s chief justice Georgina Theodora Wood was quoted by the media – on December 8, 2015 – that the action on judges had followed a thorough investigation into the allegation of corruption. She said the judicial council would take “prompt and resolute” action to “redeem” the image of the judiciary. The CJ has also given the strongest indication that more judges are likely to face

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 28

sanctions in the coming weeks once the probing committee finishes with its work. Ten of the 12 judges of the High Court also implicated in the scandal are now under suspension, while still being investigated by the disciplinary panel set up by the Chief Justice.

Anas, continuing on his Name, Shame and Jail mantra, began a sting operation to see if Ghana judges were as corrupt as rumours suggested, two years back. In the beginning, judges resisted the chance for extra funds. 12 judges turned down the bribe and some even threatened to report it to police and Anas and his team got down to thinking – how could Ghana judges be more honest than rumours suggested. They changed their strategy and began spending longer hours in the courts for judges to think that that guy is familiar in his court.

In two years, Anas though his business Third Eye P.I. collected over 500 hours of video evidence which had captured judges taking bribes and then begging “let this thing remain in this room” or even accepting Ghanaian cedi in cars.

They looked more blatant than even the investigators thought them to be.

When Anas was ready with the evidence, he approached country’s president, who asked him if he was ready to face scrutiny and the fearless journalist, as quoted in an Al Jazeera documentary, said he was ready to put his life on the evidence. He submitted the tapes to the chief justice for a legal process against the corrupt judges.

In early September this year, after behind-the-scenes negotiations with the President of Ghana and the country’s Attorney General, Anas released his findings to the people of Ghana through a 3-hour documentary titled Ghana In the Eye of God: An Epic of Injustice – but not before efforts to get an injunction against the public screening of the film.

Interestingly, while lawyers like John Ndeburgi, mounted a legal battle against the free screening of Anas’ videos made into a film, powerful people like Kofi Annan gave him courage when they said what he was doing was good for the nation. At the same time, Anas’ friends were doing street shows to attract people to the film by offering them free tickets.

Before the courts could intervene and stop the screening, 6,000 people had seen Anas’ sting operation and newspapers were writing about ‘Anas Tape Screened’ to highlight that the public had a right to know.

The film showed Justice Charles Quist set accused of an armed robbery at a petrol station free for 6,000 cedi he took in a car, and how Justice Derry colluded with a Mayor when they both took 9000 cedi for altering judgment in a case. The three-hour film had many such names – besides the high court judges, there were 22 other judges and 140 court officials. The film also showed a court clerk demanding “hot and instant sex” for introducing the investigator to a judge. Newspapers headlines screamed: Sex for Justice, Court Clerk Busted in Anas Video.

Justice!, a 47.30 minute, two-part documentary on Al Jazeera is an insider look at Anas’ most controversial story yet, at the dreadful ethical dilemmas involved, at his fears for his own and his family’s safety, and the pressures exerted to silence him.

29

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

Among the people who saw Anas’ film were leading politicians, lawyers, clergy and foreign diplomats. In the documentary, The Netherlands Ambassador to Ghana Hans Docter is heard justifying what Anas did and calls for a complete overhaul of Ghana’s judiciary for the people of the country to show confidence in it.

However, in early October, lawyers for the judges got a major screening outside the capital stopped. Some judges want him prosecuted for contempt of court for showing the film in the first place. John Ndeburgi said Anas had set out to damage people’s image, not in accordance with the law. “We have requested the law to call him to order,” he added.

Meanwhile, there have been ethical questions to what Anas did. One of the major concerns has been this: it is reckless to release criminal suspects into society to prove a point. Kwesi Pratt JNR, a journalist, says journalists are not supposed to act as intelligence agents. “Their roles are substantially different from undercover CIA agents. We investigate but our methods are different.

Now the state is recognizing that what Anas has done is something good but the method is not journalistic,” he said.

But Anas is unabashed and believes the end justifies the means. “My journalism is a product of the society,” he claims as he fights a long legal battle.

Ghana’s politicians have so far remained largely silent on the expose. In Europe, the President of Ghana faced questions about the scandal. In his only public response so far, President John Dramani Mahama said, “It was a reflection of institutional weaknesses that we need to work on to make sure we have stronger institutions.” However, he also said suspension of judges showed the robustness of systems and cited the 10 judges whose integrity is intact in the video. These judges threatened to call the police instead of accepting bribe.

During his Ghana visit in 2009, US President Barack Obama highlighted Anas’ virtues when he said, “…

We see that spirit in courageous journalists like Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who risked his life to report the truth.”

Anas has won several international awards for his investigative work. But the biggest has been the words of Kofi Annan in the Al Jazeera film: “Sometimes it takes a spark, just a spark, and I think Anas has provided that spark for the whole edifice to blow up.”

Nana Essilfie Conduah, chair of the journalism program at Accra’s African University College of Communications, said that although some of institutions targeted by Anas remain in bad shape, this type of journalistic partnership can benefit society. “The system has necessitated this,” said Prof. Conduah. “Until there is a modicum of cleansing … [we] will have to be dependent on this sort of arrangement to at least find a balance towards making the system work.”

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 30

In 2013, Anas gave a TED Talk (throughout which his face remains hidden), titled How I Named, Shamed and Jailed’ and in 2014, he was subject of a documentary – ‘Chameleon’ – which chronicled his achievements and revealed the challenges he faced working undercover..

In the Al Jazeera film, Anas declares bravely that he had already started on a fresh series of investigation.

EOM

Anas’ India connection The Ghana scandal has brought back memories of India’s first sting operation, Operation West End. In 2001, Tehelka did a sting to expose corruption in defence deals. Journalists set up a fictitious company West End in London and set out to broker deals for thermal imaging cameras in Indian defence establishments. It filmed people accepting bribes. The operation later faced a lot of ethical questions, the biggest being use of prostitutes to entrap defence officials. The Times of India and The Hindu lauded the efforts while The Indian Express criticized the method (use of honey traps). “the issue of ethics pales before the sleaze their team has dug up,” wrote TOI while Hindu called it a turning point in Indian journalism. The sting claimed many heads: Samata Party chief Jaya Jaitly, Defence Minister George Fernandes and BJP president Bangaru Laxman had to resign. But Tehelka team – Mathew Samuel and Aniruddha Bahal – fought a long legal battle. It was only in 2012 that a special CBI court convicted former BJP president Laxman in the case.

There are many similarities between this and what Anas has done in Ghana.

For one, there has been swift action following the expose. Two, both operations have drawn flak for use of girls as traps. Third, both saw the journalists involved face a long and difficult life fighting their lonely court battles.

WATCH THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY. Twenty Magistrate and Circuit Court judges of Ghana implicated in the judicial corruption scandal exposed by journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas have been sacked following the investigations into their conduct. Another one was reprimanded and reinstated by the five member committee headed by Justice Sophia Adiyira, reported leaderstandard.com.

Watch this Al Jazeera movie to know the most courageous job.

Follow the link https://youtu.be/26PcOGQWQ5M 31

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

06

Wednesday Jan 2016

Journalism is more than algorithms POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

BY : A. S. PANNEERSELVAN , READERS’ EDITOR, THE HINDU

Though the leap made by technology is, indeed, not reversible, it would certainly enrich the readers to be aware of the power of algorithms in reinforcing social stereotypes and prejudices.

Some of the responses to my critique of the social media in general, and large Internet media compARPThe Hinduanies in particular, may give the impression that I am a sort of Luddite, sceptical of new technology. As a defender of journalistic practices, my concerns are manifold and technology is just one of them. I am acutely aware of the many wonders gifted by digital connectivity. But as a person dealing with the ethics of public discourse, my reservations are about the darker side of technology and the need for every citizen to be conscious of the intrusions due to the power of algorithms that govern the digital economy. Though the leap made by technology is, indeed, not reversible, it would certainly enrich the readers to be aware of the power of algorithms in reinforcing social stereotypes and prejudices.

In the United States, researchers have documented some really disturbing trends. A study by Carnegie Mellon University established that Google’s online advertising system showed an advertisement for high-income jobs to men much more often than to women, for instance. A Harvard study revealed that searches regarding arrest records were more likely to show up details of distinctively black names or a historically black fraternity. Claire Cain Miller, in her article ‘When Algorithms Discriminate’, rightly points out that targetting ads is legal, but discriminating on the basis of gender is not.

The Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School has documented some of the instances where algorithms have failed. The one that stands out is the denial of a license to twins on the basis of a fraud deduction algorithm. “Two teenage twins walk into the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in Georgia. Two teenage twins leave without their driver’s permits.

What happened? An algorithm, that’s what. DMlogo.theHinduVs nationwide are adopting automated fraud detection systems that use computer vision algorithms to detect whether they think someone is trying to get a new license under an assumed name. The algorithm couldn’t figure out the difference between the twins and thought one of them a fraud,” points out Nicholas Diakopoulos in the piece ‘Algorithm everywhere’ for the Tow Center.

Over the last five years, I have been following two important media scholars to understand the extent and the nature of technological disruptions: George Brock, who wrote the insightful book Out of print,and Emily Bell, the current director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Bell played a key role in transforming the digital presence of The Guardian. While acknowledging the transformational power

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 32

of digital technology, these two scholars also constantly remind us of a virtue that cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technology: accountability.

Earlier, Brock raised a pertinent question with Andy Mitchell, Facebook’s director of news and global media partnerships, as to how Facebook sees and handles its role as a news gatekeeper, influencing both the detail and flow of what people see. His direct question was whether Facebook was in anyway accountable to its community for the integrity of its news feed. Instead of answering this question, the Facebook official reiterated that Facebook wanted people to have a “great experience” and that the feed gives them “what they’re interested in”. “Facebook is not, and knows quite well that it is not, a neutral machine passing on news. Its algorithm chooses what people see, it has “community standards” that material must meet, and it has to operate within the laws of many countries. The claim that Facebook doesn’t think about journalism has to be false,” observes Prof. Brock.

According to Bell, the pressing question for Facebook — and eventually for Google — is who bears the publishing risk in this new world? For instance, she looked at a story that is found through a link. Here the platform company has limited risk if challenges are made to the content. Bell questions what would happen when there is an explicit agreement to republish material on a platform built for virality — who bears responsibility for defending and protecting the journalism? She is convinced that “the locus of power in delivery and distribution of news has shifted towards commercial companies who have priorities that often compete with those of journalism.” Bell’s caution: “The alternative is unclear, but must ultimately lie with news taking more responsibility for understanding the role of third-party technology and creating its own platforms in the future.

How journalism will find the time or resources to do this is unclear, as the frenemy is already at the gate.”

If we respect journalism’s five inviolable principles — truth and accuracy, independence, fairness and impartiality, humanity and accountability — then the question of how to deal with the present technological disruption is not a Luddite position but a morally compelling existential question.

If we respect journalism’s five inviolable principles — truth and accuracy, independence, fairness and impartiality, humanity and accountability — then the question of how to deal with the present technological disruption is not a Luddite position but a morally compelling existential question.

Contact : readerseditor@thehindu.co.in Source : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/Readers-Editor/from-the-readers-editor-journalism-is-more-thanalgorithms/article7905749.ece

Grassroot Journalist Thanks and Welcome Thanks for GJ institutional membership of esteemed media organizations

~ Talks & Tools ~ Creative Commons’ Exchange

Prof. B.K. Kuthiala Vice-Chancellor Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University of Journalism & Communication, Bhopal

Prof. Ashok Ogra Director - Mass Communication Apeejay Institute of Mass Communication New Delhi

33

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

29

Sunday Nov 2015

Meet the “Diarygate” Experts POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

BY MANISHA PANDE SOURCE : NEWSLAUNDRY.COM

RNG Award winning work by Raman Kripal and Hakeem Irfan exposed the nexus between powerful corporates, politicians and CBI Chief Sinha. The story also detailed Sinha’s links with those accused in the 2G and the Coal Scam on the basis of the visitors’ diary at 2, Janpath, Sinha’s residence. The Supreme Court later removed Sinha from 2G. Interview has tips for aspiring investigative reporters.

Raman Kirpal, associate editor, DNA and Hakeem Irfan, who is currently principal correspondent at The Economic Times, received the Ramnath Goenka Award for Best Investigative Reporting (Print) for their series of reports on former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chief Ranjit Sinha.

The series appeared in DNA in 2014 and was followed up by every raman.hakeemmainstream media organisation, and came to be known as “Diarygate”. It exposed the nexus between powerful corporates, politicians and Sinha. The story also detailed Sinha’s links with those accused in the 2G and the Coal Scam on the basis of the visitors’ diary at 2, Janpath, Sinha’s residence. The Supreme Court later removed Sinha from 2G investigations. You can read the series here.

In an email conversation, Raman Kirpal and Hakeem Irfan talk about their love for investigative journalism, taking on the top investigating officer, and have some great advice for aspiring investigative reporters.

Were you at the time of working on the story worried about taking on a powerful person? This is the CBI chief we’re taking about…

Raman Kirpal: Yes! I was taking on the super cop of the country, politicians and top honchos of the corporate world. The combination is deadly and, thus, it was obviously a matter of concern. Besides, I was also worried that my source may get into trouble. That’s why no byline was taken.

Hakeem Irfan: Yes! When you are taking on the chief of India’s premier investigating agency — CBI — and the top-most corporate and political personalities, it definitely means inviting trouble and worry. We didn’t take any byline for the story to protect the information chain and also to avoid any immediate trouble.

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 34

What challenges did you face during the story? Did you face intimidation from the CBI or corporate officials you were reporting on?

RK: I was chasing the diary for almost eight months. We initially did some stories, indicating that CBI Director Ranjit Sinha was taking a position diametrically opposite to what his officers have been suggesting. In the 2G case, he had almost spoilt the CBI’s stand.

The only challenge was that as a reporter I had to keep a low profile (as low as a sleeping cell) and then strike.

I remember that Ranjit Sinha had threatened my colleague Hakeem Irfan over the phone when he sought Sinha’s version. We just shrugged it off as a mild threat and never complained about it. But Sinha turned the CBI upside down.

He made his officers go through the records to find who and how many DNA journalists had been visiting the CBI headquarters just before the story was published. Whom had they been meeting? He chartered out new rules of entry into the CBI headquarter for journalists after our story. Almost all the officers dealing with 2G came under Sinha’s scanner. They really had to bear the brunt on mere suspicion that they might have been the whistle-blowers in this case.

Under the Supreme Court guideline, it was impossible for Sinha and his successor to remove them from 2G, but the CBI took away all the other cases from these officers.

As far as corporates are concerned, I knew Tony Jesudasan of Reliance. He had categorically denied meeting Sinha over the phone to Hakeem Irfan. Still, Tony called me to emphatically deny that he ever met Sinha. He said he didn’t even know him. I had then assured him that nothing unsubstantiated would be published. He didn’t call me after that and we published the story the next day, headlined: “Reliance honchos met CBI Director 50 times at his residence”.

HI: I spent a few hours every day for around a month outside 2, Janpath, the official residence of Sinha, noting down the numbers of cars going in and coming out of the residence. It was laborious and not that productive.

In September, when I called Ranjit Sinha for his version, he was furious right from the word go. “I know, who all are you contacting and calling for this,” he said in an aggressive tone. This was followed by a threat with Sinha saying, “Get ready to face consequences.” In the middle of the conversation, I requested for an interview and he denied. He dropped the call saying, “I am the boss and I know what to do.” However, we at DNA, concentrated not on the threat but to get the facts right and contact everybody we were naming in the story.

On the day the story was published I received a one-line message from a CBI official: “Irfan!”

My lawyer friends and senior colleagues at office advised me to be careful while travelling and to never ride a motorcycle or take a three-wheeler for at least a month. It was a little scary but exciting.

After DNA published at least five stories, around September 6, 2014, I got a call from Sinha on my mobile phone. This time his tone was completely different — mild and very gentlemanly. He tried to explain things and asked for a personal meeting. By now, I was not in Delhi and I humbly said, I would meet him at his office when I am back in Delhi. He called twice that evening and the call lasted for around 30 minutes. We haven’t spoken or met since then.

I was not in Delhi for a month because of floods in Kashmir and my landlady, who called me “Ifran”, informed me that some unknown people came looking for me at least thrice when I was away. She had asked for their cell numbers and names, which they refused to give.

35

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

The corporate officials I contacted categorically denied meeting Sinha and said I was following a wrong trajectory.

While there’s much romance associated with investigative reporting, what are the hardships one faces as an investigative reporter? Do you ever wonder if it’s worth all the risks involved?

RK: There are many risks — physical and legal — but your passion for digging out the facts overpowers this fear. Is it worth taking these risks? The mind says, “No, it’s just not worth it.” Partly because you are not dealing with plain goons these days. You are dealing with people who matter.

Stakes are high and thus dangers involved are “real”. Sometimes you are left alone in your legal battle. But my passion for finding facts overcomes this anxiety.

Call it romance, but it’s worth romancing for a story like this. But one should be ready for legal suits like defamation, criminal FIRs, and so on, besides physical threats.

Many years ago, DP Yadav [a UP strongman] had filed an FIR against me and had even threatened me, when I was with Pioneer. BJP Chief Minister Sahib Singh Verma had threatened me over the phone when our story in The Indian Express forced him to resign. I was then the Metro Editor with The Indian Express (1998-2000). But I feel that threats those days were made out of anger and on the spur of the moment. May be these guys never meant what they said. Threats today are rather “silent” and more potent. Nobody forewarns you these days. I joined this profession in 1988 because of my passion for reporting. And this has driven me so far despite all odds.

HI: One of the best-known facts about truth is that it comes to light. We have to choose whether we want to be the ones to dig it out or wait for someone else to do it. What follows are the consequences of the choice you make. I also fear and get scared or question my choices.

Even now, I am hesitant of following a tip-off, which I think may have comparatively dangerous consequences.

But, as a believer in justice of nature, I think we have to be a little patient and continue to struggle in the right way. Truth is always worth fighting for. You just have to choose your battles and at what level you want to fight for it.

Thus, legal attacks, personal threats, financial allurements, real estate gifts and other glamorous enticements will always come your way. We have to be physically and emotionally strong to resist all of this. It is a slippery slope and extremely difficult but not impossible.

I remember being chased out of a village in Chhattisgarh by drunken goons allegedly belonging to a powerful corporate house while I was investigating a story on land grab in tribal areas. I was also threatened of an FIR if I continued to meet controversial tribal people. Similarly, few years back, while reporting in J&K, a senior police official called me saying: “Tum ko hamare paas police station aana padega aur hamare saath rehana padega.”

I refused as suggested by the seniors. I told him to arrest me from my house. He made several calls, I didn’t go and later things calmed down after few days.

Investigation can be laborious and often boring, keeping in view the constraints of a reporter and the limited power she or he can exercise while digging out information. All of us have to behave like nerdy students and not give up till the end of the semester and, in our case, till we get the final credible verified story.

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 36

What advice would you like to give to young journalists who want to become investigative reporters?

RK: Each one carves out his or her own way. So there can’t be any clear-cut guide. Passion certainly counts. Temptation discounts. Objectivity and solid homework reign supreme.

In fact, you should count on your facts the most. Do NOT write anything that you cannot substantiate. Have your documents in place. Don’t do a story merely on the basis of hidden cameras. These modern devices can at best be your tools to supplement or substantiate your stories. A hidden camera “shoot” in itself can’t be a story in 99 per cent of the cases.

And above all, extensive field work in your hunt for minute details make your story the best. Needless to say, versions of all the parties concerned are a must, no matter how strong your facts are.

HI: We all should be ready to learn, unlearn and re-learn things at all stages of our careers. Curiosity to find the truth followed by the training and rigour to follow it till the end is what matters. We need to be humble and never get excited about a rumour or tip-off without doing basic homework.

We should try to understand an issue or a story from all its angles like a scholar and follow it up with the precision of a surgeon to get the best out of the information we have. Avoid personal attacks unless and until it is extremely important for the larger public interest (after thorough consultation, of course). Don’t cheat people while getting information or documents. Honest effort and hard work to find the truth may be time consuming but is the best way to move ahead. Never try to look for a shortcut while following a story.

Avoid sting operations as much as possible.

We need to train ourselves every day. Read relevant literature to contexualise stories and get enough data to substantiate them. Data is the new oil. Learn all new techniques to extract data from the Internet. Learn to use new apps and software — Tor browser, Hushmail — for exchange of information.

Maintain a notebook to record everything that didn’t go to print. It will help in future.

Read and follow investigative reporters around the world on social media. Try to follow, and if possible get online membership of, different investigative journalist forums around the globe. Attend seminars of policy makers and other thinktanks to meet people who matter. They often speak on issues, which turn out to be good leads for great investigative stories.

Report and speak for the common man and marginalised people. Governments and powerful corporates and individuals already have a battery of spokespersons and hoards of PR agencies to speak and defend them. And be generous in helping fellow colleagues and other reporters.

The interview by NewsLaundry .com is part of a series that will involve conversations with other Ramnath Goenka Awards winners.

The author can be contacted at manisha.pande1110@gmail.com and on Twitter @MnshaP Source : http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/11/26/conversations-with-ramnath-goenka-awardees-on-the-perilsof-investigative-reporting/

37

Nov-Jan 2016

Grassroot Journalist

02

Monday Nov 2015

In Goa, Freelance photo journalist Makes History with One Single Photo!

POSTED BY GRASSROOT JOURNALIST IN LEAD LINE

SOURCE : GOANEWS.COM

Photo-journalist Vishant Vaze, who reports for several newspapers from Bicholim and survives on freelancing sent 12 different photos to different newspapers and coincidently all the news editors selected the same pic across the languages.It was published in all the newspapers on the same day and history was made.

26 October 2015 was a D Day for Vishant Vaze, a freelance journalist from Bicholim.He was simply thrilled to see his one photograph making almost a headline in seven newspapers of Goa, cutting across the language barriers.

May it be an English or Marathi newspaper of Goa, everybody carried the same photograph just below the headline, almost an impossible thing that happens normally in a media field.

It was a photograph of young girl voters lining up in front of a polling booth for the municipal elections held in 11 municipalities of Goa on 25 September.

Each reporter had not sent less than 8 to 10 different photos to their newspaper offices. Not knowing that others would also have similar aesthetic sense, the same photo was chosen from among hundreds of photos getting emailed that day from all corners of Goa. Vaze, who reports for several newspapers from Bicholim and survives on freelancing, says he had sent 12 different photos.“But this photo had a visual appeal.

What we require is a catchy photo that would attract reader’s attention. The photo had that appeal”, said Paresh Prabhu, the editor of Navprabha.

Vaze said he had captured it to show the younger generation participating in the election.

According to Derek Almeida, editor of The Goan, the youthful enthusiasm, that too of young girls, was telling more than what reporters’ words could say. That made it a front page.

Incidentally, no news editor of each newspaper knew that others would also select the same photo. But it simply happened. goanews.com also made a simple suggestion to Vaze:“Frame all the newspapers and display it in your house. There is no better reward than this…”

Link to this story : http://www.goanews.com/news_disp.php?n

Grassroot Journalist Nov-Jan 2016 38

Neurons

A new initiative for media sensitization Grassroot Journalist has decided to take a new initiative for media sensitization – Neurons- Communicate the last communicator.

Gulluck, a not for profit organization and Grassroot Media foundation to support the idea in execution.

There are national dailies, news channels, online portals, mobile feeders and what not from the mainstream media industry with huge claims of readership & viewer-ship, but at the end of the day the last story is fed by a stringer from the remote place somewhere in the beating heart of a restless soul.

Stringers and freelance communicators of vernacular press are the actual point where the change in the society is registered first. They are the neurons.

A neuron is a nerve cell that is the basic building block of the nervous system. Neurons are similar to other cells in the human body in a number of ways, but there is one key difference between neurons and other cells.

Neurons are specialized to transmit information throughout the body.

Highly specialized nerve cells are responsible for communicating information in both chemical and electrical forms.

If communicators want a grassroot media for greater good, they have to re-invent the communication.

Stringers and freelance communicators along with their counterparts in upcountry editions of the newspapers and local cable or hyper local satellite networks are capable of being actual agent of positive change in our society. Explosion of hyper local media is there but no formal training, technological support, intellectual interactions, field refreshers or significant initiatives are to equip them for the way ahead.

NEURONS is based on the concept of one to one interactions.

NEURONS has five main objectsz

To prepare a database of all the stringers, freelance communicators and professionals with media educators and media students.

z

To help rural and semi-urban journalists and fresh media students to sharpen their edge in contemporary context.

z

To chalk-out and execute sensitization workshops and follow-up programmes.

z

To prepare grassroot journalist training modules for print, audio-visual, digital , mobile and other latest media platforms.

z

To create online resource platform, aggregator and bulletin.

With fine minds and dedicated resource persons IT IS TO BE DONE WITHOUT MAKING NOISE. Grassroot Media Foundation, Jaipur Team is a core part of execution.

Interested may please drop a mail to grassrootjournalist@gmail.com

LAST DROP

GJ photo journalist of the quarter: Sergey Ponomarev

Migrants arrive by Turkish smuggler boat to Lesbos island Greece. The boat owner delivered some 150 persons to the Greek coast in front of German frontex policemen and tried to escape back to Turkey, he was arrested later in Turkish waters.

Newyork Times published this picture.

Sergey Ponomarev Independent photojournalist based in Moscow. Sergey has won many international and domestic photography awards.

Newyork Times contributor.

Always travelling.

Contact: ponomarevs@gmail.com www.sergeyponomarev.com