The Supreme Court was told on Tuesday by the wife of a congressional spokesperson and a widow of the party leader that the content of the “media coverage” and “televised debate” in recent times was “highly toxic, polarized and filled with innuendo “.
Kota Neelima, wife of Congress Party spokesperson Pawan Khera and Sangeeta Tyagi, widow of Rajiv Tyagi, have filed a petition on hate speech in the Supreme Court.
In a new plea, they sought the approval of the highest court to register the study report on “Media Trials” carried out by “Rate the Debate”, a research platform, on the content of current debates and debates led by two renowned television journalists.
They said some TV presenters have consistently created a false narrative through a “media lawsuit” influencing public opinion toward their “secret goal.”
The plea says the media trial is also part of hate speech.
Sangeeta Tyagi, whose husband Rajiv Tyagi recently died of a heart attack after participating in a televised debate, and Kota Neelima – had asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the Sudarshan TV case and asked that some presenters to news and “hate speech peddlers” do not enjoy freedom of expression.
The new plea, filed through attorney Sunil Fernandes, which is based on a detailed analysis of the prime-time programs of two English news channels, alleged that most of the broadcasts were on “a singular subject matter. which is the Sushant Singh Rajput death case ”.
“The statistics do not reveal the full picture. Not only is an overwhelming and inordinate amount of time spent on a single topic, but the manner, tone, tenor and content of the ‘news coverage’ and ‘ TV debate “were highly toxic and polarized. and filled with innuendo, salacious gossip, savage allegations and character assassinations,” the plea says.
“Media trials are another facet of hate speech. Media lawsuits can take place for a variety of reasons, for example, it can be to get a bigger share of TV Rating Points (TRP) or it can be something more sinister where some of the private TV stations are acting like proxy propaganda machines for the central government.
“These channels have a specific methodology for reporting the Rajput case,” he adds, adding, “Firstly, they are deliberately creating a hypothesis or a false concept / premise, for example, Sushant Singh Rajput has been murdered and not is not suicide. “
“They will then insinuate that a senior politician or a powerful figure is behind the” cover-up “, he said, adding that these programs” would convince the viewer of the hypothesis even before the prosecution did have completed their investigation and filed their complaint. -leaf”.
The Sudarshan TV case concerns the request to ban the broadcasting of the program “Bindas Bol” which alleges the infiltration of Muslims into the country’s bureaucracy and the high court has already imposed the ban before the televising of the episodes of the main plea show “UPSC Jihad” which raised grievances against it on grounds such as hate speech.
Now, the Center has issued a show cause notice to the channel based on the recommendation of an inter-ministerial group.
Ms Tyagi and Ms Neelima, the author-researcher wife of Pawan Khera, had previously referred to the prime-time television shows of four prominent presenters in their intervention plea alleging that their programming is primarily community-based and favor the ruling party.
Seeking an urgent hearing on their plea, they compared the “situation of electronic media” in the country to “Nazi Germany”.