Aziz Haniffa‘s rediff.com/India Abroad interview with India’s ambassador to the United States Ronen Sen has been the big story of the week.
The “headless chicken” quote has become canon fodder for the communists and other critics opposing the UPA government’s nuclear deal with America. Parliament has been stalled, apologies have been tendered, statements have been read in Parliament, and there have been cries for the recall of the ambassador.
But guess how many of our media houses have had the good grace to either name the Sri Lanka-born Haniffa—who earlier scooped an interview with George W. Bush—in reporting the aftermath of the Sen interview, or in naming the media organisation he works for?
Asian Age: named rediff.com but not Haniffa
CNN-IBN: did not name Haniff or rediff.com
Deccan Chronicle: named rediff.com but not Haniffa
Deccan Herald: did not name Haniffa or rediff.com
DNA: did not name Haniffa or rediff.com
Hindustan Times: did not name Haniffa or rediff.com
NDTV: did not name Haniffa or rediff.com
The Hindu: named both Haniffa and rediff.com
The Indian Express: named rediff.com but didn’t name Haniffa
The Telegraph: did not name Haniff or rediff.com
The Times of India: did not name Haniffa or rediff.com
(Some newspapers and TV channels carried feeds of Press Trust of India, which too did not name Haniffa or rediff.com. However Indo-Asian News Service, whose earlier avatar Haniffa worked for, named rediff.com)
Are our media houses reluctant to name rivals because they do not wish to give publicity to rival organisations? Do they fail to acknowledge a web portal because they have websites of their own? Is it sour grapes? Is it a fair practice?
IJR 
Times of India did this too: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Sen_and_offended_sensibilities/articleshow/2299292.cms