Talk:Frontline (magazine)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
I have changed the earlier entry for The Frontline Magazine, because of the fact that the entries (made by Rengesh Srinivasan and one another person) do not fit the standards that are required of a encyclopaedia entry. The question to be asked is why? Here is why...
"But its liberal crusade at home is at odds with the open support it holds out to dictatorial leftist regimes abroad like the chinese and the baathists of iraq. It supports the Chinese Government and strongly claims that China, at no point of time, harmed Tibet. Furthermore, in an ostentatious manner, Frontline magazine has cricised in detail, Dalai Lama, detailing that, he has misinformed the masses of the world. It also carried out a exclusive cover story on the Status of Tibet, wherein it white-washed the innumerous atrocities committed by the Chinese Government and explained that China has always had appreciable intentions on every subject. The coverage of 2001 Iraq Referendum carried a view wherein Saddam Hussein was hailed as a democratic leader and saviour of Iraqi people"
Iraq, first. It is patently untrue that Frontline at any point of time, openly "espoused" or "supported" the Baathist regime in Iraq. Numerous articles in the Frontline have showed the rather shady links between the Saddam Hussein Regime and the Americans during the early eighties, the Unocal deals etc. The Frontline has on the other hand, been very scathing on American Imperialism and it is pertinent to note that its world view is based on this very basis-point, i.e. American Imperialism.
On China, the manner the entry writer portrays Frontline's opinionating on China, it is presumed all vis-a-vis Frontline, all is sanguine with China. This is not the case. As regards, the issue, titled, "Advantage China", the issue clearly worked upon the differences between the Indian and Chinese Economies and analysed the factor of linkages in both of these economies to judge, as to where equitable release of productive forces would happen at a maximum and concluded that in this regard, China was at an advantage.
The wiki entry uses the word, "ostentatious" to depict the Frontline's opinionating on the issue of Tibet. Clearly, the authors of the entry have already presumed that the issue of Tibet is "uncontestable" and the Chinese position, right or wrong, need not be debated at all, even provided a perspective of territoriality from the Chinese side. This in no turn should reflect on Frontline, either.
The point I am trying to make is that an encyclopaedia entry should cover that subject broadly and try to focus on the seeming "uniqueness" of that particular entry and should not be coloured by comments that are targeted politically in a rather trivial manner. Frontline, by all respects, towers over existing Indian magazines, in tenor, tone, analysis, rigour, scientificity, academic worth and quality of publishing. This is what makes it unique as a magazine. Its political views are varied to be covered and should not be restricted to a minor quibble on its position on just one particular issue. If thats the case, any encyclopaedic entry on say, the New York Times, would be an aggregation of quibbles and complaints.
It is easy enough to argue on and on without any first hand material to substantiate your claims. It is unfortunate to see that people think the author would just pen down in an encyclopedia without having any authentic proof to substantiate it. Im afraid you didnot check the link i provided in The Hindu Article in this site where there are clear links provided for readers. Donot write comments and change articles in haste.
Frontline magazine in its isssue dated September 2-15 2000, in a cover story titled, goes on not just to criticise Dalai Lama but carry out grave insults on him.
And on Iraq, search the magazine archives, Ive got the links to justify my claims.
There is not one issue of Frontline which has been true to ethical standards of journalism. I must have actually used the terms "official magazine "peoples democracy" has a voice in main-stream Indian media, through Frontline.
The previous article will be reinstated. Im not providing further links, for, may this person who strongly stands for the values of Frontline come up with "authentic" justifications from valid and reliable sources! Further debates are welcome. - Arjun 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Arjunmurali plays the broken record yet again. Where had I refuted his links per se in the discussion above?? The point that I was lucidly making was that the entry for Frontline was not "encyclopaedic" enough simply because it amounted to a string of cribs. If cribs and carps on editorialization in a magazine is what that makes an encyclopaedic entry, then any fourth estate firmament in the world would be introduced by an avalanche of editorial positions it took on various topics.
Arjunmurali seems therefore very amateurish, squeamish and flippant in his entry, both in the wikipedia entry and in the discussion.
If for every comment on the Frontline, I need to provide a link, then I certainly can.
On Iraq: Sep 28- Oct 11, 2002, and several other issues in 2002 and 2003.
On China: I have already elaborated that the Dalai Lama is only an individual on whom positions can be taken. If politicians are subject to criticism, why not religious or spiritual leaders who also have a political agenda?? Why can't Frontline take a position against any individual at all. I personally myself feel that the agenda that the Dalai Lama has for Tibet seems revanchist, so do I go to the Dalai Lama's entry page and mention it?? An encylopaedic entry should rather focus on the broad opinion about the entry based on the entry's role.
The Frontline's role as a magazine is to report, analyse and editorialize using a certain platform. Its platform is leftist, which is acknowledged in my entry and its platform is also progressive, in the sense of its coverage of issues, which are more people-oriented than any other magazine in India, any cursory reading of magazines at a given particular time can be a vouchsafe for the above argument.
--Vrsrini
have changed 'Anti imperialistic' to Anti American. Accusing any country of being imperialistic is a POV. Perhaps we could add allies too, but i have seen very few anti Brit articles in FL.--Hydman 05:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
have also added a line on FL opposing economic reforms. --Hydman 05:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Well some, commies have again added the anti imperialist clause. Did Frontline ever oppose soviet imoerialism in Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia?? or the Chinese imperialism in Tibet?
Frontline is Left wiong, not wikipedia.
[edit] Frontline in 80s
i vaguely remember that Frontline in the 80s was much different from what it has been since 90s. i remember seeing a feature on a gathering of 'most beautiful women'. Also, a special issue supporting LTTE. could any old frontline reader tell if it was really different in 80s--Hydman 05:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
