In his interview with Kapil Sibal, Jairam Ramesh with dignity, poise and grace gave an illuminating discourse on Nehru - https://youtu.be/5bkgjUcTPro?si=vPSZi7h7XfFx0X7j

How I miss the time when this country was ruled by intellectuals like Ramesh.

Oh, please. It's election season, and this "discussion" was just another veiled attempt to trash Modi and the BJP.

Our education system is broken, hijacked by generations of academics and jurists who predominantly subscribe to one political and social ideology. This has made it easy for individuals like Sibal and Ramesh to advance their campaign. In exercising its unbridled power, this lobby has overridden the constitution and infused school/college texts with their ideology. A mere campaign to revise and improve the constitution—to remove politically and socially charged terms like "secular" and "socialist" introduced by Indira Gandhi during the emergency—is portrayed by these individuals as "an attack on the constitution."

Point to note—The Wire prides itself on being independent and unbiased. It belittles other media organizations, often with compelling reasons, for being pro-Modi or controlled/owned by politicians and corporates. I really want to know how they are any better, running a show hosted by an active politician (a sitting Rajya Sabha member, no less) on their platform. Where's the liberal outrage here for unbiased and independent journalism?

Why should any viewer consider the content or the narratives platformed on The Wire as gospel truth and not INDI Alliance election propaganda?

One substantial reason:

"Where's the liberal outrage here for unbiased and independent journalism? Why should any viewer consider the content or the narratives platformed on The Wire as gospel truth and not INDI Alliance election propaganda?"

The post is clearly disingenuous. 'Liberal outrage' is intended as trollish. For some reason the response decided to not engage with the subject, which was a lawyer / politician talking about stuff that could be of interest to lawyers.

Instead the post went ad hominem on The Wire, which while not perfect and definitely having an ideological slant in nowadays' polarised environment, is still for the most part doing real jorunalism.

Please deal with the facts and arguments, not political mudslinging.

If having a sitting Member of Parliament from the Samajwadi Party (an INDIA Alliance Partner) occupy a seat in the Rajya Sabha and run a show on a journalistic platform that prides itself as "Independent" or "Liberal" to promote his propaganda in the lead-up to our national elections is your idea of "real journalism," then, with respect, we have vastly different understandings of that term. Similarly, I have every right to critique The Wire and question the lack of "liberal outrage" when it fails to demonstrate true independence. Such feedback is essential for maintaining journalistic integrity.

By labeling such critique or feedback as "contested" or "trolling," you, as a moderator, are obstructing India's right to journalistic integrity—a crucial check and balance that must remain agnostic to political affiliation.

Again the argument is disingenuous when the majority of media by revenue and readership has become commercially and editorially a propaganda extension of the government. By your metric independent 'liberal' media can not publish softball interviews with the opposition without getting cancelled? What kind of media ecosystem would you prefer? Do you think there's any role for the Wire in a healthy democracy? Do they ever do legitimate journalism? And, all actual and not rhetorical questions, are there any non-corporate news sources that you deem allowable?

Talk about journalistic integrity and demanding liberal outrage in this context seems to be a figleaf, rather than a genuine interest in discussing the fourth estate.

Oh, the irony. So, according to you, it's perfectly acceptable for The Wire to parade its "independence" while airing softball interviews with opposition politicians, but heaven forbid anyone point out the glaring conflict of interest. Let’s call a spade a spade—journalistic integrity doesn’t mean tiptoeing around biases under the guise of "real journalism."

If The Wire’s role in a healthy democracy involves being a mouthpiece for one political side, then we might as well toss the term "independent media" out the window. And please, spare us the sanctimony about "legitimate journalism" when what you're defending is selective scrutiny and convenient outrage.

Maybe instead of dodging the critique with rhetorical questions, you should actually address the point: how does The Wire’s cozy relationship with opposition figures square with its claimed impartiality? Now that would be a real discussion about the fourth estate.

It's neither for me nor this thread to defend the Wire, and that's not what the moderation or criticism of you is about. It's about the tone and quality of discourse. You could have phrased all your points in a non trollish manner. Instead you sought to make it about culture wars with dog whistles and provocation, which implies you were not interested in a debate about the media ecosystem but just practising selective outrage yourself, which you ironically accused 'the other side' of.

Oh, how noble of you to steer clear of defending The Wire while simultaneously jumping to its defense. Your dedication to "tone and quality of discourse" is truly inspiring—especially when it conveniently dodges the core issue. You accuse me of dog whistles, but let’s be honest: labeling any critique as "provocation" is just a fancy way of silencing dissent. It's fascinating how calling out blatant bias is now considered "trolling" in your book. Maybe, just maybe, the real issue here isn't my tone but the uncomfortable truth that your so-called "independent" media isn’t as independent as it claims. But hey, if pointing that out counts as a culture war, then sign me up. Because at the end of the day, demanding accountability and calling out hypocrisy isn't trolling—it's the very essence of a healthy debate. So, let’s drop the pretense and face facts: if you want to foster genuine discourse, start by acknowledging the elephant in the room instead of hand-waving it away with accusations of provocation. Now, wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?