In the interest of elevating discourse in this thread above political side shows and trolls, haven't read the article due to paywall but wasn't the previous SCBA dispensation very publicly political and pro-government, as is the BCI for the most part? Makes sense to argue that a more oppositional SCBA might not be a bad thing in a democracy where the constitution is arguably under pressure, which is what the first paragraph is saying.

What exactly is wrong with that? Kian might have written the same in an editorial. Serious answers only please, trolls will (likely) be moderated.

Simple: your comment is still up, and you get the troll tag, which you wanted in the first place when bringing up the moderation topic again. Just screaming about freedom of speech and repeatedly playing the censored victim card is not intelligent discourse and is boring and uninteresting for most readers except the most meta readers and some edgelords.

Please stay on topic, don't be a bore, and be helpful, kind and polite. It's not too much to ask. If you can't take that or make your points less antagonistically please do leave or start a more toxic echochamber yourself where you can rail against all bad things that upset you.

Moderation is there to make LI more respectful, not to give every political operative with an opinion or person itching for a fight a platform.

Please don't compare Sanya with the Livelaw people. She used to work for Livelaw. She left because of their left-wing bias. She is a non-nepo girl from a regular family. She is a one-man army who doesn't have the backing of big funders. In fact, she has hurt her chances of getting funding by talking on the liberal elite lobby, but still she has put her beliefs ahead of her business interests.

You kids are really naive. Please understand, journalists are basically businessmen. Livelaw “invested” in Sibal by giving him positive publicity, now that he has won they will reap “profit” in terms of having access to the SCBA powers that be, getting exclusive stories, getting invited to speak at SCBA conferences alongside the CJI etc. It works the same way with Fox and the Republicans, CNN and the Democrats, The Wire and the Congress, Republic and the BJP. True journalism is dead. Money, power and access is what it’s all about.

Bar and Bench took a neutral stance because they weren’t sure of the results, but what they miscalculated is that many BJP people didn’t like Adish Agarwala and the anti-Sibal vote got split.

The only legal journalist with integrity was Kian before the closure of LI.

In fact, Sanya set up LawBeat because many people were getting annoyed with LiveLaw’s bias and she felt there is a market opportunity in this. Bar and Bench remains #1 and Livelaw remains #2, but Sanya has eaten into Livelaw’s market share and taken many of their Twitter subscribers, no doubt about it.

Ah, the irony is almost poetic. Accusing me of trolling while conveniently ignoring the very bias and moderation issues I pointed out. Bravo!

First, let’s address the “troll” tag. It seems that any dissenting opinion here gets swiftly labeled as trolling. A neat trick to silence debate, but not exactly a hallmark of intelligent discussion.

Now, onto the meat of the matter. My critique of Live Law’s editorial choices and The Wire’s bias isn’t trolling—it’s pointing out a significant issue in media ethics. When platforms present themselves as neutral but engage in partisan cheerleading, it’s a disservice to informed discourse. Kapil Sibal’s “Dil Se” series is less journalism and more a fan club meeting, and pretending otherwise insults the intelligence of readers.

Intelligent discussions thrive on diverse viewpoints and healthy debate, not on shutting down criticism under the guise of maintaining decorum. If this forum truly values intelligent discourse, then perhaps it should start by embracing all perspectives, not just the ones that align with certain biases.

So, let’s elevate the conversation, shall we? After all, real progress comes from engaging with different viewpoints, not from silencing them.

Ah, the classic "media should be critical" argument. Thanks for the reminder, Captain Obvious. Yes, we all know that holding the ruling party accountable is part of the media's job. But there's a difference between constructive criticism and outright partisan cheerleading.

Live Law's cozy chat series with Kapil Sibal is less about journalism and more about creating an echo chamber for his fan club. And the so-called "experts" in his entourage? They seem more like handpicked supporters than unbiased commentators.

Meanwhile, The Wire has elevated anti-Modi/BJP content to an art form, all while claiming to be the epitome of unbiased journalism. It's almost impressive how they manage to keep a straight face. And let's not ignore the moderation circus here—any critique of this blatant bias gets swiftly drowned out or removed. It's like they have a dedicated squad ready to silence any dissenting voices.

So, while you're busy celebrating these "critical" voices, just remember: Criticism is necessary, but pretending to be objective while pushing a partisan agenda is a whole different ball game. ▮▮▮

Should editors of legal news portals write openly political pieces like this? The editors of Bar & Bench never do so and Kian never did so when LI was a news site. Only Sanya Talwar of LawBeat does so. Now LiveLaw and LawBeat are in the same category, sorry to say.

https://www.livelaw.in/articles/importance-of-kapil-sibals-win-as-scba-president-supreme-court-bar-association-258145