Namaskar !
Congratulations for completing two successful years of sharing news and views with your loyal readers.
The synoptic write-up by Raut Sir about Balasaheb and Uddhav Thackeray is susceptible.
In the editorial 'Two years later', you say that journalists are supposed to be unsentimental observers of the world around them. They exist to bring news and views to the wider community. But Alas your views don't seem to reflect in ' The influential ' list .
Let's do some reality check up. Balasaheb has always topped the list of Powerful / popular Mumbaikars , whether in Print or Electronic media. How come DNA ranked him at no.19 ? One can argue that the popularity quotient has not been considered , as you prove with the selection of industrialists at the top. But then what are Shahrukh khan And Amitabh doing at no4 and no.5 respectively. What's their contribution to Mumbai?. It's 'amchi Mumbai' we are writing about not Zumaritalaiya, where the film actors are revered as heroes.
Next how's that a politician like Sharad Pawar is ahead of Balasaheb ? Even Mr. Pawar will agree that Balasaheb is superior to him.
Lastly What the hell...? Ektaa , Aishwarya and Abhishek before Balasaheb as influential in Mumbai. Really now, where do they stand compared to Balasaheb ? What's their impact ? We the readers of DNA deserve the explanation on why Balasaheb is not among the top 5 of Mumbai's Influential list, because it's in our DNA and you have always exhorted us to speak up .
Sincerely ,
Sujata Tawde
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
