In a recent move by ThePrint, a prominent media platform, controversy has erupted over the decision to feature an individual with a history of hate speech and derogatory remarks. Nilakantan RS, also known as @puram_politics on social media, was given a platform to voice opinions on voting and activism in an article titled ‘Vote in the Lok Sabha elections, but know it’s just a symbolic gesture. Voice matters more.’
ThePrint, founded by Shekhar Gupta, faced criticism for platforming Nilakantan RS, who has a track record of making inflammatory statements targeting various groups, including upper castes and the Indian Army. Screenshots from 2015 surfaced, showing tweets where he implied violence against individuals from upper castes, sparking outrage among readers.
Additionally, Nilakantan RS has been accused of making derogatory comments about the Indian Army, alleging misconduct such as rape, and expressing desires for India to suffer military defeat by China. His statements have drawn condemnation from many quarters for their divisive and offensive nature.
Furthermore, Nilakantan RS has been observed engaging in fantasies about the assassination of political figures and advocating for Muslims to carry weapons to tackle issues related to cow protection, a sensitive subject in India due to religious beliefs.
ThePrint’s decision to provide a platform for Nilakantan RS has sparked a backlash, with critics accusing the media outlet of legitimizing hate speech and promoting divisive rhetoric. Similar controversies have occurred in the past, with other media platforms facing backlash for featuring individuals known for their extremist views.
Despite the criticism, ThePrint has not issued a response to the controversy surrounding the platforming of Nilakantan RS. Questions have been raised about the editorial standards and responsibility of media outlets in ensuring that voices promoting hate and division are not given a platform.
In light of the controversy, the debate over freedom of expression versus responsible journalism has been reignited, prompting calls for greater scrutiny and accountability in media practices. ThePrint’s response, or lack thereof, will likely have implications for its credibility and reputation in the media landscape.
Comments