Doctor's Dilemma?

Our media is busy berating DrSingh (Honourable P.M) . See Mr Swapan Dasgupta's 'breach of trust'. Interesting under specification in the frame' who trusts whom for what?' Here are some ways the three slots can be filled.
The media and U.S-'We trusted Dr Singh to steam roller the deal'
The Left-'We trusted Dr Singh to implement the cmp and nothing but the mp'
Lalu ,karunanidhi and others-'We trusted Dr Singh to last five years deal or no deal'
Me and such like 'We trusted Dr Singh to keep the onion prices in check'
Dilemma there for Dr Singh 'Kis ka dil dukhana hai?'

How much of a liberal democrat is Indian Media ?

To start with let me take a look at what the term 'liberal democrat' means to me . To me it means in the Indian tradition 'Aa no bhadra'h kranto yantu viswatah' (excuse for misquote if any . It just means let noble thoughts come from all sides) . It means we should welcome all that is good irrespective of source. We shouldn't be worrying about wether BJP said it , the congress said it or George Bush said it etc.
Second to me the term means beleiving in reason in the context of conducting our affairs in society. Faith is a personal matter and a matter of choice. As far as I can tell that is how Indian Constitution was meant to be as indeed are those of many other countries like U.S.
I am not too clear what exactly is democratic. 'Majority views' or the 'Interests of Majority' in the view of a minority. I will side step that issue (perhaps the domain of political science) and insist that all views have a right to be heard the good bad and the ugly.

Now let's take a look at how the criteria are to be actually used and How our media fares as per these criteria. I borrow on these additional bits of contemporary wisdom (include folk lore). Need I add that these are additional criteria for being a 'Liberal Democrat'

• Critique Ideas not persons.
• Name calling shouting and crying foul is what you do when you run out of ideas. Avoid this and just say 'I beleive' (you declare that the propositon is now an article of faith) or just say 'I disagree'.
• Reasoning should follow good practices like using sound inference patterns. (As logical as you can get) The least expectation is that the arguments are coherent. (To me it includes listing all the premises so there is no disconnect and special semantics of words if any).

So much for critera.

At the outset let me mention that I have nothing to do with any of the political parties and would be willing to listen to all sensible arguments. I would include Sonia Gandhi's "Enemies of nule deal are Enemies of developement" as name calling. She may have her so called compulsions. But surely there are better ways. My reason for asking for avoidance of name calling in all forms is not because of moral compulsions but to avoid the rounds of name calling and attendent obfuscation of the actual issue. (If Obfuscation is the goal then I am sorry I regard it as not democratic).

I have closely monitored the times of india and the T.V channels for some time. The discourse is full of Name calling 'Chineese agent' ,'22-karat imperialism'. 'nuclear weapons hawk's' (the BJP),'peaceniks' (Cant that be kept neutral and refer to the intended group- may not sound pejorative off the context but definitely derogatory in context). I think the problem perhaps is that it is the established journalistic practice--Sensationalize.

As to unreasonable inferences there are a plenty. Here is an example ."Exercising power without responsibility was what the Left established, with remarkable success, as its style of doing its best for India. It first used a piece of paper called the ‘common minimum programme’ as a sacred text to virtually halt all attempts at implementing progressive economic reforms. And now, it has stopped the government from pursuing an independent foreign policy."(TOI editorial 14th oct)

The author implies two things that

1. Exercising power without responsibility is bad. (note the sarcastic "doing its best for India" ).So did The father of the nation, Jayaprakash Narain Vinoba bhave and so does the electorate,and the media . Others claim that Minority is holding the majority to ransom.To claim that it is bad you have to add at least one consequence of Exercising power without responsibility that is actually or potentially bad for people. Style perhaps but the satire and the disconnect don't help. Besides the left could as easily have threatened to quit even if it was in the coalition government. (counter argument) This has happened often enough in state governments.
2. ‘common minimum programme’ has stopped the government from pursuing an independent foreign policy. Note the disconnect and underspecification 'independent foreign policy' ( independent foreign policy statement in what context? Actually I suspect the author intended Nuke deal-an issue rather than policy). 'common minimum programme’ is what the left said it's support is meant for as per yechury's T.V interview. If that is so then it acts as a constraint on the Government's Law making capabilities domestic or foreign. That is part of the baggage that comes with coalition. Should the minority view be stifled by name calling, hoodwinking and hijacking the actual issue.

The Media style is perhaps to obfuscate and sensationalize rather than enlighten -hardly anywhere near liberal democratic. I thought only the politicians obfuscate to further their ends. Sadly I guess I have to add the Media in that category. Exercising power without responsibility is bad is well illustrated by the case of uma khurana who was hounded by the police based on media reports.