The News Minute | July 24, 2014 | 6.40 pm ISTEditor of The Hindu Malini Parthasarathy has said she is “not bothered” about “slander and pseudo-analysis”.This was in response to an article posted by former Editor of The Hindu Siddharth Varadarajan on his Twitter handle on Wednesday. He tagged The Hindu (@thehindu) when he posted Robin Jeffrey’s analysis of what the family feud within The Hindu could mean for independent journalism in India. To this, Parthasarathy replied:@svaradarajan @nramind So long as The Hindu is resurgent as it is now, I am not bothered about the uninformed slander and pseudo-analysis— Malini Parthasarathy (@MaliniP) July 24, 2014What, in the article, authored by a widely respected scholar of Indian journalism and media, prompted Parthasarathy to call it “pseudo-analysis”?Jeffrey’s article, titled “India’s Consolidating Media: Three Growing Tigers and ‘Generational Roulette’" argued that the recent resignations of two senior and well-respected journalists of The Hindu was an indication of how The Hindu was “coping unsuccessfully” with “generational roulette”. This was a term coined by Ben Bagdikian the dean of the University of Berkeley, California. Jeffrey writes: “The family-owned paper is moving into its fifth generation, and about two dozen family members hold shares. Branches of the family have fallen out, and the current editorial team seems the most erratic the paper has experienced.”He adds: “All this is important because The Hindu is one of a shrinking number of organisations that stand between India’s national media becoming the preserve of three great media empires – the Times of India Group, the Star Television holdings of Rupert Murdoch and Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) of Mukesh Ambani, the country’s richest man.”Jeffrey, who is the author of India’s Newspaper Revolution, argues that Reliance’s takeover of Network 18 has made it a serious competitor to Bennet, Coleman and Company Limited (BCCL), which owns The Times of India. Until this takeover occurred, no other media company had the same kind of financial clout that BCCL has. Jeffrey writes: “The Reliance plan is visionary: to own the roadway down which information flows and also to own the groups that create the information.” The fibre-optic cables laid by Mukesh Ambani-owned RIL and Anil Ambani’s Reliance Communications together account for an “information superhighway” that needs “cargo – content that people will pay money to use”.It is in this context that Network 18 takeover is important. Both the production of content and the infrastructure to deliver it are owned by the same business firm. Rupert Murdoch’s Star Television, Jeffrey says, is said to be the largest revenue-earning media group in India, with over 30 television channels in its kitty. “It’s at this point that fears arise about the future of information control. If Reliance and the Times of India Group emerge as hungry tigers of Indian media, cozily dividing up the cakes and pies of advertising, what happens to media inquiry and diversity? Media outlets do not probe their own proprietors or their interests. Ask Rupert Murdoch.” Star had a presence in television news with a stake in ABP News, which it sold in 2012. Jeffrey says that Indian television channels view foreign investment as a means to expand and grow. He says that none of the other larger media houses, such as Hindustan Times or the Dainik Bhaskar Group, Sun TV or others have the same reach and finances to match BCCL, Star or Reliance, which is why “the disarray at The Hindu looks ominous”, Jeffrey writes.Finally, stating that The Hindu has always had a “reputation for serious writing and responsibility”, Jeffrey says: “If the paper succumbs to the internal wrangling and generational roulette that has destroyed publications elsewhere, it will mark a further erosion of the diversity and liberal values that have been one of India’s admirable characteristics.”