I'm giving a point to point rebuttal-
1. " As though interviews and interactions with convicted criminals were something new to journalism and documentary film-making”
Except that the criminal in question isn’t convicted completely yet and his petition remains under trial! This interview, documentary and the resulting rape case brouhaha may well result in his death sentence being commuted into something more lenient! The view of the editor's guild is only an example of spin mastery- “it is an insult to the Supreme Court to suggest that the airing of the convict’s perverted views would tend to interfere with the course of justice". Surely not the view of the convict, but the broader inference that it was his "culture" that resulted in the rape which would save him.
2. Mr. Ram indulges in outright misrepresentations in the penultimate paragraph. The legal notice to Ms. Udwin and team was sent on 7th April 2014, much before the so called "change in regime".
3. Finally, the piece-de-resistance- Mr. Ram says “The PM would do well to undo the retrograde ban immediately, failing which he could allow it to lapse when it is challenged in the Supreme Court, as it surely will be. " Now this "ban" is dependent upon the Delhi HC order and is basically a stay on its broadcast till all the legal tangles and violations are sorted out. If the government of India cannot enforce its own rules, irrespective of the regimes, then there is nothing much to say!
