The Bush “Exclusive” interview fiasco: The Times of India protests too much

In the last cover story, we wrote that we were sceptical of a response from either The Times of India or from DNA on their carrying near-identical "exclusive" interviews with President George W Bush. We were wrong; Chidanand Rajghatta of Times News Network files an explanatory story from Washington, and the misuse of the word "exclusive" is made more spectacular with his clarification.

Nowhere in his article does he defend the use of the word, and, as his own article demonstrates, it would have been a tough ask to expect any reader to buy any defence. Sitting in Mumbai, and reading all the Mumbai papers, one thought, as of last Friday, that the interview was conducted by just two newspapers, Dainik Bhaskar and The Times of India, simultaneously. How wrong we were! By Rajghatta's account, journalists from the following were present for the entire interview: The Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar from India; Dawn and Jang from Pakistan; wire services including (but not clear if it were limited to) AP, Reuters, AFP, Bloomberg, PTI and APP.

By Rajghatta's account, and by a rudimentary understanding of the meaning of the word, the interview could NEVER have been an "exclusive". Rajghatta speaks of the questionable ethics of various papers, including the unnamed Dainik Bhaskar and DNA. The agreement, according to Rajghatta, was for the interview in the "principal language" of the media house to be published on Friday and the "sister or supplementary" publications could carry it the following day. Decoded, this means The Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar could carry it on Friday, while Maharashtra Times, Navbharat Times, DNA and Divya Bhaskar would have to wait till Saturday.

But the simple and undeniable truth is this: even if all the papers concerned had stuck to the letter and spirit of the embargo that had been agreed to, The Times of India, Dainik Bhaskar, Dawn and Jang would have carried the SAME interview on the SAME day. While we respect The Times of India for respecting the terms of the agreement, the unanswered question remains: how on earth were they calling it an exclusive?

We are certain that we have not seen the last of the misuse of the phrases "exclusive", "only on", "only to" and "breaking news". And we ask the question again - do these phrases matter a jot to the reader?