Hmm

 

A few days back, there was this headline on IBN’s website:

Britain spends Rs 20 lakh a day on protecting Musharraf

Nothing wrong with reporting. Just that, they decided to include a quote from a member of the Labour Party, Lord Nazir Ahmed -

“

"I think the government needs to review Musharraf's security. There are people within Britain who could do with those extra police officers rather than a man who can afford private bodyguards,"

Link

It’s funny, no such quotes were included when a (more or less) similar headline was put up, on the same website in March 2009.

20-ft tunnel, Rs 2 crore to keep Kasab safe in Mumbai

I refuse to believe there wasn’t a single MP/MLA who thought the above was a waste of tax payer’s money OR that the same money could be better utilised. In fact, the quote included in THAT news story was -

“

“We are making all necessary arrangements for Kasab’s security. We have asked the Centre for their best commandoes so that his security is complete,” State Home Minister, Maharashtra, Jayant Patil said. 

This is for the first time in India's history that Rs 2 crore is being spent on security for a terrorist. For the police, it is money well spent, keeping in mind the threat to Kasab’s life.

Link

About the Credibility/Facts cited in the reports, I don’t think it’s a good idea to believe everything published in the media (be it Times or IBN). Both the stories are subject to challenge and I am confident, in time, both the stories will be refuted, denied, rubbished etc.

In this case, my concern is not the authenticity of the claims, but the difference in reporting similar issues. I mean, if one can spend money to protect a terrorist, I don’t see why there should be a problem in spending money to protect an ex-dictator. They aren’t that different.