Is live coverage of employee’s protests by Media Channel be used as evidence against the company similarly, news published in News Paper can be taken as support for evidence by any employee
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear JS Patyal,
We, the members of this forum, are outsiders. We do not know what happened in your company. Therefore, while raising a query, members of this forum expect the querist to provide sufficient background information. This includes why the employees were protesting, where they were protesting, how the media came to know about the protest, etc. Furthermore, who wants to give evidence, to whom it will be given, why they want to do so, etc.
If sufficient information is not provided, the replies may be guesses, and the guesswork may not serve your purpose.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
8030We, the members of this forum, are outsiders. We do not know what happened in your company. Therefore, while raising a query, members of this forum expect the querist to provide sufficient background information. This includes why the employees were protesting, where they were protesting, how the media came to know about the protest, etc. Furthermore, who wants to give evidence, to whom it will be given, why they want to do so, etc.
If sufficient information is not provided, the replies may be guesses, and the guesswork may not serve your purpose.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear JS Patyal,
We often see on news channels that they cover many demonstrations. That is publicity. The question is whether it was with the consent of the protesters or not, and what commentary was in support of the coverage. When recording was done against the consent of protesters, there are instances when protesters caught the cameraman and destroyed either the camera or the recording. What happens on the public road, the media can cover. If you do not want publicity, do not do it in a public place/road. If they present it with commentary that is one-sided, untrue, or damaging, the protesters can question the media agency. It is the job of the media to cover what is happening. The only thing is they should not do it wrongly. If they have done something wrongly, they apologize when pointed out.
The next question is if it can be used as evidence by the company against protesters. Yes. But that should be presented by the media, not anyone else. The company cannot directly hold the video as evidence. The author must vouch for it.
Vibhakar Ramtirthkar.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
We often see on news channels that they cover many demonstrations. That is publicity. The question is whether it was with the consent of the protesters or not, and what commentary was in support of the coverage. When recording was done against the consent of protesters, there are instances when protesters caught the cameraman and destroyed either the camera or the recording. What happens on the public road, the media can cover. If you do not want publicity, do not do it in a public place/road. If they present it with commentary that is one-sided, untrue, or damaging, the protesters can question the media agency. It is the job of the media to cover what is happening. The only thing is they should not do it wrongly. If they have done something wrongly, they apologize when pointed out.
The next question is if it can be used as evidence by the company against protesters. Yes. But that should be presented by the media, not anyone else. The company cannot directly hold the video as evidence. The author must vouch for it.
Vibhakar Ramtirthkar.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.