If you have ever worked as a reporter, you would know that no two reporters can use the same language to describe the same set of events. Something like fingerprints, you know.
But the Zee News and Times of India correspondents who filed the story on the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking the Tamil Nadu Speaker's sanction to prosecute J Jayalalithaa have somehow managed to do the impossible.
Here's the Zee News story proudly slugged "Bureau report":
New Delhi, June 26: The CBI has sought sanction from the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker to prosecute AIADMK supremo and former state Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa in a 10-year-old case pertaining to Rs 2-crore gifts allegedly received by her from those she later favoured.
The Speaker was approached for the sanction after the Union law ministry said that the CBI should take the required permission as Jayalalithaa is a member of the legislative assembly, sources in the agency said.
The case was registered in 1996 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of a complaint by the Director-General (Investigation) of income-tax.
The case pertained to gifts given to her on her birthday in 1992 when she was the Chief Minister. She had mentioned it in the income tax returns. The matter was later transferred to the CBI on the request of the Tamil Nadu government.
According to the CBI investigation, Jayalalithaa allegedly received 89 demand drafts worth Rs 2 crores drawn on various banks in Tamil Nadu and Rs 15 lakhs in cash from 57 persons with whom she had official transactions.
However, during the probe it was found that 12 of the 57 persons, in whose name the drafts were purchased, were fictitious while another dozen denied having any knowledge about the matter, said the sources.
They claimed that the remaining 33 persons accepted that the drafts were purchased by them. Incidentally, some of them were given important posts in a number of public sector undertakings by the former chief minister, the sources added.
In Chennai, DMK president and Chief Minister M Karunanidhi was quoted by a news agency as telling reporters that his government would consult legal experts to ascertain whether the Speaker`s sanction was needed to prosecute Jayalalithaa.
And here's the TOI story by its much-vaunted Times News Network:
NEW DELHI: The CBI has sought sanction from the Tamil Nadu assembly Speaker to prosecute AIADMK supremo and former state chief minister J Jayalalithaa in a 10-year-old case pertaining to Rs 2-crore gifts allegedly received by her from those she later favoured.
The Speaker was approached for the sanction after the Union law ministry said that the CBI should take the required permission as Jayalalithaa is a member of the legislative assembly, sources in the agency said.
The case was registered in 1996 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of a complaint by the director-general (investigation) of income-tax.
The case pertained to gifts given to her on her birthday in 1992 when she was the chief minister. She had mentioned it in the income tax returns. The matter was later transferred to the CBI on the request of the Tamil Nadu government.
According to the CBI investigation, Jayalalithaa allegedly received 89 demand drafts worth Rs 2 crore drawn on various banks in Tamil Nadu and Rs 15 lakh in cash from 57 persons with whom she had official transactions.
However, during the probe it was found that 12 of the 57 persons, in whose name the drafts were purchased, were fictitious while another dozen denied having any knowledge about the matter, said the sources.
They claimed that the remaining 33 persons accepted that the drafts were purchased by them. Incidentally, some of them were given important posts in a number of public sector undertakings by the former chief minister, the sources added.
In Chennai, DMK president and chief minister M Karunanidhi was quoted by a news agency as telling reporters that his government would consult legal experts to ascertain whether the Speaker's sanction was needed to prosecute Jayalalithaa.
Hocus pocus: spot the difference.
Well, could you?
You did, huh?
Sorry, I take back my words. Those are not identical copies really. There are minor differences. It is Assembly in the Zee copy, and assembly in TOI. Two of a kind, eh?
Times Now carried a mildly rehashed version of the same story on its website and said the story had been drafted "with inputs from PTI". Whatever that means.
Only if you have worked with a news agency, you would know newspapers rampantly use agency creeds and credit the copies to their own overpaid reporters/bureaux. Now, don't ask me why.
PS: My previous take had been on redundancies. This particular copy carries a gross redundancy in its intro: Assembly Speaker. If you are talking about a Speaker of a state, there is no need to insert Assembly. The Speaker (upper case) is of the Assembly only. A speaker, on the other hand, is a person who gives a talk or makes a speech.
