Naveen Jindal accuses Zee News of extortion, channel hits back

NEW DELHI: Congress MP and industrialist Naveen Jindal and Zee News were involved in a public spat on Thursday with the former claiming that the channel attempted to extort Rs 100 crore from him for not not airing stories against his company in coal block allocation, a charge strongly denied by the media house.
Amidst dramatic scenes when a family of an RTI activist from Raigarh in Chhattisgarh shouted slogans against him, Jindal Power and Steel Ltd chairman Jindal said the Zee executives demanded Rs 20 crore for four years.
They later raised the demand to Rs 100 crore for not broadcasting stories against the company in relation to allocation of coal blocks, he claimed.
JSPL is one of the companies named in the CAG report as one of the beneficiaries of the coal block allocation without auction.
Zee hits back
The channel hit back at Jindal by carrying the views of Zee News head Sudhir Chaudhary and Zee Business head Samir Ahluwalia, who claimed that JSPL was afraid of the "expose" done by it of its involvement in the coal block scam.
The two Zee executives were named by Jindal as demanding money and meeting JSPL officials.
Later Chaudhary and Ahluwalia issued a statement in which they said they condemn and "completely reject" the CD produced by Jindal against them. "We see this as a deliberate attempt to malign and to defame us," they said.
The two said Zee News has been the forerunner in "exposing" Jindal's "double standard" as a politician and industrialist in the coalgate scam.
"To suppress the coverage that Zee News was telecasting on coalgate, corporate communications team from JSPL first tried to bribe Samir Ahluwalia with Rs 25 crore which he declined straightaway.
"This was an offer from JSPL to stop the coverage of coalgate scam. Undeterred the JSPL team offered Zee News and Zee Business an advertising deal of Rs 100 crore to somehow stop the coverage on air," the statement claimed.
The executives alleged that Jindal's press conference today was a "clear subversion" of the due course of law.