Media, trading in confusion?

Thank media for trading in confusion. Is there some one around to lay bare a complete picture, free from any concealment of fact? 

What is that treaty that is under reference, constituting impediment in name disclosures? Arun Jaitley has pointed it out, but media has failed to elicit its full elaboration. Even in discussions on the TV Channels, peripheral references, either in commendation or condemnation , are made, hiding this pivotal issue. 

Another thing, the entire list is going to be placed in sealed cover before the listed bench of the Apex Court. We may hear further in this regard today onwards, but one more fear lurks.

That fear stems from the lack of confidence which media has generated in recent times. Court proceedings are not reported the way it should. Court proceedings run on two levels, one being that which the order sheet registers, the other being that which is/are transacted verbally without finding space in the order sheet. Mediamen are either unaware, non-cognisant and untrained as regards these two distinct categories or are enlightened enough to twist and turn the reporting , founded on the latter category. If one accesses the court proceedings, now on the website, it might appear that media often feeds rubbish which readers , they presume, would relish more than un-spiced , straight forward, and un-adulterated reporting. What is more, the legal segment amazingly countenances this kind of flirting, oblivious that it ultimately impairs public psyche, especially those of the literates whom the media thus steeps into a status worse  than unlettered masses.

Let us now wait, how the matter proceeds, at which level.