The journalist Elisabeth Zerofsky recently wrote in The New Yorker: “For many journalists reporting on the new right in the US and Europe, it may be difficult to shake the feeling that this (unbiased reporting of events and people) is somehow irresponsible. There is a strong argument to be made that anyone who professes bigotry and hatred doesn’t deserve to be considered seriously, let alone objectively." She was reviewing a French book, Berlin, 1933 by Daniel Schneidermann, which argues that the newspapers that were objective about the Nazis were, in retrospect, disgraceful, while the hysterical activist-journalism (which is an oxymoron) alone captured the soul of the times. Schneidermann writes in his book, as translated by Zerofsky: “Activist journalism, journalism that subordinates the quest for truth to the quest for a truth that is useful to its cause, is the only journalism that, today, doesn’t have to feel ashamed about what it produced [about the Nazis]… Everything reasonable, scrupulous, balanced, in my opinion, contributed to lulling the crowd to sleep." This is the ultimate moral defence of all biased journalism. This is the argument that philanthropy-funded “activist journalism" uses to malign everything it despises: Like lawfully elected strong politicians, the power of the social media and Aadhaar, which have eliminated the need for middlemen.