Early yesterday evening I was walking down my street after running an errand. The watchman of the Doctor’s house who usually lounged under the shade of the Gulmohur tree was sitting upright, in rapt attention. He was listening to the radio. The 7-o-clock news on AIR. The stentorian voice of the newsreader rattling out one news item after the other with unchanging intonation. That the watchman should shed his indifference and show uncharacteristic interest in something as staid as AIR news amused me.
I remember the days of my growing up, when my father, and all the other fathers of the neighborhood would shush the whole household into silence to listen to the English news on Doordarshan. A calculative burglar once broke into an elderly spinster’s house, during the news time slot, when the whole street was engrossed in the programme.
The average man’s awareness of current affairs was much higher than what it is now. Even with the advent of cable television, where news occupied a fixed portion of the air time, the tradition of not missing the evening news prevailed. Tamilnadu, in particular, where bi-partisan politics rules the roost, saw the warring factions launch their own TV channels, fiercely competing to present lop-sided news, only solace being that one got to see two sides of the coin, although not the whole. The milder and more neutral DD, and its regional tributary, lost their prominence to the flashier newcomers. News now featured special reports, and reporters scanned the remote villages to come up with stories of the ruling party’s lapses, or victories (as the case may be).
The accuracy of the information provided by the news telecasts, was a major but largely ignored causality in this melee. When the revolutionary element was introduced which had daring reporters belting out “scoops” that brought out the “whoops”, news was getting “created”. But still, the discernment of the viewer was allowed to thrive.
In entered the news channels. 24x7x365x eternity(?). The perennially rolling news recaps at the bottom of the screen, competing with another row of share prices. Specialized business news channels. Insights. Cover Stories. Special Reports. Experts speak. Scoops, whoops, more scoops and less whoops. Live reports. FLASH NEWS. Talk shows. Walk shows .BREAKING NEWS (breaking what, besides the viewer’s sanity?) Exam countdowns. News now is just a flip away. Catch it while it happens. Catch it even before it happens. Ash and Abhi engaged? Ash and Abhi engaged ! What does Big B ‘s 3rd standard benchmate think about it ? Ash and Abhi doing pooja to please the stars next month, and exclusive on the preparations.. Will Shahrukh match Bachan? KBC-part II, hit ya miss ?. Big Boss, who will win ?. Lets put a toss. What will be the outcomes of the toss ? Heads or Tails?
When amidst all this “informative” and “ inventive” reporting, something actually happens, the news hungry channels fight over it like common canines at the street bin. Every news channel must run the same story. Make TRPs while the heat is on. If possible, chop the forest down to add wood to the fire. If channel A (I don’t want to mention names, as it is pointless, and there is hardly any differentiator beyond the name.) brings in a Psychologist from NIMHANS, channel B brings in a psychologist from AIMS. The same panel of experts, doling out the same mind numbing “lay-manized fundae”. These news analysis shows lack the incisive intellect that the same people like Pranoy Roy, and Karan Thapar were capable of exhibiting a decade ago. CNN-IBN’s Rajdeep Sardesai, who was once a charismatic newscaster is now hardly more than a street performer, entertaining the masses to up the ratings. Opinion Polls. Sms your opinion to 1234,6868, @%&*. When the masses are fed with such hogwash for information, one shudders under the weight of their “esteemed opinion”. The analytic individual is reduced to the red eyed bull. Lashing out at the slightest provocation. Or the bored slug. One who flips between the news channels, hardly registering what he has heard or seen.
Issues that merit an in-depth discussion are tugged here and pulled there, and distorted out of proportion to knock the reason out of anyone. The media attempts to doctor public opinion. A dangerous phenomenon, indeed. News channels highlight a particular issue only if it would earn TRPs. Others are doomed to the morgue. The fellow channels follow suit, not to be missed out in the rat race. No one cares to present “information”, as is. The sanctity of reporting is lost. This profession that claims the right to question the moral standards of every walk of life, barely acknowledges its own ethics, apathetic to the decadence plaguing it. People are asked to vote for news. “My news” is what I want to hear. I have the liberty to be blind and deaf to the rest. What a new dimension to freedom of choice!
And Ah, yes. There is this talk about blogs being the fourth estate’s fourth estate. And where do we assume the bloggers get their news from ? Do they go on-spot to gather their news ? Or do they syndicate with Reuters or AFP ? Websites featuring news items, give an outline or a sketch, barely sufficient to form an opinion. Print Articles are yet another story. But the average blogger generally rants and raves about an issue. Facts are hardly discussed, and if they do, their veracity is questionable. We hardly find a moderate voice. The popular ones (featuring in Desi Pundit or PutVote) scarcely seem to differ from the “public opinion”.
Last week, the media affairs column The Hindu’s Sunday magazine featured an article on media watch in the US, especially during the reigning Bush regime. Our own channels which turn west for “creative inspiration” ought to note this.
Doctored and inaccurate reporting can mis-shape the face of the world and dictate the way history gets written. Its time our media becomes conscious of this.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The Hindu's decline
I'm a bit peeved that the first original post on this blog is about one of my fav papers and that I've been faithfully reading over 3 decades. Anyways, here is the email I had sent to the reader's editor. I'm quite disappointed with the Hindu's editing and their content and veracity. Looks like they are still the best of the lot; that in itself is a significant message about the rest.
____
To: readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
Subject: Ted Corbett's colored glasses
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:56:09 +0530
Dear Sir,
We all know that Ted Corbett is a great (but albeit a disillusioned now) supporter of England and it reflects so too clearly, when he turns in his daily report. However, I do believe its stretching his imagination a bit, when he says that Kevin Pietersen was hit on the ribs from a full-toss from McGrath. From what I saw and and several replays, it was definitely a ball *pitched* short to an advancing KevinP, who missed the hoick-pull shot and got it on the ribs. It was NOT a full-toss. Mr. Corbett has reported, not once but twice in his report, that it was a full-toss and further, in a very politically correct statement, alluded subtly and tangently to McGrath's intent.
Having seen couple of matches at MCG, I know MCG has a great hospitatlity. Just did not know that the froth runneth over for Mr. Corbett.
Regards,
xxx
---
____
To: readerseditor@thehindu.co.in
Subject: Ted Corbett's colored glasses
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:56:09 +0530
Dear Sir,
We all know that Ted Corbett is a great (but albeit a disillusioned now) supporter of England and it reflects so too clearly, when he turns in his daily report. However, I do believe its stretching his imagination a bit, when he says that Kevin Pietersen was hit on the ribs from a full-toss from McGrath. From what I saw and and several replays, it was definitely a ball *pitched* short to an advancing KevinP, who missed the hoick-pull shot and got it on the ribs. It was NOT a full-toss. Mr. Corbett has reported, not once but twice in his report, that it was a full-toss and further, in a very politically correct statement, alluded subtly and tangently to McGrath's intent.
Having seen couple of matches at MCG, I know MCG has a great hospitatlity. Just did not know that the froth runneth over for Mr. Corbett.
Regards,
xxx
---
The First Indians.
[First on http://hey-rambam-ling.blogspot.com/2007/01/first-indians.html.
Here for completeness sake]
Few days ago, a news-story on one of the premier English news channel caught my eye. The fact that I’m writing about it, does imply that there was something that I do not agree on ! :) - not that they care, but it has kind of become my favourite whipping horse.
Maybe I should start that Media-Watch blog !
Coming to the point here. The news item that got about 5 minutes of air-time in the news and several re-runs was about an Indian born, US emigrated Gujarati girl getting into the US Army. The news-story was title, the “first Indian Girl in the US army”. This is what gets my goat. I do think there is nothing Indian about that girl. She was with Indian origins – it was very very obvious and extremely crystal clear, that she has severed her links with anything India and Indian and has chosen to become a citizen of some other country. So where is the first “Indian” coming from? I find such links quite irritating. There seems to be awe with anything American that the news-channels seek with their eyes wide-open in some kind of childish wonder. That is really not Candy, folks!
I found the same with both Kalpana Chawla and Sunita Williams. They are not Indian citizens. They have nothing to do with India now – God bless them, they have made a different choice and that is clearly not India. I have no grief regarding their personal choices; the grief I have is how we continue to be proud of the Indian-ness that they have, in a way, rejected. So why do we hang on to that tenuous link and be proud? I recall the days, when there was a joke on the #cricket on the internet-relay-chat (IRC). If one could prove mother of one’s twice removed cousin of one’s father’s sister-in-law is English, then one could become an automatic eligibility to play cricket for England – this was during Hick’s time. These channels claim to such links also seem as absurd as those.
There are lots more of India in a few others who are in India who toil for India living in India. Can we highlight those, please? Can we be proud of such people, please? For example, there is one Mr.K.R.Datye, who has done pioneering work on Solar/Thermal units that is capable of producing heat up to a point, where it would extremely useful in our rural areas; how about the one on composites out of Bamboo, that has near-steel strength and that can bring down the cost of construction and thus an affordable housing?
Those are the real “First-Indians”, literally and figurative speaking.
Here for completeness sake]
Few days ago, a news-story on one of the premier English news channel caught my eye. The fact that I’m writing about it, does imply that there was something that I do not agree on ! :) - not that they care, but it has kind of become my favourite whipping horse.
Maybe I should start that Media-Watch blog !
Coming to the point here. The news item that got about 5 minutes of air-time in the news and several re-runs was about an Indian born, US emigrated Gujarati girl getting into the US Army. The news-story was title, the “first Indian Girl in the US army”. This is what gets my goat. I do think there is nothing Indian about that girl. She was with Indian origins – it was very very obvious and extremely crystal clear, that she has severed her links with anything India and Indian and has chosen to become a citizen of some other country. So where is the first “Indian” coming from? I find such links quite irritating. There seems to be awe with anything American that the news-channels seek with their eyes wide-open in some kind of childish wonder. That is really not Candy, folks!
I found the same with both Kalpana Chawla and Sunita Williams. They are not Indian citizens. They have nothing to do with India now – God bless them, they have made a different choice and that is clearly not India. I have no grief regarding their personal choices; the grief I have is how we continue to be proud of the Indian-ness that they have, in a way, rejected. So why do we hang on to that tenuous link and be proud? I recall the days, when there was a joke on the #cricket on the internet-relay-chat (IRC). If one could prove mother of one’s twice removed cousin of one’s father’s sister-in-law is English, then one could become an automatic eligibility to play cricket for England – this was during Hick’s time. These channels claim to such links also seem as absurd as those.
There are lots more of India in a few others who are in India who toil for India living in India. Can we highlight those, please? Can we be proud of such people, please? For example, there is one Mr.K.R.Datye, who has done pioneering work on Solar/Thermal units that is capable of producing heat up to a point, where it would extremely useful in our rural areas; how about the one on composites out of Bamboo, that has near-steel strength and that can bring down the cost of construction and thus an affordable housing?
Those are the real “First-Indians”, literally and figurative speaking.
Law of Diminishing Returns !
[This first appeared in Engeetham's blog at
http://hey-rambam-ling.blogspot.com/2006/11/law-of-diminishing-returns.html
I thought, if it requires a repost - then went ahead and did that anyways, so that there is a record of all opinions]
Sometime ago, one of my colleagues explained the “Law of Diminishing Returns”. Nothing exemplifies that better than what is happening right now, on our electronic media, right in front of the bean-bags in my living room.
Few months ago, a Delhi court acquitted Manu Sharma, the alleged (got to be alleged, since he has been acquitted then) killer of Jessica Lall. The court, while passing the acquittal apparently had passed strictures on how the investigations were conducted – shabbily. The News channels picked up the stories and created more stories around it. As a normal, every-day person with every-day problems and in spite of those, I was appalled. I was shocked to an extent that I wanted to do something about it; including printing bumper-stickers. At some point in time, I believed that the TV channels merely reflected the thinking and sense of injustice that seemed to have prevailed amongst the people. A few people I had talked to had a sense of hurt (Sometimes I wonder, if the TV news is a reflection and outing what the common man feels, rather than being other way around as they seem to think – ie opinion makers with the common man).
Now with the Priyadarshini Mattoo’s case closed, and the fast-track cases being flavor of the day, Jessica Lall’s case is being reopened. From my perspective, great - finally someone is waking up. And then the madness has started – perpetuated by the TV channels, which seem to whip up some kind of popular opinion. Somehow, the news channels – both NDTV and CNN-IBN seem to have believe that the judgment should be obvious, signed, sealed and deliver Manu to the hangman. Then, ofcourse, follow up with one-hour program of whether Capital Punishment should go or stay; and bask in Two-minute-packaged-noodle-type problem-solution within “We the people” and “the Verdict”.
But suddenly things did not seem to go per their script. They did not seem to foresee the "problem" of Ram Jethmalini jumping into the fray to defend the accused. This is where their behaviour bordered on stupidity to complete prejudice. The way Ms.Sagarika Ghosh was questioning (a belligerent) Ram Jethmalini, insulted the average man’s intelligence of judicial system. I still cannot understand what her problem was – was it that Manu Sharma should be pronounced guilty without a trial? Was it that a lawyer-of-repute was defending the accused? Were they scared about RJ's reputation as a lawyer that they did not want to see him the court and the possibility that he could actually win the case for his client? By badgering RJ, did SG believe that they want to obviate the need for trial – was she implying that the judicial trials were immaterial and irrelevant ?
As I was watching the program, I was thinking – hello!!! What is your issue here? As you ask everyone to have trust in the media, do also propagate the value of trust in the judiciary too. If Manu is indeed guilty and there is unimpeachable evidence around that, the courts would definitely do their jobs. The belief here is, as media is important, so is the judicial system. Believing that their (Media's) integrity is few notches above that of Judiciary is megalomaniacal and egoistical. If the evidence is flimsy and the investigation was botched up, focus on that; so that, it could be corrected.
Trying to circumvent the system is not on. I trust the system to be strong and solid enough to withstand the intelligence of Jethmalini, eventually. Assuming anything else or assuming oneself to be the sole upholder of justice is going back to the vigilante system of justice and at best, benevolent dictatorship. At some point in time, these channels' value to this case will cease to a point of zero utility. In my own mind, I believe the media is losing out on a supporter. Hearing about the acquittal in February, I wrote the following:
http://hey-rambam-ling.blogspot.com/2006/02/gods-own-country.html
Now I'm writing about the law of diminishing returns. Soon, the Media would be doing more damage to the case than help. It would be that of vanished returns.
http://hey-rambam-ling.blogspot.com/2006/11/law-of-diminishing-returns.html
I thought, if it requires a repost - then went ahead and did that anyways, so that there is a record of all opinions]
Sometime ago, one of my colleagues explained the “Law of Diminishing Returns”. Nothing exemplifies that better than what is happening right now, on our electronic media, right in front of the bean-bags in my living room.
Few months ago, a Delhi court acquitted Manu Sharma, the alleged (got to be alleged, since he has been acquitted then) killer of Jessica Lall. The court, while passing the acquittal apparently had passed strictures on how the investigations were conducted – shabbily. The News channels picked up the stories and created more stories around it. As a normal, every-day person with every-day problems and in spite of those, I was appalled. I was shocked to an extent that I wanted to do something about it; including printing bumper-stickers. At some point in time, I believed that the TV channels merely reflected the thinking and sense of injustice that seemed to have prevailed amongst the people. A few people I had talked to had a sense of hurt (Sometimes I wonder, if the TV news is a reflection and outing what the common man feels, rather than being other way around as they seem to think – ie opinion makers with the common man).
Now with the Priyadarshini Mattoo’s case closed, and the fast-track cases being flavor of the day, Jessica Lall’s case is being reopened. From my perspective, great - finally someone is waking up. And then the madness has started – perpetuated by the TV channels, which seem to whip up some kind of popular opinion. Somehow, the news channels – both NDTV and CNN-IBN seem to have believe that the judgment should be obvious, signed, sealed and deliver Manu to the hangman. Then, ofcourse, follow up with one-hour program of whether Capital Punishment should go or stay; and bask in Two-minute-packaged-noodle-type problem-solution within “We the people” and “the Verdict”.
But suddenly things did not seem to go per their script. They did not seem to foresee the "problem" of Ram Jethmalini jumping into the fray to defend the accused. This is where their behaviour bordered on stupidity to complete prejudice. The way Ms.Sagarika Ghosh was questioning (a belligerent) Ram Jethmalini, insulted the average man’s intelligence of judicial system. I still cannot understand what her problem was – was it that Manu Sharma should be pronounced guilty without a trial? Was it that a lawyer-of-repute was defending the accused? Were they scared about RJ's reputation as a lawyer that they did not want to see him the court and the possibility that he could actually win the case for his client? By badgering RJ, did SG believe that they want to obviate the need for trial – was she implying that the judicial trials were immaterial and irrelevant ?
As I was watching the program, I was thinking – hello!!! What is your issue here? As you ask everyone to have trust in the media, do also propagate the value of trust in the judiciary too. If Manu is indeed guilty and there is unimpeachable evidence around that, the courts would definitely do their jobs. The belief here is, as media is important, so is the judicial system. Believing that their (Media's) integrity is few notches above that of Judiciary is megalomaniacal and egoistical. If the evidence is flimsy and the investigation was botched up, focus on that; so that, it could be corrected.
Trying to circumvent the system is not on. I trust the system to be strong and solid enough to withstand the intelligence of Jethmalini, eventually. Assuming anything else or assuming oneself to be the sole upholder of justice is going back to the vigilante system of justice and at best, benevolent dictatorship. At some point in time, these channels' value to this case will cease to a point of zero utility. In my own mind, I believe the media is losing out on a supporter. Hearing about the acquittal in February, I wrote the following:
http://hey-rambam-ling.blogspot.com/2006/02/gods-own-country.html
Now I'm writing about the law of diminishing returns. Soon, the Media would be doing more damage to the case than help. It would be that of vanished returns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)