The recent and ongoing debate on Austerity measures being proposed and imposed by our Political leaders in India, and thereafter being dissected by the media is a real cause for concern. They seem to see austerity in a molecular singular sense and present tense. Austerity would mean exhibiting a sense of livelyhood relatively lower to your regular standard of living. An Onasis exhibiting an austere life would probably mean skiping his caviar and champagne. My austerity would mean swapping my J&B whisky for a Captain Whisky. Thus a Shashi Tharoor, though someone who very naturally adapts to any environment and living condition, perceived by the press to be someone who splurged while an employee of the UN, is told to move out of a 5 Star Hotel into some inconspcious accomodation only becasue the 5 Star accomodation is peceived to be un-austere. I have stayed at the worlds best hotels at rates far lower than the rack rates of many 2 or 3 star hotels. Yet had I stayed at the lower grade hotel paying more - I would have been perceived to be 'austere' by beholders. Sonia Gandhi flying in Economy Class is perceived to be austere (even though the government spends more on logistics and security. The press coverage, mobile vans, police detail, CBI and all other departments carbon footprint would have been doubled or trebled on her austerity drive. And the more absurd one - is Rahul's train journey. Rahul sees it as his molecular and singular self being austere. Yet a government sees it as security detail of a larger number of the NSG (invisible to Rahul) for the 3 hour journey rather than a handful required for his 15 minute secure flight. All this not considering the inconvenience and expenses incurred by the detached everyday 'austere' passengers. Maybe those co-passengers should have exhibited thir austeity by travelling by bus, and the bus travellers....and so on and so on....
Austerity is also relative to the surroundings and thus not the same for everyone. I've said this before - being simple (austere) could be far more complicated than being complicated. A vegetarian in Africa pays much more and complicates life - yet being vegetarian is perceived as being austere. In Hindu mythology, Sudama, Krishna's austere friend would have flummoxed everyone offerng the 'austere' meal of Poha(puffed rice) in an African scenario - the very simple Poha is far more expensive than most other luxury items in an Indian Supermarket here.
And of course we have our wonderful media that loves controversy - 40 austerity debates - have literaly pushed public figures to clandestinely do normal things and will eventually crucify honest politicians like Tharoor. He recently twitted that he was more comfortable in his politician's collarless outfit (garb devoid of a collar and noose (neck tie) ......and I wondered.. whether the necktie was far less dangerous than the news (noose) media that his political garb attracted?
His latest twit on austerity concerning the 'economy class' seems to have tickled his party. It will be the literary worlds loss if a party whip silences his twitting by 'ordering' him to be 'austere' with his words too. The theory of relativity led to the creation of an atomic bomb. What bomb will this 'austerity' theory develop into?
Post Script : At the time of posting this I just read the hype that NDTV has made of the Tharoor issue..... The Congress party messages are being broadcast... their distaste at his mention of the holy cows.... the media criticizes Rahul for his security lapse ....... the media rules... and is winding up the timer on a bomb!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The Media - Do they realise how powerful they are?
A reminder from a James Bond movie - the evil newspaper baron who creates news, does the reports before he makes the event actually happen. This slowly becomes a reality in todays world with the internet and satellite television reaching all corners of the world. Let a Channel announce that a Hindu killed a Muslim and this will actually happen - mob frenzy will help magnify this event very easily.
A brief thought passes by : How has the media grown? How important spreading your voice has become. From the Cacophony of official screamers, the Tom Tom Drums from Denkali, Pigeons with messages, Telexes, Faxes to Twitting.... the whole world has changed. The more we are able to throw our thoughts and influence distant people, the more powerful we become. And as we throw our thoughts further, into other cultures, we seldom realise that our 'subject recepients' may either not comprehend or even worse, mis-comprehend our messages.
As a people on this planet, we are diverse in race, religion, culture and behaviour.
One persons fad may be blasphemous to another. Thus we could be spreading hatred without knowing it and probably for no reason at all. And the 'media' therefore becomes party to the creation of dislike.
If one goes back into the history of mans quest to get his 'point of view' across - we see that from time immemorial - we have tried make our voices louder to spread it across distances. From SHOUTING loud, using hands to magnify the sound, to the development of a simple paper cones or megaphones, to battery run ones, to microphones and loud speakers, to radio, television, satellite communication and the internet - we have come very far from being able to throw our voices (and thoughts) - from just a few metres across a fence - to great distances - across the earth and the universe too. The Next stage will be human teleporters and what not - the untimate 'media' to get our points of view across. Get yourself teleported to give the best effect.
Would you then get tele-ported in a Bikini to Saudi Arabia or in a veil to a Neo-Nazi meeting in Germany? The point I'm trying to make 'through this media' is that we need to realise the implications of our propoganda. In times of war - countries deliberately used the media, to mis-inform people ( mass porpoganda - they called it). Nothings changed today. George Bush used it to constantly keep his people under the veil of fear. This enabled him to virtually go about invisibly in his destruction of Iraq under the guise of a war on terror.
Where does one draw the line between Freedom of expression and propoganda?
Until we do draw a line, lets try and exhibit understanding that, what we say may affect someone we dont know far away. Reigning in our voices will automatically reign in our thoughts and thus our influence. Communities will be able to live their lives as they wish and not as dictated by a louder voice.
The Medium must become localised. Opinions expressed must be preserved within your context. Religions especially must let the conscience from within take over. When silence prevails, the world will become a safer place.
But then reading through the above, one wonders if this all is really possible. We push science and technology to expand the distance between our physical presence and our moral influence. The trespassing of others physical territories by our wandering influence is bound to create problems. Will we ever be able to draw a line? Will there ever be something we can call a responsible media? The media is only a creation of ours so that we can spread our wings and be free. Are we willing to curtail our own freedom?
A brief thought passes by : How has the media grown? How important spreading your voice has become. From the Cacophony of official screamers, the Tom Tom Drums from Denkali, Pigeons with messages, Telexes, Faxes to Twitting.... the whole world has changed. The more we are able to throw our thoughts and influence distant people, the more powerful we become. And as we throw our thoughts further, into other cultures, we seldom realise that our 'subject recepients' may either not comprehend or even worse, mis-comprehend our messages.
As a people on this planet, we are diverse in race, religion, culture and behaviour.
One persons fad may be blasphemous to another. Thus we could be spreading hatred without knowing it and probably for no reason at all. And the 'media' therefore becomes party to the creation of dislike.
If one goes back into the history of mans quest to get his 'point of view' across - we see that from time immemorial - we have tried make our voices louder to spread it across distances. From SHOUTING loud, using hands to magnify the sound, to the development of a simple paper cones or megaphones, to battery run ones, to microphones and loud speakers, to radio, television, satellite communication and the internet - we have come very far from being able to throw our voices (and thoughts) - from just a few metres across a fence - to great distances - across the earth and the universe too. The Next stage will be human teleporters and what not - the untimate 'media' to get our points of view across. Get yourself teleported to give the best effect.
Would you then get tele-ported in a Bikini to Saudi Arabia or in a veil to a Neo-Nazi meeting in Germany? The point I'm trying to make 'through this media' is that we need to realise the implications of our propoganda. In times of war - countries deliberately used the media, to mis-inform people ( mass porpoganda - they called it). Nothings changed today. George Bush used it to constantly keep his people under the veil of fear. This enabled him to virtually go about invisibly in his destruction of Iraq under the guise of a war on terror.
Where does one draw the line between Freedom of expression and propoganda?
Until we do draw a line, lets try and exhibit understanding that, what we say may affect someone we dont know far away. Reigning in our voices will automatically reign in our thoughts and thus our influence. Communities will be able to live their lives as they wish and not as dictated by a louder voice.
The Medium must become localised. Opinions expressed must be preserved within your context. Religions especially must let the conscience from within take over. When silence prevails, the world will become a safer place.
But then reading through the above, one wonders if this all is really possible. We push science and technology to expand the distance between our physical presence and our moral influence. The trespassing of others physical territories by our wandering influence is bound to create problems. Will we ever be able to draw a line? Will there ever be something we can call a responsible media? The media is only a creation of ours so that we can spread our wings and be free. Are we willing to curtail our own freedom?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)