Bear with me for a short while here. There is a short snippet in one of today's papers which says "Boney M frontman is dead". He was found dead in his hotel in St. Petersberg. Most of us know of Boney M only by their song Rasputin which also mentions Russia somewhere. We also know that Russian officials, probably, will not think twice before torturing and killing people who project a different image of their country as opposed to what they'll project. (You've probably read of this in some newspaper). Is it so far off to assume that you'll connect the two, on the flimsiest of grounds? Note that since it is a snippet, you would probably not even be thinking of such a logical connect. Your subconscious will make short work of the task.
And there it is. This, I think, is exactly how we read and interpret news - most of us atleast, given the hundred restrictions we operate under. I think this is dangerous.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Fact of the Matter
A few days back we had the Russian president visiting our campus. His visit happened to be at the same time as our college's cultural festival. Were they related? Nah, not a chance. So when a news article by a "journalist" who is attached to our college it seems, reads like this "Medvedev is visiting IIT-B during Mood Indigo, its annual cultural festival.", what do you infer?
This is not even the tip of the iceberg. The session with the president, which I happened to attend, was peppered with rather insolent questions which smacked more of showmanship than genuine curiosity and understanding. Yet, it was an innocent little session with a couple of hundred college students and a few greyheaded professors. Had you been watching the news later in the evening or reading the following day's papers, you would be forgiven for assuming that he made bold political statements from the pulpit as opposed to mere clarifications to infantile queries. This got me thinking about the whole process of conveying information which the media supposedly does.
I, like millions of people of my generation who like to keep themselves abreast of daily happenings, have been brought up on newspapers and encyclopediae. Our kids are told that reading newspapers is a good thing and, naturally, we tend to assume that whatever we read is true. Why should it be otherwise? Aren't reporters out there to seek out the truth? Do they not have ethics? Aren't editors the torchbearers of civil society and the conscience of the government? As I've learned the hard way, they aren't. Look at the Niira Radia controversy. More importantly, look at the way things have been covered up by the mainstream media. No discussion, no self-regulation, no brandishing of the book of ethics. Vir Sanghvi, thankfully, has had the shame to stop writing Counterpoint every Sunday. Barkha Dutt has continued unabashedly on her TV channel with her self-righteous bitchiness.
All of this tends to make you rather cynical of your own knowledge of the world. After all, we've hardly ever been in a crisis situation (most of us) and even if we have been, there has been no possible way for us to know that situation from a holistic perspective. We have to rely on our newspapers for that. The newspapers and the media in general, though, makes you very cynical and negative about what it tells you. You realise that there is a difference between what happens and what gets reported. It's like a child discovering that all the gifts he thought Santa'd put there for him, are actually being put there, stealthily, by his parents.
This is not even the tip of the iceberg. The session with the president, which I happened to attend, was peppered with rather insolent questions which smacked more of showmanship than genuine curiosity and understanding. Yet, it was an innocent little session with a couple of hundred college students and a few greyheaded professors. Had you been watching the news later in the evening or reading the following day's papers, you would be forgiven for assuming that he made bold political statements from the pulpit as opposed to mere clarifications to infantile queries. This got me thinking about the whole process of conveying information which the media supposedly does.
I, like millions of people of my generation who like to keep themselves abreast of daily happenings, have been brought up on newspapers and encyclopediae. Our kids are told that reading newspapers is a good thing and, naturally, we tend to assume that whatever we read is true. Why should it be otherwise? Aren't reporters out there to seek out the truth? Do they not have ethics? Aren't editors the torchbearers of civil society and the conscience of the government? As I've learned the hard way, they aren't. Look at the Niira Radia controversy. More importantly, look at the way things have been covered up by the mainstream media. No discussion, no self-regulation, no brandishing of the book of ethics. Vir Sanghvi, thankfully, has had the shame to stop writing Counterpoint every Sunday. Barkha Dutt has continued unabashedly on her TV channel with her self-righteous bitchiness.
All of this tends to make you rather cynical of your own knowledge of the world. After all, we've hardly ever been in a crisis situation (most of us) and even if we have been, there has been no possible way for us to know that situation from a holistic perspective. We have to rely on our newspapers for that. The newspapers and the media in general, though, makes you very cynical and negative about what it tells you. You realise that there is a difference between what happens and what gets reported. It's like a child discovering that all the gifts he thought Santa'd put there for him, are actually being put there, stealthily, by his parents.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Induction
There is a chemical phenomena called induction, especially common in organic chemistry where individual molecules in a chain can affect polarities of the molecules next to them. So these other molecules, which have no business being polar otherwise, act deficient in one respect and enriched in another.
We had our placement process starting some time in September and I never really accorded a lot of priority to it, to be honest. I had to test out different things and I decided I wasn't going to be one of those people whose emotions rise and fall with the latest updates on the placement blog. But then, everyone around me started worrying about it, even though they'd never wanted to worry about it. Consequently, and I do think that this came as a consequence, I started worrying about it as well. Those final ten days when I was in the muddle, things went from good to bad and back over and over again. Now that I have a chance to sit back and reflect on all those days, I can see how that happened and how it was something that sucked me in rather than something I opted for.
I wonder if the case is similar and much more potent with a career in the industry, so much so that it keeps sucking you in and you put off doing things you love so that you're able to do things which get you money
We had our placement process starting some time in September and I never really accorded a lot of priority to it, to be honest. I had to test out different things and I decided I wasn't going to be one of those people whose emotions rise and fall with the latest updates on the placement blog. But then, everyone around me started worrying about it, even though they'd never wanted to worry about it. Consequently, and I do think that this came as a consequence, I started worrying about it as well. Those final ten days when I was in the muddle, things went from good to bad and back over and over again. Now that I have a chance to sit back and reflect on all those days, I can see how that happened and how it was something that sucked me in rather than something I opted for.
I wonder if the case is similar and much more potent with a career in the industry, so much so that it keeps sucking you in and you put off doing things you love so that you're able to do things which get you money
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Secrecy
In the name of national security and public interest, most nations and individuals have gotten away with a lot of bullshit. We all love the idea of democracy and accountability when it is applied to someone else, but we feel mighty uncomfortable with it when someone holds us to the same standard.
In our day and age, where everything is going digital, the idea of "secret" is fast fading. We will soon reach a time when everything would be open. There would be nothing as a secret, especially not the national security type. Wikileaks will and should spur similar efforts around the globe. Governments and bureaucrats will resist as hard as a few of us ordinary citizens would. But it is an idea with an air of inevitability. After sometime, when we realise that openness is here to stay, we'll hopefully strive to work on the cause of these - the fact that we've not been responsible enough in our jobs, especially in our duties towards fellow men and women.
In our day and age, where everything is going digital, the idea of "secret" is fast fading. We will soon reach a time when everything would be open. There would be nothing as a secret, especially not the national security type. Wikileaks will and should spur similar efforts around the globe. Governments and bureaucrats will resist as hard as a few of us ordinary citizens would. But it is an idea with an air of inevitability. After sometime, when we realise that openness is here to stay, we'll hopefully strive to work on the cause of these - the fact that we've not been responsible enough in our jobs, especially in our duties towards fellow men and women.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Leftists, liberals and the media
In the last few days I have increasingly become aware of the fact that I am a liberal. I tend to accord great importance to newspapers and magazines. To ensure that I'm not being biased towards a particular viewpoint, I turn to other magazines and newspapers or to blogs. The blogs I turn to are the ones which say something meaningful and not the ones with crazy abbreviations like omg!!! or lol.. That is just not the way you argue a point.
But the bias still hasn't gone away. I still cannot make any sense of why any American would vote for the Republicans, why self-respecting Marathis support the Shiv Sena or the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena or why cruel nonsensical rituals with questionable bases even amongst religious scholars exist and thrive to this day.
So I decided to wiki "media bias in the United States". It turns out that most people who are in the business of writing articles I read are, also, liberals. Quite an overwhelming percentage of people in journalism espouse those same causes that I do and have the same core values as me, which automatically make us either liberals or leftists, depending on the priority we accord to these values.
The problem is, as I said, that people still vote Republican, that the old European nations are still passing laws that bar Bohemians from entering their nation, that Arizona has perplexing anti-immigration laws. How do you understand this? The problem gets exacerbated further when you read something from those conservative voices. It just doesn't make sense, what they write and what they stand for.
My issue, I think, is that I still trust the writers of the world for my viewpoint. Because you write, as opposed to the legions who don't, you're bound to have a bias towards a certain something. Could it be towards logic and high principles? Maybe. I guess the right wing appeals not to your logic, but to your sentiment. Their bits of speech and text are not for intellectuals who read newspapers and magazines but for the streets where pithy slogans and drumroll speechmaking takes you through. I'd have dismissed it as inconsequential as I did in the past, but the fact is that there is a substantial part of the population (and a substantial part of us) that acts on sentiment(or whatever it is that they appeal to) rather than logic. I'm still trying to figure this one out.
But the bias still hasn't gone away. I still cannot make any sense of why any American would vote for the Republicans, why self-respecting Marathis support the Shiv Sena or the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena or why cruel nonsensical rituals with questionable bases even amongst religious scholars exist and thrive to this day.
So I decided to wiki "media bias in the United States". It turns out that most people who are in the business of writing articles I read are, also, liberals. Quite an overwhelming percentage of people in journalism espouse those same causes that I do and have the same core values as me, which automatically make us either liberals or leftists, depending on the priority we accord to these values.
The problem is, as I said, that people still vote Republican, that the old European nations are still passing laws that bar Bohemians from entering their nation, that Arizona has perplexing anti-immigration laws. How do you understand this? The problem gets exacerbated further when you read something from those conservative voices. It just doesn't make sense, what they write and what they stand for.
My issue, I think, is that I still trust the writers of the world for my viewpoint. Because you write, as opposed to the legions who don't, you're bound to have a bias towards a certain something. Could it be towards logic and high principles? Maybe. I guess the right wing appeals not to your logic, but to your sentiment. Their bits of speech and text are not for intellectuals who read newspapers and magazines but for the streets where pithy slogans and drumroll speechmaking takes you through. I'd have dismissed it as inconsequential as I did in the past, but the fact is that there is a substantial part of the population (and a substantial part of us) that acts on sentiment(or whatever it is that they appeal to) rather than logic. I'm still trying to figure this one out.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Scrapping Such a Long Journey
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101102/edit.htm#7
Recently, Mumbai University scrapped a book written by a Canada-based Indian Rohinton Mistry from its undergraduate curriculum. Mistry had been shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize not so long ago. The book was scrapped in response to protests by a student group called Yuva Sena. They alleged that the book attacked certain popular individuals and slandered certain political groups, apart from attacking the ethos of Mumbaikars in general and was unfit to be included in the university’s curriculum for English undergraduates.
Recently, Mumbai University scrapped a book written by a Canada-based Indian Rohinton Mistry from its undergraduate curriculum. Mistry had been shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize not so long ago. The book was scrapped in response to protests by a student group called Yuva Sena. They alleged that the book attacked certain popular individuals and slandered certain political groups, apart from attacking the ethos of Mumbaikars in general and was unfit to be included in the university’s curriculum for English undergraduates.
Yuva Sena is headed by Aditya Thackeray, who happens to be the son of Uddhav Thackeray, who in turn is the progeny of Bal Thackeray. The book in question is about a certain Parsi called Gustad Noble set in the year 1971 in the city of Bombay. The individual in question is Mr Bal Thackeray and the political group is Shiv Sena. The book talks about this man’s life unravels.
When tracing out a character, I would believe that good authors tend to cobble up a character which would be as close to their imagined reality as possible. Mistry’s imagined reality happens to be the same as our everyday one. It’s just that Mistry made the mistak of writing about his character’s political views in a place where political overlords tend to smash people to bits before negotiating with them.
The Mumbai University Vice-Chancellor was competing with Dominos’ 30-minutes-or-free offer in promptness of service when he delivered the scrapping order within a day of the protest. The Sena defends the action by talking about how moral censorship is necessary to pass on the right baton to the next generation. Sanjay Raut, Executive Editor, Saamna,the political mouthpiece of the Shiv Sena, writes in his column in a newspaper that the nature of censorship is such that the censor decides what is acceptable or not based on his/her own morality.
This becomes a problem when the demographic group you seek to protect from such influences is neither in need of protection nor “thinks” it needs protection when you live in a liberal democracy where such a view matters. Our generation today has been fed on a generous dose of liberalism. Liberty is one of our most cherished ideals and we fiercely protect our right to freedom of speech.
The Sena’s action is in direct conflict with this principle, as is evidenced by the huge hue and cry raised by students of the college on various social fora. The English undergraduates whom the Sena wishes to protect from such influences have a worldview far wider than most people would give them credit for, given that they’ve grown up reading a lot. They can discern, far more wisely than most of us, the difference between good fiction and plain bigotry.
In fact, this book was a part of one of those critical appreciation courses where they dissect an author’s work precisely to isolate and understand his intentions and leanings. The BJP, had initiated a similar exercise in the past. My CBSE Class X batch of 2004 had had such a politically motivated change of textbooks in the middle of its 9th-10th cycle because of which the entire Class of 2004 across the country now knows nothing of the World Wars, the rise and fall of Communism, the Russian Revolution, the atom bombs, the Nazis and countless other huge moments of the last 100 years which define our contemporary reality. Instead, the four chapters in our history text read more like insipid tourist brochures for various Indian monuments. This is just one example of how the myopic vision of a political party can render it incapable to prescribe textbooks for students in a balanced manner.
The constituents of this civil society are indifferent people who vent their fury on blogs and Facebook, talk about high principles and reason and feel contented. Clearly, we are no threat to the lumpen elements who want publicity and have the need to display their power. They had their way. We blogged on our blogs and talked at parties to impress upon our peers that we are well read. We chose to put up Sena-bashing status messages for a day and that was that. A book has been scrapped, but hey, no lives lost. Those who want to get offended, will. And as long as there are people who have the means to twist the system into submission, reason will always be a casualty.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Online Self
So often you come across people online, chat with them and practically build up relationships with them. Then you meet them for real and it is so different. Or vice versa.
There is this character I met who joined our photographers' group one day. Now this gentleman was a fairly ordinary person. In fact, I'd go to the extent of calling him a wannabe. Fairly simple and uncomplicated. Then he added me on fb. So as is my wont, I checked out his profile and was surprised. This was nothing like the guy I had met in real life.
There was a batchmate of mine. Intelligent fellow, but a very affable one. Again, his online persona is so starkly different and elitist.
I have a theory-our online personas are all about how we want others to see us, while in real life we just can't avoid giving ourselves away. Of course, people try and do the same thing in three dimensions as well but there are some others who always catch up. On a slightly tangential note, could it also mean that our skills at identifying and stereotyping are underdeveloped as far as online profiles go? Or is it really far more difficult?
There is this character I met who joined our photographers' group one day. Now this gentleman was a fairly ordinary person. In fact, I'd go to the extent of calling him a wannabe. Fairly simple and uncomplicated. Then he added me on fb. So as is my wont, I checked out his profile and was surprised. This was nothing like the guy I had met in real life.
There was a batchmate of mine. Intelligent fellow, but a very affable one. Again, his online persona is so starkly different and elitist.
I have a theory-our online personas are all about how we want others to see us, while in real life we just can't avoid giving ourselves away. Of course, people try and do the same thing in three dimensions as well but there are some others who always catch up. On a slightly tangential note, could it also mean that our skills at identifying and stereotyping are underdeveloped as far as online profiles go? Or is it really far more difficult?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)