Sensation and Insensitivity

July 2004 : Fire rages in a Kumbakonam School and 100 odd children are, for the sake of avoiding a more gruesome word, burnt to death.

Cut to August 2008: A fake alarm of a landslide triggers, at a temple in Himachal Pradesh, a slide of humans instead and in the ensuing stampede 140 people are crushed to death.

Apart from being tragedies which evoked both anger at the administration and sympathy in a large scale for the victims, these two and many more such tragedies share another common thread. Highly insensitive reporting by the media all in the effort to sensationalize these events. The photographs in the leading dailies of our nation in addition to presenting a sad story also cut a sorry picture. For instance, The Hindu, a supposedly more conservative paper , had a dozen or so pictures of charred remains of the victims, totally distraught kin and more pictures of charred bodies splashed all across their back page . The recent stampede ensured Times of India had something other than scantily clad women to feature on their front page. What about a photo showing dozens of dead bodies instead?? Who cares as long it creates an impact.

The electronic media (television primarily) aren't exactly finger licking kids either in this respect. The most disturbing visuals were aired recently after the Kabul bombings. It showed the son of the slain individual performing the last rites of his father. How more insensitive can the media get? I am not risking my stakes at any level because just as you think reporting has reached a nadir they dig down even further. If only they dug so deep for oil across the world, we wouldn't be bothered about rising fuel prices atleast. In the recent past we have seen so many instances when the kith and kin of victims of crime are made to come on camera and then made to answer questions which only intensify the pain and sufering they undergo. Would it be asking for too much to ask the media to avoid such sound bytes?

Even a couple of days back, in one of the news channels coverage of killings in an ashram they had a parent of one of the kids sent there wailing on camera for the whole nation to see. It is one thing if someone suddenly starts weeping uncontrollably when on air and totally another when the camera is not taken off the faces of these individuals but instead, kept on them long enough, that it gets highly revolting. This is not a one off incident but something which has been happening with unfailing regularity on our news circuits. The editors and correspondents who are behind such coverage would have a great alternate career as script writers for the K series of soaps. They realize the impact that tears have in living rooms across the country.

It wouldn't be a crime to say that the beheading videos that various terrorist organizations upload on their websites are better than the kind of news items the media carries. After all when you enter the site you are aware of what you will be viewing. Imagine a 15 year old who is an avid sports page fan of The Hindu, eager to get his fill of the happenings in the world of sports first thing in the morning, turning to the last page and finding photographs of burnt bodies instead. What is the impact that it will have on these impressionable young minds. Or lets consider even a 65 year old who's seen everything in life looking at those pictures. He is not likely to be too visually impressed either. What is the point of using such photographs? Everyone knows that a tragedy has happened but not everyone would like to chew their morning breakfast looking at these photographs.

What is even more saddening is that in a decade when two of the most event defining pictures have been published in our national dailies such disturbing photographs and videos are starting to form a staple ingredient. Lets take for example the now timeless picture of that Ahmedabad tailor, terror and fear evident in every sinew of his face, pleading to be left alone, during the Gujarat riots a few years back. The photograph did not contain any images of weapons, dead bodies or blood. It told a story. In fact it did much more than that. It created an impact. It was worth a thousand editorials. The other photograph in focus is the award winning picture taken in the aftermath of the Tsunami which took more than one lakh victims. It wasn't a picture of strewn bodies. It contained just one woman who was dealing with the loss of her loved ones. It does contradict what I said about grieving images being disturbing. But this one was different. It had a certain raw appeal about it. Like the Gujarat riot picture, it put the whole Tsunami in perpective with just a single picture. The loss that the victims kin feel, the loneliness and the despair, everything was so effectively conveyed in just this one click of the camera.

When such amazing works are possible in the most disturbing situations and in tragedies of such magnitude, why can't the media work towards bringing a more cultured rather than sensational approach to stories of human suffering? Are TRPs and number of copies sold the only measure of success for a media organization? In the information era when the power of the media is ever increasing, it should try to break information barriers than be mere breaking news tools, and more importantly try to be more sensitive than sensational.

Quote uncouth

Following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the tv channels worked tirelessly, vying with each other towards providing a information hungry nation the latest form the ground in Pakistan as well as trying to increase eyeballs by getting political office bearers past and present to give their views on the dastardly act and its repercussions across the globe and more importantly, on India. The experts with their repetitive views did get boring after a while and it did help that no one was on for a prolonged period of time. Also helping the viewer stay glued were the slip of tongues and the like which the politicos managed.

Topping the charts was Natwar Singh, who in a bid to remain in the news (or at least on the news channels) seemed to have given his assent for an interview to quite a few news channels. So when Barkha Dutt asked him her first question pat came the reply: "May I know who am I talking to". Old age i guess. Retirement plans?

Next in line was former J&K CM and presently out of favor politcal heavyweight Farooq Abdullah. Though excusable his statement on how "Benazir Bhutto, India's former PM" death would affect relationships did nothing to boost the present day politician's image of one who talks, then thinks and finally denies the statement. A point worth noting is that Mr. Abdullah was very quick to correct himself on this.

Not to be left behind was Pranab Mukherjee, who holds the post which Natwar Singh so dearly wants, while reading his statement decided to be very correct and read the statement as"... comma ... ". I am unaware if this is the usual practice and if it is, excuse me. But that does not stop me from wondering why they do not take slightly more effort and make sure that full stops are also carefully noted down.

Adding to the fun were the editors at a couple of rival news channels who decided that since there was nothing much to differentiate in terms of content and the details regarding the assassination the least they could do is to use different weapons of attack, while one channel proclaimed it was a sniper which got Benazir, the other claimed it was an AK 47. In the end I guess it was neither. One only wishes that in their over eagerness to win the race for breaking news they do not bury the fundamental principle of journalism which is to ensure that the information being broadcast is correct. This is the very least that we expect from our media.

Political Mess(age)

This is an era of political messes. Not just in India but everywhere across the globe. We have gaffes being committed by politicians cutting across nationalities. Recently, Obama was forced to apologize after his campaign team had distributed videos which showed Hillary Clinton in bad light. Another incident involved Sarkozy denying allegations that he was drunk while attending a press conference, besides stirring up a controversy with his holiday on a yatch, immediately following his victory.

Back home in India, blunders would be a more apt term for the acts that our politicians have time and again, showed they are capable of. Be it openly speaking against their own party policies (some might put it down to freedom of expression) or throwing baseless allegations against anyone who shows a semblance of opposition, they just about manage to take the cake.
But then as always one could with some introspection before jumping to any conclusion.

The media, which oscillates from playing helpful sidekick to dirt thrower, plays a major role in playing up these little bloopers. Ever ready for a sound byte and even more willing to get their hands on anything they seem worthy of a "Breaking News" tag, they follow absolutely no standards. With the number of news channels on the bloom the fight for the TRPs only get tougher. So, when anybody who's barely a somebody, says or does something that the society in general would not expect him/her to say/do, it's blown out of proportions. And in a media dominated world, the leaders and the hopefuls can seldom hope to neglect it. With this in mind they happily go on with their spin doctoring ways. But then with almost everyone more than eager to jump onto this bandwagon, space becomes a constraint. What follows is a merry go round, with today's favorites becoming tomorrow's whipping material.

Here's where it becomes difficult to pin point the actual defaulter. Is it the politician who commits the gaffe, mostly unintentional, or the media which is only too eager to highlight every such act?? After all, the politician is also another human being, despite his mostly debauched ways, and is entitled to make a mistake once in a while. The media on its part does its job of reporting news, though sometimes they are guilty of creating their own news.

A tough decision as it maybe, but like most things else ,the best way to settle the issue will be to put the blame on the politicians!!

Reviewing the reviews

Piping hot filter coffee on one hand and The Hindu's Friday review on the other, an awesome combo. I could no longer enjoy the first part when I left for NIT Trichy looking at 4 years of hostel life ahead of me. Then a couple of years later I lost interest in the second. As a matter of routine the reviews in the paper were becoming a farce. Any movie, barring a Vijayakanth(poor him) one, would be eulogized. Each storyline being touted as the next big thing in Tamil cinema. The histrionics of everyone from the lead actors to their parents and grand parents to the passerby who takes a curious peek into the ongoing fight scene appreciated to an extent even they would find too embarrassing. And then would follow the standard format of naming every technician and praising his role in the making of the movie. To be fair to the Hindu, its not just its reviews but those of the websites which seem to take this path.

The nadir to me were the reviews for the Thiruttu payale (Con man!!). To the unitiatated, it is a movie which at best entertains in parts. Mostly it turns into a display of skin rather than acting skills. With its share of twists and turns it made for a highly engrossing movie or so they said. What came to their rescue was the fact that the movie turned out to be a decent grosser at the box office. And this has been the case for quite a few movies that followed also, including another starring the same actor.

Now, where does this lead us to. When the reviews paint a rosy picture of any flick which releases, with the exception i have mentioned, it becomes difficult for the viewer to make a choice. In this melee even the movies which are actually good are not able to stand out in the reviews because of the same phrases and praise used here as with every other movie. Nowadays, when one wakes up Friday morning he can read the review with the same sarcasm as when viewing the flick endorsed in it.