Back when we were in school, the lamest excuse we could give for not doing homework was something like , "The dog ate my homework". :). Reading through newspapers, I feel like they are telling me the same................"We are sorry, the dog ate your news, but do not worry, what was left, we have got for you"..
All of us like to get the news in the morning, news papers, news channels , internet sites or e-papers; the mode just varies, the thirst for news is always there. We discuss, we speculate, we share and live an enlightened life.
But ask yourselves
1. Am I getting the news ?
2. Am I reading just what I like ?
3. Am I forced to read the CREATED news?
Confused................ Ok.to understand the relevance of these questions, just take a relevant issue and read about it 3 - 4 different news-papers. You will find some have ommited it (Question 1), you may find attracted to a particular newspaper (Question 2), it has been reported in a totally false manner (Question 3).
Remember the famous or infamous Bush shoe throwing....................
1. It was reported as an incident which happened in a press briefing, journalist throwing shoe at a visiting foreign president.
2. Some went one more step , linked it to Afghan and Iraq wars. Quite OK, a bit of truth....
3. One more step, it was linked to Muslim customs and projected as an ultimate insult. Here the paper is threading on a thin line between news and favoritism.
4. One more step, papers say the shoe could only be thrown as Iraqis got freedom.
5. One more step, papers praise Bush's athleticism..............now more like propoganda...........
Now read the questions again .........................does it make sense ?
There is a dangerous trend in here. The second question addresses that. The news from both sides are there. Yet the reader wants to ignore the other side. There ends the value of fraternity and co-existence and starts an era of neo-nazism (or communalism).
There is also a less dangerous trend in this division - the tabloids. People may want to read a more dramatised version of events. Here the newspaper is not the culprit. It exists as the people want to read it that way. A pinch of the masala to the dull life. What more than a center spread to start the day energetically :)
Investigative journalism changes way for sensationalism. Papers present contradictory news each day and blames the different parties for falsifying info. But these papers who present these news to us, do not they have a duty to verify things ............
I remember a heading from BBC site, Indian police recruits rats................. A person stopping at this heading gets the feeling, ya Indians ............snake charmers, may do more than this....But the news under says and ingenious way of using pet albino rats to keep away the other dangerous pests. Now if this same thing was done in UK, what would have been the heading ?................. This is really amusing.
So guys, read the news left after the dog ate it .................. or read at least from 2 opposing news papers and get the actual picture. It will definitely be somewhere in between what they have reported..............
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
yea you are right.
ReplyDeleteI think that the newspapers make good use of our psychological feelings of curiosity and interests. I have felt that although my favorite newspaper makes me read created news (according to my own tastes), I still prefer to read the same newspaper. I think they maintain their popularity by using excellent marketing strategy that exploits human interests and curiosity.
Journalists do not come from Jupiter. :) They are members of the same society. So, if you argue that people read only what they like to read, then it is the people who have to be blamed. If there is a consumer for your product or service, then definitely produce or offer it irrespective of the the moral framework. This has been the motto is the many businesses. This rather shows a shift towards amorality in the majority of the society.
ReplyDeleteIn such a scenario, you might never get the correct picture even if you read two rival accounts of the same incident; when they really do not want to tell the truth.
Interesting. But I've given up on newspapers quite a while back. In fact sales are at an all time low... expect to see mergers and chapter 11s. Not to digress:p My point is with the internet all so prevalent and social networking only ever going up newspapers are there is a noticable differnece where people form opinions... blogs, forums, twitter, secondlife (there was even a plan to introduce tax laws there!). News aggregators like google news and samachar and rediff.com have become popular.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is a disticnt shift in newspaper companies towards being 'information & media' drivers than the plain 'news deliverers'. Case in point: BBC has debate forums. Paid reporters are suddenly transformed to citizen journalists. Case in point: twitter was the first to report the US flight landing in the Hudson river.
I write all this with all luxury of an £800 laptop with a wireless network. But sadly this is not the case for quite a large number of people especially back home. So yes people need 'offline' reading, newspapers fill that gap. My suggestion? Read the Hind :D
Keep writing and pls cut down on the ....! Giving me nightmares of exam papers :p