i have been thinking these past few days, of the past year at ACJ, and what it has taught me. i have come to a few conclusions, except for the obvious fact that i am now a journalist, a profession many mock for its ludicrousness and exasperating habits. however, i do not intend to go into that bit. i have drawn a few conclusions, and though they might appear mistaken for some, i still believe that the past year has affected the person i was.
firstly, ACJ taught what it means to view things from a different perspective. for all the hoopla and criticism of the initial series of lectures that we had, many of us[including me] had problems with the way things were being presented to us. there were many of us who knew the background to the matter being discussed, and many who knew the matter intricately. however, it was interesting to note how different perspectives could emerge from a single incident, or as sainath would like to call it, a process.
for example, the lecture on caste by kancha illaiah. i still stand by the fact that his theory is based on a lot of falsities, oddities that have been singled out to bring out the whole religion as a flaw. however, once again, what mattered was the difference in perspective, and how it allowed all of us to indulge in a debate over the nuances of caste and its workings.
also, talking about perspectives, landing in nepal after a year during a time of heightened political awareness, it appears that many here lack a different approach. and that the media in nepal is also to blame for this. for example, i have been reading the papers recently, and what i found, or rather did not find, was a questioning of the turn of events post the constitutional assembly elections. a whole population has placed its hopes on this new assembly, and yet it appears that once more we are headed to a stalemate, a squabble that constitutes minor differences while overlooking the single fact that the fate of the nation is in their hands.
however, none of the reports i have read so far appear to question the elected leaders. true, there have been reports highlighting the fact that under-represented people have been elected, like the local tailor from pokhara, or the barber from the terai. but, amidst these reports, there is not a single mention of the simple fact that the leaders are wasting precious time. or that there is a lack of coherent policy making within the assembly as a whole. or that the objections raised by one party regarding the Maoists were to be raised before the elections. or that development has taken a back seat and the country is just functioning, or living by.
what is the job of the media?this is a question that has constantly challenged me these past few days, especially since day before's coverage of the jaipur blasts. today morning, IBN chose to highlight the injured - a definitely different tack; however, its melodramatic approach to the whole story had me cribbing - is this really what the media needs to do? also, during a questioning of the DGP of Rajasthan, the reporter missed the most basic question: what sort of explosives were used?were they timed devices or were they remote controlled?
many of my colleagues at the college will argue differently regarding what the media's role is. however, one thing which i learned again at ACJ, is that the media needs to leave its emotions behind. we need to look at events and processes[sainath again], when we are reporting especially, from an outsider's point of view. we cannot be cowed down by how public opinion maybe shaped post the report. we need to report as the incident happened, highlight the failure in the system, and comment on how can the state mitigate the bigger process.
so are we meant to be sadistic voyeurs? i do not for a moment think so. rather, what the profession implies is that we need to live double lives. we need to keep our personal views out of the reports we publish, because what we write formulates the basis of public opinion, atleast to a large extent.
we had this problem while bringing out our last issue of the Word, where a report was deemed to be activist and unsubstantiated. what we also found, was that a better use of words brings out the meaning without intending to offend anyone. and that, creative freedom and editorial censure otherwise, negotiation skills are always helpful.
however, coming back to the last issue, the wholesale cancellation of an article without informing the writer showed me once again that the entire talk about media freedom is actually a huge bunkum, a facade that has been created to encourage potential journalists. when the top official, who is not involved in the production of the magazine in any way, steps in to remove an article he/she personally deems offensive, the least the editorial staff can do is to inform the writer. in other words, it is what the modern world regards as professionalism.
i know these are my individual views, and that the reader may differ from each of them. however, once again, it is the perspective from which you view it that makes your decision.
firstly, ACJ taught what it means to view things from a different perspective. for all the hoopla and criticism of the initial series of lectures that we had, many of us[including me] had problems with the way things were being presented to us. there were many of us who knew the background to the matter being discussed, and many who knew the matter intricately. however, it was interesting to note how different perspectives could emerge from a single incident, or as sainath would like to call it, a process.
for example, the lecture on caste by kancha illaiah. i still stand by the fact that his theory is based on a lot of falsities, oddities that have been singled out to bring out the whole religion as a flaw. however, once again, what mattered was the difference in perspective, and how it allowed all of us to indulge in a debate over the nuances of caste and its workings.
also, talking about perspectives, landing in nepal after a year during a time of heightened political awareness, it appears that many here lack a different approach. and that the media in nepal is also to blame for this. for example, i have been reading the papers recently, and what i found, or rather did not find, was a questioning of the turn of events post the constitutional assembly elections. a whole population has placed its hopes on this new assembly, and yet it appears that once more we are headed to a stalemate, a squabble that constitutes minor differences while overlooking the single fact that the fate of the nation is in their hands.
however, none of the reports i have read so far appear to question the elected leaders. true, there have been reports highlighting the fact that under-represented people have been elected, like the local tailor from pokhara, or the barber from the terai. but, amidst these reports, there is not a single mention of the simple fact that the leaders are wasting precious time. or that there is a lack of coherent policy making within the assembly as a whole. or that the objections raised by one party regarding the Maoists were to be raised before the elections. or that development has taken a back seat and the country is just functioning, or living by.
what is the job of the media?this is a question that has constantly challenged me these past few days, especially since day before's coverage of the jaipur blasts. today morning, IBN chose to highlight the injured - a definitely different tack; however, its melodramatic approach to the whole story had me cribbing - is this really what the media needs to do? also, during a questioning of the DGP of Rajasthan, the reporter missed the most basic question: what sort of explosives were used?were they timed devices or were they remote controlled?
many of my colleagues at the college will argue differently regarding what the media's role is. however, one thing which i learned again at ACJ, is that the media needs to leave its emotions behind. we need to look at events and processes[sainath again], when we are reporting especially, from an outsider's point of view. we cannot be cowed down by how public opinion maybe shaped post the report. we need to report as the incident happened, highlight the failure in the system, and comment on how can the state mitigate the bigger process.
so are we meant to be sadistic voyeurs? i do not for a moment think so. rather, what the profession implies is that we need to live double lives. we need to keep our personal views out of the reports we publish, because what we write formulates the basis of public opinion, atleast to a large extent.
we had this problem while bringing out our last issue of the Word, where a report was deemed to be activist and unsubstantiated. what we also found, was that a better use of words brings out the meaning without intending to offend anyone. and that, creative freedom and editorial censure otherwise, negotiation skills are always helpful.
however, coming back to the last issue, the wholesale cancellation of an article without informing the writer showed me once again that the entire talk about media freedom is actually a huge bunkum, a facade that has been created to encourage potential journalists. when the top official, who is not involved in the production of the magazine in any way, steps in to remove an article he/she personally deems offensive, the least the editorial staff can do is to inform the writer. in other words, it is what the modern world regards as professionalism.
i know these are my individual views, and that the reader may differ from each of them. however, once again, it is the perspective from which you view it that makes your decision.
