Monday, July 19, 2010

Trysts with MSM - Part 7: "Are you for real"

MSM stands for Main Stream Media.
This was actually a very long time ago, before the "Trysts with MSM" series was started. Didn't bother to dig this up in recent times. Sagarika Ghose once wrote an article in Hindustan Times comparing today’s politicians to Dhritarashtra, I tweeted to her saying:

@sagarikaghose Dhritharashtra was actually blind, our leaders pretend to be blind…there is a sea of difference…

What followed was this discussion…

@ssudhirkumar “actually” blind. god, are you for real? The epics speak in complicated metaphors, D is THE metaphor of a blind king/parent..

@sagarikaghose aha! now you are interpreting what the epics speak…nice. And ohh yeah, I am for real !

@ssudhirkumar so ravana “actually” had ten heads? krishna “actually” supplied cloth from heaven?

@sagarikaghose why are you extending it madam? why divert the topic?

@sagarikaghose my point was to counter your comparison in your HT article. First you tell that you interpret epics it according to your wish

@sagarikaghose and then you ask me if I believe Ravan had 10 arms..oops heads, and krishna actually supply cloth…

@sagarikaghose frankly ma’am, I am at a loss as to how to argue and debate with you !!

@ssudhirkumar do you “actually” believe that? don’t you think these are literary and narritive devices? do go beyond amar chitra katha..

@sagarikaghose why do you find it so intolerant that I “Actually” believe D was blind? What just is wrong with it? And what’s with the tone?

@ssudhirkumar Its not “intolerant” its simply moronic..):

@sagarikaghose you find it “moronic” that I believe D was “actually” blind and it was not a metaphor? wow! get well soon ma’am.

@sagarikaghose I am just a common man with simple understanding.I cannot comprehend complex, complicated metaphors. thank you for the gyan.

The reason for digging this up today is because the media personalities bogus claims of being the victim of hatred on the Internet has somehow gone up in the recent times again. Hindustan Times even published an article yesterday, wherein it gives examples of some abusive messages and tries to charectize users.

Now, it is not anybody's contention that the kind of abuses printed are horrible. Why are we even debating them? Who, in their right mind would want to justify such language? Isn't it so elementary to expect such fringe elements everywhere? Frankly, have these "celebrities" been so naive that they didn't expect such abuses in the first place? Why pick up a small percentage of hate messages and play up the victim card so as to even quell genuine criticism?

Why is the media not discussing the positive effect of this open communication? Because it is not juicy enough? There have been umpteen examples of how media personalities have escaped from answering legitimate questions. Umpteen examples how people were characterized because someone else posted a hate message. Either the media talks about the fringe abusers or about those who praise them. What about those who question them? They have no place in this whole thing?

"You don't understand English" screamed Nidhi Razdan of NDTV. "What makes you think I am answerable to you" shouted Vikram Chandra of NDTV. "Are you for real" asked Sagarika Ghose of IBN.

Will Hindustan Times or for that matter any media channel publish this? Will they dare show the inane side of their celebrity journos?


Post a Comment