Flashback - a blogger is born?

First off - Happy Deepavali to all those that celebrate it!

I was rummaging through some of my old stuff (as a result of shifting our house, I had tons of old stuff that were now out in the open) when I came across a printout of something I wrote some 6 or 7 years back. It was interesting reading thoughts I had so long back. I'm thinking maybe such writings were the seeds that sprouted (!) several years later into this blog. So here it is and I will let you decide.


===8<===[cut here]=============================

Recently I was reading an issue of the TIME magazine and read an article titled "The Queen of Clean Air". It talked about the chief of US Environmental Protection Agency who was enforcing new laws to prevent pollution, so much so that they may even ban fireworks and barbecues in certain places. The article talked about how she had faced strong protests from different parts of the government, companies, media, etc but still stood firm to enforce the newly introduced law.

Now, from this I am made to believe that elsewhere in this wide world of ours, we have the media actually covering to the acts of good people. The officials who foster environmental issues, animal rights, human rights and so on.

But in India, I find that our illustrious free press decides that it is not a waste of time and trees to cover things about escaped convicts, corrupt politicians, etc. "200 crores swindled in Shoe Scam!" looks more appealing to them (and maybe to a wide majority of readers) than something like "Citizens of xyz district save a forest from being cut down by ABC company". I am sure the pressmen can come up with nice catchy headlines for even mundane things like preserving natural resources.

My observations of media coverage are:

* The good - that is coverage of people doing good, be it honest policemen, politicians, officials, and other such constructive things.
* The bad - that is coverage of riots, bandh, etc.
* The ugly - that is coverage of unethical politics.

Now I would like you to guage how much percentage of coverage each of these categories gets in the media.

Does anyone know what happened to Ramar Pillai? Last time someone checked he was doing brisk business in some little known village supplying herbal petrol that actually works for about half the cost of normal petrol. Our media splashes his photograph on the front pages, and for reasons best known to them they give him a decent burial much before anyone realises what is going on. Let us all rush to that village with empty cans. Atleast even if we don't solve our country's economic situation, we can atleast balance our domestic budget.

So what does media cover well? The escaped convict, the tunnel digging naxalities, the sandalwood smugglers hiding in forests, the corrupt officials and politicians. They do it so well that they even print step by step instructions complete with photographs on how to dig your own tunnel out of Vellore jail. How was it done? Front page news on leading newspapers and magazines. Analysis from experts on how it could have been done better!

Then does media exist to glorify all things illegal and corrupt? Why does it show in big bold headlines things like convicts who escaped life sentences by resorting to some little known loophole in not only Indian law, but also international law. Not only do they educate us on how convicts escape by using law against the lawmakers, but it also pays him a huge royalty to make a movie out of it. Glorification of all things illegal.

I agree that you have to expose the news as it happened. I came to understand that in some countries like Sri Lanka, the media doesn't go into the specifics. They say that ABC was given bail, or tht XYZ escaped while in custody. They don't go into the minute details like why ABC was given bail even though he was charged of murder or how XYZ escaped while in a maximum security prison. They don't give you detailed maps of the prison, the dimensions of holes dug, and so on. That way you don't educate people on how to do illegal things. Agreed that it would not be fair on the part of our free press to give incomplete news, but under the guise of exposing them they are educating the people on how criminals can escape from the law.

So why can't our media too adopt the same strategy? Why do they have to play the part of a manual publisher for the criminals? I am sure all the corrupt politicians in this country would have already reserved AC rooms in prestigious hospitals in anticipation of CBI charges. I am also sure their hearts would suddenly get an attack just 2 hours before the CBI presses charges.

So, media coverage for the good guys ... the honest policeman, the now decreasing group of honest politicians, truthful government officials, the concerned citizen, ... If only media covered this section of people who uphold true values and gave them atleast their rightful 15 seconds of fame -I believe we will have more people turning out to fight for things like environment, human rights, animal rights, etc.

We have to accept it - everyone needs some sort of incentive for doing things. This can be either in the form of money, or atleast recognition for the work they have done.

Now if a vast majority of media is focussed on things like fodder scams and pulling of the chair at the centre - people will naturally not feel it worth their while to fight for the poor animals. Feed the animals inferior food, create a fodder scam and get color cover page photograph! That will be the line of thinking. Ok, even if they don't think of creating yet another scam - lack of media coverage on the good guys will definitely discourage the good guys from doing any good. Unless of course the good guys are of the likes of Mahatma Gandhi.

In any field of activism be it human rights, environment, animal rights, political, ... Give the good guys enough media coverage.

Media like print, TV, films etc are powerful. They can shape an individual's character. Wouldn't it be nice if they could shape individuals in to caring, concerned citizens of tomorrow...