When Puppets Hide Behind Pomposity

Re: # 28

Harimau:

This is the program for all South Asians. You too are welcome.

Anil

Ref anil #27

[Dear Farzana:

A while ago, you had quoted a hindi poem ``Jeen Uska Jeena Hai, Jo Auron Ko Jeevan Deta Hai``. I am in the process of organizing a stem-cell donor regitery program among South Asians, and would like to use this poem.]

It looks like you are organizing a stem-cell donor registry among NORTH Indians and Pakistanis what with your Hindi/Hindustani/Urdu poem.

If you want to get to the South Indians, you would need to write your appeal in C++.

Dear Farzana:

A while ago, you had quoted a hindi poem ``Jeen Uska Jeena Hai, Jo Auron Ko Jeevan Deta Hai``. I am in the process of organizing a stem-cell donor regitery program among South Asians, and would like to use this poem. Could you please email me this poem?

Thank you.
Anil

Here is some interesting trivia, from Merriam-Webster website: (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/mwwod.pl). One would guess that example sentences reveal a lot about the meaning most people typically attach to a word, and the real-life situations they are expected to represent.

The Word of the Day for July 23 is:

hobnob • HAHB-nahb • verb
: to associate familiarly

Example sentence:
Bill hoped his new job as a reporter would give him an opportunity to hobnob with politicians and other notables.

Did you know?
“Hob” and “nob” first came together in print in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, when Sir Toby Belch warned Viola (who was disguised as a man) that Sir Andrew wanted to duel. “Hob, nob is his word,” said Sir Toby, using “hob nob” to mean something like “hit or miss.” Sir Toby’s term is probably an alteration of “habnab,” a phrase that meant “to have or not have, however it may turn out.” After Shakespeare’s day, “hob” and “nob” became established in the phrases “to drink hob or nob” and “to drink hobnob,” which were used to mean “to drink alternately to each other.” Since “drinking hobnob” was generally done among friends, “hobnob” came to refer to congenial social interaction.

Since I started the first interact – a long one, which inadvertently set the tone for these discussions, it is only appropriate at this time that I should put in the words which can hopefully restore a semblance of balance to those same discussions!

Therefore, here go – my SERIOUS thoughts on this!

(1) The topic under discussion needs to be considered on its own merits – not on the basis of who is writing the article. Virtually every interactor here (including this one) is guilty of passing that pre-judgment!

(2) Concentration of media powers is a legitimate and serious topic of concern, since it can become the first tool of mind control. EVERYBODY needs to be concerned, not just a few members of the intelligentsia.

(3) Journalists and writers do not create the ills of the society – they simply try to highlight them using their own particular variety of flashlight – sometime the flashlight emits its own color, adding to the variety of colors that is life!

(4) The relatively less number of interacts on this article confirms its serious nature and (far from being considered a “cropper”) enhances MY regard for it. (My personal experience, over the past ten months or so, is that the most useless “gossipy” and “politics-type” articles generate the maximum number of interacts – where any fool can run his/her mouth and many (sadly, including this interactor) indeed do.)

(5) As far as being patriotic toward India is concerned, that honor strictly belongs to individuals who love that great land enough to – in spite of its very well-known and even more well-advertised shortcomings – actually LIVE there, not to individuals (like me) who have left it and who owe a different allegiance! Pure and simple!

In spite of the danger that it may make me look like a wet cat, I can not but admit that I did put in a few provocative phrases in my earlier interacts – my intention was that they would stimulate spirited defenses, counter-points and additional discussions. I must say that I do feel a bit of disappointment that not too many have showed up – other than perhaps the author – that too, in a half-hearted kind of way! (It’s difficult to blame her, since the Beej has become highly unpredictable!)

If anyone else at the chowk site would like to add a couple of sober words related to this serious topic, be my guest! Otherwise, vast multitudes of guys and gals, you get exactly what you deserve!

A related article:

http://www.rediff.com/news/jan/13farz.htm

Miscellanea/Farzana Versey

The day a journalist realises the subject is also a human being, he would be able to sleep at night.

When Charlie came into my life, he did not know what he was getting into. I have always fancied myself to be a responsible journalist. Which means, if a scoop flutters before my nose, I sneeze and let it disappear. The problem is, it does not. Another scribe with a nose as sensitive as the bomb squad`s favourite dog`s, gets it.

Any regrets? None that have to do with envy. But I do feel like a voice in the wilderness. Thank heavens, I am not an investigative reporter, though I have done my bit at unravelling the truth. The second problem is, no one is interested in the truth. People want a blow-by-blow account. Or hard-hitting facts, without a care in the world as to whether it will affect the facts or the person.

Which is where Charlie comes in. An HIV-positive person, he was disillusioned with the mechanisms that were meant to act as a salve but were instead inflicting fresh whiplashes. I had, I admit, crossed the neon-lit streets and walked the tree-lined bylanes with him in order to understand his mind, but it would be wrong to say that it was all I was doing.

Somewhere, I too was looking for the bluster, the statements that would peel off masks. Sure enough, I got it; plenty, in fact. He did mention names.

When I sat to write the piece I omitted the names, thinking about what a noble creature I was. After the piece was published, Charlie called. Oh, I thought, he is calling to thank me, to tell me what a wonderful job I had done to spread AIDS awareness, to deflate our pet positions.

He said all that. And more. He told me that he had got a memo from one of the organisations he was doing rehabilitation work with. He was asked to explain why he had cast aspersions on their work and would he please explain his stand?

As far as I was concerned, Charlie`s stand was clear when he had told me, ``The process of rehabilitation helps me hold myself together.``

If Charlie did not know his mind, who did? Yet, he was made answerable. All his dreams stood naked and bruised. And he wanted me to help, since I had held him up for public scrutiny.

This is the delicate point. If I let him write in the papers saying that he had not accused anyone and he was misquoted, my reputation would be at stake. Besides, it is not the truth. And if I wrote another piece explaining things, it would mean giving the issue more prominence. I could just as easily have washed my hands off and said, ``Sorry Charlie, I`ve done my job. Good night.``

Instead, I dictated a long letter which he could use as a reply to the memo. I don`t know whether it was the most honourable thing to do, but I think it was proper.

However, does it absolve me of guilt? After all, when someone throws pearls of wisdom your way, you don`t hark back to the oyster it came from. When a person agrees to talk to a journalist, how open must he be? And how much prudence must a scribe exercise, knowing well that as an eagle he might not dare but that won`t prevent the vultures from circling overhead?

I have faced many situations where I have had to question myself. One of my earliest assignments was on breast-feeding and the guilt associated with not nursing. My knowledge of the subject was theoretical so, when one line was dropped from my manuscript, I paid no heed. Till the lady in question called and started crying on the phone. What had been left out was the crucial information that she did in fact breast-feed for nine months. I had no alternative but to cry in response.

But the years have taken their toll. I don`t weep over such things anymore. Today, I tell my interviewee point-blank: ``Everything that you say is for public consumption. I am not your friend, so don`t give off-the-record nuggets.``

Does that solve all my problems with a nagging conscience? Not quite. For, what is seen and what is perceived are two different things. There can be a wide chasm between what is said and what is understood. The day a journalist realises that the subject is also a human being, he would be able to sleep at night.

Finally, this awful woman has come a cropper and met her doom even on this benighted site, where india-bashing is a sport for frustrated paks.I hope she finally gets it.That she`s a lousy writer, a twisted sister(all indians are my brothers and sisters), and what one gives out one will reap in return.Only time is constant.

If you do not like newspaper barons in India wait till the emergence of television moguls.
Internet sites like Chowk offer a nice alternative to traditional media.

Re: # 20

Or was she from Wharton Business School?

She reminds me of Lieutenant Scheisskopf`s wife: A brilliant Havard graduate who only ever wants to run around completely naked, and whipped.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#12 Farzana Versey
#14 CD_Lion

I wish the author had given some of the background (she explained in #12) up front, along with the original article! Many lions (as well as janitors) are not much into newspaper reading and are not familiar with what “seedy” practices individual publications like the Times of India and other newspapers may be up to now-a-day. Like all commercial ventures worldwide, several may be in a continual mode of rebuilding their images to increase revenues. Therefore, it may be unfair to be so critical of the author. At most, one can accuse her of some sloppiness. If the author has strong feelings on a subject and does not wish to single out just one group, she should not be made to feel defensive about it.

Nobody doubts the author’s strength of convictions, not even her detractors. The author’s steadfastness in choosing not to edit out portions is also to be appreciated. Her comment about personal comments is also true. Pointing fingers at chowk (wage scale-wise) was indeed a low blow and the lion needs to acknowledge that!

The criticism that the author has few solutions may have legitimacy – but does anybody else? At least she is drawing attention to what she perceives to be a genuine problem, although we as individuals may differ regarding the scope or impact of the problem. Also, she sticks to her guns – an unusual characteristic in the present times – and not just in her chosen walk of life! Perhaps if the author were less confrontationist in her way of presenting things and provided more background information in support of her position(s) she would be able to have more people understand and agree with her – but there is no accounting for style!

It is perhaps not appropriate for third parties – especially those who are aloof from the particular line of work being discussed and even more so from that particular line of work as practiced in India, to make wisecracks – just because such wisecracks are so easy to make! Above all, the author’s intents must also be given due recognition. Otherwise, one can be considered to have a jackal’s heart – not that of a lion! Therefore, on behalf of the lion, sorry author!

When creativity is stifled in order to make room for immediate monetary gains, everybody loses something – whether one realizes it or not. Many times the damage is not apparent up front – but shows up in the long run – in developing masses which can not think independently or originally – and that is something which must be avoided at all costs!

So says the janitor, and the lion needs to pay heed.

#10 by Khamkhwa {``Breasts..Rape...Incest...Prostitution..... ``}

Farzana, You mentioned the magic acronym BRIP. This certainly got Khammy`s attention. He has indulged in, or been the victim of, or has in his possession all four of the above. :)

#15 by dost-mittar on July 19, 2005 9:44am PT

FV writes for Mid-day which makes Blitz look like the New York Times.

Dear Farzana:

Where have all the good editors gone?

Before I left the country, I started my day with my favourite newspaper, The Statesman. It had some real thought provoking articles by people like Pran Chopra, S. Nihal Singh and occasional columns by people like Nirad Chaudhry. The newspaper was only 14 pages but it was all meat and advertisements were less than 25% of the printed space. My newspaper kept me fully informed not only about India but also about the rest of the world.

And now? Times of India and Hindustan Times seem like a bloated version of Blitz. Actually, Blitz did use to have some investigative reporting and The Last Page by Khwaja Ahmad Abbas. These newspapers have no news. There is hardly any news in them. Most of the news are covered even more briefly than bye Television channels. Even the top news item is never carried over to another page. Even the brief news is highlighted in a 1-2 sentence box.

In Canada, newspapers met the 24-hour news channels by doing more in-depth reporting. Indian newspapers seem to have gone the opposite route - by becoming National Enquirer without doing any enquiry.

There are no more editors in India, only marketing managers!

#12 Farzana Versey

This must be considered a red-letter day – since this is the day this author joins the rank of the “run of the mill” by stooping to the following:

(1) providing a long “background” explanation AFTER a work is published – in order to cover up the glaring shortcomings contained in the article.

(2) not having the courage to respond to individual interactors – which allows them the “flexibility” to wholesale skip on comments that are so accurate and hard-hitting that it leaves them squirming and fuming inside, and they can’t do duce about it since those interacts are so accurate!

The most critical comments – skipped so conveniently – are:

(a) the author uses a few isolated and personal experiences with a few reporters and editors to make vast and sweeping generalizations about ALL of media.

(b) the encroachment of journalistic integrity is more a result of ad-hoc commercial considerations (which eventually WILL reign supreme, since these are COMMERCIAL ventures) and not restricted to the printed media or even the news media.

(c) the author suggests no solutions, leaving aside how to go about implementing those solutions. (By choosing not to respond, the author has basically let the accusation stand – proving (for those who have not been blinded and choose to see this fact plain as daylight) she has NO answers, and given a LOT of ammunition to the accusation that this author’s specialty is mere “bitching” about real, serious, or their opposites in issues – never solving anything)

Although this interactor is not himself aware of the sacrifices the writer may have paid personally for having “independent” views (if “baba–adam” era views can be so designated), he has no reason to doubt that these sacrifices happened or for not to have respect for such sacrifices (which perhaps should be lauded when real life is full of so many compromising situations), however (leaving aside for a moment how deep these sacrifices were (as sacrifices go in the Indian context)), allusion to such sacrifices can not be used as a somewhat uncharacteristic half-hearted and feeble excuse for an attempt to cower away from answering the legitimate questions asked (for such an attempt will be seen by everybody for what it is).

Perhaps the author should have chosen the “safer” alternative of not showing up at all to post a response – which would have left at least a bit of doubt about the fact that she is really clueless in answers, and not exposed her utter helplessness in face of smart criticism! It’s all so timid it would be hilarious to watch were it not so pathetic! (I suppose it is difficult to leave ALL old habits behind!)

Individuals like supersize need to develop entities, personalities, and opinions of their own, instead of going obsequiously “yes, yes, Your Highness, me too!” and tagging along like a “fly in dukaan-e-halwai” or perhaps more accurately like a “fly on a horse’s rear”, always riding BEHIND somebody!