I saw an article on amount of junk foods we often pour
into our kids' tiffin boxes without recognizing the effect. It
lists a number of items which we, parents, usually think as healthy and
prescribe wholeheartedly. The list is interesting and contains names
like multi-grain breads, flavored corn flakes, pasta etc... little
different from the conventional pack of villains e.g.
pizza-burger-sandwich-chips etc. Anyway... how does it matter? Every
conventional and unconventional junk food is sold with big brand names,
promoted with great enthusiasm and creativity on media. Ironically the health or fitness
section of media talk against its usage. Is it really a irony? What does
the media think about this apparent self-conflicting reporting? I guess
the media tries to stay aloof about the contents and just reports
whatever someone else quotes. They are sworn to see the world with a
coldness in their eyes. OK... there is more than meets the eye. They are
selectively cold. They go on-the-rocks while 'reporting' a quote or a promotional campaign.
When it's about scoring higher TRPs by turning up the volume in favor
or against (usually against) someone or something, they go from teary to righteous to angelic - all in the name of truth.
Maybe that's how it should be. If so, I'm afraid - there is a serious assumption hidden here. The consumer of 'news' must be intelligent to understand the nuances well. All the seemingly contradictory stands have one single common ground. It's the never-ending pressure to improve 2 lines; the topline and the bottomline of the production house. The other option left to readers is to have multiple split personalities. Or pick what you want to pick and leave the trash aside. Can we add a statutory warning something like "mutual funds are subject to market risks" or "please don't try these at home"?
We have Shashi Tharoor on the front page for his allegedly dubious stand on his wife's murder (which was 'death' for a year before it turned into a 'murder'). I think more than exposing the truth, the TV reporters, so far not smelling any rat, suddenly have gone all out against the man for reasons little more intrigue. His hiding from media and refusing to meet them on their 'confession rooms' might have hit them hard. They see a lost business opportunity in not having them on their 'exclusive' coverage radar. Anyway... I was talking of something else. The 2nd page has the same Shashi Tharoor addressing a literary meet where the audience were supposedly enthralled by his oratory skills. I wish I were able to appreciate the 'business of principles'.
See, it's not that difficult - all you have to do is prefix 'business' to all the abstract nouns and you're almost there. If a wee bit of divine intervention pours in, you're right at the helm of things. On one page, they are writing about upholding the constitution and the law. On another page, you have classified advertisements on surrogate services like 'massage parlors', 'escorts' or 'friendship clubs'. A big whiskey manufacturer shows commercials cleverly using some stupid surrogate of water. I'm sure no one violates any law here. Media turns a blind eye towards the contents of the products - they allow the vendors or service providers in the name of their freedom of speech. Ignorance was just bliss, but 'business of freedom' is bliss plus money.
I'm not very satisfied with the answers. It's not always evident - there is an attempt to camouflage. Mr. Modi was labeled a villain a decade back. One day he was presented as a progressive leader and then upgraded to a superhero. I'm not trying to pass a judgement on him, nor I take away any credit from his sleeve. I'm simply (and as bluntly as I can) accenting the image makeover process performed in the laboratories called the media. A movie is declared a BO dud in some article and re-tagged a hit when the same actor/director is interviewed during the promotion of their next venture. A friend told me that only 4-5 news channels in the whole of India runs on profit. It's for God to answer who fund the rest.
Maybe that's how it should be. If so, I'm afraid - there is a serious assumption hidden here. The consumer of 'news' must be intelligent to understand the nuances well. All the seemingly contradictory stands have one single common ground. It's the never-ending pressure to improve 2 lines; the topline and the bottomline of the production house. The other option left to readers is to have multiple split personalities. Or pick what you want to pick and leave the trash aside. Can we add a statutory warning something like "mutual funds are subject to market risks" or "please don't try these at home"?
We have Shashi Tharoor on the front page for his allegedly dubious stand on his wife's murder (which was 'death' for a year before it turned into a 'murder'). I think more than exposing the truth, the TV reporters, so far not smelling any rat, suddenly have gone all out against the man for reasons little more intrigue. His hiding from media and refusing to meet them on their 'confession rooms' might have hit them hard. They see a lost business opportunity in not having them on their 'exclusive' coverage radar. Anyway... I was talking of something else. The 2nd page has the same Shashi Tharoor addressing a literary meet where the audience were supposedly enthralled by his oratory skills. I wish I were able to appreciate the 'business of principles'.
See, it's not that difficult - all you have to do is prefix 'business' to all the abstract nouns and you're almost there. If a wee bit of divine intervention pours in, you're right at the helm of things. On one page, they are writing about upholding the constitution and the law. On another page, you have classified advertisements on surrogate services like 'massage parlors', 'escorts' or 'friendship clubs'. A big whiskey manufacturer shows commercials cleverly using some stupid surrogate of water. I'm sure no one violates any law here. Media turns a blind eye towards the contents of the products - they allow the vendors or service providers in the name of their freedom of speech. Ignorance was just bliss, but 'business of freedom' is bliss plus money.
I'm not very satisfied with the answers. It's not always evident - there is an attempt to camouflage. Mr. Modi was labeled a villain a decade back. One day he was presented as a progressive leader and then upgraded to a superhero. I'm not trying to pass a judgement on him, nor I take away any credit from his sleeve. I'm simply (and as bluntly as I can) accenting the image makeover process performed in the laboratories called the media. A movie is declared a BO dud in some article and re-tagged a hit when the same actor/director is interviewed during the promotion of their next venture. A friend told me that only 4-5 news channels in the whole of India runs on profit. It's for God to answer who fund the rest.