Nothing lasts forever, the saying goes, unless it's online.
Come on, guys, let’s cut the crap and say it like it is— we are up excreta creek! By ‘we’ i mean our tribe. Journos. Hacks. Commentators . Opinion makers. Thought leaders. For once, the shoe is on the other foot and it is pinching like hell. We are not used to this. Us! Self-righteous and smug! Lofty creatures, who are forever sitting in judgment on the world and puffing out our chests for saving it! Suddenly, we find ourselves on the other side of the fence, at the receiving end of serious flak, and we don’t like it at all! In fact, we can’t handle the heat and we are in a state of either defiance or denial. Guess what? It is time to square our shoulders and take it on the chin. Same as we expect others to when we run our explosive exposes. Are we mature enough to do that? Are we ready to turn the searchlight inwards and ask ourselves the one question we have been dodging: what went wrong and why? Something is clearly amiss, and the time to address that ‘something’ is now. Let’s get a few things straight: Journalists are not demi-gods , even if they like others to think they are. They are as human, as vulnerable , as greedy as the next person. Some, more than others. Journalists have always brokered power. Always. Not just in India but all over the world. As power brokers, they have frequently played a key role in exposing corruption , mainly because they’ve had access to privileged information. Morally upright journos (and they do exist!) have used this information for a greater good and not as a means to either blackmail others or enrich themselves. The line is thin—most don’t realize they have crossed it till it is too late. Sure, power is an aphrodisiac (thank you, Henry Kissinger!) and some vain journos have taken the aphrodisiac part literally, to… errr… screw their detractors! Others have limited themselves to soaring high on ego trips but strictly sans price tags. Either way, it has made a lot of heads swell. Being close to the centre of power in Delhi has been both a curse and a boon to scribes who live there. Capital cities are like that (think Watergate and Washington), and nobody remains immune to that heady proximity to politicos – not even self-declared , hard-bitten cynics. Delhi journos are a breed apart. Gone are the days of the slouchy jholawalas pounding the pavements, or prowling those corridors of power in search of a scoop. Delhi has spawned a generation of super glam ‘Designer Journos’ —they dress sharp, talk sharp, are sharp. Well-travelled , urbane and sexy as hell, these hotties are as much in the limelight as the people they grill in print and on television. They have counterparts worldwide —the nature of today’s media business is such. We love our celeb journos… we are their devoted groupies . These people are legitimate stars. Why not? They write well, look great and party hard. Nobody grudges them their perks. Their lifestyles rival those of Bollywood stars and they have as vast a fan following. It’s all good. Or… is it? Readers and viewers were in for a shock last week when the Fearless Radia tapes revealed more than was anticipated. The biggest jolt was not about the lobbying per se. It wasn’t about money either, since there is zero evidence of any financial gain. It was the unbelievable naivete of the main players. They sounded alarmingly amateurish as they discussed their modus operandi with Radia. That such seasoned journos would blab so much on open phone lines (given how porous every aspect of personal security is these days), was the real shocker. Political lobbying is an entirely legit career and Ms Radia was merely doing her job. That job involves courting friendly journos and getting them on board to influence public servants and public opinion. It’s about working one’s buddy network . Journos are used to being approached by touts whose job is to plant stories on behalf of their clients. This is the tricky part: how a journo responds to such overtures is the acid test. There are those who show touts the door and there are those who let them in. Canny lobbyists are quick to zero in on the latter and get down to business. Big business. This is how the game is played, folks. The rules are known to all. Who benefits? That depends. Broadly speaking, everybody in the food chain. Manipulating policy, pushing agendas, blocking rivals, disseminating ‘news’ , misinformation and even blatant lies—it’s all part and parcel of the game. Non-alignment is only a theoretical concept. All opinion is necessarily subjective. Often prejudiced. Sometimes mischievous and frequently malicious. A good journalist knows when to step back from landmines. And frankly, every journalist knows the difference between compromise and the truth. Either you are on the make or not. Either you are one hundred percent honest or not. Either you display professional integrity at all times or you don’t . Unless the person is dumb. Seriously dumb. In which case, journalism is the last place to be in… though, going by the latest revelations, it would appear some of journalism’s best and brightest may have been had.
Since hearing the news, I've been rather blue about Christopher Hitchens' esophageal cancer -- in part because he's among the finest intellectuals we've got, and in part because the diagnosis is another thing keeping mortality in the foreground.
To cope, I've been watching copious amounts of Hitchens on YouTube, reading copious amounts of Hitchens online and taking comfort in the fact that ideas outlive us.
At one point I stumbled upon something Hitchens wrote for the London Review of Booksback in 1990, where he talked about his feud with a former newspaper baron by the name of Conrad Black -- for whom, incidentally, I've copy-edited a column or two.
What struck me was not what Hitchens had to say about Black, but rather the civility of the comments that followed. All of the commenters were thoughtful and respectful, even when they disagreed -- a departure from the usual run of vitriol that has become the online norm. Furthermore, they all provided full names and locations.
It got me thinking: Anonymous online commenting is creating a culture of cowards. Many of us lead this bizarre double life where we're eager to document ourselves on Facebook, Twitter and blogs -- to share publicly stuff that would make our parents blush -- but then opt to mask our identities when we feel compelled to discuss things of real import.
And it's eroding the quality of public discourse.
It's no secret that Generation Me is a bit self-involved. More than any generation before us, we tend to consider ourselves important, our accomplishments extraordinary and our opinions golden.
But we're a sensitive lot, too. We tend to not like it when our opinions are challenged, because the prospect of being proven wrong is unpalatable when our self-esteem is all wrapped up in being right.
So a lot of us shroud our own identities while we tear down the identities of others.
It would be one thing if anonymity consistently facilitated richer and more diverse discourse. But, as The Miami Herald's Leonard Pitts Jr. said, anonymous message boards on newspapers' websites are overwhelmingly "havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness and plain nastiness that shocks the tattered remnant of our propriety."
He continued: "For every person who offers some trenchant observation on the point at hand, there are a dozen who are so far off point they couldn't find their way back with a compass and a roadmap. For every person who brings up some telling fact, there are a dozen whose 'facts' are fantasies freshly made up to suit the exigencies of arguments they otherwise cannot win."
Now, some message boards make it work. It's not hard on sites like HuffingtonPost.com and NYTimes.com to find instances where the commentary is as informative and interesting as the story itself. And that's no accident: Aside from the quality of the readership, civility is maintained because comments are vetted prior to publication, commenters are required to register and users have the ability to flag the bad content and award the good.
And even then there's still a lot of trolling afoot.
Sites without such requirements -- where every comment is published unless it's an ad, threat or racial epithet -- are supposed to be wild gardens of democracy. But the weeds choke everything out and something substantive rarely blossoms.
The experiment is over: Too many people don't hold themselves accountable when they know nobody else can.
I'm not the only one who feels this way, either. According to an (albeit unscientific) online reader poll by The Washington Post, 40 percent of respondents think that commenters should be required to identify themselves.
Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington agrees that people often exploit anonymity to say hateful things, but noted that "the Internet is growing up [and] the trend is away from anonymity."
She's right. But most people won't choose to post under their own names unless it's required -- after all, why bother exposing yourself to personal attacks from cowards with keyboards?
So newspapers need to lead the way: they should hold their online content to the same standard of quality as their print editions. Commenters should be forced to attach their names to their opinions.
To be clear: I don't think the Internet should be policed or that your browsing history is anybody's business. And I can think of at least two occasions when anonymity is good: if you live in a country where free speech isn't a right, and if you're trying to diagnose an embarrassing rash.
But if you're worried that a Google search will reveal that you're sort of vile, or that your rants will hurt your job prospects, then keep your opinions to yourself. Most websites dump old comments, anyway.
And don't hide behind the First Amendment, either. Being allowed to say something and being guaranteed a platform to anonymously spew venom are two different things entirely.
This isn't about coddling the egos of opinionated journalists -- least of all mine. In fact, I get a kick out of being called "faggot" by anonymous detractors because, as Hitchens himself said, "I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem." Plus, as 50 Cent said, "I need you to hate so I can use you for your energy."
I mean, it's hard to take seriously the petty whines of spineless swamp people who feel compelled to say "edgy" things to compensate for their own dullness, and take refuge in anonymity because, truth be told, they aren't too sure who they are, anyway.
No, what this is about is protecting the everyday people who don't want to be featured in news stories if it means being slandered online; it's about all of the thoughtful people who choose not to participate in the discussion because they don't want to be personally attacked; and it's about a culture where fact plays second fiddle to visceral and a lot of young people don't differentiate between logical refutation and petty name-calling.
A lesson from the life of Christopher Hitchens: From the safety of anonymity, there is nothing impressive about calling Bill Clinton a sociopath, Mother Teresa a fraud, Henry Kissinger a war criminal and God a celestial Kim Jong-Il. Saying the same things under a byline is, as the kids online say, epic.
This generation has Hitchens hubris. What we need is Hitchens honor.
It looks the Umno elite has switched their attention to Wan Azizah and the Royal Commission of Inquiry demanded by the trio of dubious personalities calling themselves Datuk T over a sex video tape that they claim shows a man looking like Anwar having sex with a prostitute.
The BN media has been instructed to go on all-out attack to embarrass the PKR president speculating that she had asked to see the sex tape.
But Wan Azizah showed her famous poise and turned the tables on her enemies instead.
“I have no desire to watch the video. I know it’s a fake, so why should I?” Wan Azizah told reporters on Thursday.
She also denied ever indicating a wish to watch the 21-minute video which cropped up suddenly on Monday.
Boomeranging
Anwar has already lodged a police report, calling the video a “scurrilous attack” and accusing Prime Minister Najib Razak and his cousin Hishammuddin Hussein of leading the conspiracy to bring him down with yet another sex scandal.
This is not the first time the Umno elite has tried to tar Anwar with both male and female partners.
In 1998, former premier Mahathir Mohamad prosecuted Anwar for sodomy. At the same time, worried in case no one would believe it of Anwar, Mahathir also recounted to the mainstream media how people close to Anwar had told him about Anwar’s ‘voracious’ sexual appetite for women.
In his latest book, Mahathir again told of how a former Anwar aide had arranged to take 4 girls to a house in Kenny Hills for the purpose of having sex with Anwar.
In 2008, fresh sodomy charges were pressed against a politically resurgent Anwar. He has accused Najib of fabricating the charges and revealed that the complainant had met Najib two days before lodging the police complaint that led to his current prosecution.
“From men to women, all sorts of ways and means are being used to tarnish Anwar. But as the saying goes, give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. I think the few who had doubts about Anwar now have serious doubts about Najib and the BN government,” PKR vice president tian Chua told Malaysia Chronicle.
Royal probe
PKR leaders also rubbished the call by former Malacca chief minister Rahim Thamny Chik, businessman Shazryl Eskay and Perkasa treasurer Shuib Lazim to hold a Royal Commission of Inquiry on the video tape.
The three men admitted on Wednesday they were behind the screening of the video to a large group of journalists at the Carcosa Seri Negara on Monday. The also admitted to the code name Datuk T.
"Nonsense. Why should there be an RCI on Anwar? Just report the tape to the police who should arrest and charge the trio for showing pornographic material and criminal intimidation," PKR communications director Nik Nazmi toldMalaysia Chronicle.
"If the three men are sincere about being Muslims as they claim, they should asked to be tried in the Syariah courts."
Meanwhile, calls are growing for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to establish who was behind the Datuk T trio, were government agencies and the mainstream media involved in the making and screening of the tape, and what was the purpose and why the attack on Anwar?
Rosmah Mansor as witnesses should Anwar be ordered to enter his defence in the Sodomy II trial.“We will indicate this later on, after submissions have been presented by both parties . . . calling them as witnesses would be, could be necessary,” said defence counsel Karpal Singh.
Karpal told reporters that they would have to first interview Najib and Rosmah before calling them as witnesses.
This not a political blog. I understand that politics pervades everything, but I'm not pushing a political agenda. I'm pushing a human agenda.
As a journalist for decades, I avoided making political statements at all costs. Back then you lost your job for it. Today, it's nearly a prerequisite for employment in some networks.
As the head of a company that produces TV and radio content, I avoid stories that make blatant political statements because they only diminish the potential impact. Improving your health, chasing your dreams and improving your community shouldn't be about politics. Of course, the current battle over the future of public broadcasting is highly politicized. My goal is to simply relay a perspective about public television from my very specific vantage point.
We produce a show that encourages people of all ages, all colors and every socioeconomic status to become all that they can by pursuing their passions, improving their well-being and helping others.
I humbly submit that it's the rare program that is both entertaining and empowering. I know this because we get unsolicited praise from viewers all over the country. I know this because it has gone from two television stations to 268 stations in just a matter of months.
And it's a show that had little to no chance of initially finding a home on commercial TV. Not because it doesn't have high production values -- it does. And not because it doesn't have the potential to attract a large audience and enthusiastic advertisers -- it does. It's because it's nearly impossible for a new show that doesn't target 18- to 34-year-olds to find a home -- especially a show with a modest budget produced by a little company in Orlando.
Commercial airways are clogged with contrived formulaic shows. Give dysfunctional fame whores national exposure and the very clear understanding that only outlandish behavior ends up on the screen and you've got Jersey Shore, Real Housewives of Wherever, Cheaters, Bad Girls Club, For the Love of Ray J, The Hills, Flavor of Love and a dozen others.
Public television provides an opportunity for programs that aspire to something more than a train wreck the chance to find an audience. It's an incubator of sorts for shows with actual redeeming social value. That's what PBS did for children's programming in the '80s and continues to do to this day for quality programming in many underserved niches. Without public broadcasting, a show that might one day provide significant value to millions would never get a chance to be seen.
If you're content watching Snooki puke on the beach and overdressed housewives bitch slap one another while spewing obscenities, then public media is not for you. If you like media that is relentlessly driven by profit motive, demographics and advertising dollars, irrespective of the quality of programming, then public media is not for you. If you enjoy programming that is little more than rudderless behavior in pursuit of little more than moments that make viewers wince, then public media is not for you.
If, however, you believe that meaningful, interesting niche programming deserves a chance to find an audience, then you should be concerned about the possibility of public broadcasting going away. If a trip through your channel guide leaves you as disappointed as it does me, just wait. Soon, Jersey Shore and Real Housewives will be syndicated in reruns, eating up more on-air real estate while new, even more outlandish programs, battle for your attention.
Of course, there is nothing real about most reality TV. The pseudo-celebs that are feasting on this decline of western civilization know they'll end up on the cutting room floor unless they give the producers what they mistakenly call drama. But it's not drama. It's just very bad behavior and sadly, it's become the currency of "successful" commercial television programming.
I won't make a sweeping political statement about the importance of public media. I offer only the admittedly biased opinion of someone who has been given an opportunity by public media. In a world driven exclusively by profit motive and in an industry that's as willing to provide viewers mindless garbage as a drug dealer is to sell crack to addicts, a media organization that aspires to something more noble is an absolute necessity.
When broadcasters only serve the largest audience, the biggest advertisers and the lowest common denominator, we all lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment