Wrong
You need imagination:
You should have the talent to multitask...and feel indispensable:
...and you should believe that things come round full circle:
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
13.7.14
1.12.11
Who moved my 'journalistic space'? The Age of Twitter Set-ups
Why the hell is ‘journalistic space’* being taken over by micro-blogging? Why is it that when one person breaks wind there, a whole bunch of people queue up outside the loo?
Hmm…I had just finished my morning adulations, and ignoring the Toffee-nose of India (TOI), I went to the stapled sister. I like Mumbai Mirror. I like mirrors. Now, in the midst of all the light frothy gossipy stuff it mentioned a “corruscating review” about a recently-published “social Bible”. It did not specify whether it was the Nobu or the Antillia version.
What follows here is a reaction to the responses to the riposte to the review and the rejoinders to the remnants that remain of the righteous rumblings.
Since those who do not read my blog are not acquainted with those who do not read everything else, I will have to introduce the characters that are not there and what they did not do.
An author Soul Setter, henceforth referred to as Setter because I want to sound like a Goan, wrote a book, a social Bible, if you must, called 'Getting To the Top of ITC’s Everest in a Chartered Plane: Ten Rules for Being Moses'. The Setter has friends and clients. That is his business – to make clients feel like friends and friends become clients.
It is simple enough. Learn to get all the Gifts of the Magi without being Christ. Or, if the atheists prefer, how to lay eggs without being a hen.
A lot of people might have bought Setter’s book because they were friends and clients and wanted to read about how they were making people.
Then, what is the problem? Setter is popular among the television channels and is always on panel discussions. He is a marketing guy and many of the big companies would like to see him talk about the state of the nation while he is selling their soap suds and hotels.
According to my sources – okay page 2 of the paper – the Setter read that “corruscating review” and went into “an indignant, inelegant splutter”. Fine, the couple of examples I read weren’t exactly nice, but then wasn’t the review “corruscating”? Setter was blinded. Hurt. Setter could not control. Setter blurted out: “So @me-churma (name changed) reviewed my book for a magazine no one reads. Am not surprised! He is supposedly an unemployed economist for an unread mag!”
What followed is truly weird. A news magazine that we read for taped conversations, excerpts from the editor’s book (oh, no, will leave that for now), and four-page essays by Oliver Twist asking for more Mao jumped into the buzz. It went full-throttle into an excavation expedition and besides Shivaji’s personally autographed copy of Adil Shah's memoirs, they found tweets from the time of the Cripps Mission. Standing apart were those about the Setter controversy. It turns out that a month before the “corruscating review” appeared, Setter had praised the magazine – let us call it Craven – addressing its senior editor with the shining words: “and by the way I love the way your magazine CRAVEN is doing in the journalistic space*…super stuff…” (italics mine)
This should tell us that Setter is a bit displaced. He needs to shout, as he has done by typing the name of the mag in all-caps. However, I do not see any disparity in the two comments. He loves (or loved) the magazine in a confined space to which he supposedly has access (remember the chartered plane and all?). He is telling us that not everyone has that access. “No one reads” clearly means he is not No One; he is Someone. He is also hoping it goes unread. This is Setter Subconscious. The personal attack on the reviewer is because he assumed a slight directed towards him.
I have not read the book (extracts, yes), but did go through the review. It seemed like the reviewer went into the deep dark woods to figure out a bonsai plant.
The problem for people like us is that everyday we find little bon mots, and not all by bon vivants, which Setter claims to be, and we often do not know the context. Recently I came upon some exchange between the Diva and other divas about maids. Suddenly, out of nowhere, another best-sailing author’s name cropped up. Let us call him Chattan Bang. It transpires that he was being sarcastically awarded something for watching films with his maids.
Now, Chattan really likes films and his latest watch is The Dirty Picture: “The movie breaks so many new grounds, and opens the door for Indian biopics.”
If it is breaking so many new grounds, where will there be place for doors?
He is so taken up that he even gets patriotic: “Few Indians make me proud of being Indian. Vidya Balan is one. She isn't just an actor, she is an artist. Superb performance.”
I am told the boobs and midriff prosthetics are not made in India.
Then, this: “If a dog keeps on barking your name, he makes you famous. The dog, however, remains a dog.”
And the bark remains a bark, no?
Unless you have a dog named Google, like Setter does, who can find the doggie doo even in coruscating darkness.
Hmm…I had just finished my morning adulations, and ignoring the Toffee-nose of India (TOI), I went to the stapled sister. I like Mumbai Mirror. I like mirrors. Now, in the midst of all the light frothy gossipy stuff it mentioned a “corruscating review” about a recently-published “social Bible”. It did not specify whether it was the Nobu or the Antillia version.
What follows here is a reaction to the responses to the riposte to the review and the rejoinders to the remnants that remain of the righteous rumblings.
Since those who do not read my blog are not acquainted with those who do not read everything else, I will have to introduce the characters that are not there and what they did not do.
An author Soul Setter, henceforth referred to as Setter because I want to sound like a Goan, wrote a book, a social Bible, if you must, called 'Getting To the Top of ITC’s Everest in a Chartered Plane: Ten Rules for Being Moses'. The Setter has friends and clients. That is his business – to make clients feel like friends and friends become clients.
It is simple enough. Learn to get all the Gifts of the Magi without being Christ. Or, if the atheists prefer, how to lay eggs without being a hen.
A lot of people might have bought Setter’s book because they were friends and clients and wanted to read about how they were making people.
Then, what is the problem? Setter is popular among the television channels and is always on panel discussions. He is a marketing guy and many of the big companies would like to see him talk about the state of the nation while he is selling their soap suds and hotels.
According to my sources – okay page 2 of the paper – the Setter read that “corruscating review” and went into “an indignant, inelegant splutter”. Fine, the couple of examples I read weren’t exactly nice, but then wasn’t the review “corruscating”? Setter was blinded. Hurt. Setter could not control. Setter blurted out: “So @me-churma (name changed) reviewed my book for a magazine no one reads. Am not surprised! He is supposedly an unemployed economist for an unread mag!”
What followed is truly weird. A news magazine that we read for taped conversations, excerpts from the editor’s book (oh, no, will leave that for now), and four-page essays by Oliver Twist asking for more Mao jumped into the buzz. It went full-throttle into an excavation expedition and besides Shivaji’s personally autographed copy of Adil Shah's memoirs, they found tweets from the time of the Cripps Mission. Standing apart were those about the Setter controversy. It turns out that a month before the “corruscating review” appeared, Setter had praised the magazine – let us call it Craven – addressing its senior editor with the shining words: “and by the way I love the way your magazine CRAVEN is doing in the journalistic space*…super stuff…” (italics mine)
This should tell us that Setter is a bit displaced. He needs to shout, as he has done by typing the name of the mag in all-caps. However, I do not see any disparity in the two comments. He loves (or loved) the magazine in a confined space to which he supposedly has access (remember the chartered plane and all?). He is telling us that not everyone has that access. “No one reads” clearly means he is not No One; he is Someone. He is also hoping it goes unread. This is Setter Subconscious. The personal attack on the reviewer is because he assumed a slight directed towards him.
I have not read the book (extracts, yes), but did go through the review. It seemed like the reviewer went into the deep dark woods to figure out a bonsai plant.
The problem for people like us is that everyday we find little bon mots, and not all by bon vivants, which Setter claims to be, and we often do not know the context. Recently I came upon some exchange between the Diva and other divas about maids. Suddenly, out of nowhere, another best-sailing author’s name cropped up. Let us call him Chattan Bang. It transpires that he was being sarcastically awarded something for watching films with his maids.
Now, Chattan really likes films and his latest watch is The Dirty Picture: “The movie breaks so many new grounds, and opens the door for Indian biopics.”
If it is breaking so many new grounds, where will there be place for doors?
He is so taken up that he even gets patriotic: “Few Indians make me proud of being Indian. Vidya Balan is one. She isn't just an actor, she is an artist. Superb performance.”
I am told the boobs and midriff prosthetics are not made in India.
Then, this: “If a dog keeps on barking your name, he makes you famous. The dog, however, remains a dog.”
And the bark remains a bark, no?
Unless you have a dog named Google, like Setter does, who can find the doggie doo even in coruscating darkness.
4.11.11
Rushdie does Kim - Not!
 |
| Kim at her wedding |
If she is of no consequence, why is literary giant Salman Rushdie picking up a challenge to write about her? The arrogant blahster, of course, announced that it was a
"once-only, never-to-be-repeated Kim Kardashian Limerick". In Caps, like an acronymn?
Here is his supposed jibe on Twitter, but reported in the newspapers:
"The marriage of poor kim kardashianwas krushed like a kar in a krashianher kris kried, not fair!why kan't I keep my share?But kardashian fell klean outa fashian"
 |
| With Scarlet Johansson for a music video |
My take on it/him:
was it the moor's last sigh
or the boor's first high
that he got to frikkin’
flimsy limerickin’
‘bout kim’s 72-day try
~ ~
someone oughta tell him straight
that you don’t have to alliterate
limericks only need lines in order
and not a k-aying on the kris-kardashian border
to dissect the mate stalemate
~ ~
sir salman the stronger
lasted a lil longer
coz he’s got a head
that’s quite fatwa-ed
so the chicks feel so honour’d
~ ~
oh how he forgets
his trysts with starlets
lesser known than kim
with no vigour or vim
yet he made sure to flaunt the sign 'to let'
~ ~
there's this nugget
the time he nuzzled scarlet
the literary maverick
got a kick and a lick
just to be on a music video set
~ ~
he is audacious enough
to carry on the stuff
like he’s doing a favah
to the lord and mayah
for his nighthood bluff
~ ~
if kim was poor
he wouldn't be riding on her
she might not be a cussing cookery diva
the kind salman likes neata
but on the rocks, he’s seen many a wave-crasher
~FV
1.9.11
Right said Omar?
Omar Abdullah is trapped between the BJP and the Hurriyat. At any other time it would have been a wonderful place to be in, berated by two extremist groups. Unfortunately for him, their reasons for putting him on the mat are vastly different.
The chief minister has been quoted from Twitter as saying:
"If the J&K assembly had passed a resolution similar to the one in Tamil Nadu on Afzal Guru would the reaction have been as muted? I think not."
The death penalty for Rajiv Gandhi's killers has been delayed by state intervention. This is unusual.
Omar is right in that there are different standards. Interestingly, the muted reaction he was complaining about has agitated people and 'unmuted' them. The BJP is going hoarse with sudden concern for Rajiv Gandhi. (They are quiet over the acquittal of Haren Pandya's killers. Pandya was a BJP man who later had a fallout with Modi.)
The BJP uses the phrase "sovereignty of the nation" rather loosely. Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, unfortunate as it was, had its own dynamics that had to do with policy. The LTTE is not an Indian organisation, although it has its supporters. Such support results in huge electoral gains.
The BJP is worried about this aspect. After all, Priyanka Gandhi had met Nalini, one of her father's killers, in Vellore jail in 2008. The death verdict was given 11 years ago. Why did the BJP not put pressure to expedite it as they have done on a regular basis in the case of Afzal Guru, an Indian?
Omar Abdullah was pointing out the double standards, and one should see this as part of a thriving democracy that we are so chuffed about, with people out in the street.
However, the Hurriyat's Mirwaiz Omar Farooq has wondered why if he is so concerned about Afzal does he not resign. Again, we are faced with a missing the wood for the trees situation.
Omar Abdullah was in fact speaking as a political leader and expressing the helpless predicament of dealing with Kashmir. He chose the wrong forum to do so.
A few 'other' questions too need to be asked:
1. Would he raise the issue in the J&K assembly?
2. If so, would it mean he is doing so on humanitarian grounds or on a legal/factual basis?
3. If the latter, then would he risk providing possible loopholes?
4. How often do fake encounters figure in the assembly?
5. Does exposing political hypocrisy - I am assuming the muted reference was to politicians - enough?
This is a question for all parties. We do live in times when terrorists too have a vote bank, that is those who are not behind establishment-buffered terror.
Answers need to be sought in the right place, unless the 'people's movement' has seeped into the system's bones. In that case, stone pelters should be excused.
The chief minister has been quoted from Twitter as saying:
"If the J&K assembly had passed a resolution similar to the one in Tamil Nadu on Afzal Guru would the reaction have been as muted? I think not."
The death penalty for Rajiv Gandhi's killers has been delayed by state intervention. This is unusual.
Omar is right in that there are different standards. Interestingly, the muted reaction he was complaining about has agitated people and 'unmuted' them. The BJP is going hoarse with sudden concern for Rajiv Gandhi. (They are quiet over the acquittal of Haren Pandya's killers. Pandya was a BJP man who later had a fallout with Modi.)
The BJP uses the phrase "sovereignty of the nation" rather loosely. Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, unfortunate as it was, had its own dynamics that had to do with policy. The LTTE is not an Indian organisation, although it has its supporters. Such support results in huge electoral gains.
The BJP is worried about this aspect. After all, Priyanka Gandhi had met Nalini, one of her father's killers, in Vellore jail in 2008. The death verdict was given 11 years ago. Why did the BJP not put pressure to expedite it as they have done on a regular basis in the case of Afzal Guru, an Indian?
Omar Abdullah was pointing out the double standards, and one should see this as part of a thriving democracy that we are so chuffed about, with people out in the street.
However, the Hurriyat's Mirwaiz Omar Farooq has wondered why if he is so concerned about Afzal does he not resign. Again, we are faced with a missing the wood for the trees situation.
Omar Abdullah was in fact speaking as a political leader and expressing the helpless predicament of dealing with Kashmir. He chose the wrong forum to do so.
A few 'other' questions too need to be asked:
1. Would he raise the issue in the J&K assembly?
2. If so, would it mean he is doing so on humanitarian grounds or on a legal/factual basis?
3. If the latter, then would he risk providing possible loopholes?
4. How often do fake encounters figure in the assembly?
5. Does exposing political hypocrisy - I am assuming the muted reference was to politicians - enough?
This is a question for all parties. We do live in times when terrorists too have a vote bank, that is those who are not behind establishment-buffered terror.
Answers need to be sought in the right place, unless the 'people's movement' has seeped into the system's bones. In that case, stone pelters should be excused.
7.6.11
French kissing Facebook & Twitter?
Forget it. France has banned the use of these two words because they amount to “clandestine advertising”. If you say you are a “tweeter”, then France's Superior Audiovisual Council will ask you to shut up. You also cannot mention “Facebook events”. Apparently, there have been earlier attempts to regulate words like “Coke” and even “e-mail”.
It seems okay, but does France not have a McDonald’s? Don’t they drink Coke?
Most internet activity that has germinated in the United States has made inroads in other countries with their own language versions that cater to the nation. But these are in the area of search engines, maps, locators, and special-interest activities.
Is France becoming a closed society? How does not using a specific word and continuing to use the social network make sense? This is not chauvinism but hypocrisy. If anything, the French do not have to worry about Americanisms because the major elite industries like fashion and art-house cinema are still their preserve, not to speak about gourmet cuisine.
I respect each society’s need to preserve its culture, but this is not culture. This is just expanding the universe and connecting.
Now if only Americans bid adieu to referring to their deep-soul snogging as a French kiss and completely did away with any thoughts of a ménage a trios we’d have a cause celebre.
Oh, la la, that would be a piece de resistance. Non?
PS: To think that the only reason I wrote my first letter to the editor while in school was because I wanted to use the word ‘Apropos’. I won the best letter prize. Touché.
French TV and radio employees must use a generic phrase like “social network” or “reseaux sociaux,” rather than Facebook or Twitter. Exceptions involve citing sources of information, as one might use the newspapers Le Monde or Le Figaro to cite the origin of a news story.
It seems okay, but does France not have a McDonald’s? Don’t they drink Coke?
“This decision is not only stupid and hypocritical, it is also scary because behind the legal alibi, it reeks of anti-Americanism, chauvinism, and a complete misunderstanding of today's world,” says Karim Emile Bitar, a frequent commentator on French affairs at a Paris think tank.
Most internet activity that has germinated in the United States has made inroads in other countries with their own language versions that cater to the nation. But these are in the area of search engines, maps, locators, and special-interest activities.
Is France becoming a closed society? How does not using a specific word and continuing to use the social network make sense? This is not chauvinism but hypocrisy. If anything, the French do not have to worry about Americanisms because the major elite industries like fashion and art-house cinema are still their preserve, not to speak about gourmet cuisine.
I respect each society’s need to preserve its culture, but this is not culture. This is just expanding the universe and connecting.
Now if only Americans bid adieu to referring to their deep-soul snogging as a French kiss and completely did away with any thoughts of a ménage a trios we’d have a cause celebre.
Oh, la la, that would be a piece de resistance. Non?
PS: To think that the only reason I wrote my first letter to the editor while in school was because I wanted to use the word ‘Apropos’. I won the best letter prize. Touché.
24.11.10
The Media as Middle Man
India's "Paid News" Scandal
The Media as Middle Man
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, November 24
The sudden interest in the involvement of some Indian media persons in what appears to be lobbying has posed the question about ethics, but it has a lot more to do with the cult of icons. Readers and viewers tend to blindly believe in taglines about ‘truth’ prevailing and ‘we were the first to go there’ with high-profile columnists and anchors; the audience now feels let down and covertly awkward for having propped up these news-bearers.
There is also anger that the exposure was not covered by news channels and only by some print publications. The media is a tightly-knit incestuous lot in India. They know that if they allow one head to fall, theirs will be next on the chopping block.
The story appeared relatively simple. A lobbyist, Nira Radia, working for industrialist Mukesh Ambani called up journalists and discussed ministerial portfolios. The media people offered to set up meetings with ministers and even revealed what stories could be run. There was loads of money - $40 billion - involved in the 2G-spectrum deals that would benefit the corporate lobby. The question is: did it benefit the journalists and how? The newspapers/channels get ads, the political party gets election funds and the media can carry convenient stories along the election trail with staged ‘objective’ moments. The media is the new fiefdom of the politician and political power – from the front door or the back entrance – is the journalist’s reward.
There have been conjectures that these conversations were to make the lobbyist give away information, a snoopy journalistic tactic. But has it been taken to its logical conclusion? Has there been an expose of a nature that could compromise the government which is culpable in this case? No. The man A. Raja who was a cheat got the same portfolio to cheat again. Are the journalists to blame? The motives and ‘real’ reasons are a non-sequiter when facts stare us in the face.
No one can call acting as conduits between politicians and corporate lobbies as part of journalism, but in the past the arrangement was tacit. Press conferences by business houses that handed out goodies were major draws. Does anyone even know about news reports that are paid for and often written by the PR departments of business houses? Does anyone care that such PR people carry press passes and are members of the press clubs? When captains of industry write guest columns for publications, this is advertising passing off as editorial content.
Journalists have often got prime posts in social organisations or are sent on junkets; many of the hugely respected senior names conduct all their ‘investigations’ over the telephone, which means they are fed information by interested groups. While opinions are by nature subjective, reportage ought to be objective. What is reported and how clearly conveys which side the person is on or has been asked to be on. What about owners of channels who get elected and become MPs?
To push the envelope (no pun intended) further, what about freedom of speech? Does the industrial house not have the freedom to lobby? Does the lobbyist not have the freedom to push her case? Does the journalist not have the freedom to act as a go-between? Great media stalwarts like Arun Shourie have played a role in bringing down politicians and governments. Why did they become heroes and why are today’s newsmakers considered unethical? The reason is that they appear to be co-opted, whereas a Shourie fought against the establishment. It is another matter that the fight could have been dictated by the opposition. This is the crux of the argument.
Sting operations get a whole lot of points by a gullible public that assumes those blurred video clips are done as an act of public good. No one bothers to check out the motives behind these moves. It is high time we made the mainstream media answerable, but the alternatives are not always as above-board as they appear simply because they too depend on the largesse of sponsors, advertising and benefactors.
Political stooges have always existed, only the level of subtlety has altered their persona. You just have to spend some time in any of the intellectual hubs in Delhi and you will see a journalist supping with a politician or a bureaucrat. There are TV channels that have given preference to young recruits merely due to their proximity to and sometimes family connections with such powerful people.
The recent revelations have become such a talking point, ironically, because they have been exposed with much flourish outside the mainstream media in India. Internationally, the Washington Post mentioned ‘paid news’ and reported that The Foundation for Media Professionals plans to host a conference on journalists as power brokers. The organisations’s spokesperson said, “We are actually happy that these practices have come out in the open. It forces us to address the problem. We as journalists sit in judgment of others all the time. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.”
Journalists are fallible and their standards should be decreed by ethics and not morality and most certainly must not become a ruse for nobility. The self-examination should also raise questions about the media conducting kangaroo courts and making a spectacle of helpless common people.
Prominent anchors and columnists are deified only because their visibility, especially during crises and calamities, immediately imbues them with a halo of legitimacy. This gets further sanctity when a scam uses the name of one individual. This does not, in fact, work as a “lynch mob” but serves to buffer the cult. We live in times of short attention spans and shorter memories. Today’s flawed Twitter hero is tomorrow’s Facebook martyr, for the truth may lie not in what was said in the tapes but what was left unsaid.
- - -
Also published in Countercurrents and Khaleej Times
The Media as Middle Man
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, November 24
The sudden interest in the involvement of some Indian media persons in what appears to be lobbying has posed the question about ethics, but it has a lot more to do with the cult of icons. Readers and viewers tend to blindly believe in taglines about ‘truth’ prevailing and ‘we were the first to go there’ with high-profile columnists and anchors; the audience now feels let down and covertly awkward for having propped up these news-bearers.
There is also anger that the exposure was not covered by news channels and only by some print publications. The media is a tightly-knit incestuous lot in India. They know that if they allow one head to fall, theirs will be next on the chopping block.
The story appeared relatively simple. A lobbyist, Nira Radia, working for industrialist Mukesh Ambani called up journalists and discussed ministerial portfolios. The media people offered to set up meetings with ministers and even revealed what stories could be run. There was loads of money - $40 billion - involved in the 2G-spectrum deals that would benefit the corporate lobby. The question is: did it benefit the journalists and how? The newspapers/channels get ads, the political party gets election funds and the media can carry convenient stories along the election trail with staged ‘objective’ moments. The media is the new fiefdom of the politician and political power – from the front door or the back entrance – is the journalist’s reward.
There have been conjectures that these conversations were to make the lobbyist give away information, a snoopy journalistic tactic. But has it been taken to its logical conclusion? Has there been an expose of a nature that could compromise the government which is culpable in this case? No. The man A. Raja who was a cheat got the same portfolio to cheat again. Are the journalists to blame? The motives and ‘real’ reasons are a non-sequiter when facts stare us in the face.
No one can call acting as conduits between politicians and corporate lobbies as part of journalism, but in the past the arrangement was tacit. Press conferences by business houses that handed out goodies were major draws. Does anyone even know about news reports that are paid for and often written by the PR departments of business houses? Does anyone care that such PR people carry press passes and are members of the press clubs? When captains of industry write guest columns for publications, this is advertising passing off as editorial content.
Journalists have often got prime posts in social organisations or are sent on junkets; many of the hugely respected senior names conduct all their ‘investigations’ over the telephone, which means they are fed information by interested groups. While opinions are by nature subjective, reportage ought to be objective. What is reported and how clearly conveys which side the person is on or has been asked to be on. What about owners of channels who get elected and become MPs?
To push the envelope (no pun intended) further, what about freedom of speech? Does the industrial house not have the freedom to lobby? Does the lobbyist not have the freedom to push her case? Does the journalist not have the freedom to act as a go-between? Great media stalwarts like Arun Shourie have played a role in bringing down politicians and governments. Why did they become heroes and why are today’s newsmakers considered unethical? The reason is that they appear to be co-opted, whereas a Shourie fought against the establishment. It is another matter that the fight could have been dictated by the opposition. This is the crux of the argument.
Sting operations get a whole lot of points by a gullible public that assumes those blurred video clips are done as an act of public good. No one bothers to check out the motives behind these moves. It is high time we made the mainstream media answerable, but the alternatives are not always as above-board as they appear simply because they too depend on the largesse of sponsors, advertising and benefactors.
Political stooges have always existed, only the level of subtlety has altered their persona. You just have to spend some time in any of the intellectual hubs in Delhi and you will see a journalist supping with a politician or a bureaucrat. There are TV channels that have given preference to young recruits merely due to their proximity to and sometimes family connections with such powerful people.
The recent revelations have become such a talking point, ironically, because they have been exposed with much flourish outside the mainstream media in India. Internationally, the Washington Post mentioned ‘paid news’ and reported that The Foundation for Media Professionals plans to host a conference on journalists as power brokers. The organisations’s spokesperson said, “We are actually happy that these practices have come out in the open. It forces us to address the problem. We as journalists sit in judgment of others all the time. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.”
Journalists are fallible and their standards should be decreed by ethics and not morality and most certainly must not become a ruse for nobility. The self-examination should also raise questions about the media conducting kangaroo courts and making a spectacle of helpless common people.
Prominent anchors and columnists are deified only because their visibility, especially during crises and calamities, immediately imbues them with a halo of legitimacy. This gets further sanctity when a scam uses the name of one individual. This does not, in fact, work as a “lynch mob” but serves to buffer the cult. We live in times of short attention spans and shorter memories. Today’s flawed Twitter hero is tomorrow’s Facebook martyr, for the truth may lie not in what was said in the tapes but what was left unsaid.
- - -
Also published in Countercurrents and Khaleej Times
19.8.10
Oh, Blimey!
It’s rare that one country has such interesting little bits of news around the same time. But here’s from Old Blighty.
I don’t get it. Why not in front of the Queen? Or David Cameron? Why an American President? And how does he know that no one has streaked before the presidential eyes before? He is almost imbuing Obama with some kind of Victorian chastity belt that has to be unlocked with such streaking.
When our leaders don’t enjoy it, they become martyrs. A huge thumbs up to the man.
This is not transformation. A rich Indian is buying a company where he will display luxury goods which mostly other rich Indians overseas will buy. If there is so much concern about the symbolism, then he should change the name. I doubt that will happen. He has not bought it for redemption – where the heck does that fit in? – but as a business proposition. It is a brand and he will capitalise on it. Good for him, but let us not make it seem like this is ‘revenge’, as some newspapers have pointed out.
David Cameron is the most tweeted subject. How does that become news? Some media analysis agency said there were many more tweets among the Brits about his coalition government than about Afghanistan. Whoa! When was Afghanistan more important than hot water bottles? Of course, they’ll talk about David – any David or Will or Dick or Dirty Harry.
A British billionaire, Alki David, has offered $1 million to the first person who manages to streak naked in front of Barack Obama. Currently ranked 45th in the Sunday Times Rich List with an estimated fortune of £1.15 billion, this is a publicity stunt for a new website.
I don’t get it. Why not in front of the Queen? Or David Cameron? Why an American President? And how does he know that no one has streaked before the presidential eyes before? He is almost imbuing Obama with some kind of Victorian chastity belt that has to be unlocked with such streaking.
- - -
Malcolm Pearson, head of the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which advocates withdrawing Britain from the European Union, quit. He said he’s learned he is not good at party politics and that he doesn’t enjoy it. “I have learnt I am not much good at party politics. I am also 68, and need to give more time to my interests... So it is right I should stand down on September 2 to give a younger leader time to be established before the next election.”
When our leaders don’t enjoy it, they become martyrs. A huge thumbs up to the man.
- - -
London-based businessman of Gujarati origin Sanjiv Mehta has turned history on its head by buying out the biggest symbol of the oppressive British Raj–The East India Company.
For Sanjiv Mehta, the new owner of the company, this was an emotionally charged moment as it stood for the total transformation of EIC — from a symbol of the tyrannical Raj, to a symbol of the growing economic might of Indians the world over.
“You can’t imagine the sense of pride and redemption I feel.”
This is not transformation. A rich Indian is buying a company where he will display luxury goods which mostly other rich Indians overseas will buy. If there is so much concern about the symbolism, then he should change the name. I doubt that will happen. He has not bought it for redemption – where the heck does that fit in? – but as a business proposition. It is a brand and he will capitalise on it. Good for him, but let us not make it seem like this is ‘revenge’, as some newspapers have pointed out.
- - -
End note:
David Cameron is the most tweeted subject. How does that become news? Some media analysis agency said there were many more tweets among the Brits about his coalition government than about Afghanistan. Whoa! When was Afghanistan more important than hot water bottles? Of course, they’ll talk about David – any David or Will or Dick or Dirty Harry.
8.7.10
CNN does not allow mourning a cleric's death
“Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah... One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot."
The reprisal was quick. She expressed deep regret in her CNN blog:
"It was an error of judgement for me to write such a simplistic comment and I'm sorry because it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah's life's work. That's not the case at all."
She said she was referring to Fadlallah's "contrarian and pioneering stand among Shiite clerics on woman's rights."
Why is it simplistic for a person to feel sad about someone she respects? Only because he is alleged to be the spiritual guide of the Hezbollah and is on the US terrorist list?
An internal memo at the CNN headquarters stated:
"However, at this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward."
It only means that the channel is one big establishment mouthpiece and has no place for a minor personal contrarian comment; in this respect Fadlallah seems way superior. While he may have been conservative in many respects – he was a cleric and not a politician, and see how many of them are conservative in their sharp suits – I did some looking around and Wikipedia mentions that he did talk about gender equality and was against female circumcision and honour killings.
He also issued a fatwa on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women that supports the right of a woman to defend herself against any act of violence whether social or physical.
The point is that he was using his platform to say things that might have at least resulted in some enlightenment among a few. How many political leaders do so? Most of them are not interested and some who are will be concerned about the repercussions of hurting religious sentiments.
I perfectly understand what Nasr means when she says she does not support all his work but specifies something that mattered to her. I constantly mention the areas of concern that may or may not belong to one particular stripe; as human beings we are prone to not respond in a standard manner. From what I got to know, she has taken an American stand in her reportage of most issues.
There have been obituaries in international newspapers, and while they did not express sadness they were reporting. She was not. Besides, CNN is a media group and not the government, so what exactly does compromise of position mean? Is the media supposed to have one stand? Are reporters told to follow that standard ideology? Can editors not have personal opinions that are voiced outside of the sainted CNN airtime?
Octavia Nasr’s apology is one more in the line of not toeing the official line even in the personal arena. I think what is dying is the sturdiness of media houses. They now have such flimsy positions that anything can shake them up and they can get compromised. And we, the audience, are supposed to believe what they say. Precious.
These same media houses will praise world leaders with dubious records and who have far greater reach and power.
8.4.10
Heir to Trash
For those who think they are too poor to leave anything behind, just bequeath your Spam. The Digital World is now rife with riches, in terms of email accounts, uploaded photographs, videos, social networking portfolios.If you thought you lived in a cramped rented studio apartment and have the audacity to declare that you are homeless, you are in fact occupying space. Ah, did you know that 'My Space' was moveable property? Get it? You, who played the poverty card, the hobo, the one who had to depend on social security and wait for bonuses, are rich. So wipe that woe-begone look off your face and straighten your shoulders. You are priceless.
The legal fraternity has been busy formulating Wills that leave the heirs with all cyber wealth. Apparently, people believe that after they are gone their children, grandchildren or complete strangers ought to be given all their communication. Passwords won’t be mentioned in the Last Will and Testament because it is an open document. It will be drawn separately and the inheritor may have sole rights to it.
I understand that everyone believes they have precious stuff beyond their cupboards, safes, mutual funds, and property. This is certainly a move to make the Will a great leveler and bridge the gap, at least socially. I mean, someone can leave behind a virtual solitaire. It sounds neat. But what would an heir do with ‘friends’ gathered on Facebook? And how would s/he deal with updated tweets and discover that the parent or family member or friend was really cuckoo?
Think of all those recipients wondering about the nature of correspondence revealed. It is one thing when people do so while they are alive, but after death?
I don’t think it is a particularly good idea, unless one has saved every memory digitally. I am sure if you have pictures with someone at the Eiffel Tower, that someone would have a copy. Heck, your online ‘contacts’ and ‘followers’ might have access to them if you ‘share’. With so much sharing already going on, the heir could well misuse it. How many of the friends do you know personally? So, the person bequeathed with the information could well play the same character, that is you, and no one would know.
I think what we save is of value to us alone and what we delete is not. Imagine being the legatee of an email account and just after the last tear drop has dried on the cheek you go and sign in and the first words that greet you are: “Your email account has won $ 2 million”? Would you want to LOL or ROTFL?
The latter has often made me wonder about the hyperbolic nature of the internet. Does anyone really Roll On The Floor Laughing? Then how do they manage to type?
5.2.10
Am I not sexy enough for you?
I thought these long sessions, foreplay with words, the urgency to do something, shed inhibitions and garbs, the languorous moments with the seen and the unseen, as sentences were caressed and teased worked.
Not anymore. Blogging is passé. Emails are...oh, no...
A new study has found that brief is in. People want quickies.
What is more exciting about tweets? Or leaving messages on walls at Facebook or other social networking sites? Is communication about just leaving behind a toe-print and not a trail? Yet, it is these sites that have ‘followers’. What are they following?
I took a quick look and found that this is just a way to make an asinine comment and then scoot off. Substance is lacking. I can understand celebrities doing that; I can understand if it is used to direct people to something of import elsewhere that they themselves have contributed to. But this is just one more element of fan culture where anyone with an account can claim to have fans. It also ends up as a means to make visible that you have said something about someone, even if it is a one-liner, to seem important.
There could be a few who may be able to convey something, but even they know it is only an appetiser.
Another distressing aspect is that the study focused on the young. It assumes that sexiness is connected in some ways with youth, and that stops at 30. This is only encouraging an attitude that will push the idea and target youngsters who will become commercial puppets. Will they stop and listen? Will they want to explore ideas? Sharing only means files, vids, plans for da party and latest pix. (Incidentally, if all this is getting fast-paced and short, then why the need for larger electronic memories?)
Commercial enterprises are quick to catch on to trends and they will be thrown the bait of cosmetics, clothes, and culture as a quick fix. It will, I am afraid, also result in ‘moving on’ even in careers and relationships.
How does any of this become sexy?
Language as we know it and experiment with cannot become a harridan only because of some punks who don’t even use their fingers well, that is why they trip so often and miss the vowels to save space. It is like missing a moment and talking about the eternal. The eternal flush that skims over and never enters the pores to tickle the flesh of a thought that rises to meet a paragraph created for it.
Not anymore. Blogging is passé. Emails are...oh, no...
A new study has found that brief is in. People want quickies.
Danah Boyd, a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said, “Remember when ‘You’ve got mail!’ used to produce a moment of enthusiasm and not dread? (Now) people focus on using them for what they’re good for and turning to other channels for more exciting things.”
What is more exciting about tweets? Or leaving messages on walls at Facebook or other social networking sites? Is communication about just leaving behind a toe-print and not a trail? Yet, it is these sites that have ‘followers’. What are they following?
I took a quick look and found that this is just a way to make an asinine comment and then scoot off. Substance is lacking. I can understand celebrities doing that; I can understand if it is used to direct people to something of import elsewhere that they themselves have contributed to. But this is just one more element of fan culture where anyone with an account can claim to have fans. It also ends up as a means to make visible that you have said something about someone, even if it is a one-liner, to seem important.
There could be a few who may be able to convey something, but even they know it is only an appetiser.
Another distressing aspect is that the study focused on the young. It assumes that sexiness is connected in some ways with youth, and that stops at 30. This is only encouraging an attitude that will push the idea and target youngsters who will become commercial puppets. Will they stop and listen? Will they want to explore ideas? Sharing only means files, vids, plans for da party and latest pix. (Incidentally, if all this is getting fast-paced and short, then why the need for larger electronic memories?)
Commercial enterprises are quick to catch on to trends and they will be thrown the bait of cosmetics, clothes, and culture as a quick fix. It will, I am afraid, also result in ‘moving on’ even in careers and relationships.
How does any of this become sexy?
Language as we know it and experiment with cannot become a harridan only because of some punks who don’t even use their fingers well, that is why they trip so often and miss the vowels to save space. It is like missing a moment and talking about the eternal. The eternal flush that skims over and never enters the pores to tickle the flesh of a thought that rises to meet a paragraph created for it.
28.12.09
Tweeting Tharoor Again
Come on guys, is there anyone out there calling Shashi Tharoor a jihadi apologist?
Imagine a statement like this coming from someone like you know who:
This has been my position and that of quite a few people. Don’t know about the quite a few people, but we know what happens when I state this.
But, what are his reasons? He talks as though terrorists are spoiling the party when we had those cute pictures and sound bytes from tourists who ‘braved’ the 26/11 anniversary to be here, sat at Leopold with their beers, walked down the Gateway promenade and generally ‘challenged’ the terrorists.
Tharoor’s statement sounds a bit too smart and Obamaesque and falls straight in line with how the West thinks. Those governments may occasionally put out terror alerts, but they will make sure that they do not lose the India commercial connection. And sure enough, that is his concern: Tourism and business. He is one-dimensional in his approach, as has become clear by now.
It is our government and the opposition parties that have created the paranoia. Instead of tweeting about it, he should be discussing it with his ministers. By saying that the terrorists had no visas he is implying that our security is not up to nuff and anyone can indeed get in.
So, here’s a tweet for the minister: “Hol desntns full, Mum partng like crzy. Time 4 u to workout where Headley did n got Moksha. U cn get urs too. Hppy Nw yr n hand-on-heart sing Jana Gana Mana!”
- --
*Moksha is the name of the gym that Headley often visited.
Imagine a statement like this coming from someone like you know who:
“Is all that worth it just in hope of making it difficult for a future Headley to recce? R we going 2 allow terrorists 2 make us less welcoming? 26/11 killers had no visas.”
This has been my position and that of quite a few people. Don’t know about the quite a few people, but we know what happens when I state this.
But, what are his reasons? He talks as though terrorists are spoiling the party when we had those cute pictures and sound bytes from tourists who ‘braved’ the 26/11 anniversary to be here, sat at Leopold with their beers, walked down the Gateway promenade and generally ‘challenged’ the terrorists.
Tharoor’s statement sounds a bit too smart and Obamaesque and falls straight in line with how the West thinks. Those governments may occasionally put out terror alerts, but they will make sure that they do not lose the India commercial connection. And sure enough, that is his concern: Tourism and business. He is one-dimensional in his approach, as has become clear by now.
It is our government and the opposition parties that have created the paranoia. Instead of tweeting about it, he should be discussing it with his ministers. By saying that the terrorists had no visas he is implying that our security is not up to nuff and anyone can indeed get in.
So, here’s a tweet for the minister: “Hol desntns full, Mum partng like crzy. Time 4 u to workout where Headley did n got Moksha. U cn get urs too. Hppy Nw yr n hand-on-heart sing Jana Gana Mana!”
- --
*Moksha is the name of the gym that Headley often visited.
11.12.09
Mahatma Gandhi and Lindsay Lohan
Mahatma Gandhi is an all-purpose sales guy. Mont Blanc pens know that and decided to have an imprint of his image on their limited edition fountain pen in 18-carat solid gold. This story was reported two months ago and has resurfaced because a PIL has been filed in India against the retailers.I would not want it for the simple reason that it is cheesy and I can’t afford it. But the arguments against it are rather amusing.
$23,000, they say, is the lifetime income of the poor in India.
Rich Indians buy Swarovski crystals and Gucci bags. They do not calculate how much the poor are worth.
One of those spokesperson types said, “This pen is really funny. Gandhi would say it should be tossed in the trash or, better, sold off to pay for water and power for the poor. Gandhi would have been ashamed.”
Nope. Gandhi lived with industrialists and he knew they manufactured expensive goods. And we also knew that people commemorate heroes after they are dead. He did not ask the rich when he was alive to give up anything for the poor.
His great-grandson, who got a neat cut, it is said, had a different take: “I consider the Mont blanc pen their acknowledgment of the greatness of Gandhi. They are doing it the only way they know how. His writing implement was his greatest tool.”
I thought non-violence and swadeshi (self-reliance and abjurance of foreign goods) was. He delivered lectures and spoke a lot. He did write but that is hardly any justification for this pricey little thing. And it is limited edition, accessible to very few.
This business of an India on the move is getting on my nerves. We were always a materialistic society; some sold products, some services and some spirituality. Almost half of the population lives below the poverty line (about $1.25 a day). They don’t care about Mont Blanc or any pen because most are illiterate. And they pretty much do not care about Gandhi.
We want to purr about some big cats making it big, then fine. Let them flash that pen around too.
It is aesthetically quite unappealing and would require great gumption to expose bad taste. It won’t transform them into Gandhi clones. Or Gandhi abusers. Or people who like quoting Gandhi because it sounds like such an awesome thing to do.
So, here is one: “Capital as such is not evil; it is its wrong use that is evil. Capital in some form or other will always be needed.”
- - -
Now, we come to the other great marketing delight. Lindsay Lohan is in India to make a documentary on human trafficking. She tweeted: “Over 40 children saved so far... Within one day's work... This is what life is about... Doing THIS is a life worth living!!!”
Sure. I am sure it will keep her clean for a while. But did she have to sound like she is at some game keeping track of the goals scored? Is it all in a day’s work? Do we blame Twitter, the medium, for making everything seem so simplistic and easy? And why Lindsay? What was the BBC thinking? Role model?
Oh, and here’s a quote from her repertoire, too: “How can you not like Britney Spears?”
19.9.09
Tweeting Tharoor
1. ROTFL. U r a hoot, man. Hand on hart (ouch) u r Woodhouse so rolling on floor wid lafter is easy.
2. Tnx 4 bringing out funny side of PM. He got ur joke but dats coz u did Kofi. Last time he joked was wid Gilani bout Balochistan.
- - -
Ok. Am done with bird talk. If you really think you are some pun-chkin then you have a think coming.
Here are some statements you made and in one you imply that people would not appreciate humour. Honestly, you are about as humorous as a bagpipe playing at a Roman repast
...
Holy cows are NOT individuals but sacrosanct issues or principles that no one dares challenge. Wish critics wld look it up.
Aww, giving us work to do? You think your critics would not know? For your information, YOU are a holy cow and as far as I can see you are an individual unless you believe you are an issue now.
And you do not travel with principles. I mean, do you ask for an aisle seat next to that puffed up sore-assed principle of dynastic politics? Heck. I already got it wrong. That wouldn't be a holy cow for you. You cannot have a beef with those who give you a ticket to ride.
- - -
It's a silly expression but means no disrespect to economy travellers, only to airlines for herding us in like cattle.
Aha! So did you speak to our local Richard Branson, Vijay Mallya of Kingfisher, and to Naresh Goyal of Jet? Did you speak to the minister of aviation?
But, what will you tell them? That they are doing okay with the holy cows...principles, of course...but not individuals who have to go moo-moo each time they turn their face and the passenger next to them is breathing butter chicken?
I know your fan base has increased though I suspect some women ministers might object to your gender political incorrectness with regard to cow.
You have put everything at steak and need a well-done break.
Wanna do Kofi at Kyarla Hose?
(That is what the Mallu you have forgotten would say about doing coffee at Kerala House.)
Take care, tweets. Now be good and LOL.
7.6.09
Twittering on the edge
The yellow rose was waiting for me. I imagined someone had read that the only roses I like are yellow. It wasn't that easy. I had to click a link, register at the site and claim that rose from someone I did not know and who did not know me. Chances of him wanting to know me were remote. I was just an email address he had added to the list of people he was showering with flowers.
I am distressed at the way in which social interactions have been reduced to twittering, facebooking, orkuting, myspacing, necking…okay, cut that out.
Like many of you, I am urged by people to check out their photos. Or to share files with them and write something on their ‘walls’. Again, you have to register and soon everyone is everybody's friend. I do not blame the networkers for the phrasing of such invitations because the sites have these standard ones which go to the extent of saying that if you do not respond, Osama or whoever will commit suicide by drinking your bile. Of course, I am exaggerating. What do you expect me to do?
With the exception of a few people I do know, or get to know, most of these invitations are from strangers who have never interacted with me.
I find it utterly ill-mannered. If they do believe you are worth it, the least they can do is send a message prior to the invite or after. Do they assume you are desperate? One of these blokes sent me some nasty abusive feedback on an article and then had the audacity to add me to some list. I got a reminder saying that if I did not respond, then Mr Hogwash would think I was ignoring him, followed by a sad smiley. Like hell.
In the era prior to all this, people would add you to their messenger lists. Just like that. You have never corresponded, not even a word, and you get added. There is no courtesy of a message. Since I rarely sign in, I see many of these later. Some leave offlines. One said, "We can chat whenever I am here." I went down on my knees to say Grace or whatever it is Islamists say.
On occasion, due to their professions or whatever, there has been access to my cellphone number. Again, it is not always possible/interesting to go on and I am sensible enough to accept that the other individual would feel the same. But how can they keep sending SMSes? They are not filthy, ok? But if god has been kind to them to help them make my acquaintance, then they should thank god, na? But no. I am supposed to send a smiley to say I agree! This is god’s plan, not mine, so ask god to do the needful.
Also, if people have found Allah, Eeshwar, God, I’d say good for them. Is there any need to ask me to join in prayer to thank the concerned omnipotent power for such discoveries? Do we thank Alfred Nobel for every fart that occurs in the world?
Coming back to networking, I have looked at one such site twice, both times to make sure they were from the sources mentioned in the invites – the names were common and I know both of them. One was fine; the other was the right one too, but I was shocked to find he had lied about his location. I don’t know what other lies were there because I am not registered. This was what was visible. Why did he do it? Isn’t it misleading people?
This sort of forum can provide some fun to teenagers or those who seriously believe it will help in their work.
All my exchanges are in my writings and my responses. I value these a lot. Yes, in the course of such exchanges it is possible to get to know people better and outside the realm of such discourse. Here, too, I have made some grievous errors in the past, the times when a friend told me, “After three emails or so, do you have to give your whole bloody Ram kahani?…people will take advantage. I would if that is how I got to know you!”
So, I stick to being 'starchy'.
Will I twitter? Do you think I can manage to recount how my toenail broke, forget the life story of my toenail, in 140 words, or is it characters?
PS: If you don’t read this I will think you are ignoring me :(
I am distressed at the way in which social interactions have been reduced to twittering, facebooking, orkuting, myspacing, necking…okay, cut that out.
Like many of you, I am urged by people to check out their photos. Or to share files with them and write something on their ‘walls’. Again, you have to register and soon everyone is everybody's friend. I do not blame the networkers for the phrasing of such invitations because the sites have these standard ones which go to the extent of saying that if you do not respond, Osama or whoever will commit suicide by drinking your bile. Of course, I am exaggerating. What do you expect me to do?
With the exception of a few people I do know, or get to know, most of these invitations are from strangers who have never interacted with me.
I find it utterly ill-mannered. If they do believe you are worth it, the least they can do is send a message prior to the invite or after. Do they assume you are desperate? One of these blokes sent me some nasty abusive feedback on an article and then had the audacity to add me to some list. I got a reminder saying that if I did not respond, then Mr Hogwash would think I was ignoring him, followed by a sad smiley. Like hell.
In the era prior to all this, people would add you to their messenger lists. Just like that. You have never corresponded, not even a word, and you get added. There is no courtesy of a message. Since I rarely sign in, I see many of these later. Some leave offlines. One said, "We can chat whenever I am here." I went down on my knees to say Grace or whatever it is Islamists say.
On occasion, due to their professions or whatever, there has been access to my cellphone number. Again, it is not always possible/interesting to go on and I am sensible enough to accept that the other individual would feel the same. But how can they keep sending SMSes? They are not filthy, ok? But if god has been kind to them to help them make my acquaintance, then they should thank god, na? But no. I am supposed to send a smiley to say I agree! This is god’s plan, not mine, so ask god to do the needful.
Also, if people have found Allah, Eeshwar, God, I’d say good for them. Is there any need to ask me to join in prayer to thank the concerned omnipotent power for such discoveries? Do we thank Alfred Nobel for every fart that occurs in the world?
Coming back to networking, I have looked at one such site twice, both times to make sure they were from the sources mentioned in the invites – the names were common and I know both of them. One was fine; the other was the right one too, but I was shocked to find he had lied about his location. I don’t know what other lies were there because I am not registered. This was what was visible. Why did he do it? Isn’t it misleading people?
This sort of forum can provide some fun to teenagers or those who seriously believe it will help in their work.
All my exchanges are in my writings and my responses. I value these a lot. Yes, in the course of such exchanges it is possible to get to know people better and outside the realm of such discourse. Here, too, I have made some grievous errors in the past, the times when a friend told me, “After three emails or so, do you have to give your whole bloody Ram kahani?…people will take advantage. I would if that is how I got to know you!”
So, I stick to being 'starchy'.
Will I twitter? Do you think I can manage to recount how my toenail broke, forget the life story of my toenail, in 140 words, or is it characters?
PS: If you don’t read this I will think you are ignoring me :(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)