This
essay has become too long, because I wanted to quote the references. Still, I suggest
you read it in full. I quote Scott F. Fitzgerald here, to explain why you should-
We want to believe. Young students try to
believe in older authors, constituents try to believe in the congressmen,
countries try to believe in their statesmen, but they can’t. Too many voices,
too much scattered, illogical, ill-considered criticism. It’s worse in case of
Newspapers. Any rich, unprogressive, old party with that particular grasping,
acquisitive form of mentality known as financial genius can own a paper that is
the intellectual meat and drink of thousands of tired, hurried men, men too
involved in the business of modern living to swallow anything but predigested
food. For two cents, voter buys his politics, prejudices and philosophy.
It is an art to write
Non-Fiction. It needs to carry the pretense of being objective and true,
without being dull and boring. There is a wonderful book by Sol Stein he covers this part in great details. He talks about how dreary, factual piece of non-fiction can be brought to life with brilliant colors of life weaved around
dead, soulless data. The writing in such case stands precariously on the thin boundary
of fiction and non-fiction. I am an Engineer, or as they say, basically an
Engineer. This essentially means I am not classically trained in the art of
writing. This also means that my education in literature is ambiguous, arbitrary
and essentially non-academic. My learning of writing is not limited by curriculum and my
notes come from various sources. I came across the wonderful book Stein On Writing by Sol Stein in this process of trying to educate myself, which has this one full section on writing Non-fiction.
He mentions various techniques
to bring impact and interest to dull reporting of plain data. He however,
classifies as Literary Nonfiction. In the Indian context of media reports,
almost all journalism is literary non-fiction. He writes- Literary nonfiction puts emphasis on the precise and skilled use of
words and tone, and the assumption that the reader is as intelligent as the
writer.
However, in different
context, it is also, at times based on the assumption that the reader is as
dumb as the writer is smart. He says, “The
nonfiction writer who becomes aware of the emotions elicited by cultural
difference can use this power in representing people by well-chose class
markers. Recently there was a big hullabaloo about noted journalist, who
having seen the best days of adulation during Kargil, but now has come to signify the worst of journalism to those who
are termed as Right-wingers in Indian context, and who are largely kept out of
public media, except for social media-Twitter, Facebook and Independent Digital News media and blogs. This
is what we usually call now media-spin or manufacturing the narrative- the class markers. She added
to the description of Social media warrior,
son of a headmaster to the reference she made to killing of Kashmiri
terrorist, Burhan Wani, by Indian Forces. This is a perfect example of class marker.
The techniques of literary
non-fiction cuts both ways. It serves the purpose of an interested writer by
being present and at times, by being conspicuously absent. It creates interest, empathy, by
being in the news and many times, by design, creates apathy and disinterest by
deliberate absence. So while Burhan Wani was put into context, flesh and blood
was rendered to a name, a terrorist’s name, Prashanth Poojary or Sujith, the
RSS members (not termed as terrorist organization unlike Hizbul, which is a UN
designated terror organization). They skip the details, the meat of the matter,
and the victim is not humanized, thus the empathy neutralized, the concern is
conflicted and the impact is numbed. It is not about lack of ability. The same
set of big media houses manage both the stories, but the treatment they render
to the two is totally different. If one really observes, it is pretty evident.
There is no fault per se, in such blatant demonstration of leanings and biases,
as long as one does not pretend to be unbiased and neutral. It is not the case
of lazy reporting, nor is a case of lack of competence. How the other side of
the reports are presented, tells us how the data is photo shopped to
manufacture a narrative.
Going back to Sol Stein, he
quotes a brilliant example, which I will take the liberty of quoting verbatim,
before giving the example of media reports to bring the point home. He presents
the report of heretic Queen of England, Mary Stuart’s execution. Here is how it
would be reported in Indian media if in the current context, she were a Right
wing supporter in India.
Mary Stuart came into the great hall, followed by her
retinue. She climbed the steps to her chair, faced her audience, and smiled.
Now, using best of the
techniques of literary non-fiction, here is how historian Garrett Mattingly
writes the same even in The Armada:
She entered through a little door at the side, and before
they saw her she was already in the great hall, walking towards the dais, six
of her own people, two by two, behind her, oblivious to the stir and rustle as
her audience craned forward, oblivious, apparently, of the officer on whose
sleeve her hand rested, walking as quietly, thought one pious soul, as if she
were going to her prayers. Only for a moment, as she mounted the steps and
before she sank back into the black-draped chair, did she seem to need the
supporting arm, and if her hands trembled she locked them in her lap, no one
saw. Then, as if acknowledging the plaudits of a multitude, thought the hall
was very still, she turned for the first time to face her audience and, some
thought, she smiled.
This is so brilliant. The man
who wrote it had not seen the event, had no way of interviewing anyone who had
seen it. Still he creates a lively event, interspersing it with his biases,
which no one technically can question. We look what various phrases tell and
the truth and untruth of those sentences. The little door, walked before she is
seen- She is a demure, helpless woman. We don’t have an unbiased, neutral
account from the audience of that time. We tend to believe, that the writer
here has. The woman is not only defenseless, she is also religious. We do not
know which pious soul thought, but as per the writer, someone did think
that it appeared as if she was going for a prayer. She is alone and proud (only
for a moment did she need a supporting arm), scared but dignified and brave (if
her hands trembled as she locked then in her lap, no one saw). We don’t know if
her hands trembled, for no one saw, still it is reported. This is so amazing.
Now let us see how wonderfully
(or not) it is applied by the journalists in today’s context.
I searched
through the internet and here is how the hacking of RSS activist, 27-year-old
young boy, was reported by leading media houses.
Times of India reported: “27-year-old RSS worker was hacked to death in front of his
aged parents in Kannur district in poll-bound Kerala, triggering a blame game
between BJP and CPM on Tuesday.”
- Times of India:
What is most interesting is
that the competing media house, reports the incident in exactly same words.
- Hindustan Times
- Indian Express
What stands out here? There
are three media houses, supposedly competitors, used the same writer to report
the incident. All used exactly the same words. Is it is case of lazy reporting
that the news is just passed on as received possibly from common agency. But
then, see how they defined the victim. A 27-year old RSS worker- which person
in this world is such a unidimensional personality. There is no name, we do not
know if his smile traveled to his eyes (another masterpiece borrowed from
Barkha Dutt’s description of JNU’s Kanhaiyya
Kumar charged with sedition for calling to breaking up of nation and freedom
of Kashmir, by violence), there is no description. We have just read the
description of the Queen who was sentenced to death in 16th century.
But, no, no one writes what Sujith looked like because as a writer somebody has
decided that the reader ought not to feel for him. The headline ends with the
mention of “blame-game” between BJP and Communists. It doesn’t even say the BJP
has “charged” the communists with the murder of “young” man. While blame-game
is scalar, charge is vector, directed to someone. It
hovers in air for a while and quickly drops down in dust like a dead leave. A
blame-game has no owner and places the responsibility on both parties, even on
the victim, by becoming a ripe target for a worthy kill.
Compare what we know about
Sujith with what we know about Rohith Vemula. We don’t even track his story, we
track even his parent’s story. So in Sudipto Mondal essay, it begins 18 years
back. Essay begins with summer afternoon and Rohith’s mother- sweet child of
one, and one feels overwhelmed by the hardship such sweet child faces as an
adult losing a young son. And then Rohith’s diary is quoted, gorgeous,
sensitive writing. He laments being treated as a political tool. We feel sorry
for the loss of such a sensitive, thoughtful soul. And Sujith- we don’t know if
he ever had a diary. (http://www.hindustantimes.com/static/rohith-vemula-an-unfinished-portrait/)
Another post in HT says about
Rohith- He was a part of historical
resistance by Dalit-Bahujan communities against oppression that erases our
culture, silences our voices, takes over our lives and stigmatizes them. To
call him a child is to deny this history.
Imagine borrowing the flow and
erudition from aforementioned Rohith Vemula’s report to Sujith- He was a part of historical resistance to the subjugation of Hindu
thought which Voltaire said was so peaceful and innocent, that it was equally
incapable of hurting others or defending themselves, forcing it to shrink over
the centuries across the globe, under the garb of conversions during Mughal and
British rule and secularism in modern world. An attempt to position it as
political killing is to deny this child this history, which he shares with the
slain kids of the Sikh Guru.
We also find such marvels of
brilliant journalistic fiction in the way they wrote about Kanhaiyya and his
India-bashing group. Priyamvada Gobal wrote in Guradian how “Hindu” nationalist
government faces challenge from Kanhaiya who somehow leads the “coalition of
progressive forces”. Readers, readers, would you want to be a part of coalition
of progressive forces or not? will yous still side with a Hindu nationalist government (as if this government did not take oath on the constitution with secular preamble)? Author is asking without appearing to be asking, insisting that you take side. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/17/india-kanhaiya-kumar-watershed-freedom-intolerance-bjp-hindu .
Kanhaiyya
was the band-wagon which everyone rode, from Shashi Tharoor to Barkha, given
the opportunity it provided to the Zamindars of intellectual space and written
pages to hit at Modi, but the cake was taken by DU professor, who wrote- Umar sees
himself as a person without borders. He does not want to remain imprisoned by
nationalities. He reminds me of Rachel Corrie, a young woman from the US who,
oceans away from her home in Columbia, stood before an Israeli tank to save a
Palestinian house from being bulldozed.
The
good professor pretends to have actually raised Umar Khalid as a child since he
knows his self-perception, or to have acted as his psychiatrist. But then, let not
the truth interfere with journalism. The idea is to do a verbal photo-shop, to
manufacture a narrative, to carry and agenda. Most mentioned above are old
news, old reports. However, what prompted me to write this was an article by Rakesh Ankit in FountainInk “History,as you like it”. It poses as a report of a BJP event commemorating Syama Prasad
Mookerjee. It actually is an opinion piece. It seeks to insult the BJP
supporters, embolden BJP haters and drive the undecided away from BJP. It
begins mentioning the event to pay respect to Syama Prasad Mookerjee as
selfless patriot. The next sentence, writer says- whether he was either of the two, we need to examine. Syama Prasad had
at least to careers, as lawyer and educationist besides becoming a lawmaker,
he writes. The intent clearly is not to inform, rather to create an image of
non-serious, non-committed politician for the late leader. He forgets that most
Congress leaders were practicing lawyers and writers and newspaper editors
those days, even if we do not go into the shell companies of Rahul Gandhi. He hints
that the death of Syama Prasad was not a conspiracy, not even an accident. It
was because he was a man unused to street struggle, landed, mistakenly, somehow in Kashmir’s unusual
circumstances, resulting in his death. He could not bear the shock the alien land presented to the Bengali gentleman.
The lines are dropped, hints are made, carefully, smartly, surreptitiously. Prejudices are abound, though craftily covered. See this- These challenges by the manly Englishman to effeminate Bengali- he writes, hides quickly, saying he merely quotes, Mrinalini Sinha. Why? he doesn't stop to explain. He even writes, pompously that BJP, whose ideological forefathers had no role to play in India's freedom movement, are trying to claim the credit when none is due. Again, he doesn't explain why? Ideological link of BJP should stretch well to Lala Lajpat Rai, Malviya, Tilak and even Arya Samaji Ram Prasad Bismil. But then again, let us not allow fact to interfere with fiction.
For instance, I quote some very smart sentences, to help you sample how
brilliantly the writer articulated a bias,
“I gulp- what does Amit Shah read barring
transcripts of taped conversations? Suddenly, I realize a policeman and a
paramilitary shooter have taken position behind me.” He adds- “not out of interest in me but because the spot
offers a 360 degrees view.” There is no pause. Still, the first part of
sentence seems independent to the second, which is almost an afterthought. The
idea of intolerance, arrogant power, lack of privacy (snooping), military state
is immediately established. First sentence is a thought in writer’s mind,
cannot be argued against on facts, second is false alarm, but still cannot be
argued against as it is disowned by the author himself and discarded, once it has served the
purpose. One immediately forgets that a reporter with such bile against the
ruling dispensation is an invited get in a party function, which allows him to
write a scathing piece and publish it in a well-circulated daily. Salute to the
great piece of writing, criticizing something deeper than the Government, humiliating
the ideology that makes the party in power. I wonder, if any right wing writer
attended any Politburo meeting. If they did, Why did they not write like that? The line
between truth and lie in today’s journalism is fairly thin, and gorgeous
journalism is on one side of it, on the other is propaganda. There is no better
name for it.
Here is my tribute to Sujith, the young man hacked in Kerala and poorly reported by media (Click here to read)
My another write-up on similar subject - Nationalism and Intellectual Priesthood- Read Here
Comments
Everything is sensational and competition for TRP or securing bigger share for their advertisement revenue. It appears that media houses have patrons in politicians and industrialists and the storyboard is prepared suiting the interests of their patrons. It is hard to figure out the news that we are being fed is genuine or not.