1) You know how the profession of medicine is always targeted when doctors ask for donations, or abort a child or refuse to treat a patient for many reasons like lack of money or a disease like HIV-AIDS or leprosy or give a diagnosis even though they might not be qualified for it? And at times like these they quote the famous Hippocratic Oath, a few line of which I too, am going to use to make a point.
".....I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
.....If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."
So despite this oath, doctors still fail to perform their duties "to the best of their abilities".
Anyway, my point is, is there any such oath that Journalists take? Because there really should be one. Not to say that they'd follow it though, considering the lack of common sense or humanity that some of the journalists today possess.
When the media needs to show a tragedy or something along those lines that depicts bloodshed and violence and injury, isn't there some sort of rule that you shouldn't show or print gory pictures? That showing blood splattered on the streets or a cut off arm of a person doesn't actually prove a point and there are a million and one ways to do it otherwise. Like taking a recent example, page ONE of a popular daily newspaper dated August 3, 2010, has the picture of a man with blood spewing from his leg in an incident of violence in Baramulla district of Srinagar. Or the haunting picture of the child who died in the Bhopal Gas tragedy that now adorns every poster on the streets. Or a recent page One picture of people washing the blood off the roads. Whatever happened to being sensitive towards the feelings of the readers??
And not just print.I was watching the news on a television news channel that featured the recent Leh floods. The correspondent spoke to many survivors of their near death experience. But not only that, they even spoke to survivors who'd lost everything from family to property to cattle. Alright. So maybe its required. But do they really need to be so pushy and so insensitive about it?Do they have to ask a father to describe his son being washed away in the floods before his eyes? Do they need to ask a poor shop keeper how his shop came crumbling down and with it crumbled his life savings and earnings? Why??? Just because you need a story? Do you think the audience cannot fathom the gravity of the situation without watching a family cry over its lost members?
2) As I rejoined the much talked about and always in the news "Facebook", it had barely been a day and my inbox was flooded by, believe it or not, 89 requests!! Now I had no idea I was that popular or that people missed me so much. Feels kinda nice, no doubt. But then I took some time to think about it. Why would people, whom I haven't spoken to in a million and one years, want to add me as a friend...?Even when I was using Facebook earlier, we still never so much as acknowledged each others' presence. Take classmates in school for example...or batch mates even. Yeah, so we shared the same classes. We were in the same school. but we barely spoke(and in some cases Never spoke) unless it was to..well..call out attendance or something. Take seniors or juniors in school or college. Why would they add me?I ain't anything special. Then why? We never hung out together. Or even take distant, and I mean Really really distant relatives whom I have to ask my parents about and even then have no clue who they are. I know I sound terribly rude and gloating with self importance and all, but I truly want to know... Why do people add people on their friends' list if they don't intend to ever keep in touch with them once they're added on the list? Don't get me wrong, but this is something alot of people have wondered and I'm simply voicing their doubts as well.
I did ask a couple of people about their opinion in this matter. And I got a few responses that make sense:
a) because some of them remember the old times and its a case of nostalgia.
b) because they might need your help some day
c) because its a popularity contest for some, greater the number of friends on your list, the more popular you are
Couldn't think of anymore of my own. But who knows what is it about Facebook that makes people go crazy.
3) Some days back somebody said something to me that drove me mad. And not in a good way, definitely. I was told, in a very casual, matter-of-fact way, "Fictional books never taught me anything." And it made my blood boil. I couldn't imagine what made that person even think of such a thing, let alone say it out loud. I think back to all the books I've read since I was a kid and I realize that everything I've learnt in life, other than of course from my parents, has come from books. And I rarely read non-fiction. I couldn't imagine picking up a book and not feeling a thrill as I breathed in its familiar smell. I'd flip through the pages and I could see a whole new world begin to unfold before me. A world that will teach me something I've never known before; of experiences both good and bad, of love lost and found, of life in all its glory and misery, of happiness and gloom, of judgments on life and actions, in favour and against, of seasons that come and go, of times cherished and forgotten, of moments of laughter and tears.
I have learnt to be myself through the lives of those I read about.
They might not be real people, but their emotions are real. What the writer feels is real. And what I've seen through the characters' eyes is real.
I think of Shakespeare, at this point, and I wonder if a man as great as he, would be turning over in his grave at the innocent statement made by my friend...
No comments:
Post a Comment