A dear friend recently queried me on why I felt obliged to constantly defend myself. She was referring to a comment I had made on a Facebook post. The comment had elicited a response in which I felt the author had misconstrued my original intent. Under a probably misplaced apprehension that perhaps overestimated the significance of a Facebook post and also "fearing" that the misinterpretation would snowball with subsequent posts, I felt that a clarification was called for and posted one. The fact is that my attempt was at clarification rather than defence but I really dont see a problem with either of these when greater clarity is called for. Also looking back, I sense that the veiled admonishment came from my admittedly inadequate armchair engagements with the Sania Mirza/K Laxman imbroglio where I insisted (and still insist) that Ms Mirza had no reason to defend her Indianness. K Laxman however does.
Perhaps I was being overly pedantic. However, my attempts to "defend" myself to my friend, and ultimately this little tract was impelled by what I consider to be an issue in discussions and debates on current events and socio-politics particularly in the webverse.
Twenty-four hour broadcasts and the internet promises the opportunity for almost untlimited access to information and news. A vast number of networking sites and forums (social, professional and otherwise) enable us to comment on or critically engage with and share our opinions. All this has been offset and undermined by another factor. The modern version of the "comeback", now more commonly referred to as sound-bites, has become more important than actual information/knowledge exchange. Everyone is intent on outdoing the other in generating (I have used this term on purpose) the ultimate retort.
Don't get me wrong. I am as enamoured as anyone of a good comeback defined by brevity and wit. It neither demands nor requires defence. One hears it, one admires its author for the wit, and perhaps it will induce laughter or even just a smile. And if it is really good, perhaps it will find publication in a compilation of great quotes.
In the current era of factoid news resulting from the yeast-like proliferation of "news" channels, the comeback has become the be-all and end-all of what could otherwise be rational discussions. Talk-show hosts today cut off guests if they take "too long" to explain their position on issues, leaving (even encouraging) the audience to make their evaluations based on who had the "best line" rather than who had the most valid argument.
I was recently an unfortunate, if not totally unwitting victim of this mindset. Approached by two young men with a camera and a microphone for some comments on societal attitudes towards homosexuals, I consented under the impression that it would be a serious discussion on social and legal issues.
Despite shooting quite a bit of footage on the invalidity of socio-cultural prejudices and the Supreme Court intervention, the final output was the fluff piece that you may have had the misfortune to watch. The young lady in the clip who requotes "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," read the statement on the internet and was unaware of or perhaps even wilfully avoided the reams of easily accessible counters to this fallacy. I don't know if she took the time to explain her stance but the "evil" skeptic in me believes otherwise. However, the fact that the producers of the said video chose this format to deal with a serious issue highlights a malaise that affects the general populace today. A malaise that the entertainment industry, the market and politicians have used to their advantage.
Modern print, broadcast and "corporate" cyber- media prefer a vastly "dumbed down" uncritical audience that allows them to fob off badly researched, written and produced content that cater to emotion than the mind. This also sustains their lifeline, the advertisers and ultimately the political apparatus that has now a relatively unquestioning public whose thoughts they can mould to their ends. The proliferation of reality shows sustained by a public with dreams of their own"15 minutes" and a possibly quick path to stardom; the "half hour" TV soap with less than 10 minutes (conservative estimates put it at around 8 minutes) of actual plot development; so-called docu-channels with uncritical programming featuring ancient alien visitations, "unexplained" supernatural occurrences, bizarre conspiracy theories, "alternative" sciences and more has flooded the airwaves. In its wake an unquestioning, uncritical populace thrash around convinced of the infallibility of what they have "seen" and "heard".
The current "flash" format adopted by the broadcast media for news dissemination ensures the sensationalization of the trivial and the undermining of the relevant. In this milieu, the body politic succumbs to a short attention span and forgoes critical analysis for blind acceptance. "Thinking" has now been outsourced.
It is in this milieu that my attempts at undermining the larger trend towards knee-jerk reactions based on shallow comprehensions is marked by a probably uptight quest for clarity and evidentiary support. To me, this becomes all the more important at a time when statements are drawn out of context through state sanctioned bullying and quickly labelled treasonous. It contributes to a slippery slope where free thought is curbed through coercion or willing submission and dissent as a tool for social change becomes overwhelmed by notions of "patriotic" absolutism.
Perhaps I was being overly pedantic. However, my attempts to "defend" myself to my friend, and ultimately this little tract was impelled by what I consider to be an issue in discussions and debates on current events and socio-politics particularly in the webverse.
Twenty-four hour broadcasts and the internet promises the opportunity for almost untlimited access to information and news. A vast number of networking sites and forums (social, professional and otherwise) enable us to comment on or critically engage with and share our opinions. All this has been offset and undermined by another factor. The modern version of the "comeback", now more commonly referred to as sound-bites, has become more important than actual information/knowledge exchange. Everyone is intent on outdoing the other in generating (I have used this term on purpose) the ultimate retort.
Don't get me wrong. I am as enamoured as anyone of a good comeback defined by brevity and wit. It neither demands nor requires defence. One hears it, one admires its author for the wit, and perhaps it will induce laughter or even just a smile. And if it is really good, perhaps it will find publication in a compilation of great quotes.
In the current era of factoid news resulting from the yeast-like proliferation of "news" channels, the comeback has become the be-all and end-all of what could otherwise be rational discussions. Talk-show hosts today cut off guests if they take "too long" to explain their position on issues, leaving (even encouraging) the audience to make their evaluations based on who had the "best line" rather than who had the most valid argument.
I was recently an unfortunate, if not totally unwitting victim of this mindset. Approached by two young men with a camera and a microphone for some comments on societal attitudes towards homosexuals, I consented under the impression that it would be a serious discussion on social and legal issues.
Despite shooting quite a bit of footage on the invalidity of socio-cultural prejudices and the Supreme Court intervention, the final output was the fluff piece that you may have had the misfortune to watch. The young lady in the clip who requotes "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," read the statement on the internet and was unaware of or perhaps even wilfully avoided the reams of easily accessible counters to this fallacy. I don't know if she took the time to explain her stance but the "evil" skeptic in me believes otherwise. However, the fact that the producers of the said video chose this format to deal with a serious issue highlights a malaise that affects the general populace today. A malaise that the entertainment industry, the market and politicians have used to their advantage.
Modern print, broadcast and "corporate" cyber- media prefer a vastly "dumbed down" uncritical audience that allows them to fob off badly researched, written and produced content that cater to emotion than the mind. This also sustains their lifeline, the advertisers and ultimately the political apparatus that has now a relatively unquestioning public whose thoughts they can mould to their ends. The proliferation of reality shows sustained by a public with dreams of their own"15 minutes" and a possibly quick path to stardom; the "half hour" TV soap with less than 10 minutes (conservative estimates put it at around 8 minutes) of actual plot development; so-called docu-channels with uncritical programming featuring ancient alien visitations, "unexplained" supernatural occurrences, bizarre conspiracy theories, "alternative" sciences and more has flooded the airwaves. In its wake an unquestioning, uncritical populace thrash around convinced of the infallibility of what they have "seen" and "heard".
The current "flash" format adopted by the broadcast media for news dissemination ensures the sensationalization of the trivial and the undermining of the relevant. In this milieu, the body politic succumbs to a short attention span and forgoes critical analysis for blind acceptance. "Thinking" has now been outsourced.
It is in this milieu that my attempts at undermining the larger trend towards knee-jerk reactions based on shallow comprehensions is marked by a probably uptight quest for clarity and evidentiary support. To me, this becomes all the more important at a time when statements are drawn out of context through state sanctioned bullying and quickly labelled treasonous. It contributes to a slippery slope where free thought is curbed through coercion or willing submission and dissent as a tool for social change becomes overwhelmed by notions of "patriotic" absolutism.
Susheel
August, 2014
