|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 29 May 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Media watch To write or not to write the truth I once asked the following question, not from anyone in particular of course: Why don't pens, pencils and paper go on strike decrying journalists who will not write the truth?" I might have added the new tech instruments employed by writers such as word processors, printers, diskettes, thumb-drives etc., but that would not have added much to the issue. Truth of course is a strange creature for its authenticity is not easily tested not least of all because the instruments of evaluation are by definition subjective. And so each of us will defend the truths we believe in, subject to the caveat that their authenticity is informed by perception. As such my original question seems rather stupid. On the other hand, even within the universe of subjectivity, I believe we can talk of truth. Consider a great work of art, say, an epoch-defining painting or architectural masterpiece. Is it only because it is talked about that we are amazed by the Mona Lisa or the Taj Mahal? If the person who 'discovered' the Aukana Buddha Statue held his breath for a moment, was it only on account of a significant archaeological discovery or by the sheer force of the creative genius that emanated from the carved rock? I am not a connoisseur of art or architecture. I am not a student, even. And yet, I can fairly accurately categorise anything placed before me as being great, mediocre and something in between. So it is with truth, I believe. Especially in the matter of writing it. Bertold Brecht outlined five difficulties when it comes to writing the truth: "Nowadays, anyone who wishes to combat lies and ignorance and to write the truth must overcome at least five difficulties. He must have the courage to write the truth when truth is everywhere opposed; the keenness to recognise it, although it is everywhere concealed, the skill to manipulate it as a weapon, the judgement to select those in whose hands it will be effective, and the cunning to spread the truth among such persons." Brecht also points out that these problems are formidable not only to those writers living under fascist regimes, but even for those working under far more favourable circumstances, i.e. where civil liberties prevail. But what is so difficult about combating lies and ignorance in societies where comment is free, or at least far less constrained than in a totalitarian situation? What makes a person shy away from stating the obvious? What allows self-censorship to take the place of censorship? I think arrogance. And ego. Fear too, not of opening oneself to intimidation, arrest, detention or assassination, but more perversely, to censure from one's associates, friends, loved ones even. Sure, in life sometimes friendships and love, admiration of like-thinking people, is all-consuming. In the matter of dealing with the primordial solitude that is the pitiful inevitable of the human condition, we do need the presence of these private entities. Not as cure but salve. On the other hand, if this is the bottom line, why write at all? Isn't courage about writing what has to be written in the public interest even though it may isolate us from everything that made life livable? I believe that there is for all of us an at-the-end-of-the-day moment where we encounter ourselves, a moment which decides whether we can stand tall or whether we are condemned to cringing. A moment when we are charged not so much for having betrayed the weak, but for having betrayed ourselves, not so much for having increased our possession by pleasing the possessor, but having dispossessed ourselves, not so much for embracing fame by accepting the offer of the mighty, but for having made the choice to stand disgraced by ourselves. I do not know what that poignant moment is when we are made to choose between the comfort of the world as we've always known it and the mighty unknown entered only by speaking the truth that enables us to look at ourselves in the mirror, but I know it exists. I do not know what that line is that separates selfish and self-seeking man from man, but I know such a line exists. And I know that it has little to do with not allowing emotions to sway reason. One can listen to the logic of the heart without compromising the reason that flows from ethical consideration and vice versa of course, but only if one is in totally concord with the conditionalities pertaining to speaking the truth. Chief Cochise once said, "You must speak the truth so that your words may go like sunlight straight to our hearts." There is no penalty for deft twisting of event through word and metaphor except for the loss of faith and even that depends on the eloquence of the writer. And yet I firmly believe that being mischievous with words inevitably makes penetration of heart and thus the connection of man with man a difficult proposition. Truth, Brecht asserts, "is belligerent: it strikes out not only against falsehood, but against particular people who spread falsehood," Sometimes this striking out is of the kind that makes the writer of falsehood or the protector of the hypocrite obsolete in the public mind. People stop reading the person. What greater punishment is there for someone for whom writing is a vocation? Brecht adds that "shouting generalised demands to a world of friends and harmless persons" does not advance the cause of truth either. In both cases, writers do themselves a disservice. They may sleep well at night, but only if they've succeeded in intoxicating their sensibilities into oblivion. The night ends, sooner or later. They have to wake up. And then it is night again, it is once again that at-the-end-of-the-day moment. They are condemned to their worst nightmares possible, those that torment them through their incurable insomnia. Malinda Seneviratne Task of a newspaper Your setting up of a Media Watch is most welcome. I do hope that many readers will respond. As for me, who had been nurtured mostly by the newspapers in knowledge and in the improvement of the language, I will have some thing to say. Your quotation in the same page from Mark Twain is very revealing and appropriate. Editors are obviously under the restriction of those who have control and/or power over the papers. Hence, they will have to "modify" their writings as Mark Twain has said. Yet, they can stand up and be firm when what they had written or going to write is in the interest of the general public. Opinions from the public not only in line with the policy of the paper or pleasing to those who control it but also contrary to that will also have to be given equal publication. Views of all sections of the public will have to be accommodated and reflected in the papers. That will give the real picture of the happenings in the society and provide a better education to the public. No false propaganda should be permitted, or carried out. I would like to suggest a matter which the late Mr. Geo. P. Solomons, a prolific writer with lot of wit and satire, used to quarrel about with the editors. That is the payment to the ordinary contributors. That would certainly encourage the young persons to write and would also get more response from very knowledgeable persons which would go to improve the standard of the paper. Payment, at least for a worthy contribution, as is done by some papers in other countries may be implemented. Arul. Concept of free press The role of "state media" functioning within a so-called Democratic framework (free society) is a peculiar one. It is argued that the governments need this as a means of "defence" against unfair criticism. However, is the State trying to say that in the event of absence of a "mouthpiece" method such as this, there would never be praise of their work or fair-mindedness (even) in defence of the state's activity by the "free" journalists with strong mental balance and analytical capacity? This is absurd. One only needs to look at the West or even India to understand the role of the free unfettered press ! There are bouquets and brickbats, giving healthy balance. If there ever is anything defamatory there is always a legal remedy. Otherwise there is the remedy of regular official clarification of all ongoing major issues. Minor issues shall - always - bring the specific journalists into disrepute albeit still having absurd supporters among the public. This is an unavoidable characteristic of the human scene ! If there is, on the other hand, a fear in the state sector of a chorus of criticism that is virtually unanimous, then it is high time that government decided that this was indeed a genuine reflection of public opinion of a vast majority. It is the best method of ensuring reverses of policy and improved public administration. The state having media control is therefore un-democratic and negative to public interest. Rohan Jayawardane. Germans calls it Schadenfreude Some time or other every one of us is guilty of feeling a soupcon of pleasure at another person's misfortune. This is not an exclusively Sri Lankan trait though we are, I think, more given to it than most others. That it is well-known in other societies can be inferred from the fact that the Germans have a special word for it - schadenfreude. It is defined as 'malicious pleasure felt at another's misfortune'. Schadenfreude is by no means restricted to misfortunes suffered by one's enemies. It is felt just as often towards acquaintances and even friends. That is why most of us would be unwilling to admit, even to ourselves, that we have ever felt it. I came across a classic case of it in connection with the recent headline in a sports article in the Daily News (4th May) to the effect that a highly respected sportsman had been 'sacked' by the governing body of the sport for chairing a Selection Committee that had chosen his son to represent the country. What struck me was the readiness with which a very intelligent friend of mine accepted unquestioningly the story that the sportsman concerned had been sacked for his transgression. He had not read the subsequent correction published in the same newspaper by the governing body itself that made it clear that the eminent sportsman had not been sacked; nor had he been guilty of any offence. The published correction did not have the lurid headline of the article about the so-called 'sacking' and could therefore have passed unnoticed. This is a frequent dereliction of newspapers when they publish corrections of false stories that they have carried. They seldom give the correction the same prominence they gave the original article. They hardly ever apologise for the pain of mind they have caused. This incident gives rise to a number of lessons: Whenever we read something discreditable about another in the newspapers, we should think to ourselves that there might be another side to the story, until we hear the otherside we should not cast judgement on the accused even if he is a person of ill-repute, if the person concerned happens to be a friend we should try to find out from him what had really happened, and to form a judgement unfavourable to him without doing so is a symptom of schadenfreude that we should, after reading this article, recognise and be ashamed of. Charitha P. de Silva. Irresponsible advertising-please stop I refer to a toothpaste advertisement on TV, where a tug-o-war takes place. On one side, a group of small boys pulling a rope, and on the other, a single little boy pulling the rope with his teeth. The boy is supposed to have strong teeth because he brushes his teeth with this brand of toothpaste, and of course, he wins. This sets a bad example to the kids who watch the ad, as I have personally witnessed my own two little sons, and their friends try to test their strength with their teeth. For them, to be able to pull something with their teeth proves how strong they are. Another advertisement comes to mind when I write this in which a boy slides down the banister, because he is partial to a particular brand of margarine. How irresponsible and unethical can one get in order to market a product? More so, don't they realise the danger these types of ads pose? It won't be long when a catastrophe takes place, and it is a matter of time before they might have to face legal action. A concerned parent. Upton Sinclair on American Journalism "The social body to which we belong is at this moment passing through one of the greatest crises of its history, a colossal process which may best be likened to a birth. We have each of us a share in this process, we are to a greater or less extent responsible for its course. To make our judgments, we must have reports from other parts of the social body; we must know what our fellow-men, in all classes of society, in all parts of the world, are suffering, planning, doing. There arise emergencies which require swift decisions, under penalty of frightful waste as suffering. What if the nerves upon which we depend for knowledge of this social body should give us false reports of its condition?" "I was determined to get something done about the Condemned Meat Industry. I was determined to get something done about the atrocious conditions under which men, women and children were working the Chicago stockyards. In my efforts to get something done, I was like an animal in a cage. The bars of this cage were newspapers, which stood between me and the public; and inside the cage I roamed up and down, testing one bar after another, and finding them impossible to break." "Can you blame me if I am pursued by the thought of how much we could do to remedy social evils, if only we had an honest and disinterested press?" "American journalism is a class institution, serving the rich and spurning the poor." "We define journalism in America as the business and practice of presenting the news of the day in the interest of economic privilege." "When the masters of industry pay such sums for a newspaper, they buy not merely the building and the presses and the name; they buy what they call the "good-will" that is, they buy you. And they proceed to change your whole psychology everything that you believe about life. You might object to it, if you knew; but they do their work so subtly that you never guess what is happening to you!" "The story of what the newspapers did to American radicals in this crisis [WWI] would be unbelievable if you had not read the rest of this book. Thus, for example, the case of Bannwart, a Boston pacifist, one of a committee which called upon Senator Lodge to protest against the declaration of war. Senator Lodge lost his temper and struck Bannwart in the face; and all over the country went the report that Senator Lodge had been assaulted in his office by a pacifist! The Senator became a national hero; the Boston newspapers printed columns and columns about the incident, and when Bannwart called upon the Senator to admit the truth, he not only refused to admit it, but gave out for publication many telegrams congratulation him upon his heroism. No newspaper would publish Bannwart's side, and he was helpless for two years, until his suit for damages was about to come up in court; then the Senator gave way, and admitted in writing that he had struck the first blow. . . . the "Transcript" buried this apology of Senator Lodge in a remote corner. (The Brass Check, 1919)
|
|
||||||||
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
