Not dead quite yet

The general consensus here is that journalism is not dying quite yet; it is just reinventing itself. 

The problem is not so much that people have stopped reading news (indeed newspapers such as the New York Times have increased circulation both online and in print) but that advertising revenue is falling as classifieds and ads move online.  A new economic infrastructure needs to be invented to support the struggling industry, but while newspapers may be in trouble, good journalism is as much in demand as ever. A New Yorker piece will always be in demand.

I am reassured to hear of this, studying as I am in America (Columbia J-School) and as a person who would like to work in this country for a few years before going elsewhere.

This morning, a professor pointed out the evolution of mass communication from Homer’s times to today.  In the initial years, progress in medium was slow in coming with thousand year gaps in between. For example the invention of the papyrus in Egypt could only be put to use thousands of years later when the Greek alphabet came into being. But from the 20^th century onwards, the gaps have closed in to tens of years and more recently to two to five years. 

Today, although the fundamentals, i.e. the concept of journalism, is much in demand, a shift in medium towards New Media means that we are moving from papyrus to paper in a new way.  We just need to figure out the new economic and distribution models that will make the switch successful.

And to line the pockets of journalists with green…

 

 

Strike and you’re out

Would you say the child sees the world through the mother for the greater part of their lives? 

 

The guy, whom I later learned was the editor of a particular supplement of India’s leading daily newspaper, asked the question unflinchingly.  This is a leading question, with a yes or no answer.  Maybe the guy at the other end agrees with you, but the idea still originated in the head of the journalist making this unethical in my books.  Strike one.

 

But then I was in the office of the features section where Kollywood celebs and idhayam oil advertisers are given maximum head space.  A man in front of me flips through photographs of a fat Kollywood heroine of yesteryear posing her pudgy children for the Mother’s Day special.  These are the shady spaces where journalistic ethics takes a backspace, where you enter knowing full well what is on the other side of the door.

 

So when asked to cover a ‘Mother and Child’ exhibit, it goes without saying that the piece needs to be positive.  My boss admits that she is twisting my arm a little, and since I know very little about art, I’m certainly not the right person for the job anyway.  Strike two and three?

 

So I go and see the exhibit, and I’m not too impressed.  The art I honestly can’t judge, and neither the sculpture.  The photography I can try, but my impressions are not too flattering.  The women in the photos are painfully aware of the photographer—they seem to be posing.

 

There is a middle aged woman playing a hand of cards.  Behind her is a mirror which reflects her partner, a younger woman with an enigmatic smile trying to imitate Mona Lisa.  Except that smile would be one that you or I would flash at a photographer. 

 

So what must I do?  Strike four.

 

By the way, I saw a guy designing an article about the movie ‘Sevval’.  The hero, wearing checked boxers that necessarily show below his lungi, holding a spear in his hand is riding a giant cock.  I’m not kidding you.

editing

In photojournalism class yesterday, the professor told us that some photographs of American soldiers in Iraq were digitally altered to create drama.   This reminded me of the Dove Real Beauty campaign.

 

Ignoring the more obvious angle of beauty and the media, how many images that we see everyday are actually unaltered?  How many of our favourite celebrities really look the way they do?  So what is reality?

Life follows art

Pictures are worth a thousand words?

A lone Jewish settler challenges Israeli security officers during clashes that erupted as authorities cleared the West Bank settlement of Amona, east of the Palestinian town of Ramallah. Thousands of troops in riot gear and on horseback clashed with hundreds of stone-throwing Jewish settlers holed up in this illegal West Bank outpost after Israel’s Supreme Court cleared the way of demolition of nine homes at the site.   February 1, 2006; From: http://www.pulitzer.org/ 

 

 

Guy Debord’s theories are absolutely fascinating.  He’s written in Society of the Spectacle that since the 1960s, we have been living increasingly in a visual world.  No one will disagree, I’m sure; these days, it is easier to watch the latest songs on MTV than to go to a music concert.  How often do we actually interact with the bands we love?  The television generally mediates our interactions.

 

Take this:

As Benny Hinn slaps the forehead of the wheel chair bound lady suffering from multiple sclerosis, she swoons.  Many hands reach upward to catch her.  When she recovers, Hallelujah! She can walk! 

 

 

 

Benny Hinn in India.  From: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/

 

Televangelism (TV-evangelism) has brought religion to our homes and made a superstar out of Benny Hinn.  Sitting in their bedrooms, people can get their daily dose of god through this man who, to all purposes, is nothing more than an image on TV.  And the medium is so powerful that he has millions of devotees in India. 

 

When one such devotee (lets assume a cancer patient) goes to a live Benny Hinn show, he himself becomes part of the spectacle on TV.  In the grand production, where Hinn is the “hero”, the devotee plays the supporting part of the “cured cancer-patient” with believable charm, further propagating the spectacle to the other viewers in their bedrooms.

 

Or this:

 

A man-woman romantic relationship is now defined by the ideal romance from bollywood.  Indian weddings are becoming grander with the groom arriving on a horse, dance shows, exotic costumes and the whole shebang, and in doing so they are creating new relationships for the new century, mediated by the image.

 

So, what is a spectacle? Guy Debord described the spectacle as “a social relationship between people mediated by images”. 

 

So, life follows art??