CRITICS and CRITICISM
Surprisingly what comes off unsolicited
and in abundance is criticism. Tendering critical inputs leading to refining or
redefining specific developmental processes is most welcome, when it abides by
the stated goal of refining a process. Does it obtain in reality? The question looms large if one patiently
evaluates the merits of such criticism. The above observation of mine emerges
from the on-going activity in Indian media in the name of debate or
brainstorming sessions on most events.
What is wrong in debating an issue of contemporary
relevance?
Contemporary items should figure in
intellectual discussions or discourses. To be of intellectual value, the
participants should legitimately be authentically
qualified to spell out remedies or redress to an impasse. Without prejudice,
one can notice that on most occasions, the participants reel off views driven
by the ideology of their political slants. An in-built deficit in this
arrangement is the constitution of the team formulated for the purpose. Even items of judicial importance are viewed
in the light of the ‘avowed’ philosophy of each member. Space research –related
projects or medically significant decisions of any arrangement is debated upon
by persons who are true laymen for such high profile technicalities. There is
some degree of clarity in National media in opting for a balanced panel of
persons with proven proficiency in the domain chosen for deliberation on a
given day. Yet, the desire to tender
serious objection to any new proposal as of being ‘anti-people’ is a ready tool
with some critics keen to cause a flutter among the gullible viewers. It has
turned out to be a routine to project an image that the country is through
diabolic straits. Perhaps these narratives liberally dent our image in other
countries ready to buy such detraction.
The scenario is simultaneously complex
and confusing in the varied media outlets in Tamil Nadu. I am baffled to note
that several moderators lack moderation themselves, in that they try building a
narrative bordering on skewed ideology than on sticking to truth. Instead of
bringing out varied viewpoints, they ensure presenting a distorted version to
portray the ‘political opponent’ in bad light. Their strategy is to curb the
expression of details or data that would disarm their avowed stance; this is
done by creating or permitting a plethora
of voices –all at the same time causing din and disarray to frustrate
effective rebuttal.
It is never my attempt look down upon the
merits of the persons on such discussion panels. What eludes my comprehension
is “how is it that nearly the same set of people appear in debates relating to
Indian constitution, civil supplies , sanitation-related intricacies in urban
planning and the efficacy of defence armour like high-profile combat aircrafts,
consequences of Brexit on Indian economy
- to name a few.
Our observations about the regional news
channels are further strengthened by a flip-flop stand taken by these panelists
on varied themes. It necessitates and fortifies the impression that such
panelists oblige some master or the other who orchestrates a narrative ideal
for his/her political prospects. Even more perplexing is- that the same
panelist chooses to project diametrically opposed preferences as [s]he appears
in different channels.
When India came out with an indigenous
vaccine against Covid, without batting an eyelid, critics dispelled the
efficacy of the vaccine [were they
medicalexperts?Biomedicalformulators?Biotechnologists?Virologists?Immun-oglobulin
designers? Stereo-chemists? Polymer
chemists ?] triggering a sense of fear
among people that the vaccine may cause harm to them.
With the pandemic making a rapid sweep of
its ‘second wave’ the shameless critics accused the administration of not
providing vaccine-safeguard to people. When comfortable, the critics would say
that containment of Covid spread can be achieved only by lockdown. They would later
flip flop saying that our economy needs to survive and that lockdowns are no
solution to pandemic.
In plain terms there is a grand mental
pandemic among critics ready to flare-up hostilities instead of mellowing
emotions and avoiding the billowing of smoke of suspicions. People try to thrive
on the fear in the minds of citizens. The game would never end unless, fielding
of such orchestrated discussions stop forthwith. If
such skewed presentations keep appearing in channels it would not be long
before viewers choose to mercilessly boycott those programmes. Prof. K. Raman
No comments:
Post a Comment