Vidyut Latay
I am an immigrant in the USA studying here at SFSU. Along with the American news, I watch online streaming news clips aired from my country of origin – India to keep myself updated of what’s making news there. A recent news flash shocked me beyond belief. An extremist group barged inside the Fine Arts Faculty of The Maharaja University of Baroda (a.k.a. Vadodara) and forced the police to arrest a resident student, Chandramohan in that faculty. He was arrested and sent to the jail for the crime of “obsence art.” This religious group claims that the student in question had caused pain to the religious sentiments of the Hindus by depicting Hindu God and Goddesses in a derogatory fashion through their creations.
The surprising fact is that the paintings of the student in question were not for public display. The paintings were arranged in one of the faculty rooms for the examiners assessment during the examination in the faculty. The student in question was held in police custody for 5 days before being released on bail. The dean, supported the student, and was suspended by the University immediately. In a public interview the dean broke down and said that this is a battle that needs reinforcements. The entire Arts fraternity in the country has shown solidarity and supported his stance. They have got together to lend their support to these student. More than a fight for “fair and just” treatment for these students, this is one for the artistic expression and freedom in the world’s largest democracy – India!
This issue disturbs me very much for a reason… I am an alumnus of the same university. I have fond memories of my alma mater. The fine arts department is one of the most prestigious in the country, where people from different parts of the country come to hone and learn the art of creative expression. While I was a student there, I had great regard for the department, and I got the feeling that I am in the midst of great thinkers and artists. To see the same place making headlines (for the wrong reasons!) enrages me.
Artistic expression needs to blossom without any restriction and/or attention. In the last few years, this extremist group has dictated its terms in the university. This group shows zero tolerance to other religions and resorts to violence frequently. Such “cultural policing” will definitely take its toll on the quality of artists and their creations in India. Creations cannot be done to please one group or another. It is done to express ones talent and ability and has to be “free flowing”.
India has been the land where majority of the religions have originated from. History books will reveal that the people of India have been extremely tolerant to “difference of opinion” especially in the case of religion. The teachings of Buddha are a case in point. Gautam Buddha’s (Siddhartha) preachings were very different from the ones taught in the mythological scriptures of Hindus. The people of India were so tolerant that they let people choose the religion of their choice.
Artists are in a limbo due to this incident. An artist is known by his creations and exhibitions are a must for this. The limelight makes the creations most accessible and vulnerable! Apparently an exhibition with a provocative name in a big city makes it more vulnerable to “moral police” attack.
In conclusion, I feel such extremists should never be allowed to have it “their way.” In a democracy every individual has a right to express oneself. I strongly feel that no intervention is needed to safe guard the sentiments of the people and the sanctity of the religion. God is so vast and pure. Religion (supposedly) gets one closer to God. Religion should bring people together not force them to bash up people. Furthermore, a religious and extremist group has no business interfering in the matter of an educational institute – its autonomy is at stake and we should do everything to save it from such vested interests.
References:
Art Controversy: Chandramohan speaks out
www.ndtv.com
http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/15/stories/2007051515401200.htm
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20070511&fname=vadodaraart&sid=2
Friday, May 18, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Children's Television
Vidyut Latay
In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy lots of discussion are being held about how and why a lonely student at the campus just succumbed to the idea of killing so many innocent lives? From where did he derive this idea of “complete freedom” through a mass homicide? During this period of tragedy, in one of the “bold initiatives” of the media, to investigate a killer’s mind, Anderson Cooper, from CNN, interviewed an infamous homicide convict, who is currently serving a rigorous sentence for his crime in a county jail. The man was asked how he arrived at his idea of carrying such heinous act. He answered; it was the video games that gave him the idea. The sheer pleasure of the bullets popping out of a cartoon hero, enhanced by the animation sound and visual effects seem to have made a terrific impact on him. His answer and his case, though is a one in million case out of all the viewers of this popular format; video games, the answer certainly cannot be overlooked and forgotten as some random blabbering of a mad man. It is no harm in deriving some intelligence and sanity through such insane and intangible actions in our society, of which media is an integral part.
Video games and Animated cartoons form the core content of today’s children programming.
Millions of children all around the globe today, before even uttering “Mummy” and “Daddy” properly know the names and titles of their programs and television channels on which their “best friends”-the cartoon characters meet them. Parents are more than happy to see their child “glued” to its baby chair and also “glued” to the television or the PC monitor, and why not? The child’s concentration helps the elders to stick on to their life and everyday activities without any interference from the children. So basically the child’s concentration helps them (parents) to get less distracted while carrying on their own work. But the larger issue here is whether the today’s children program content really is the best content that we can offer to its consumers- the children.
Children programming has always been a matter of great concern and debate all over the world. As there is no magic formula yet discovered to stop a baby from crying, similarly we adults still have not been able to strike that magic formula to make a vulnerable, innocent child smile and laugh! Today’s loud cartoons and violent animations seem to be the only formula we have been able to crack to entertain children. Children’s programming since decades now has been confined mostly to cartoons. These cartoons, most of them are extremely loud and violent. Perhaps to make the message absolutely loud and clear and to avoid the little viewer’s mind to waver to other activities. These cartoons are made loud and “larger than life” in every aspect, to completely capture the children’s attention. I always have had a curiosity about what is it exactly in these cartoons that the children like? Do children really want to see these “unconventional looking human beings?” Has anybody from the programming division of a children’s channel ever thought that there could be some other form of entertainment too which a child would equally appreciate? Is it any psychological solution, or mere a convenient economic solution to arrive at a worldwide consensus on cartoon programming? Thanks to globalization and the heavy syndication of English programs in non-English speaking countries in the world, the characters as Scooby-doo, Tom and Jerry, One Piece, Pokémon Battle Frontier, and others have reached the living room of almost all children in the developing countries.
I had a very unsuccessful debate with a friend of mine regarding these cartoon programs. She had two school going children. These children were always glued to their TV cartoons at any time of the day! They even did not have the time to greet me whenever I entered their home, needless to mention my greetings to them also went unanswered. I debated with her so many times saying that this whole cartoon world, which is bizarrely unreal, is taking away children’s time, energy, and making them live in a complete make believe world which is awfully unjust to them. Not to mention the social habits of these tiny tots have completely gone for a ride. Parents, instead of being concerned about their children’s passiveness, are in awe of their children not blinking their eyes while watching this spate of cartoons. Parents attribute their non-blinking habit to that of their children’s unbroken concentration. I was stunned seeing her least bothered about my concerns! I could imagine as a child, I doing the same thing when my grand father narrated me stories of real life heroes like Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda. Perhaps I also did not blink my eyes at all while paying attention to his stories. But today’s children do not blink their eyes while looking at a TV monitor and these strange loud cartoon characters! Can my experience be equated with theirs? I asked one of the siblings about his favorite program on television. This five year old was quick, as the speed of the light, to list in front of me some of the names of programs that sounded as some extra terrestrial language to me! I felt as if I belong to a generation in which the human language was yet not discovered. I plainly asked him, “What is that you like in them?” He could not answer me even a word, his younger brother came to his rescue. He said that he likes those guns going around and all the jumping, chasing and shouting from the buildings. The mother looked at me completely satisfied and happy with her child’s intelligent answer.
I was surprised. If today’s programming cannot develop a child’s reasoning then what is the point of the whole content? How is the child going to grow if he is just going to just stick to that TV chair while watching his cartoons?
The children’s act of 1990 in the US says that “A central goal of the FCC's new rules is to provide parents and other members of the public with greater information about educational television programs. This will help parents guide their children's television viewing and also encourage an ongoing dialogue between the public and TV stations about TV station performance under the Children's Television Act.”
Also, in the essay “Changing the way we think” Minnow and Lamay explain the basis about the formulation of this Children’s act. The act was formed by the joint consensus of ideas between child advocates, parents, industry representatives, and other concerned citizens.
There is no doubt that only an adult can make or influence any law in a country, but thinking of ideas for a children’s program is not similar to any process of law making. So why do the network stations have to restrain themselves to an adult group of thinkers to formulate the content for a children’s program? Can’t we take the help of kids’ themselves for formulating a children program content?
HUNGAMA TV, India’s premier kids channel was launched in 2004. The channel has a panel of children that approves the programming. These children members addressed as “Captains” meet every quarter, discuss new ideas, and present their feedback on all the aspects such as, content, marketing, and distribution of the channel. The channel, recently bought by the Disney in India, is perhaps the only channel that has programming that is not loaded with cartoons and animation only. The content is heavily driven with interviews, quiz shows, and fiction programming.
I have always been amused to know whether children really appreciate these cartoon characters. Do these cartoons appeal to the children, or is it the advertisers, who find it as the best choice for the children? Children’s programming unfortunately today does not give the children any idea about the real world outside their TV boxes. I feel it is all right to keep the kid in the nice fairy land of dolls and fancy dreams, but during their growing years they need to get a glimpse of the happenings in the grown up world too! There is no constructive activity happening all along when the child is watching the current programs. Parents feel cartoon to be the safest option, as they are too uncertain regarding the “adult human content” on television and the internet. They are always wary about the depiction of bold visuals, which in most cases is improper for a child, and also the adults are too pressed for time to sit with the child and help him/her out to understand the content. I am not a psychologist, but I often wonder, is the child interested more in the visual element of the cartoons , or is he attracted to the amazingly loud and the jarring sound effects attached with these images.
I don’t want to unduly criticize children’s programming. But I certainly feel that today’s programming is training the kids to become mere “couch potatoes”, utterly passive, lacking the sense of initiative, and completely making their senses numb with loud, extremely violent and jarring images and sound. Some new methods need to be thought of to entertain children. The Centre for Media Literacy in the US has proposed lot of ideas and actions that can be simulated at home by parents to help children understand media better. For example: shooting home videos, discussing with children about their favorite characters and stories on TV.
Video games, cartoons, internet sites, and the new media; all together contribute towards a child’s passive viewing. The children’s act recommends “educational” and “informational” content for children. Children today are anyways loaded with other class and homework learning. I wonder how any kind of formal “educational content” through television would ever help children. What perhaps is the need of the hour is a broader outlook towards children programming. The programs need to make these children feel important, and most importantly children need to get entertained, in a way where they are free to form their own perspectives and opinions on each and every aspect of life such as, art, music, politics, science, education, and sports. In the current scenario of programming, the child is only absorbing the visuals/information without any guidance about what to do with that gathered information.
As a content developer for television program, I think the creators need to make a child think, to reason, to assert, to opine, to discuss, to question, and most importantly to experience the “real” life. I would be happy to see a program where a group of 3-4 kids between 10 and 14 years old, question the future presidential candidate of the US about their idea for the development of children, the history of the US, and their overall ideas for children’s education and development. Apart from the content of human history, geography, animals, and travel on channels like Discovery and National Geographic, the children do not have any other avenue to watch similar content being spoken and made to understand at their level through any of these children’s networks. Would it not be fascinating to see a child in a program, carrying his/ her pet to a vet, to understand the perfect way of managing their pets? The art world today is fast getting eroded with the computerization and the invasion of the technology in every sphere of our life. Today’s children should not lose the opportunity to understand the by-gone, glorious era of paintings, dance, and music. The children programs need to develop interesting ways and means to attract these sharp and stimulating minds in the age of computers and internet to appreciate the field of arts.
Finally, the content developers, in the business of devising content for children need to appreciate and accept the limitations of their intelligence in today’s age to fully understand the demands of a child in the 21st century. The world has moved much faster than anybody imagined. Television was not even present when I was born; today the development of a fetus can be studied on television.
The emphasis on violent actions is the most worrisome factor of these current cartoon programs. Violence through cartoons leaves an indelible mark in the minds of these tiny tots. While growing up some of these young ones are inspired to enact the stunts of their “unreal” heroes seen on the television and video screens. And one moment of adventure with some intrinsic insanity of an individual can shake this whole civil society. Media cannot perhaps find answers to treat this “mental insanity,” but what it could definitely do is to mellow the depiction of images that can prevent an insane from expressing his “media inspired insanity.”
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Television_Act
2. http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k7/apr/apr397.php
3. http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article482.html
In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy lots of discussion are being held about how and why a lonely student at the campus just succumbed to the idea of killing so many innocent lives? From where did he derive this idea of “complete freedom” through a mass homicide? During this period of tragedy, in one of the “bold initiatives” of the media, to investigate a killer’s mind, Anderson Cooper, from CNN, interviewed an infamous homicide convict, who is currently serving a rigorous sentence for his crime in a county jail. The man was asked how he arrived at his idea of carrying such heinous act. He answered; it was the video games that gave him the idea. The sheer pleasure of the bullets popping out of a cartoon hero, enhanced by the animation sound and visual effects seem to have made a terrific impact on him. His answer and his case, though is a one in million case out of all the viewers of this popular format; video games, the answer certainly cannot be overlooked and forgotten as some random blabbering of a mad man. It is no harm in deriving some intelligence and sanity through such insane and intangible actions in our society, of which media is an integral part.
Video games and Animated cartoons form the core content of today’s children programming.
Millions of children all around the globe today, before even uttering “Mummy” and “Daddy” properly know the names and titles of their programs and television channels on which their “best friends”-the cartoon characters meet them. Parents are more than happy to see their child “glued” to its baby chair and also “glued” to the television or the PC monitor, and why not? The child’s concentration helps the elders to stick on to their life and everyday activities without any interference from the children. So basically the child’s concentration helps them (parents) to get less distracted while carrying on their own work. But the larger issue here is whether the today’s children program content really is the best content that we can offer to its consumers- the children.
Children programming has always been a matter of great concern and debate all over the world. As there is no magic formula yet discovered to stop a baby from crying, similarly we adults still have not been able to strike that magic formula to make a vulnerable, innocent child smile and laugh! Today’s loud cartoons and violent animations seem to be the only formula we have been able to crack to entertain children. Children’s programming since decades now has been confined mostly to cartoons. These cartoons, most of them are extremely loud and violent. Perhaps to make the message absolutely loud and clear and to avoid the little viewer’s mind to waver to other activities. These cartoons are made loud and “larger than life” in every aspect, to completely capture the children’s attention. I always have had a curiosity about what is it exactly in these cartoons that the children like? Do children really want to see these “unconventional looking human beings?” Has anybody from the programming division of a children’s channel ever thought that there could be some other form of entertainment too which a child would equally appreciate? Is it any psychological solution, or mere a convenient economic solution to arrive at a worldwide consensus on cartoon programming? Thanks to globalization and the heavy syndication of English programs in non-English speaking countries in the world, the characters as Scooby-doo, Tom and Jerry, One Piece, Pokémon Battle Frontier, and others have reached the living room of almost all children in the developing countries.
I had a very unsuccessful debate with a friend of mine regarding these cartoon programs. She had two school going children. These children were always glued to their TV cartoons at any time of the day! They even did not have the time to greet me whenever I entered their home, needless to mention my greetings to them also went unanswered. I debated with her so many times saying that this whole cartoon world, which is bizarrely unreal, is taking away children’s time, energy, and making them live in a complete make believe world which is awfully unjust to them. Not to mention the social habits of these tiny tots have completely gone for a ride. Parents, instead of being concerned about their children’s passiveness, are in awe of their children not blinking their eyes while watching this spate of cartoons. Parents attribute their non-blinking habit to that of their children’s unbroken concentration. I was stunned seeing her least bothered about my concerns! I could imagine as a child, I doing the same thing when my grand father narrated me stories of real life heroes like Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda. Perhaps I also did not blink my eyes at all while paying attention to his stories. But today’s children do not blink their eyes while looking at a TV monitor and these strange loud cartoon characters! Can my experience be equated with theirs? I asked one of the siblings about his favorite program on television. This five year old was quick, as the speed of the light, to list in front of me some of the names of programs that sounded as some extra terrestrial language to me! I felt as if I belong to a generation in which the human language was yet not discovered. I plainly asked him, “What is that you like in them?” He could not answer me even a word, his younger brother came to his rescue. He said that he likes those guns going around and all the jumping, chasing and shouting from the buildings. The mother looked at me completely satisfied and happy with her child’s intelligent answer.
I was surprised. If today’s programming cannot develop a child’s reasoning then what is the point of the whole content? How is the child going to grow if he is just going to just stick to that TV chair while watching his cartoons?
The children’s act of 1990 in the US says that “A central goal of the FCC's new rules is to provide parents and other members of the public with greater information about educational television programs. This will help parents guide their children's television viewing and also encourage an ongoing dialogue between the public and TV stations about TV station performance under the Children's Television Act.”
Also, in the essay “Changing the way we think” Minnow and Lamay explain the basis about the formulation of this Children’s act. The act was formed by the joint consensus of ideas between child advocates, parents, industry representatives, and other concerned citizens.
There is no doubt that only an adult can make or influence any law in a country, but thinking of ideas for a children’s program is not similar to any process of law making. So why do the network stations have to restrain themselves to an adult group of thinkers to formulate the content for a children’s program? Can’t we take the help of kids’ themselves for formulating a children program content?
HUNGAMA TV, India’s premier kids channel was launched in 2004. The channel has a panel of children that approves the programming. These children members addressed as “Captains” meet every quarter, discuss new ideas, and present their feedback on all the aspects such as, content, marketing, and distribution of the channel. The channel, recently bought by the Disney in India, is perhaps the only channel that has programming that is not loaded with cartoons and animation only. The content is heavily driven with interviews, quiz shows, and fiction programming.
I have always been amused to know whether children really appreciate these cartoon characters. Do these cartoons appeal to the children, or is it the advertisers, who find it as the best choice for the children? Children’s programming unfortunately today does not give the children any idea about the real world outside their TV boxes. I feel it is all right to keep the kid in the nice fairy land of dolls and fancy dreams, but during their growing years they need to get a glimpse of the happenings in the grown up world too! There is no constructive activity happening all along when the child is watching the current programs. Parents feel cartoon to be the safest option, as they are too uncertain regarding the “adult human content” on television and the internet. They are always wary about the depiction of bold visuals, which in most cases is improper for a child, and also the adults are too pressed for time to sit with the child and help him/her out to understand the content. I am not a psychologist, but I often wonder, is the child interested more in the visual element of the cartoons , or is he attracted to the amazingly loud and the jarring sound effects attached with these images.
I don’t want to unduly criticize children’s programming. But I certainly feel that today’s programming is training the kids to become mere “couch potatoes”, utterly passive, lacking the sense of initiative, and completely making their senses numb with loud, extremely violent and jarring images and sound. Some new methods need to be thought of to entertain children. The Centre for Media Literacy in the US has proposed lot of ideas and actions that can be simulated at home by parents to help children understand media better. For example: shooting home videos, discussing with children about their favorite characters and stories on TV.
Video games, cartoons, internet sites, and the new media; all together contribute towards a child’s passive viewing. The children’s act recommends “educational” and “informational” content for children. Children today are anyways loaded with other class and homework learning. I wonder how any kind of formal “educational content” through television would ever help children. What perhaps is the need of the hour is a broader outlook towards children programming. The programs need to make these children feel important, and most importantly children need to get entertained, in a way where they are free to form their own perspectives and opinions on each and every aspect of life such as, art, music, politics, science, education, and sports. In the current scenario of programming, the child is only absorbing the visuals/information without any guidance about what to do with that gathered information.
As a content developer for television program, I think the creators need to make a child think, to reason, to assert, to opine, to discuss, to question, and most importantly to experience the “real” life. I would be happy to see a program where a group of 3-4 kids between 10 and 14 years old, question the future presidential candidate of the US about their idea for the development of children, the history of the US, and their overall ideas for children’s education and development. Apart from the content of human history, geography, animals, and travel on channels like Discovery and National Geographic, the children do not have any other avenue to watch similar content being spoken and made to understand at their level through any of these children’s networks. Would it not be fascinating to see a child in a program, carrying his/ her pet to a vet, to understand the perfect way of managing their pets? The art world today is fast getting eroded with the computerization and the invasion of the technology in every sphere of our life. Today’s children should not lose the opportunity to understand the by-gone, glorious era of paintings, dance, and music. The children programs need to develop interesting ways and means to attract these sharp and stimulating minds in the age of computers and internet to appreciate the field of arts.
Finally, the content developers, in the business of devising content for children need to appreciate and accept the limitations of their intelligence in today’s age to fully understand the demands of a child in the 21st century. The world has moved much faster than anybody imagined. Television was not even present when I was born; today the development of a fetus can be studied on television.
The emphasis on violent actions is the most worrisome factor of these current cartoon programs. Violence through cartoons leaves an indelible mark in the minds of these tiny tots. While growing up some of these young ones are inspired to enact the stunts of their “unreal” heroes seen on the television and video screens. And one moment of adventure with some intrinsic insanity of an individual can shake this whole civil society. Media cannot perhaps find answers to treat this “mental insanity,” but what it could definitely do is to mellow the depiction of images that can prevent an insane from expressing his “media inspired insanity.”
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Television_Act
2. http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k7/apr/apr397.php
3. http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article482.html
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Towards a Deeper Democracy
Vidyut Latay
Electronic media has a distinction over other mediums of communication. It is commonly perceived to be objective, true, and catering to millions of people all around the globe with their news and views. The television’s capacity in being “live” and creating realism has made this “idiot box” in our living rooms irreplaceable by any other means!
Today both fiction as well as the non-fiction programming on television caters programs covering almost all the genres of edutainment. The niche and the mass channels broadcast all the subjects on the face of this earth. There is no experience that you cannot see or feel on television. It’s indeed an age of “television movement.” We all grew up listening to our elders saying that, “Books can be your vehicle of transport to any corner of the world.” Today these books have been replaced by television, from the Statue of Liberty in the US to the Taj Mahal in India, to the world of breath taking romantic emotions to utter deprivation and agony of the same world, television has set us all in motion, motion of constant pursuit to know more and more about the world “beyond our mental and physical” vision.
Unfortunately this “movement” of our society through the media has been primarily very horizontal, catering to the variety and taste of a particular high class section of the society. The lowest common denominators of the society have unfortunately been left behind in this race of observing objectivity and seeing the world through the television’s “broad” interpretation. It is difficult to expect of these people to broaden their horizons by watching these television images. This broadening of the spectrum of television has in fact led the television media to lose its attention towards the specific problems of the marginalized class. The primary reason for the media not being able to cater to the lowest common denominator is because of the lack of these lower community people’s participation in the programming process. Media, barring a few exceptions, belongs and is controlled by high profile elite powerful conglomerates in the society. And it’s a fact that these power elites are incapable of getting deeper insights of the classes deprived of the basic means of existence as, education, information, health, finance, and communication. The reasons are but obvious; revenues, business, the economy, and market forces drive the content at the end of the day. Reasons whatsoever, today’s media has only been able to depict and exhibit the issues concerning these marginalized people through a bird’s eye view only. It’s time to get a much “closer shot” towards an attempt of deeper penetration in these societies through television programming. Media can be instrumental in creating a “deeper democracy.” And it is possible only through “active” participation of people from all sections of the society, most importantly the marginalized, less educated, less wealthy classes.
Arjun Appadurai in his essay “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the horizon of Politics” suggests that “Roots, anchors, intimacy, proximity and locality are important associations.” He has sighted out a real life successful example of attaining participation and inclusion of the under privileged classes in the city of Mumbai that lead to the betterment in the life style, health and educational facilities for the people. The concept of deep democracy was practiced and shown to be affecting positively to the millions of underprivileged people not only in India, but also all over the world, with the UN Secretary General also recognizing this initiative.
Electronic media is an integral part of the same society in which the other types of tried and tested media have existed over the years. Electronic media has merits of covering a range laterally, but it is time to realize that the current media is not capable of encouraging vertical participation. Participation of equal voices and sentiments are the hallmark of this vertical participation. Alternative media programming could serve the purpose.
Folk media seems to me the right alternative. The synthesis of the elements of the folk media and the popular electronic media seems to me the best possible option to make the today’s popular media deeper and more democratic. The folk media today is often sidelined as a cheap entertainment tool to reach out to the less privileged classes and is often an entity of amusement amongst the school children. Popular forms of folk media have got restraint in the gamut of tourism industry: used for the entertainment of tourists in explaining history and traditions.
One often forgets that it is the folk media that actually sowed the seeds of participation and democratization of media. The major difference between folk media and the other media is that the folk media is more direct; in terms of its address, accessibility, and content. The characters, the news anchors of the folk media reach out to the people physically: “live,” in “reality” which is a lot different than reaching out to people through any kind of “live realism”—the TV monitor. No media other than the folk media has the power of catching its target audience. The performers of folk media talk and perform in context, the context that falls in to the social and cultural realm of their audience.
Folk media primarily uses tools that are used by today’s popular media like the television and film. Tools like poetry, dance, songs, choral music, drama, skits and story telling are “the” universal tools to convey messages. The messages are relevant and cater to the masses with a specific objective of attaining social awakening, health, nutrition, and education. Popular electronic media does not have any different intention in terms of the content. Its intention is pretty much the same as the folk media. But what makes television and the folk media different is basically the medium’s intrinsic difference in propagating their views and the viewer’s acceptance of the views.
Television, as folk media has the potential of reaching out to the masses in real sense. Television’s domesticity makes it reach people in much large numbers, but that is exactly where television has lost its grip. From a television studio in the US, the medium performs an arduous task of catering to the wide audience that encompasses every nationality, religion, class, creed, and gender on this planet. The time has come for us to collectively think that does it really help for a viewer in Nepal to know what is happening in America when his/her own life is not getting sorted by the media in the US. Media’s intention is appreciated but is the end justifying the means? Is this broad information really serving any substantial purpose? In the spree of encompassing the whole world in the news room, are we losing the grip of the television’s content and precision of its messages? Complaints sighting this loss of command over the content needs a thorough introspection. Folk media fortunately does not have to perform the task as television media. It can actually “see” its audience and that is where it scores on “seeing thorough” its audience and in effect touching the audience’s sentiments. Folk media generates the active relation of the audience with the medium, and gets a better grasp of the content meant for them.
Television can imbibe some of the characteristics of this medium. Television can have more participative programming that invites the viewers of a particular section of the society and community not only to give its feedback but instead to become an important part of their editorial team. For example: A program that has been made to assess whether a community of daily wage workers are getting health benefits needs the participation of a person belonging from the community to be on board of that channel. The logistics of his participation can be worked out but the idea is that his voice should not be seen only as a “complainant” or a “poor victim” but instead he should be the one contributing towards the content of such story. The idea sounds too far- fetched but by just appointing a “stringer” to cover the views and get some agitated voices do not serve the purpose and intention of the program/ news story, and it certainly does not derive any change. As folk media, television news need to have the attitude of causing a change through substantial activity and not only through agitated reporting. The content needs to have the participation of lot of varied voices in it. As in folk media, the community members, the NGO’s, and the performers sit together and form the content as well as the performance that is targeted towards a cause and a particular audience of the community.
Television needs to lose its elusiveness. The awe factor has to be lost. And it can be lost only if the people from all sections are included in the active content development process. The “objective” reporting is distancing the people and making them see the reality only through a monitor’s glass. It will be argued that television needs to be unbiased and cannot entertain the voices of every person .Agreed, but it can have a representative of the marginalized section to make the programming and content strong and effectual for the people it is meant to be. Such attempt will help television from being mere a “visual chewing gum.”
Television aesthetically, as well as technically has come of age by imbibing elements of films, print media, and also integrating the today’s internet and new media. All these mediums have contributed towards making television what it is today. It will not be a mistake for television to try and adopt some of the forms of the past –the folk media to make it wider, deeper, democratic, and truly effectual in its intended messages.
References:
1. FOLK MEDIA AS MEANS OF ENTERTAINMENT EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY...
http://www.ee4.org/Papers/EE4_Theuri.pdf
2. Opening Media in Transition: Connections between Folk and Digital Cultures
www.snurb.info/node/654
3. www.aico.org/v2020resource/files/folk_media.htm
4. “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizon of Politics”—Arjun Appadurai
Electronic media has a distinction over other mediums of communication. It is commonly perceived to be objective, true, and catering to millions of people all around the globe with their news and views. The television’s capacity in being “live” and creating realism has made this “idiot box” in our living rooms irreplaceable by any other means!
Today both fiction as well as the non-fiction programming on television caters programs covering almost all the genres of edutainment. The niche and the mass channels broadcast all the subjects on the face of this earth. There is no experience that you cannot see or feel on television. It’s indeed an age of “television movement.” We all grew up listening to our elders saying that, “Books can be your vehicle of transport to any corner of the world.” Today these books have been replaced by television, from the Statue of Liberty in the US to the Taj Mahal in India, to the world of breath taking romantic emotions to utter deprivation and agony of the same world, television has set us all in motion, motion of constant pursuit to know more and more about the world “beyond our mental and physical” vision.
Unfortunately this “movement” of our society through the media has been primarily very horizontal, catering to the variety and taste of a particular high class section of the society. The lowest common denominators of the society have unfortunately been left behind in this race of observing objectivity and seeing the world through the television’s “broad” interpretation. It is difficult to expect of these people to broaden their horizons by watching these television images. This broadening of the spectrum of television has in fact led the television media to lose its attention towards the specific problems of the marginalized class. The primary reason for the media not being able to cater to the lowest common denominator is because of the lack of these lower community people’s participation in the programming process. Media, barring a few exceptions, belongs and is controlled by high profile elite powerful conglomerates in the society. And it’s a fact that these power elites are incapable of getting deeper insights of the classes deprived of the basic means of existence as, education, information, health, finance, and communication. The reasons are but obvious; revenues, business, the economy, and market forces drive the content at the end of the day. Reasons whatsoever, today’s media has only been able to depict and exhibit the issues concerning these marginalized people through a bird’s eye view only. It’s time to get a much “closer shot” towards an attempt of deeper penetration in these societies through television programming. Media can be instrumental in creating a “deeper democracy.” And it is possible only through “active” participation of people from all sections of the society, most importantly the marginalized, less educated, less wealthy classes.
Arjun Appadurai in his essay “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the horizon of Politics” suggests that “Roots, anchors, intimacy, proximity and locality are important associations.” He has sighted out a real life successful example of attaining participation and inclusion of the under privileged classes in the city of Mumbai that lead to the betterment in the life style, health and educational facilities for the people. The concept of deep democracy was practiced and shown to be affecting positively to the millions of underprivileged people not only in India, but also all over the world, with the UN Secretary General also recognizing this initiative.
Electronic media is an integral part of the same society in which the other types of tried and tested media have existed over the years. Electronic media has merits of covering a range laterally, but it is time to realize that the current media is not capable of encouraging vertical participation. Participation of equal voices and sentiments are the hallmark of this vertical participation. Alternative media programming could serve the purpose.
Folk media seems to me the right alternative. The synthesis of the elements of the folk media and the popular electronic media seems to me the best possible option to make the today’s popular media deeper and more democratic. The folk media today is often sidelined as a cheap entertainment tool to reach out to the less privileged classes and is often an entity of amusement amongst the school children. Popular forms of folk media have got restraint in the gamut of tourism industry: used for the entertainment of tourists in explaining history and traditions.
One often forgets that it is the folk media that actually sowed the seeds of participation and democratization of media. The major difference between folk media and the other media is that the folk media is more direct; in terms of its address, accessibility, and content. The characters, the news anchors of the folk media reach out to the people physically: “live,” in “reality” which is a lot different than reaching out to people through any kind of “live realism”—the TV monitor. No media other than the folk media has the power of catching its target audience. The performers of folk media talk and perform in context, the context that falls in to the social and cultural realm of their audience.
Folk media primarily uses tools that are used by today’s popular media like the television and film. Tools like poetry, dance, songs, choral music, drama, skits and story telling are “the” universal tools to convey messages. The messages are relevant and cater to the masses with a specific objective of attaining social awakening, health, nutrition, and education. Popular electronic media does not have any different intention in terms of the content. Its intention is pretty much the same as the folk media. But what makes television and the folk media different is basically the medium’s intrinsic difference in propagating their views and the viewer’s acceptance of the views.
Television, as folk media has the potential of reaching out to the masses in real sense. Television’s domesticity makes it reach people in much large numbers, but that is exactly where television has lost its grip. From a television studio in the US, the medium performs an arduous task of catering to the wide audience that encompasses every nationality, religion, class, creed, and gender on this planet. The time has come for us to collectively think that does it really help for a viewer in Nepal to know what is happening in America when his/her own life is not getting sorted by the media in the US. Media’s intention is appreciated but is the end justifying the means? Is this broad information really serving any substantial purpose? In the spree of encompassing the whole world in the news room, are we losing the grip of the television’s content and precision of its messages? Complaints sighting this loss of command over the content needs a thorough introspection. Folk media fortunately does not have to perform the task as television media. It can actually “see” its audience and that is where it scores on “seeing thorough” its audience and in effect touching the audience’s sentiments. Folk media generates the active relation of the audience with the medium, and gets a better grasp of the content meant for them.
Television can imbibe some of the characteristics of this medium. Television can have more participative programming that invites the viewers of a particular section of the society and community not only to give its feedback but instead to become an important part of their editorial team. For example: A program that has been made to assess whether a community of daily wage workers are getting health benefits needs the participation of a person belonging from the community to be on board of that channel. The logistics of his participation can be worked out but the idea is that his voice should not be seen only as a “complainant” or a “poor victim” but instead he should be the one contributing towards the content of such story. The idea sounds too far- fetched but by just appointing a “stringer” to cover the views and get some agitated voices do not serve the purpose and intention of the program/ news story, and it certainly does not derive any change. As folk media, television news need to have the attitude of causing a change through substantial activity and not only through agitated reporting. The content needs to have the participation of lot of varied voices in it. As in folk media, the community members, the NGO’s, and the performers sit together and form the content as well as the performance that is targeted towards a cause and a particular audience of the community.
Television needs to lose its elusiveness. The awe factor has to be lost. And it can be lost only if the people from all sections are included in the active content development process. The “objective” reporting is distancing the people and making them see the reality only through a monitor’s glass. It will be argued that television needs to be unbiased and cannot entertain the voices of every person .Agreed, but it can have a representative of the marginalized section to make the programming and content strong and effectual for the people it is meant to be. Such attempt will help television from being mere a “visual chewing gum.”
Television aesthetically, as well as technically has come of age by imbibing elements of films, print media, and also integrating the today’s internet and new media. All these mediums have contributed towards making television what it is today. It will not be a mistake for television to try and adopt some of the forms of the past –the folk media to make it wider, deeper, democratic, and truly effectual in its intended messages.
References:
1. FOLK MEDIA AS MEANS OF ENTERTAINMENT EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY...
http://www.ee4.org/Papers/EE4_Theuri.pdf
2. Opening Media in Transition: Connections between Folk and Digital Cultures
www.snurb.info/node/654
3. www.aico.org/v2020resource/files/folk_media.htm
4. “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizon of Politics”—Arjun Appadurai
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
