There are two types of mediapersons: one, those who raise issues, and the other who complicate them till the hapless reader — or even more viewer — can make nothing of it and are forced to draw their own conclusions.
Take the so-called debate over reservations of seats for Christians in St. Stephen’s College the national media went into a terrible tizzy, reporting, over-reporting, dissecting and analysing what the move meant and what it would lead to. But sure enough, at the end of the day, beyond the repetitive rhetoric, no issue was being addressed to at all.
But there were certain terms and words common in all these news reports, analyses and editorials — ‘Article 30’, ‘National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions’, ‘Pai vs Karnataka State judgment of 2002’, ‘the role of
the University Grants Commission’, ‘religious and linguistic minorities’, ‘right’ and ‘regulated right’.
All in all they were buzzwords. Fortunately or unfortunately, there was very little real debate happening. What I really
want to know is whether the writers of such articles and reports realise that the reader is actually not clued into the scintillating details of Article 30 or the magnificent work done by the UGC.
So you see, half of the people working as journalists in media organisations get their salary by confusing the regular reader or viewer, while the other half happily feeds on that very confusion. And all that the readers get are, as Hamlet had put it, ‘Words, words, words’ — but nothing ‘wordsworthy’.
Now, will I be paid for writing this ‘shallow’ piece?