Tuesday, September 25, 2012

All News Planted?

Vasu Reddy From Chicago

If you read any of the web based news it is nothing short of unbelievable and often sensational.  Typically the level of believability is often tested, and the reader has to interpret the reality verses fabrication or imagination of the writer.  As there is little protection for the receiver, and the ability of the writer to simply name unnamed sources, there is little to lose for the writer.  Just about any speculation can be made and corrections can be posted on an ongoing basis, and by the time the story gets told, it can be exactly the opposite of what was originally reported.

From movie reviews to personal stories, news columns to financial reports; all of them come out first and then get verified.  All the time unnamed sources are quoted as the real source of information, and anyone and anything can be targeted for negative news.  All the stories typically when flashing will get corrected over the days that follow and each of them have a disclaimer that they are still evolving and unnamed sources.

From not so important story such as Rahul Gandhi’s private life to massive coal or telecom scams get sensationalized first and then as the reality or facts come out in the open the story will be retold with new information, and typically the life of a story completely gets changed over the real life of the story.  From sensational news of reporting breaking news to a final report on the facts of the matter is really very different, as different as day and night.

From real reporting of the news papers that had real reporters with sources that fed them proper information, and did real reporting on the breaking news, we have become a society that feeds on sensationalizing the issues rather than the worthiness of the report.

Just that there are too many channels and web based reporting that are all trying to wyes for the eye balls of the readers or listeners, all of them simply trying to have as many people as possible paying attention even for a short span, thereby enhancing the survivability of the channel.   I still remember reading Illustrated Weekly and waiting to read Kushwant Singh would write, or waiting for Hindu to catch-up on daily dose of the news, read Veerendranath’s Telugu weekly and sensational writings of the time or such wonderful magazines and news papers before the advent of the TV and Internet.  For a fact I have read the same stories and books many a times and I still read them regularly, and never get tired of them, and they continue to be exciting and interesting read even after a generation of time passing away.  I am in no way trying to belittle writers of today or the abilities of the writers, as I myself in my own small way write all most every week and try to take pride in original writing and unbiased views of my India.

The problem is with reading so much with almost all of them sensationalizing every aspect of the daily reporting; simply to attract more eyeballs is overbearing and often tiring.  A reader or viewer want to get real information and facts of what is transpiring in the world, and want very little sensationalizing with the reporting.  Life by itself provides daily dose of sensation so there is no need for so much biased stuff pushed at people 24/7/365, as reality often gets blurred with what we see or read.

Going back and reading the literature of yesteryear, or trying to weed through the barrage of reports that are from all kinds of unknown sources and making sense out of what you hear, and being able to keep a track of what is actually happening is an art by itself.  Much can be said about the agencies that report as they do invest heavily into the happenings around the world, and are trying to be ahead of the others who are competing for the same audience.

The audience is quite loyal to a channel, news paper or periodicals and seldom tries to waver from their regular sources for their daily dose of news or reading, and the channels can be realistic and true in reporting to keep their audience interested, and also provide factual and real reporting.  Perhaps it is asking too much from one or the other channels as they are all of the belief that creating sensation is what keeps the audience glued to them, rather than the facts and reality.  The problem lies in so much speculation on reporting which is far from facts, rather unnamed sources to make up for airtime.  Perhaps a bit of trying to get the facts right might allow people to see what is real, rather than wonder what really is happening?

No comments: