By Arunoday Majumder (Department of Sociology, Delhi school of Economics, former television journalist)
The latest
sensation which has just been served live and loud is that of ministers
watching ‘pornography’ in state assemblies. The moot point is the nature of the
content itself. But the intellectual calibre of journalists and the monophonic
reactions from the news media stand explained. Droning hyperboles – ‘shameful’,
‘criminal’, ‘resign’, ‘expel’ – have been employed to articulate disgust and
demand.
The instruction
manual for manufacturing consent has been followed, opinion has travelled at
the speed of light and with the force of gravity leaving information behind and
buried. The Pied Pipers of television stations and newspaper houses are once
again leading the targets of their speech and script to delusion. Their music
fills the air not because of their mastery over the flute but because nobody
else has access to the flute. Less metaphorically, they don the air of
omniscience not because knowledge is at their disposal but because the means
(the physical infrastructure) of producing it is. In this article the author
revisits the information to attempt a sincere perspective of the event as
opposed to the episode that has been performed on news soap opera.
The immediate
issue is the nature of the clip which the media in its infinite wisdom has
labelled ‘pornography’. The origin of the word can be traced to the Greek words
– porne meaning ‘sexual slave’ and graphos meaning ‘description of’. So, no
depiction of nudity or coitus is pornography unless it involves the depiction
of coercion or violence. A little research which goes beyond Wikipedia and its
ilk and even superficially into the domain of feminist literature will confirm
the same. It is this distinction that accounts for the survival of the
sculptures in Khajuraho. It also justifies the performance of the sexual in
films like Gandu (2010) and Chatrak (2011) which have received rave reviews
from the news industry for being ‘bold’.
Now, does the
clip in question contain anything which is coercive or violent? It is difficult
to ascertain because the images appearing on television and newspapers are
blurred. The media may have considered that the clip is ‘pornographic’ but it
has no right to impose its opinion on viewers and readers.
Information with regard to the description of the clip could have been
circulated in the form of lettered graphics which the media use frequently
otherwise. In fact, disclosure of the content in this manner will help clear
the air. The decision can then be made in the public sphere and not in a
handful of buildings populated by individuals who time and again embarrass
themselves.
The sketchy
information available about the video which one James Bond shot from the
visitors’ gallery is that of women clad scantily and dancing. There is some
information on suggestive physical contact as well. But no element of coercion
or violence has been reported. On this basis the media cannot label the clip
‘pornographic’. And in case they still do then they need to explain their
promotion of ‘Chikni Chameli’ and the rest which is also about actresses clad
scantily and dancing and engaging in suggestive physical contact.
So why is Sunny
Leone ‘adult entertainment’ and the clip in question ‘pornography’ to the
media? Is this indicative of a specific type of ‘colour’ blindness? The author
makes no claim to omniscience and leaves it to the decision of the readers. But
there is perhaps a political-economic logic to this deliberate hypocrisy. Suhel
Seth appearing on a 9 pm debate on February 8 summed up the media’s opinion of
politicians: “We elect absolute scoundrels, some of them. Some of them are rogues,
they are criminals, they are rapists. What do you expect them to see on their
mobile phones if they get a chance? ... Obviously they will see this yaar. This is what they have emerged
from. That’s the dirt, quagmire from which they have risen.”
There is an
obvious effort to discredit electoral politics and the political class. It was
evident when the focus of reportage of the 2G scam was a politician with little
reference to the involvement of the corporate sector. It was also evident in the Anna Hazare tamasha where an otherwise ‘of
democracy, by democracy, for democracy’ chanting media supported the demand for
appointments to control corruption but only in politics. It was aware but chose
to ignore that in almost every major case of corruption the corporate class and
the political class share a symbiotic relationship.
Selective
derision of the political class is an agenda of the media. Nothing else
explains the acceptance of Sunny Leone and the rejection of the mobile clip.
Such unidirectional criticism manufactures consent that seeks the exclusion of
electoral politics from public life. The ground is thus prepared to extend the
demand for further withdrawal of the state – much to the humour of the ‘free
market’ ideology and its corporate cadres.
No matter how much news media practitioners consider themselves to be
anti-establishment, they have very little idea about the identity of the
establishment itself. The author suspects uncritical consumption of the ‘Rang
de Basanti’ types for such unawareness. The establishment has hardly ever been
just the state, the source of power is in the market. The anti-establishment
oomph which journalists so often exhibit is thus misdirected. To conclude, an
advertisement driven media cannot but be another cog in the political-economic
wheel. Their reaction to elected politicians and electoral politics – as the 2G
scam, the Anna Hazare tamasha and the
video controversy demonstrate – will always be Pavlovian.
No comments:
Post a Comment