Obsession with the trivial; allergy for the serious

A year back it was Diana Spencer and now, it is Monica Lewinsky.

In the last six months, the media headlines have been on whether Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica; whether he had lied about it; what would he tell the Grand jury; confess and apologise, or only confess.

Last year, it was Diana and Dodi. Was she or was she not in love with him; was their driver drunk, and to what limits; was her ex-mother-in-law feeling, or feigning, sorry for Diana.

Thousands of tons of newsprint have been blackened by the trash on Diana and Monica.

The drift is evident. The trivial dominates. But,is nothing worthwhile happening to be reported ? Yes, they happen and are reported. But they appear so deep inside the newspapers and magazines as not to be known, atleast not as much as the trivia are known and discussed.

That the Kashmir militants are on the run now; that the World view on India as a push-over has changed after Pokharan tests; that the Cauvery accord has changed the definition of political impossibility; that the Indian economy is more resilient than that of the South Asian nations. But, you need a microscope to unearth these facts from the media.

How many newspaper readers know that this year the tourist arrivals in Kashmir has already crossed 20,000; that it was just 300 - only 300 - two years back, in 1996; that tourism in Kashmir which had almost stopped from 1989, is booming today.

How many newspapers reported prominently that film makers who had runaway from Kashmir to Shimla, Ooty and Darjeeling are back in Kashmir to shoot films - and Madhuri Dixits and Juhi Chawlas are dancing before cameras along the lakes of Srinagar, Pehalgaon and Gulmorg in Kashmir.

How many of us know that all the `Shikaras' - that is boat houses in Kashmir lakes - are booked in advance upto November; and no hotel accommodation is available in Kashmir today, and for the next two months.

Which newspaper reader is aware that, in counter-insurgency measures, more than 450 terrorists have been killed in the last six months, and most of them were foreign mercenaries from Afganistan, Pakistan and other fundementalist nations ? Similar is the case where terrorists have been apprehended; most of them are mercenaries from outside India.

Whichnewspaper informed its readers that wireless intercepts of the terrorist messages show utter demoralisation among them; that they grabbed even measly sums of 20 and 30 Rupees and robbed few kilos of rice and atta from poor farm workers of Chamba before killing them.

How many newspapers readers could understand from the media that the mercenary attacks in Doda, Chamba and other areas are desperate action of the terrorists on the run - and not escalation of terrorism.

Which newspaper reported prominently the speech of Saifuddin Soz, a National Conference MP, saying that the kind of normalcy that now prevailed in Kashmir was unimaginable in the past. In fact, he chided the opposition for calling Kashmir as a problem any more.

In contrast, the newspapers have relentlessly kept up the impression that Kashmir is even now in the same condition as it always was; that the Kashmiris are against India; that militants, not the government, are in control of Kashmir; that the Indian government is fighting a losing battle in Kashmir.

In fact, many intellectuals even now commend that India should compromise on Kashmir, just as, ten years ago, they had proposed an autonomous Sikh state in Punjab, which was then reeling under insurgency. Now, nobody speaks of compromise in Punjab, because the guns have been fully silenced there.

How many readers of newspapers have feel proud that after the Pokharan blasts, the World's view of India has changed once and for all; that it is now seen as a serious nation, not a push-over; But the perception generated by the media is the very reverse of it - that the nuke test is a moral, political and economic blunder; that the anti-nuke view is the prominent, mainline view and the pro-nuke idea is marginal. How else would the media justify the prominence given to Arundhati Roy who, knowing little about nuclear politics, abused India for its nuke policy, and the total suppression of the views of Arundhati Ghose, who is an authority of nuke politics, when both of them spoke, the latter to a larger audience, in the same city.

The Cauvery accord is undoubtedly a political dream. It has doused the raging fires stoked by competing politics within, and between, TamilNadu and Karnataka. It has restored the true status of Cauvery as a unifier, just as the sacred rivers of India had been for centuries. But the accord ceased to be news in just 72 hours and Poes Garden became the mainline news as before.

Take the economic scene. The industrial growth in April-June'98 is 5.4% - against 3.7% last year in the same months. The Indian economy is an exception to the collapse in South Asia. We face less problems than the others do. But this is what the media would say - that our economy is in shambles; it is stagnating; it is a crisis. This is what the experts and reporters alike say, eventhough a Nobel Laurate in Economics has almost theorised that economics is a self-fulfilling prophecy, for which he won the Nobel prize. If you perceive doom, you will be doomed. This is what the RBI governor has us warned against, and yet this is precisely what the media keeps doing.

What is the lesson ? Terrorism is news, not peace; ultras shooting in Kashmir is news, cine shooting in Kashmir is not; nor is over-booked hotels, advance-booked Shikaras, or demoralised terrorists news. Cauvery accord is history, but the AIADMK pranks are news. Anti-nuke views are newsworthy, but not pro-nuke ideas. Self-perpetuating economic slide is news, but not signs of recovery.

Obsession with the trivial and allergy for the serious marks the media today. But, for this, the media alone is not to blame; the readers and viewers are equally responsible. The media supplies what it perceives as the readers `or viewers' demand. If the perceived demand is for trivia, the media turns trivial - a vicious cycle from which neither the media nor the reader or viewer can get out today. Unless a large scale introspection is brought about by well-directed debates.