Journalists -- Are they crossing the limits?

Can somebody cover all the events in the World and make news out of them? What qualifies as news? What news are we interested in? Who should decide what is news to us? Media has become too powerful and pervasive to leave our lives untouched. 24-hour news reporting has certainly created clarifications/doubts in our minds about every single entity around us - be it family or society. Are they true impressions? Are they ephemeral since the next news is already a history by the time current one sinks in?

Consider the following definitions from Oxford Dictionary.

News :- Newly received, or noteworthy information, especially about recent events

Journalism :- The activity or profession of writing for newspapers or magazines or of broadcasting news on radio or television

In a nutshell, News is a noteworthy information and Journalists are people who present it. There is no mention in these definitions about what can be regarded as "NEWSworthy" and who should decide that. So, in principal, Journalists should deliver news in terms of plain facts and not in terms of assumptions or assessment. They should capture the latest factual happenings and pass on the same to us without being judgmental in any respect. As a receiver, it should be left to us to pass any verdict or not.

The reality is quite opposite though. More than the news bulletins, the News channels air the analysis/debate shows of some kind or the other. Each news channel declares its show, its analysis and its outcome as the best. Often, they give a hint that the similar proclamations by their competitors are useless. Arnab Goswamis, Barkha Duttas, Rajadeep Sirdesais of Indian news channels have long lived on the premise of fooling us into believing what they assess and presume to be true. Yes, I hate the conclusions they make for us.

While I was in college, I had programmed myself to watch the 8:45 pm News Bulletin on Doordarshan. There were no other news channels so the choice was easy. Now, I can listen/watch the same news in different Avatars on different channels many times in a day. Now, when I compare the quality of that 15 minute nutshell kind of news delivery to the incessant dissection of any news item, I thank the college authorities to not beam these atrocious channels of today during those times.

Everything is a news item these days. Anything can be dusted, polished, extra-coated, debated upon by self-proclaimed experts

and then declared good or bad with a classic looking, teary or hair-clenching adjudication. Sample this from last year's general election campaign.

Rahul Gandhi visits a Dalit home in a Uttar Pradesh village, eats and sleeps there.

The news channels, barring only a few which I missed keeping track of, showed this item 15 times a day, debated on it in a special programme with experts and pronounced the following.

He will swing Dalit votes towards Congress.

We all know what happened afterwards. The question is not about how did they arrive at the outcome but why this debate in the first place on a extremely stupid activity. Take another really stupid item to be debated on Prime Time National channels.

Sanjay Dutt gets a 14-day furlough from Yerwada Jail.

Why in the world are we concerned about Sanjay Dutt when there are many criminals with more ghastly crimes to their names sitting outside? The Newshour on Times Now devotes two episodes to debate this non-issue? Who cares about this discussion when at the same time something more serious like terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo is in news?

Talking about Charlie Hebdo, what paucity of news items in today's 24-7 world forced them to use Prophet Mohammed in a cartoon? How many prints did they sell more, how many advertisements did they get extra, how many actually enjoyed that cartoon, and many more such ROI questions. I am more concerned about the bankruptcy of ideas than the freedom of expression. They unnecessarily provoked a mindless, insane faculty of people to do what they did. And how did Charlie Hebdo respond? Another Prophet cartoon on the front cover. Whole of the Muslim world is burning with protests, from Nigeria to Malaysia.

Regulations on what should be termed as news item for public consumption should be put in place now. Exactly what those regulations should be, I leave it to my readers to ponder till I can take the subject further.

 

The Thunder DownUnder

The just concluded 4 Test Match Cricket series between hosts Australia and India was remarkable on several fronts and demands some serious debate. If you are a cricket statistician or are remotely interested in the Number Games, this series was much above being called "Astounding". It was neither "Brilliant" nor "One-sided" but definitely something to remember for a long time to come. There were remarkable changes to both the Australian and Indian cricket, both for good and bad. The Cricket was at its mysterious best, if not near its performance peak, and not even once there was any foregone conclusion to be made. The events, both on and off the fields, ensured that the Cricket World was never in a position to take their eyes and ears away from this series.

Here are some of the statistical wonders from that series.

1. 5879 The total number of runs scored in the series, by both the teams. This is the highest number in terms of total number of runs scored in any series of 4 or lesser Test matches. The second-most runs (5651) also came in a series between India and Australia, the 2003-04 Border-Gavaskar Trophy.
2. There has been only one instance of two batsmen scoring four or more hundreds in a single Test series. Virat Kohli and Steven Smith created history when they scored four hundreds each during the 2014/15 Border-Gavaskar Trophy played in Australia.
3. 769 Runs scored by Steven Smith in this series, the most ever in a series of four or fewer matches. There have been two instances of batsmen scoring more runs when they have played only four matches in a five-match series - Sunil Gavaskar (774, versus West Indies, 1971) and Viv Richards (829, versus England, 1976).
4. 692 Runs scored by Virat Kohli this series, the most by an Indian batsman in Australia and the third-most by an Indian batsman in any series. Sunil Gavaskar aggregated 700-plus in a series on two occasions, in 1971 and 1978-79, both times against West Indies.
5. 482 Runs scored by M Vijay this series, the most by an Indian opener in Australia and the third-most by an Indian opener in any away series. Gavaskar has aggregated more on two occasions: 542 against England in 1979 and 774 against West Indies in 1971.
6. 8 Number of times that the teams have posted a 400-plus score during this series, the most ever in a Test series. There have been seven previous instances of teams making seven 400-plus scores in a series.
7. 0 Number of previous instances where both teams have gone past 400 in the first innings of each Test in a series of three or more Tests. Both Australia and India have each posted 400-plus scores in the first innings of every Test this series, with Australia going past 500 on each occasion.
8. 6 Number of consecutive 50-plus scores for Chris Rogers, the most by an Australian. Eight other Australian batsmen have made six 50-plus scores as well - Jack Ryder, Doug Walters, Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Mark Taylor, Michael Hussey, Phil Jaques and David Warner. 
9. 15 Umesh Yadav's economy rate during Australia's second innings, the worst in Tests for a player who has bowled three or more overs in an innings. He returned figures of 0 for 45 from three overs.
10. 24 Number of instances this series of a bowler conceding 100-plus runs in innings, the most ever in a Test series. Nathan Lyon has six such innings, the most, while Ashwin has four.  

Getting Married? Don't look for a Groom

What happens to those who decide not to wed but still want to experience the grandeur and fun associated with it? Would you just sit in your own company and ponder of all the missed opportunities? Well, if you are a single female in Japan, you need not worry too much. A Japanese Travel Agency is offering something called Solo Wedding aims to help women get married without a groom.

Solo Wedding is a concept around unmarried women who do not want to get into a wedlock and at the same time would love to be a part of everything else associated with a wedding. Cerca Travel, the Japanese Travel Agency, offers a two-day wedding experience called Kyoto Solo Wedding centered on a fake wedding shoot designed to pamper women and boost their self-esteem.

Customers each pay between ¥250,000 to ¥470,000 (~$2,075 to $3,900), which buys them 1 night at a hotel, a dress consultation, either a dress or a kimono to wear during the shoot (with accessories), professional hair and makeup, a limousine ride to the shooting location (a Japanese garden), a photo shoot with a professional photographer, and photos on a USB drive and in a photo album.

The variable price is because there are “optional experiences”. One is having a Japanese man stand in as a groom for you in your photos (only their hand, shoulder, or back will be visible in photos), a second is a dinner with your tour coordinator, and a third is pampering at a beauty salon.

According to the Japan Times, about 30 Japanese women have taken advantage of the travel package so far. Most of them are in their late 30s and above, and about half of them have been married women who either didn’t have photos the first time around or had bad ones.

The rest are like Tomoe Sawano, a 39-year-old single entrepreneur who was the first woman to buy the package. She tells Japan Times that the photo shoot experience changed her outlook on life and marriage: “Being single at this age, I was frustrated by pressure (to get married), but after this experience I left my worries behind me. I hope to find a partner but now believe that even if I can’t, I can enjoy life.”

Some Artwork from Mughal Period

A piece from Hamzanama -- 1564-69

A Piece from Tutinama -- 1580-85

Story of the Lion and the Lynx from Tutinama -- 1580-85

Tale of The False Ascetic from Kathasaritasagara -- 1585-90

The arrival of Nanda and his family in Vrindavan from Harivamsha -- 1586-90