Obama Says Osama Is No More

Osama Bin Laden is dead. This was not how I heard the news. I turned on the television, hoping to find something to watch that would help kill my time. The news was on. The news reader was stating, quite nonchalantly, that there were concerns of retaliation due to the killing of Osama Bin Laden in a fire fight with the US forces. I frowned and checked myself from switching channels.

He was dead? Wow! That is good news, I suppose.

She finished the bit she was on and a good 15 minutes later, she said, "For those of you who just joined us...", Osama Bin Laden was killed by the US military. The US President Barack Obama's announcement was rather lengthy but quite powerful. There was no emotion in his voice or on his face. Like a good orator, he hit all the right notes, said all the right things to touch the the diverse assortment of people he was addressing. He took full responsibility for the operation, inserting the word "I" in appropriate places. Some day in the future, during election campaigns and other publicity drives, snippets of this speech and video will be used, no doubt.

All the world dignitaries who were asked to comment agreed that it was a victory against terrorism and, at the same time, insisted that the war was not over yet. Obama also asserted that this was not an anti-Muslim crusade. He categorically stated that while Bin Laden had made this a war sound like it was for the Muslims, not all Muslims were terrorists or in support of his cause. It was a very positive and a much-needed statement at a time as this.

One of the voices I heard on the news hit the nail on the head when he said that even some of the Muslims who were in favour of Bin Laden's cries against the dictatorship of the West, merely supported his expression against the oppression by the West but not necessarily Bin Laden or his methods. 

This is one of those times when everyone seems to stand in agreement. The joy is for the death of the man who engineered the 9/11 World Twin Tower attacks. The war against terrorism is still one that needs to be fought. There are a lot of questions raised about the attacks, about Pakistan's involvement (or the lack of it) in the intelligence, the US helicopter that conveniently developed a snag & exploded after the attack etc. For the moment, the questions are still second to the triumphant sentiments over the killing of Osama and his sons. Ground Zero is milling with people celebrating the historical moment.

Osama Bin Laden was a name unheard of until the September 11 attacks in the United States. Once it was made public, he became the name and face of terrorism. That might be part of the reason the forces that killed him are rushing to clarify that the death of this one man is not the death of terrorism. Suspecting retaliation from the Al-Qaeda, security has been beefed up in the US. The Australian government has, on their travel advice, upped the risk factor and asked travellers to be more cautious than ever.

When the US told us Osama was a terrorist, we hated him. Now they say they have killed him, we rejoice. They have given us another name - the 2nd in command of the Al Qaeda - Ayman Al Zawahari. It is easier to hate an enemy who has a name and delight when he has gone down. They know that. The name Osama was known to them months before the 9/11 attacks and before they told us. So was Zawahari. 

The social media is, as is the norm today, inundated with this news. So is the blog world. The print and electronic media, of course. Following close on the heels of the news of Gaddafi's son being killed in an airstrike in Libya, this is the second good-prevails-evil news over the same weekend. Just before that, the media was all agog over the wedding of Prince William with Catherine (Kate) Middleton, now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Is this all for real or are we in a fairy tale right now? The hero, of course, is the United States. For it is success and dark news that imprint on the mind deeper than a happy story in an expensive white gown.

Why Do You Get to Define Morals?

In a discussion about women of the (g)olden days and today, the group supporting the latter spoke of how much bolder and confident women are today. As a counter, one of the guys argued that women were bold and courageous even in the years gone by. He cited an example of how the great Alexander was first defeated by a woman. I cannot help but wonder... if she had not defeated him, would the same guy have spoken of her with such regard? If she had failed, I'm willing to bet anything, the guy would have said (if he had to cite the same example) that women should remain confined to indoors and not try bravery. 

In another point made during the same discussion, one of the men drew a parallel between Beluru shilabalike (the famous stone sculptures of Belur depicting women in various poses) and the girls strutting down M G Road in skimpy attire. It seemed to appall his opponent, who dismissed the comparison by saying, "If you are going to compare Beluru shilabalike with the half-undressed chicks on M G Road, then I have nothing to say to you". Obviously, he has nothing to say. Our defendant said it was just the costume that differs. I  tend to agree, it is just your view that differs. The way you choose to look at it. 

You gawk at the shilabalike with awe because everyone talks about it's awesomeness, even though you may not understand what it is that you are really admiring. Is it the stone art or the visuals that are fantastic? Do you even know? If it is the stone art, then the costumes, or lack of them thereof, should not matter to you. If it is the visuals that you admire, then how is our defendant wrong? Are you just a hypocrite who can stare at a pair of breasts carved in stone and openly claim admiration for it but will ridicule a pair of uncovered legs in real flesh? Hang on, why were you staring at those legs, in the first place if you are such a saint? Do not tell me that when you walk down M G Road, you have these 'skimpily-clad women' jumping in front of you and flashing their stuff. 

I am amazed by some of the ideas and beliefs people hold about women rubbing shoulders with men, in modern times. I might understand that in somebody from an older generation, they may be set in their opinions, but to hear the same from the younger people is a revelation to me. How can you not see all the development around you? What world do you live in? What is with all the moral-policing? Why are your close-minded notions right? How is that our culture?

On a somewhat unrelated note: Muthalik's rent-a-riot issue is slowly gaining ground. People are discussing it and insisting that the government clamp a ban on the Shri Ram Sene. With the Chief Minister Yediyurappa refusing to impose the ban, Pramod Muthalik seems to be making the most of his new-found ally.

Where Are Your Balls, News Guy?

Tehelka.com and Headlines Today, in a sting operation, 'exposed' Muthalik. For the last couple of days, HT has been running episodes of 'Rent A Riot' and trying to create a sensation, in vain. Not one other media channel has lapped up the story, here is not created enough hype over the story and definitely no action is being taken against Muthalik, who can apparently stir up a riot for a price (in the video, he was seen demanding 60 lakh rupees to start riots).

What went wrong? Why are HT licking their wounds while no one else will talk about it? No doubt the Muthalik story could have been made to be a big deal. It was breaking news when the Mangalore incident happened (they harassed girls in the name of moral policing) and then the Valentine's day moral policing again. 

In a bid to keep the story to themselves and come across looking fabulous, HT ran a story with the video a couple of days ago. They had discussions on what should be done with Muthalik and asked if he should not be arrested? That was their first mistake. While what they have done is a neat way to trap the bugger, they should have shared clips of the video with other media channels before they did their first run. They could have come out with the story first, the others would still need time to whip up a presentation. They would have made some money out of it (possibly, I am not sure how it works). To have not shared and to expect that the rest of the world will pick up from their accounts, was foolishness. Why would any other news channel want to run a news report that HT has played and replayed enough times to make it stale for them by the next day? 

Their second mistake was to refuse responsibility. This is something I feel strongly about. Why do they expect that recording an expose on video and playing it on TV is enough to warrant action? One of their reporters on TV, Shoma, repeatedly said it was their job to simply bring the reality out in the open but the responsibility of civic institutions like the police department to take action. Even as an ex-DIG argued that the police will be unable to take action without a complaint. While I think there is something wrong if the police know of a wrong-doing but cannot take action unless there is a complainant, I cannot see why HT or Tehelka do not want to take complete responsibility for their operation? Why are they refusing to file an FIR or even a PIL?

On Day 2 of HT's 'Rent A Riot', they spoke to the public and tried to generate a voice that said to to the police department, "Arrest Muthalik!" A cheap tactic to escape having to register a complaint themselves, I think. They have been bold enough to blow his cover. Why do they want to hide now? Agreed there is a lot of red tape to cut through and a shitload of garbage to face but if they started something, they must finish it. Why do they keep asking on TV whether Muthalik must be arrested? We all know he should be locked up to never see the light of day again but repeating the question is not going to make the creaky wheels of the government departments moving. Especially when their viewership is limited and they have no support from the rest of the media world. The public will wait for more noise before they join the bandwagon. The common masses are a lethargic group, aren't we? Isn't that why we sit around and watch when shit happens all around us? 

If they ran the expose in public interest, as a conscientious organization, then they must take complete responsibility and see through to the end of the matter. It appears that Tehelka performed their sting operation, as it is what they do, and HT chipped in with a promise publicity but now do not have the guts to brave politics and get their hands and feet dirty. Everybody wants to tape wrong-doings on video (and God knows there is enough of it in our country) and run it on their news channel, in order to get an edge over the others. The question is, how far are they willing to really clean up the mess? 

Through all this noise, Muthalik has been able to sleep peacefully. All that came of the video (so far) was that he had to give an interview on TV (Headlines Today) where he refuted their claims and called the journalists shameless. Nothing has changed in his life, as a result of the news. As Director General of Police, Mr. Ajai Singh, said there are a number of cases pending against him and this will be looked into as part of those. In short, the grand expose by Tehelka and HT just relegated to the dark corners of an already dust-gathering pandora's box of Mr. Muthalik.

Breaking News

There were days when TV channels had the 'news hour' set aside every morning and evening, to update us with what was going on in the world around us. The local channels had a half-hour local news with headlines from the rest of the world. At a specified time, the news would go on for an hour, with more detailed national and/or world news. News-Readers (as they were called back then) dressed in a saree or suit and started off with a 'Namaskar'. The actual news session was preceeded by a few seconds of 'start-up' mostly consisting of music in the background, while the ying-yang-like symbol of 'The News' bounced and somersaulted across the screen.

Back in those days, when one heard "Breaking News", it usually meant that there was something so urgent and important that it had to be announced right away. It could not wait for the designated 'news hour'. It was news that would break through the ceiling, come crashing down over every other news or program on television. It had to be BIG and would most likely be bad too.

When the 9/11 happened, I remember being glued to the TV all day, watching the BREAKING NEWS. When my uncle called me from a village in Kerala, where there was no TV, I remember telling him there was BREAKING NEWS! We had been on phone for an hour, while I gave him a running commentary from the scenes that were continuously appearing on TV, almost ad-lib-ing the news reader.

Cut to present. We have 24-hr news channels. There's one in every local language and atleast 3 English news channels. No surprise, therefore, that there is cut-throat competition. How different can they get? The big news are big news and they can only relay what is happening in the real world. Yet, if one has to be ahead in the competition, something different needs to be done.

So, they sensationalize news - big and urgent ones, small and unimportant ones, sometimes even non-descript ones. As a result, every news has become "Breaking News". Switch on the TV at any time of the day and these channels have news scrolling at the bottom, flashing at the bottom, journalists at the scene & inside the studio speaking fast with excitement in their voice. When there isn't enough news to carry on for the entire day, they have repeats. If you missed a piece of news in the last hour, do not worry. Keep watching, it'll show up again in the next few minutes. 

As if that weren't enough, in a desperate bid to be different, they even call the 'Breaking News' by different names. Flash News, Big News, Just In, What Is In The News, etc.

Unfortunately, when there is a freak event, they have nothing else to call it. That goes under the same name - depending on the channel, it could be one or more of the above. There is nothing to differentiate the actual 'Big News' from the trivia like Kathryn Bigelow winning 6 Oscars against her ex-husband James Cameron who won only 3. The 'Just In' news need not necessarily be "just in" - this afternoon, the same news-line scrolled for about 30 minutes and was called 'Just In'.

As fillers, they also have panels of famous people discussing the issue in question, most of the time drawing no conclusions in the end. No surprise there. It is merely a bunch of people voicing their opinion. The law-makers and keepers are busy either fighting fires or hiding. The only people watching are more of the ones who can do nothing except to listen to others and speculate within their own limitations.

One particular news channel (and journalist) I used to admire greatly has now turned into more of a commercial venture. Watching this news channel is like watching a movie channel. From times when I believed everything that was on the news, I've come to realize that I cannot watch the news without taking in the updates with a pinch of salt (actually, a handful of salt).