When we talk about crime and its coverage in the news media, we are mostly looking at manipulated truth, truth that is mostly distorted and edited to capture the most dramatic elements. Crime sells and that’s universal. I am not much familiar with news programs here but in India there has been an onslaught of late-night crime news broadcasts that cover everything from witchcraft to burglaries. The perpetrators shown are mostly people from the slums, the underprivileged ones. Here, they are mostly black or Hispanics. Crime has a face and it is mostly black or of a poor man. They are shown as threats to the society.
When I was in Baltimore for the winter break, I was advised not to be in the downtown area after 4 p.m. as there are mostly blacks there and they are criminals. Crime rate is pretty high in Baltimore and many people think it is because most blacks stay there and also because of poverty. It is a vicious circle. Blacks are criminals because they are poor and they are poor because they are stupid and arrogant, attributes of a black person, largely supported and maintained by the media.
I will talk about my country because that’s familiar ground. There is a group of people, mostly tribals, who were classified as criminal tribe by the British because the rulers thought these underprivileged people were intrinsically criminal and went so far as to brand them. After independence, the nomenclature changed but the category remained. And the media did not do much to address it. As I read Dilip D’Souza’s Branded by Law, a book that explores the tribe and its travails as a result of this branding, I felt betrayed by the media. We seek the truth as audience but do we ever get nothing but the truth. I guess never.
The book is a remarkable attempt by D’Souza to portray the deep-set prejudices in India against certain communities through his own interactions with the DNTs especially the ‘Pardhis’ and the ‘Sabars’ tribes. It is also a well-researched documentation of the historical and social context, which pushed the community to the periphery of civil justice and social life depriving them of the basic human rights.
He describes his personal encounters with the people once branded as criminal and now after being denotified, continue to live in the shadow of their derogatory branding.
In course of his examination of the various laws which were passed to for a repeal of the Criminal Tribes Act in 1952, after India became independent, not much has been done to uplift the DNTs. One incident that really set me thinking was the murder of Limbu Jayaram Bhosle ‘s husband (both Pardhis) because he happened to steal pomegranates to appease his pregnant wife’s desire. Is that what being criminal is? And does the media have no responsibility toward clearing misconceptions? By keeping quiet, media says a lot.
The most interesting thing is that D’Souza also draws a comparison between the bias against certain categories of people in the US and these tribes here. He talks about gypsies, blacks and other communities in various other countries who also suffer from distrust and prejudice and all the evils that come along with them. And that seems to be so true. I remember watching the promos of a certain program called the Cops or something like that and almost all the cops were white and the criminals were black, which goes on to prove media’s branding and its selective treatment of crime.
As a creator and distributor of information, I see an urgent and inherent need to be unbiased and reflect social or crime issues.
Curbs on the freedom of movement, grinding poverty and lack of opportunities have resulted in generating an attitude of frustration and anger in the DNTs in India and blacks or Hispanics in United States toward the society. As I understand, the social alienation and isolation of communities have largely been responsible to a great extent for civil strife and agitations.
The faith that people repose in the media is reflected by the account of Mithun Gongajya Shinde of Rajale village urging D’Souza to publish the photographs of the people of his community so that the people come to know about their conditions. Media has a tremendous task to fulfill in a country where the prejudices are so deeply ingrained.
The fact that the DNTs still continue to live in clusters and have not yet achieved absorption in the society is a mockery of democracy and the fundamental rights. Media acts as a watchdog of the society and the issue of DNTs has to be treated as a social disorder by them for a complete restoration of the lost dignity to these hapless people.
The socially oppressed must rise and it is the fourth estate’s obligation to bridge the gap and erase prejudices. The lack of political will to better conditions must be compensated by media’s will.
Friday, September 29, 2006
media and us...continued
“Muslims have hatred in their hearts,” said one Indian student who I met at a common friend’s house. We were all talking about religion and suddenly the conversation veered to Muslims and Pakistan. The guy then went on to convince me about his statement regarding Muslims. He argued that terrorists were mostly Muslims or in fact most Muslims were terrorists. He used the two words as synonyms.
The recent controversy regarding the Danish cartoons and subsequent conversations made me think. I am no spokesperson for Islam. But it made me uncomfortable to see a few of my classmates say that Muslims are arrogant and the Danish paper was just exercising its freedom of expression. They have problems with the reaction that has Muslims all over the world burning embassies, protesting and issuing fatwas. I have a problem with that too. But they do not understand or consciously fail to understand that Muslims are a set of people and not just violent terrorists.
What is the freedom that we are talking about? The media images of Muslims are almost always negative, a bunch of crazy fanatics out there to take on the western world. Why can’t the media be more responsible? Why can’t they be fair? Almost all the initial reports that I read in the papers or the internet had no moderate Muslim speaking or expressing his views. The views were extremist and I feel the newspaper, and I am talking about the U.S. media, had an agenda, to defend what the Danish paper did. What is the justification for publishing those cartoons? Just to show that WE CAN DO IT or we are the champions of freedom of expression. Well then, that’s their expression and the whole world does not go by the western world’s liberal views. They are an entity and we need to respect that.
Why do we attribute arrogance and anger as being characteristic or defining features of a community? How much of effort do we make to understand and be tolerant of those of other faith and regard them as individuals? And should we not do it considering the present situations?
I am a First Amendment and freedom of speech and expression person but I think one must not be insensitive and hurt anyone’s religious sentiments. Religion is dear to people. And a lack of understanding of other religions or groups can lead to negative stereotypes that can in turn create fierce group loyalties. When people think there identity is under threat or their background is misunderstood, they start becoming a closed group. This is what the world at present is dealing with in case of Muslims. They are branding them and creating a stereotype, a negative one.
And we talk about white and black. That’s important. But I think it is not only about color now. There is a different kind of racism, something that is orchestrated and will have more serious ramifications if the media does not get its act together. Blacks were portrayed as evil or bad, but Mulsims are being shown as terrorists. Who is fighting for them here? That’s something for us to think about.
Section 2
The recent controversy regarding the Danish cartoons and subsequent conversations made me think. I am no spokesperson for Islam. But it made me uncomfortable to see a few of my classmates say that Muslims are arrogant and the Danish paper was just exercising its freedom of expression. They have problems with the reaction that has Muslims all over the world burning embassies, protesting and issuing fatwas. I have a problem with that too. But they do not understand or consciously fail to understand that Muslims are a set of people and not just violent terrorists.
What is the freedom that we are talking about? The media images of Muslims are almost always negative, a bunch of crazy fanatics out there to take on the western world. Why can’t the media be more responsible? Why can’t they be fair? Almost all the initial reports that I read in the papers or the internet had no moderate Muslim speaking or expressing his views. The views were extremist and I feel the newspaper, and I am talking about the U.S. media, had an agenda, to defend what the Danish paper did. What is the justification for publishing those cartoons? Just to show that WE CAN DO IT or we are the champions of freedom of expression. Well then, that’s their expression and the whole world does not go by the western world’s liberal views. They are an entity and we need to respect that.
Why do we attribute arrogance and anger as being characteristic or defining features of a community? How much of effort do we make to understand and be tolerant of those of other faith and regard them as individuals? And should we not do it considering the present situations?
I am a First Amendment and freedom of speech and expression person but I think one must not be insensitive and hurt anyone’s religious sentiments. Religion is dear to people. And a lack of understanding of other religions or groups can lead to negative stereotypes that can in turn create fierce group loyalties. When people think there identity is under threat or their background is misunderstood, they start becoming a closed group. This is what the world at present is dealing with in case of Muslims. They are branding them and creating a stereotype, a negative one.
And we talk about white and black. That’s important. But I think it is not only about color now. There is a different kind of racism, something that is orchestrated and will have more serious ramifications if the media does not get its act together. Blacks were portrayed as evil or bad, but Mulsims are being shown as terrorists. Who is fighting for them here? That’s something for us to think about.
Section 2
entries - media and us...
When my teacher in high school called me a lesbian just because I was a fan of this basketball player in school who happened to be a girl, I did not even know what it meant. Homosexuality was a subject that nobody talked about or even hinted at. This was in 8th grade. So I went back home and looked up the meaning in a dictionary.
That was my introduction to sexuality and its variations. It was not just man and woman who could be ‘happy ever after’ like how I was conditioned to believe. I knew eunuchs existed. I had seen them dancing and roaming around in trains or on busy roads clapping their hands at male commuters and demanding money. The failure to comply meant that they would lift their skirts and flash. I was always curious about them. The media never had anything on them. They did not exist for them but I saw them everyday on my way to school, to play or to work.
So I researched and found they were intersex people, born with both sex organs. I was always intrigued by their physical features. They looked like men but had breasts and talked and behaved like women. They did not exist for the government where any job application required one to specify whether one was a male or a female. The in-betweens had no option to click. They could not get jobs. They were reduced to begging and dancing on the streets and entering prostitution. The media ignored them. And it annoyed me. They were people and isn’t the media supposed to give voice to the voiceless.
All through my time in India, in Mumbai and Delhi, I never came across anyone who was gay or lesbian. Maybe some of them were, but they were not out. I read all these reports about boys sodomizing other boys in school toilets and I read about this lone activist Ashok Rao Kavi who was fighting for gay rights in India.
Having sex with someone from one’s own sex is a punishable offence in India and maybe that’s one reason why people are afraid to come out of closets. As I became part of the media, I came to know many of these people. And I started to understand the complexities of queer representation in the media.
Fire was the film that brought the issue to the forefront. Made by a woman director considered very arty and a champion of parallel cinema, Deepa Mehta, the film is about two women married to two brothers, who indulge in lesbian sex because their husbands do not have time for them. The film disturbed me. Something was wrong.
And a few years later, I realized what was wrong with the film. It showed the women turn lesbian after they were shunned by their husbands. So, the film was not about women loving each other at all. It was a story of rejection and degradation of women who are unsatisfied and turn to each other to fulfill their sexual needs only after they are rejected by their male counterparts.
Then, as I was starting to comprehend media messages, came another film Girlfriend. The promos of the film had two girls making out and it was erotic enough to attract viewers. I went to watch the film, intrigued by the boldness of this director to touch a subject that is so forbidden. The film at best was outrageous. The lesbian character was portrayed as villainous who was trying to lay her hands on her straight roommate who was in a relationship. She was a dark character, trying to kill the other girl’s boyfriend in a fit of jealousy. In a way the film looked down upon lesbians as vamps and straight girls as victims and men as their saviors enforcing the stereotypes. The lesbian character was butch lesbian, while the straight one was a demure, pretty and innocent damsel in distress. The savior of course was a macho guy.
The film also was rejected by the public who were not ready for stark lesbian portrayals. Girlfriend was a mainstream commercial cinema. The actresses later apologized to have acted in a movie that had something to do with lesbians and said it was a fault and they respected the culture and would not do such films again.
When I came to United States for my master’s in journalism, I made a lot of gay friends. But I did not come across any lesbians or bisexuals. I took up the LGBT issues as my beat for my advanced reporting class in order to learn more about the community and the problems it was facing. My first story was on Vatican banning gay priests. I was shocked to see how even in America, sexuality was pre-defined. People did not have a choice and gay rights was an issue here too. Being gay is also viewed as being a pedophile by the Catholic church.
I am a straight ally and I am a member of various gay clubs on campus. A friend saw my name in one of the gay clubs on facebook and asked me why was I in Gay At SU, the gay group. This was interesting. It is judging and compartmentalizing people based on their preferences or views.
The media representations are also mostly stereotypical. Will & Grace is one show I am familiar with. The gay characters are almost always impeccably dressed with a fine taste in arts and music. They are effeminate and metrosexual males who spend too much time on their looks and have a lot of money. They are also the best friends for the female lead character.
But my friend Roger Batson was not at all like this. He shopped at Walmart, T.J. Maxx and did not frequent operas or went to theatres. He does not flutter his eyes when he sees an attractive guy. He is just like any other guy. But this is not what the media portrays.
Damon Romine of GLAD told me the media does this to create easy reference points for the audience. He said it is dangerous because when gay people do not see themselves reflected in the media, they think something is wrong and this delays their coming out process. Sometimes, it forces them to be in the closet all their lives.
In Indian films lately we are seeing more of gay characters but they are not fully developed characters. They are either there to provide a comic relief or are there to be the actress’ best friend. Another film that comes to my mind is Monster. Charlize Theron enacted a lesbian character but though the film deserves kudos for dealing with such a subject, the portrayal of the character was very stereotypical and it showed Theron as a butch lesbian.
And as per the discussion in class, there are no bisexuals or transgender characters on television. I agree. During the fall semester, I also had a chance to meet with Frances Fischer, a transgender woman. She was in the process of transitioning and lost her job. At 52, she was struggling to get a job and at the time I met her she was cleaning tables to earn a living and was on public assistance. As I sat with her in the food court at the mall, I saw several people look at us with interest. They were amused. Why can’t we treat people as humans and respect the choices they make in their lives regarding their sexuality?
Most gay organizations do not include transgender people. That leaves the transgender people in a bad situation. I thought the gay community will understand their pain and suffering since they are experiencing the same isolation and rejection. But they don’t.
Bisexuals are another set of people who are finding it difficult to explain to others that their sexual inclination toward both sexes is not acquired. It comes natural to them. I have many bisexual friends and over so many cups of coffee I have tried to understand them and feel their difficulties in hiding or selectively revealing to others their true selves lest they are misunderstood.
Such is the image that media presents that many people think that gays and lesbians are desperate and are terrified of associating with them. When I introduced one of my straight friends to my gay friend, he confessed he had always been scared of entering gay bars or hanging out with gay people because he thought they would hit on him.
That was my introduction to sexuality and its variations. It was not just man and woman who could be ‘happy ever after’ like how I was conditioned to believe. I knew eunuchs existed. I had seen them dancing and roaming around in trains or on busy roads clapping their hands at male commuters and demanding money. The failure to comply meant that they would lift their skirts and flash. I was always curious about them. The media never had anything on them. They did not exist for them but I saw them everyday on my way to school, to play or to work.
So I researched and found they were intersex people, born with both sex organs. I was always intrigued by their physical features. They looked like men but had breasts and talked and behaved like women. They did not exist for the government where any job application required one to specify whether one was a male or a female. The in-betweens had no option to click. They could not get jobs. They were reduced to begging and dancing on the streets and entering prostitution. The media ignored them. And it annoyed me. They were people and isn’t the media supposed to give voice to the voiceless.
All through my time in India, in Mumbai and Delhi, I never came across anyone who was gay or lesbian. Maybe some of them were, but they were not out. I read all these reports about boys sodomizing other boys in school toilets and I read about this lone activist Ashok Rao Kavi who was fighting for gay rights in India.
Having sex with someone from one’s own sex is a punishable offence in India and maybe that’s one reason why people are afraid to come out of closets. As I became part of the media, I came to know many of these people. And I started to understand the complexities of queer representation in the media.
Fire was the film that brought the issue to the forefront. Made by a woman director considered very arty and a champion of parallel cinema, Deepa Mehta, the film is about two women married to two brothers, who indulge in lesbian sex because their husbands do not have time for them. The film disturbed me. Something was wrong.
And a few years later, I realized what was wrong with the film. It showed the women turn lesbian after they were shunned by their husbands. So, the film was not about women loving each other at all. It was a story of rejection and degradation of women who are unsatisfied and turn to each other to fulfill their sexual needs only after they are rejected by their male counterparts.
Then, as I was starting to comprehend media messages, came another film Girlfriend. The promos of the film had two girls making out and it was erotic enough to attract viewers. I went to watch the film, intrigued by the boldness of this director to touch a subject that is so forbidden. The film at best was outrageous. The lesbian character was portrayed as villainous who was trying to lay her hands on her straight roommate who was in a relationship. She was a dark character, trying to kill the other girl’s boyfriend in a fit of jealousy. In a way the film looked down upon lesbians as vamps and straight girls as victims and men as their saviors enforcing the stereotypes. The lesbian character was butch lesbian, while the straight one was a demure, pretty and innocent damsel in distress. The savior of course was a macho guy.
The film also was rejected by the public who were not ready for stark lesbian portrayals. Girlfriend was a mainstream commercial cinema. The actresses later apologized to have acted in a movie that had something to do with lesbians and said it was a fault and they respected the culture and would not do such films again.
When I came to United States for my master’s in journalism, I made a lot of gay friends. But I did not come across any lesbians or bisexuals. I took up the LGBT issues as my beat for my advanced reporting class in order to learn more about the community and the problems it was facing. My first story was on Vatican banning gay priests. I was shocked to see how even in America, sexuality was pre-defined. People did not have a choice and gay rights was an issue here too. Being gay is also viewed as being a pedophile by the Catholic church.
I am a straight ally and I am a member of various gay clubs on campus. A friend saw my name in one of the gay clubs on facebook and asked me why was I in Gay At SU, the gay group. This was interesting. It is judging and compartmentalizing people based on their preferences or views.
The media representations are also mostly stereotypical. Will & Grace is one show I am familiar with. The gay characters are almost always impeccably dressed with a fine taste in arts and music. They are effeminate and metrosexual males who spend too much time on their looks and have a lot of money. They are also the best friends for the female lead character.
But my friend Roger Batson was not at all like this. He shopped at Walmart, T.J. Maxx and did not frequent operas or went to theatres. He does not flutter his eyes when he sees an attractive guy. He is just like any other guy. But this is not what the media portrays.
Damon Romine of GLAD told me the media does this to create easy reference points for the audience. He said it is dangerous because when gay people do not see themselves reflected in the media, they think something is wrong and this delays their coming out process. Sometimes, it forces them to be in the closet all their lives.
In Indian films lately we are seeing more of gay characters but they are not fully developed characters. They are either there to provide a comic relief or are there to be the actress’ best friend. Another film that comes to my mind is Monster. Charlize Theron enacted a lesbian character but though the film deserves kudos for dealing with such a subject, the portrayal of the character was very stereotypical and it showed Theron as a butch lesbian.
And as per the discussion in class, there are no bisexuals or transgender characters on television. I agree. During the fall semester, I also had a chance to meet with Frances Fischer, a transgender woman. She was in the process of transitioning and lost her job. At 52, she was struggling to get a job and at the time I met her she was cleaning tables to earn a living and was on public assistance. As I sat with her in the food court at the mall, I saw several people look at us with interest. They were amused. Why can’t we treat people as humans and respect the choices they make in their lives regarding their sexuality?
Most gay organizations do not include transgender people. That leaves the transgender people in a bad situation. I thought the gay community will understand their pain and suffering since they are experiencing the same isolation and rejection. But they don’t.
Bisexuals are another set of people who are finding it difficult to explain to others that their sexual inclination toward both sexes is not acquired. It comes natural to them. I have many bisexual friends and over so many cups of coffee I have tried to understand them and feel their difficulties in hiding or selectively revealing to others their true selves lest they are misunderstood.
Such is the image that media presents that many people think that gays and lesbians are desperate and are terrified of associating with them. When I introduced one of my straight friends to my gay friend, he confessed he had always been scared of entering gay bars or hanging out with gay people because he thought they would hit on him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
