Don't comment, you may be fired !!!

Journalism is passing through many shades of transformations. Of late, even the schools of media would find it hard to monitor and understand the subtle variations of its evolution. We now hear of ‘news analysis’ and ‘news commentary’ apart from unbiased objective news reporting. The hosts of user content broadcasting methods are adding to the news commentary and news analysis sector of news.  Whatever be the last minute development, a journalist needs to tell his opinion. You may agree, I may agree, but fundamentally the bosses should agree or an opinion can cost you your favourite job, just as it happened to Juan Williams of NPR, New York. His seemingly ‘caught off the guard’ folly was  that he commented on a personal level and  interestingly his job description reads thus; ‘News Analyst’. His comment was his own feeling of being nervous, when he saw somebody dressed in Muslim garb in an aeroplane as they identified themselves first and foremost as Muslims.

Setting aside the issue of Islamophobia, the action of the employer on grounds of commenting is the real focus.  Well, NPR has its  well established policy of offering objective news content to the public. Stepping over the line of impartiality in the news coverage could be a joke these days as without the personal or corporate tag line, no piece of news finds space in the print or on other media. Most nations do not have an impartial press, in fact most nations strive to filter into the news moghuls so that the news is controlled in some way or other. As  with the instance of Williams, he, in is capacity of News analyst had commented on something which he thought to have reason to comment.

Where is the thin line that separates a personal comment and a professional comment ? Can a journalist be without any personal prejudice or other influences? Every professional journalist would like to work with a certain employer who is the market leader. The price he pays knowingly is that he will have to work within a frame that the employer sets before him as  ‘operating guidelines.’ Journalism would be just another commodity on the offer if the journalist is silenced for his views. When the management brandishes the pink slip for every ‘slip’ of the journalist, the freedom of expression suffers the greatest jolt. Are the days coming when the newspapers offer only objective news items.? But does objectivity exist at all, when human beings value an incident with human passions, human emotions and human reasoning. Water-downed journalism with a minimum of personal opinion, with  a full spectrum of fear for every word said and opinion remarked is definitley not the future of journalism.  
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/25/ent.npr.analyst/index.html

I did not chose my birth

Life is about choices. I chose to go to an university, studied engineering.  I chose to drink, to have entertainment. I chose to marry Tina, to have two splendid kids. I chose the car to drive, I chose this T-shirt and I chose this haircut. What I did not choose is to become a patient with terminal illness... Definitely, I did not choose that my family should suffer with me this hell. I made my final choice. I just need the government to listen to me. According to the Eurispes report 2010, 67% of Italians favour legalization of euthanasia: "Our government says no"

The latest commercial that has captured the imagination and set the opinion makers in tremendous discussion seems to a simple appeal.  It’s not dramatic, nothing of the Hollywood surreal graphics and appeal to the eye, it’s just a statement in soft tones pleading innocently that the suffering man has to die, but the government just does not listen.  Logically presented, it should be a case of deductive conclusion.  However, the Catholic Church was soon to pound on it and declared it unpalatable.  The video produced by the group ‘The Works’ in Sydney, was intended for Australian and Canada, but did not go beyond the Australian censor board and was promptly banned for its content in spite of its appeal for a sweet death. The parting line is that 67% Italians favour Euthanasia and the government does not, so put up your hands for euthanasia.

Italy has repeatedly faced the same issue, the characters and the protagonists have changed, public support has wavered and swayed along with emotion, the parliament has debated it umpteen times, the political parties have rallied with political and apolitical motives, but the issue at the epicentre has not been resolved. It has dawned on us that a simple stroke of the pen will not resolve this issue. The Catholic Church has defiantly stood its ground despite all odds to preserve the right to live. It has been bombarded from all sides, but the Church has not voted for a culture of a death.

Maybe we all choose, there are quite of number of delectable choices right from the age of reasoning. The fortunate stand a good chance to make all these choices, the less fortunate are happy that they are gifted a life and are content to live with their limited choices.  Why do we clamour for the gift of a sweet death? Is it just because we cannot stand suffering? Alternatively, is it just because we do not want our family to suffer along with us? Why do we conveniently close our eyes to the super-human efforts of humankind to alleviate pain and suffering of the suffering millions of all continents? Why is that our humanity overflow in front of a calamity? We have all accepted suffering. It is not at all a delectable choice. In simple terms, it is part of life. While we argue for the choice of death to evade pain, nobody seems to question the sweet moment of birth. Why couldn’t the scriptwriter add this line, “I chose my birth?” I did not choose my birth, can I choose my death?