Of criticism, media ethics and rejoinders
By Donn Morgan Kipgen
‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing’
— Alexander Pope
To err is human, to forgive divine, so it is said. Not to make any mistake would be a computerised extra-terrestial being of Godly state. A person who works makes mistakes and a person who does not, doesn’t. This is the realm where critics and experts play their own colourful games; sometimes at the expense of someone’s reputation. In literal world, critics and criticisms are not and ever meant to be a personal attack on others works nor a one-sided comment with malicious intent. Real criticism dwells on merits and demerits of others works or writings- a critical appreciation, articulate and balanced review by qualified scholars. One should refrain from making open criticism on any subject-matter without having full authority over it. On the other hand, a writer or columnist should write an article or essay with solid materials and circumstantial evidences to back up all columnist to protect their flanks while on offensive or tactical defensive mode. An article on any issue is much more than just a string of sentences, written just for the sake of it. It takes lots of politically-correct thoughts, minute (pr. mai-nuit) research and analysis, laced with general knowledges and hard facts to be written in simple English. However, the style, diction, presentation and the flow of the article or essay must not be compromised since all readers ought to gain more than just an interesting story.
The Editorial page of any newspaper is a treasure house of varied knowledge with a free-for-all shadow-boxing room. The Editor’s column is the sanctitus sanctum, the holy ground, the writers’ columns’ being the goldmines, and “Letter to Editor’s box” being the Readers’ world, used as the ‘idiot box’ and the killing field in this part of the world. In both national and international newspapers and news-magazines, all letters to the Editors are carefully edited, shortened for space and clarity. One seldom comes across full-length rejoinders, personal attacks, baseless allegations, unedited hyper-sensitive views, irrelevant local issues, etc are certainly not lengthy war of words, nor direct attacks on the columnists, news-reporters and editorials without factual truth. Of course, not all ridiculous and sarcastic comments and negative feedbacks, unrelated to the quality and news presentations are freely printed. That’s the Rules of Engagement of the print media all over the world, otherwise, other vivid readers would be unethically given (a wrong) impression that all those baseless points and twisting of facts as a ‘recognised truth’ even though the unedited letters were technically and grammatically unacceptable or mischievously full of faulty facts. A complete silence for one or two days due lack of time period to draft, deliver and listing into ordinary Letter to Editor could and surely would take the adventurous hostile forays of the rampaging reader-cum-critic personal observations as legitimate coup d’etat (pr. Koo-di-ta) upon “readers’ friendly” writer’s realm. Any random ambush on regular columnist or guest-columnist by highly opinionated reader with malicious intent is an outright attack upon the very newspaper concerned. Such unfortunate blatant attack is bound to cause ‘collateral damage of media war’, down-grading its reputation and credibility. There has to be an esprit d’ corps (pr. espri-di-core) amongst media fraternity, like the chivalrous, time-tested absolute camaraderie of the international media corps’ ethics. The highly ‘watched’ and ‘bi-censored’ media fraternity dearly needs an all-encompassing media institution and a well-represented journalist-cum-writer’s forum independently with a motto like the one inscripted on the reverse side of the US dollar coin and dime: ‘E Pluribus Unum’, i.e One Amongst All. The hardcarging US Media audiciously brought down the world’s most powerful Administration, the super secret Nixon’s White House regime, courtesy: the ‘Paper General NY Times”, showing media power without compromising the ageless professional media work ethics of highest degree, with just one stroke of a writer’s pen.
Discretion is a better part of Valour.
Well, the other day, a certain reader of the TSE seemed to have made on optimistic attempt to distort the marching song of H&T Column: Notes on English Language”. Since the “Grammar-ammunition” was not of high quality and the argument strictly personal, it is rather hard to make a serious comment. Unfortunately, the unprovoked random firings also hurt the over all reputation of the Sangai Express and the state’s print-media. Yes, many letters to the editor from this part of the world seldom get printed in reputed national daily English, the Language, newspapers since there are no deciphering sections in any newspaper or newsmagazine office. The state media fraternity is very accommodating and hence, the full length Letters to the Editor where one could bare one’s true colours. That this quixotic Reader’s opening bombardment started with a quaint : “Apropos of”, instead of the standard munition “Apropos to ” revealed the true nature of his experience. The of “Apropos of” actually refers to a third person/party; hence, the more understandable “to” which refers to second person. In a tense situation, the enterprising reader used a present tense “does not” in an indirect speech instead of “did not”. Moreover, a cocksure judgement...” it (the article) is flawed” was passed. Since a particular article is not circulated on daily basis, the past tense of the verb “is”, i.e., “was”, ought to be used. Then the adjective “flawed” was used as intransitive verb! The word ‘Flaw’ is actually a noun which can also be used as transitive verb. Our smart friend also told us thus....... “nor do we write poetries”. Well the orignal term ‘Poetries’ means ‘a collection of poems’ written by poet(s). As for the self-searching question on the phrase ‘Greco-Roman Latin’ being clubbed together, nothing is wrong since Latin was derived from Greek and was fine-tuned and used as a common language by the mighty Roman Empire. Just because one single person ‘seldom come across’ a word or term or idiom, one cannot simply say it does not exist. And the application of the idiom ‘to go through with’ i.e. ‘not to leave unfinished’ was grammatically acceptable.
In order to enjoy the rich knowledge of other’s literary works, one has to go through the whole content completely. The articles on ‘English Language’ written by William Safire of the New York Times have been regularly published in one of the nation’s premier monthly news-magazines i.e. The Frontline. Since Mr Safire’s article have been printed and published over the past 15 years or so, in the popular Frontline magazine, his name and works are very much well-known in this part of the world. Ironically, the Naipauls, Roys and Rushdies have also contributed essays and articles in pompous, stylish, very complicated at times, and in regal English on socio-political issues and certainly not on finer points of English language like Mr Safire. Our friend reminded us thus: ‘S.T. Coleridge and W. Wordsworth are contemporaries’. Since, both the writers/ poets had been dead longtime ago, the use of the verb ‘are’, instead of ‘were’ was incorrect. Besides, the term ‘contemporary’ is an adjective and not a noun; hence, it cannot have a plural form i.e ‘contemporaries’. The grammatically correct sentence ought to be thus : ‘S.T. Coleridge and W. Wordsworth were contemporary writers/ poets’.
It should be noted that the name of King George I nor Hanoverian Dynasty and its relation to the growth of English language were mentioned in that particular H&T article. Who said King George I and Prince consort, Albert, were related? Not, me, Senor Quixote. Signing off with malice to none and charity and goodwill to all.
-------------------------
Political scenario in Manipur
— Political prostitution and administration slavery to New Delhi —
By Lt Col. H Bhuban Singh (Retd)
Contd from previous issue
The above views are Western concept of ‘We versus They’ as propoun-ded by Dr. Charles Darwin in his theory of “Survival of the fittest”, which implies the fit to subjugate, enslave and if necessary, kill the weak. In the United States of America, white settlers almost extermina-ted Red Indians, who were the original inhabitants of America. They are now preserved as human specimen in ‘protected/reserved areas’. Black peoples were caught and brought from Africa to America to work as slave.
The most humiliating part of slavery is that if ‘my two man and wife slaves have children, the children are also mine. They were like my dog and bitch having puppies and the puppies, in turn belonging to me as my property’.
President Abraham Lincoln freed the blacks. In a book titled ‘The Roots’ written by a Black American, the author lost his family history in the jungles of West Africa.
Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate in his book ‘Identity and Violence - The Illusion of Destiny’ criticized ‘the herd behaviour’ of the West. He poin-ted out that Pandit Ravi Shankar, the great Sitarist or Ustad Ali Akbar Khan, the great Sarod player were not identified as Hindu Sitarist and Muslim Sarod player but were identified as Indian Sitarist and Indian Sarod player. He opi-ned that ‘our right is their wrong and their right is our wrong’ idea is politically highly combustible.
Writer Benedict Ander-son in his book ‘Imagined Communities’ wrote that no one should attempt to Magyarise the Slovaks or Anglicize the Indians, or to Russify the Ukranians. He pointed out that the Barons, who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta in May 1215, could not speak English. The concept of the Barons being Englishmen was wrong. In sum, he is against imagined communities.
Nelson Mandela, the black African leader of South Africa who fought against apartheid for forty years refusing release from jail, won and became President of Republic of South Africa. But he treated his former tormentors with love in true Gandhian style. The world recogni-zed him by awarding Nobel Prize for Peace.
Coming back to Darwin, Indians have modified the Darwinian concept of ‘survival of the fittest and destruction of the weakest’ to ‘survival of all and existence of all’.
Journalist Thomas Friedman in his book ‘The World is Flat’ wrote: “AI Qaeda has attracted Muslims from all Islamic countries; but its influence on the second largest Muslim country of the world, namely India has been very little... Also, there are no Indian Muslims that we know of in America’s Guantanamo Bay’ (prison)”
The above speaks volumes of Indian maturity and the desire for conflict resolution in a peaceful manner.
Currently, known nuclear powers are 1. USA 2. UK 3. France 4. USSR (Russia) 5. India (because of Pokhran-I) 6. China 7. North Korea 8. Pakistan 9. Israel - known but is still unofficial - and 10. Iran (likely soon).
Incidentally, South Africa had nuclear capability but destroyed it before South Africa became a republic under mixed rule of blacks and whites.
Now the world is looking up to India for propagating peace and avoidance of nuclear holocaust. To understand the import we need to read between the lines about the recent 3-day visit to India of Mr. Luiz Inucio Lulu du Sliva, Brazilian President. He suggested expansion of permanent members of UN Security Council to include India, Japan and Brazil.
—to be contd

Share

Blogger Widgets