Where's my Culture Curry?
I can imagine the plight of the millions of Americans who have lost much valued column-space to the phenomenon that is Michael Jackson. Regaled with reams of speculative tripe upon the development of a dead case for the past year, (no doubt coupled with the lamentable loss of actual news and opinion) you cannot blame America for resonating with hushed is he, is he nots and does he, does he nots. All this for a case of suspected paedophilia that would have taken not more than 2 months to sentence in a lower court addressing commoners. Such is America.
Then ofcourse, riddling the path of the reader are the various glitzy potholes presented by the latest society scoops on the likes of Paris- Sharis, Britney-Shitney. Columnists wonder, is that The engagement ring; ohmigod, are they already hitched; is that a bump I see? Again, scores of columns are wasted upon the futile questioning of the current social/marital/sexual status of the latest ‘It’ thing. Yet, such is America.
Not that the ‘It’ bug hasn’t caught on here. We too produce the local variety of starlings, star-kids and star-struck by the bushel. Heck, what do you think the crowning jewel of the Times is, its middling Middle? Page 3 rules, we even have a movie to prove it.
But who would have thought a bunch of Gujju-bhais and a family saga to trump all the K’s (they actually have real crores to fight over) could have gobbled all the column space and made even that most veritable Sunday institution, the culture pages, redundant? Imagine my irritation this morning when I opened the Sunday newspaper, warm cuppa at hand, only to find my very favourite pages- Culture Curry and Book Mark- guzzled by more articles overanalysing the finer aspects of the Reliance split. Book and music reviews, interviews with the intelligentsia and articles exploring the latest trends in politics and culture replaced by more Ambani-mania? Outrage!
One is compelled to ask, what is ‘It’ about the Ambani’s that has had the nation enthralled, share-holder or not? The story does have the makings of the perfect BO potboiler- family living in chawl build multi-crore empire, sons jump from HSC to Wharton, more money rains on the family than a Monsoon Dhamaka. And then suddenly it’s all gone like the Sea Wind- babuji’s untimely death and the brothers in arms turn brothers at arms- Ambani blood, sweat and tears oil the gossip mills. Maa finally intervenes, and it looks like it is happy-happy all around once again. Well, sort of.
The complicated lives of those in the public eye, especially in times of duress, seem to hold some sort of morbid fascination for those of us not blessed with the limelight. I disagree with the argument that it is merely the media which is obsessed with exploiting the tribulations of the famous. The media merely supplies what we demand- and we demand that which is in rich contrast to the plain.
Ofcourse, not everyone is interested in reading gossip about the famous; but it is without question that it sells. I wonder if it says as much about the double edged-sword of fame as it does about the disturbing global trend of ogling at those who make it to the upper echelons of society, industry and entertainment. Furthermore, does it not say much about the basic nature of the common man to take refuge from, as well as find some kind of skewered, but very real comfort in the ordinary bhaag-daud of his life?
An achiever makes himself, but the people make a celebrity. It is we who put them on the mantle and it is we who purport the right, therefore, to pry into all aspects of their life. I shudder as I realize that however unwanted and unwarranted such interference may be to the person in question, the subconscious feeling among the society and the media is that they owe us; those of us who read and those of us who care without caring- because we made them.
So when I opened the Sunday paper this morning and found the culture pages missing, I thought “Where’s my Culture Curry?” But I wondered later, has it already been served?
posted by Seeking Clarity at 7:32 AM
1 Comments:
Thanks for taking the discussion further.
As I read your analysis and compared the stand of the media, or rather the evolution of the media as your theory has rightly developed it, in various countries I could entirely understand the basis of what you were saying.
But I wonder if there is a slight difference in the case of China. This isn’t taking the economic effect on the media further, but since the media is affected by so many aspects of every society, I thought the example of China and the effects of economic growth and govt. control on it would be worth discussing.
Since it’s been touted (with India) as the herald of the next global economic boom, China’s media strategy to “sell itself” makes good sense. It’s promoting itself in all areas- its downplaying communism and intelligently so, considering world leaders today are manic about democracy; its highlighting growth in critical aspects of the social sphere- education, literacy, health, even sports; and most of all in it’s financial sphere its making moves and it’s making all the right noises in the world about it.
As far as the case with the media not feeding off the personal lives of the famous is concerned, the point to be noted is that Chinese news agencies are still govt. controlled. [Xinhua, China’s main news agency is entirely govt. controlled and strictly follows policies dictated by it.] Since the govt. is communist, you can imagine the nature of its media policy. So largely, the world only reads about China, what China wants the world to read. Globally speaking, since China’s main vision is to be at par with the world leaders, its govt. is clearly playing its cards right by using the media to project the correct image abroad.
But I disagree that China will take a beating as far as the creativity quotient in the media is concerned. China’s social culture- meaning films, music and entertainment- is booming within the country. Nationally speaking, the country’s image as a rapidly advancing global player (most probably) conjoins with its more traditional, cultural, vibrant side. I still doubt they have any sort of ‘Page 3 culture’ within the country- but I think that may be because it isn’t naturally a part of the prevalent culture and it certainly isn’t something encouraged by their govt. I don’t think this will affect the evolution of its media, but like you said, it will probably create a whole new pattern of media functions, start a new trend.
I wonder what will happen when a rich culture like China’s mixes with rapid economic growth? Will it be able to balance both? Will it be able to keep its culture intact?
Perhaps Japan would be a good example at this point, but I’m not too well informed about it.
Finally, would legislative and/or ideological control add another shade to your theory?
Post a Comment
<< Home