Love at first sight

I have been doing a lot of thinking lately, which is translation for, I am bored with my job. On one such jobless rambling, my mind revisited the numerous exam halls where I once sat with a tensed mind, many a times. I still remember how I used to rush through spilling out all that I had tried to cram into my head, onto the paper. All the while, my mind used to keep chanting "It'll be over..It'll be over soon" - I know what you are thinking, yes, I was never the one that concentrated on one thing. My hand, meanwhile, used to freeze mid air, if my mind stopped the magic chant, so, I used to let it murmur in the background.

After I finished the ordeal of putting to paper what I had learnt(?), there was this torture of revising answers. I hated it, but you know girls. We always have a love-hate relationship with almost every thing under the sun(even with the sun, apparently - "Oh what a lovely, sunny day!"..."Yuck, I hate sunny days, what a horrible tan!"). I used to quickly glance through all my carefully crafted sentences, which were camouflaged with terms taken off the question, to pass off as answers. I would hopefully look at my watch. The traitor usually threw it in my face that I had about 5 more minutes to spare.

I then had to yield to my conscience's nagging and "check" my answers again. That was where fate played its favourite game. My mind, needless to say, was an ally of fate. What had seemed the only thing that could pass off under the examiner's careful eye, was now portrayed as a bonafide declaration of my stupidity, by my mind. Poor me, I always took the bait. I changed the answer to some seemingly plausible nonsense.

Yes, you guessed it. My first answer was almost always correct. At other times, it would have atleast not invited the comment "Meet me" scrawled across my paper or worse, the teacher taking me aside and talking to me as if I was going through a serious mental crisis.

It is the same with most things in my life. The dress I choose, the dish I order, the bus I take...Second opinions don't seem to work for me. So, if somebody asks me whether I endorse love at first sight, I say, why not? The probability of not going wrong seems to be more :)

Too far, wiki, too far!

Women's day was "celebrated" in my office yesterday. I do not believe in "kondadifying" such specially dedicated "days", but one particular item in the agenda, kindled my interest. It was called "High tea".

Always a big fan of quaint English terminologies, I googled it up. Google told me that Wikipedia knew what the term meant.

Wikipedia said

High tea (also known as meat tea) is an early evening meal, typically eaten between 5pm and 6pm. It is now largely followed by a later lighter evening meal.

High tea would usually consist of cold meats, eggs or fish, cakes and sandwiches.

In its origin, the term “high tea” was used as a way to distinguish it from “low tea” or afternoon tea. The words 'low' and 'high' refer to the tables from which either tea meal was eaten. Low tea was served in a sitting room where low tables (like a coffee table) were placed near sofas or chairs generally. The word high referred to a table, this one in a dining room table, and it would be loaded with substantial dinner dishes - meats, cheese, breads, perhaps the classic shepherd's pie or steak and kidney pie.

P.S: I love it when the literal meaning is the actual meaning, while people try to bring out all sorts of hidden symbology. This tendency must henceforth be called "The Dan Brown Syndrome".

But, Wikipedia, you got it wrong, didn't you? You do not know my HR team's definition of the term. You are not even close. If Ross(F.R.I.E.N.D.S) were around, he would say, "Too far, wiki, too far!"

Why in our event yesterday, most people slipped out clandestinely for tea, when speakers were furiously debating on what was apparently a serious topic.

We paid for our tea, and had to drink it in the corridor or the crowded cafeteria tables - certainly not filled with the mouthwatering(for many) assortment of victuals mentioned in your page.

While sipping our "high tea", me and my friends tried guessing the plausible interpretations of the term. Maybe, the HR people thought that we would slink off to the topmost floor, in an attempt to be as far away from the event as possible - "high" tea. Maybe, they knew we would sigh with relief and exclaim with joy when we finally escaped from the "celebration" and laid our hands on the cup of steaming tea - "Hiiieee Tea!!!"

Who's the Hero?

It is understandable that the yesteryear heroine never recognized her "athan" just because he skipped shaving the stubble on his face, for a bit longer than usual, for a "disguise". It is understandable because, the basic assumption those days was that women were a species unfortunately doomed to possess a vacuous "mel maadi" but, on the bright side, destined for a possible candidature for the next solitary female statue in Chennai beach(albeit requiring them to quickly acquire arsonistic qualities after the demise of their unfaithful husbands).

What amuses me even after so many years of watching Tamil cinema is, why does the so called mean, tricky, treacherous villain never get it? His chief career skill, apart from involving in sleazy activities and roaring out the famous villainous laughter jig is supposed to be his ability to think up almost applaudably intricate plots against the hero. The villain medidates devilments to trouble the hero even when he is with his ladies.

He is almost like Hanuman, with the hero always in his heart, the only difference being, he also wants to shoot an arrow(or in comparatively modern times, a bullet) through the person in his heart. In some movies, the villain is almost like a scorned lover. His eyes turn red, his voice becomes rough and his whole body trembles during a confrontation with the hero. So, is it not right to assume that he would atleast recognise his heartthrob?

Interesting, no? Yet, this is one of the puzzles that are better not delved into(Now, don't ask me what I did all this while - I need something to write about).

We take the personality shifts and the bouts of "selective" amnesia in our politicians(omg, even actors and sportspeople and journalists and....lack of space) with amazing nonchalance. No wonder we pardoned the villain's "chilly" mistake :)

Offensive language in TV and radio shows

Mass media like television and radio reach a huge audience and therefore, the impact of these media on the public is great. Any such tool that is capable of possibly influencing the thoughts and actions of people has to be monitored carefully. The reach of these media has to be leveraged to promote a positive mindset.

There might be an argument that such offensive language and behavior is bound to appear in reality shows, which are claimed to be reflections of the society but such language and behavior on popular shows only tend to make it look “cool” to youngsters. It is also an undeniable fact that youngsters of today are the adults of tomorrow. Their normal vocabulary will consist of foul words, which will be passed on to their children.

One comes across a lot of such programs. Reality shows, in which the participants hurl vile words at each other just for the sake of the prize money and to boost the ratings of the channel, are so common these days. These channels repeatedly show such behavior in snapshots, during the promos of such shows, to get more people to watch it. They are cashing in on the general human tendency to lean towards the darker side.

Common people no longer think about what they are going to say, on radio or on TV. The idea nowadays seems to be, speaking without thinking is speaking out one’s mind. Such shows portray thinking before speaking as a sign of weakness, by creating an image that words spoken spontaneously are those that come from deep within. That might not be the case always. Such “spontaneous” speech is more often a reproduction of the constant garbage that is hounded on them by the radio and TV shows.

On the other hand, interviews with real people, with real troubles – people who do not frame their speeches are educative in the sense that they show the public what their fellow human beings are going through. These programs create awareness, a gratitude for the position that one is in and the wish to reach out and help those in suffering.

Censorship of television and radio programs should indeed be there, in order to remind them of the great responsibility that they have. Censorship should be to the extent that the basic idea behind the program does not get affected. The intent behind the program (as to whether it is for entertainment/education/news/awareness creation) should also be kept in mind during the censor process. Programs which contain unnecessary amounts of offensive language or behavior, which might harm the public mindset, might as well be scrapped, since they add no value to the audience.

To be or not to be....heard!

Who has not heard of the tower of babel...? This expression is often used when people want to describe a place with a lot of confusion and noise. That is exactly what I am reminded every time I watch talk shows or discussions in most of our news channels.

Politicians clamoring to grab a chance to make their point, journalists
shouting at a higher pitch, in order to be heard over the din... A picture that
is quite common these days. What ails these people? Don't we teach kids at
school to not shout and to be polite and attentive to their opponents,
irrespective of how unreasonable that person's argument might be? Haven't we
seen teachers rebuking students who cannot maintain silence in the class?

I sometimes think that, the very concept of journalism has changed these days,
when TV channels are racing against each other, to prove and establish their own
surveys on which is the most widely watched channel(point to be noted - we do
not know how true the survey is, because every channel claims to be the most
acclaimed. By whom, I wonder!) The popular notion seems to be, get a celebrity,
say a politician(the poor devil is the easiest target, since he has always been
easy to question...Since we know there is a common perception that to be a
politician, one has to be corrupt in every possible way.). Prepare all the questions that one could think of, and keep shooting them in regular intervals.

The most important tip that seems to be given to these "journalists" seems to be, "Do not allow the other person to make a valid point. Even if he does, ignore it. We do not want him to talk or be heard."

No matter what the other person wants to say, the tone of the interview and its outcome is predetermined(by whom, I know not). If that person is low on the popular vote(determined by whom? how?) then the journalist keeps talking during the entire span of the show, leaving people like me wondering as to what was the point of inviting the other one to the show!

I have often felt that these shows are more like Interrogations(only the questioning part though. Answers are not expected.) and less like Interviews, though that is the name given to them.

If it is a movie star.... The scenario changes drastically! The "guest" might be a person with not a clue about what he/she is speaking, but, we are not concerned about that. The guest is a star...more people would tune into our channel...so just let them speak whatever they want to...Who cares how insensible or pointless the chatter is?! The "star" keeps talking of some personal travail and the "journalist" listens to it as if it is the most important issue that ails the millions in this country.

I am personally irritated by these kinds of shows. What is the point of journalism, if everything that happens on a news channel is preconceived and done with some motive other than the sole aim of bringing to light the urgent issues that demand our attention as a people?

The flash news - Breaking news like a famous celebrity couple(not even married yet, his 3rd girlfriend...her 5th boyfriend) breaking up.... I have often wondered at the pointlessness! Do the anchors themselves find these so called "news" worthy enough to be mentioned on national television?

Where is responsible journalism, one that does not blow things above their appropriate proportions, one that does not keep harping on the same news and digging further and further into things that are best left unnoticed, one that does not display irresponsible and over curious and sometimes manner less poking into other people's lives? When will they stop people from killing themselves to escape the cameras? When will they stop playing the same horrible videos just because there is nothing else to cover the time? Is there any hope of reviving the honor that journalism once had?

I hope good times are around the corner!