Recently, I met a brilliant young man who accidentally introduced me to the combination of word logical error, which he faces in his computer programming. In this case, every code is right but nothing works in programming. Hearing that something clicked in my brain because this is what I have been failing to get in media by many of our well experienced journalists, not just the fresh one who lose sight from the main topic. When pointed out they argue back this is what is his or her perspective.
Long time back, when I was working in advertising agency I have been clearly explained by an expert in this matter, the difference between literature and a mass communication. It is believed that in literature, if many people gets a different angle after reading a story line that is regarded as a plus point of the writer however, if a person can communicate one message to millions of the people exactly the way one is trying to convey, then that person is a successful communicator.
Me, not being a literary figure and not having keen interest in this field, I smell something fishy in many people being able to see one sequence from ten different angles. This simply fails to convince me; unless the writer, did not get it clearly and then have no option but to say, ‘yes’ you get it right to all those people who read it and get it as they wish. Agreed, literature is not that simple like math equation which has just one answer and another answer makes it totally wrong. But, I would like to leave this argument here because in this article, I am going to focus on logical error in mass communication and how bad impact it can have in the long run if a journalist derails from the main topic.
‘He is dying and she can't afford the daily bills of the hospital’, a woman had approached Bijay Kumar as he was waiting to see a doctor for his Buddhist guru. The woman went on to plead him, ‘would you please request the doctors here to pull the plug from him, so that she [the dying man’s wife] can take him to her home where he can die peacefully’. Although, he felt sorry for the woman, he was confused with this type of request. In that very dazed state of mind, he went to talk to Dr. Makaju, the dean of the hospital in Dhulikhel. However, Dr. Makaju was not convinced with the kind of request Bijay Kumar entered in his office. The doctor even challenged him asking, who are you to tell me who will die or not ? After some talk hospital management agreed to keep the patient without it costing to the family and a letter was handed over to his wife, freeing her from the financial burden. This is a scene I picked from the book Khushi by Bijay Kumar.
He writes further down, seeing in the eyes of the woman made him feel close to seeing a god; who felt so thankful for being freed from paying hefty bills for her dying husband; she thought, would not survive. However, Bijay kumar fails to appreciate the adamant nature of Dr. Makaju and his colleagues for their determination to save the dying man and lifting the expensive method to keep him alive that cost hospital management for decision like this. This is the reason, the woman was ready to pull the plug from her husband.
Is poverty makes our journalist so blind that he can't even see the logic from right angle ? Just because we are poor, does that mean we should always sympathize to the cruelty of poverty gripen steps our folks takes, like this woman was about to. Sympathy to this woman fails to impress me because instead of trying to do everything possible from her might like knocking all the doors to raise funds so that; she can save her dying husband. She opted for the easiest way out and begs a famous journalist to pull the plug. Should we sympathize her decision to pull the plug from the machine who could live given a chance just because she has no money ? How come he did not see the side Dr. Makaju saw and was fighting for even though patient like him will always be on waiting list. This also meant he was ready to bear the brunt of the high cost to keep alive a dying man, who is not even related remotely to this Dr. with a hope, that there is a slightest chance, he might live. How this is different than the man who smothered and then buried his two young daughters on the river bank, which we read some time back in our news ? When he was interrogated he cried foul saying that he was so poor could not afford the rising cost. Is not this a crime ?
At this point, I remember watching him in his famous talk show Dishanirdesh years ago. I can't remember the name of the Doctor, but then he was interviewing the Dean of Patan Hospital. At one point the doctor said, there are times when we see a patient we think will live because their sickness is not serious enough but then, they die and there are times we give up hope on saving some patient and yet they leave hospital in due course of time and live long enough to surprise us. As a doctor I am sure Dr. Makaju must have seen that fact, and worked at his level best to save the unknown man. Maybe this is the kind of patience who would have died despite doctors seeing all reports of of survival chance. How, I mean how come Bijay Kumar can derail from the main track and take a whole wrong path to find happiness ? is this because Dr. Makaju was a good fighter and challenged this hard hitting journalist compared to that woman who was begging with him ? his logic could be anything but I totally failed to get his logic. I see logical error in Mr Kumar's finding khushi in a potential killer's eyes.
But, what Dr. Makaju did for the woman and the dying man after his talk, reminded me a line from another book, The fourth Dimension by Dr. Paul yonggi Cho, a christian religious guru and international inspirational speaker. He writes in his book that word is GOD. That is the reason when Bijay Kumar had words with Doctors it raised the chances of saving a dying man. That’s why we in the media must speak and write because we do not know who, when, why, how and where our words might save lives.
Every country needs influential religious guru to guide it. Education, entertainment, economy boom in all sector or the media and government alone can not help to guide it to the right path; but we have gurus who find comfort in quietness of cage or beautiful places in jungles surrounded by rich and famous people than preaching the common mass. Bijay Kumar appreciates a famous Buddhist monk spending 30 years of his life in isolation in cage. This is so different than the religious gurus from west like Norman Vincent Peale, Paul Yonggi Cho and Loren Cunningham who travel relentlessly and speak in front of big mass that will touch life and all of them have written many books that helps to offer some answers to the confused mass. Those books do have power to shape any society. I being a Nepali have not got a chance to read a good book from our religious guru. Sure, we read here and there that they serve the rich and famous who have lost it in mid ways. I did not get it well, do we really have to be rich and famous like he writes in his book to meet them and hear their messages that teaches us how to live life ? In the total mess of my country and society I yet have to see or read any religious guru[s] coming forward and uniting people. That is not the case in west. May be because we have journalist who see a good logic, when a wise [shepherd] monk finds a way out in isolation inside the cage and leaves the mass to wonder what is going on in our society and what should we do to come out clean from such situation ?
Again, I fail to see the logic in his understanding. The result of this is very simple, just see where our country ranks in world map in many categories compared to developed countries where religious gurus keep preaching and writing relentlessly to spread the message from God.
part II will be posted on next week.
Note : This article has already been published in Samhita, Chaitra 2072 [March-April 2016]. This is a trimester magazine published by Press Council Nepal.
No comments:
Post a Comment