For long, I have been a critic of the media in Goa, and how it works here. This is reflected in the reality that I hardly ever got the space to work with the Goa media in any significant way, except when the media itself here has been short of staff, or wanted a nightwatchman to 'run the show' for a short stint. For my part, no regrets about that... it helped me to do more interesting and productive work.
My own almost-consistent (excepts for a brief honeymoon when one just joined as a college student in 1983!) skepticism of the media has, on the other hand, ensured that I have no aim or ambition to angle for posts among the media here. In part, the decision to invest time and energies in building alternatives-to-the-media, particularly Goanet, on a voluntary basis for the past decade stems from the acknowledgement that we can't depend on the mainstream media to 'get the story out' and we need to be contributing something ourselves. Having said that, permit me to make a few observations: (i) The media is bound by many, perhaps too many, limitations in Goa, and these needs to be addressed if society is to get ahead. Take a look at some views from Goa on this at http://www.goanet.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=198 or even via the e-book brought out by a score of journalists themselves and available for free download at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/11523 Another place for an insiders' critique of the media is the Goajourno site, whose archives are accessible to all http://puggy.symonds.net/pipermail/goajourno/ You can also see the Goa Union of Journalists site, which understandably but unfortunately contains less professional criticism and more trade union perspectives, at http://guj.goa-india.org See also http://patrakar.blogspot.com (ii) Unfortunately, a handful of expat Goans seem to believe that the blame for all of society's ills can be thrown at the door of the media. (I hate to say this, but we get the media we deserve.) First we saw such a perspective from Jose Colaco, and now comes Joe's critique. Sitting, as I have argued earlier, half-way around the globe, these honourable gentlemen are convinced that they not only know what's the correct diagnosis, but who is to blame, and what is the precise prescription to cure all the ills. While this may help to scapegoat people who clearly don't share your perspective in cyberspace (and which you see a grave insult in), it doesn't get to the core of the issue. Far from it. So, for instance, JC will talk perennially about a single forwarded news-agency report about a bridge in Daman and jumbled history of the Siddi tribals in a single report, as if this is proof of some grand conspiracy on the part of the media in Goa. So, carelessness (at worst) gets converted into conspiracy! (iii) Of course the media is failing to do its job, but not in the manner you perceive it. Probably far more seriously. Because of the petty nature of your points, you are probably missing the wood for the trees. The problem is that such arguments come up so persistently, that they almost get life of their own ;-) (iv) As far as Joe's note goes, he seems to target the media in Goa alone -- I hold no brief for them -- while, in actual fact, media criticism has targeted the media around the globe for being unrepresentative, too close to the powers-that-be, run by a small coterie, for their profit motive, for their overwhelming emphasis on infotainment and inability to take up issues that matter, and for their excessive commercialism. Among other issues. But Joe makes it seem as if only the media *in Goa* is flawed. Of course, this is no consolation that we are as bad as all others; and we need to rectify in whatever way possible the situation back home. But please don't pretend as if this is a Goa-linked problem alone. (v) There are journalists, and there are journalists. Some, in Goa itself, have done a rather interesting job, and I would not hesitate to praise them. The problem is that our armchair critics would like to critique journalism in Goa after seeing only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. For the record, 90% of what is published in the mainstream media probably isn't available (or not adequately noticed) in cyberspace. For instance, Gomantak Times doesn't have a website of its own; none of the four Marathi and one Konkani papers have it. Even if they had, you probably wouldn't be following it. The Goa Today has faced the threat of losing subscriptions to free online content. Parmal, a great journal that comes out annually, depends on Goanet for circulating its content in cyberspace. May I also add, that although most take me to be a "Goa(n) journalist", and some credit me with being a "prominent" one at that, I am personally just a peripheral player here. I earn probably 90% of my earnings from writing on topics outside of Goa, and for 90% of my career have been associated with the media outside of Goa (if one keeps out my four initial years at a couple of editorial posts in the Herald, 1983-1987). So how balanced is your critique of journalism in Goa, given that you don't have a clue of the large part of what is being published? (vi) The media in Goa has to face pressures not just from politicians and industry (as Joe suggests) but also from religious institutions, readers who want a free read and don't buy their own newspaper, and ranting NRIs who believe they have a know-it-all god-given perspective on everything. (vii) Joe says, "The press in Goa, as we know, is highly partisan and biased..." That's true of the press everywhere. Isn't it in your adopted country? Rather than curse the darkness, I salute those who are trying to build alternatives to this, including by way of 'indy' media (independent media) approaches. Elisabeth, your points take the debate in another direction. Of course, I'm one of those who believes that a journalist's social reality will colour his writing. Neutrality is a myth created to service the needs of the business-controlled press. When Gandhi (will post more on him later... to continue the earlier debate) brought out his 'Harijan' and other publications, he didn't approach the British to ask them why they should continue staying on in India. The 'neutral media' myth is just that, a myth. Even the honourable Pulitzer didn't quite practise it, though one might get a different impression going by the awards that perpetuate his 'memory'. In India too, the media too has long been liberal, with a mildly-left-of-centre perspective on many issues. (The BJP tried to bring about major demographic changes during its tenure in power in Delhi and Panjim, not wholly unsucessfully.) Thank goodness for this, or else we would have had some fascistic party in power and India's diversity would have clearly been badly under pressure. It is no secret that the BJP could not stand the more enlightened approach of the English-language press (in many parts of the country, the 'vernacular' was more-saffron than the saffronites itself.... you can get a taste of this in a section of the non-English press in Goa too). But that is another debate. -FN PS: I'm more than a bit surprised that Floriano is raising this subject, as a convenient beating-stick, at this point of time. Floriano, if you recall, you'll guys tried to buy your way into the media, helping the very same quarters that successfully blocked the pre-elections 2002 interview which I did with you. So what are you cribbing about? -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Frederick 'FN' Noronha | Yahoomessenger: fredericknoronha 2248 copylefted photos from Goa: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fn-goa/ _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
