Dear Fred, when an obituary is written of a dead man, many times it contains
facts or "factoids." As a journalist yourself, I expected you to know that when
someone does a "critical assessment" of a noted person, it is important to
consider all the relevant data.
I have in my Mumbai days been told many tales of tiatrists. Some may be because
of jealousy. It was for me to sort it out. As an active journalist, don't you
hear different versions of a story and don't you take the trouble to find out
who is telling the truth or who is "spinning? Maybe you don't take the trouble.
Sometimes we journalists fall for the "spin". Remember, Iraq war? I can give
you more examples but Iraq should suffice. I thought you were capable of
understanding that it is not I who is make the allegation. I deliberately used
the word "alleged" because it was not confirmed with Boyer whether he was hard
of hearing. It came from close sources but nobody dared to write about it
because, just as you and some think, it would be "insenstive" even when he was
alive. Boyer was an icon when living and now in death.
The reason I wrote is to provide some nuggets of information on him and not
to bring him down. It was to show that Boyer was a mortal like all of us. He
had his faults and his weaknesses. Who is to judge whether I should have held
the information back or should have not written just after his death? What I
wrote is not something demeaning to Boyer.
So, in your view, when someone like me does sort of critical assessment should
I ignore such traits? In your great wisdom as a journalist of great repute,
please advice me. Your brand of journalism is different from mine. Period, or
as you said earlier in a post, "fullstop."
You are getting into a complex area of journalism ethics. Maybe you could teach
me. I will readily come to your workshop in case it is held when I am in Goa.
Your last line "If the devil could quote the scriptures, let he who is
blameless cast
the first stone!" is a cop-out. When I die, and if someone does a critical
assessment of me, I think it would be fair for the writer to write all that I
was, warts and all.
When Boyer came for my wedding reception, I was very happy. I sensed then that
my Mom sent him an invite. I tried my best during my days as a reviewer to keep
a fairly good distance between myself and the tiatrists. I was never too close
to anyone.
Here's one email sent to me:
"I am writing to you as i have just read this article and i am very
disappointed at the comment of Our beloved M. boyer mentioned "beiro" meaning
deaf. I never remember M. Boyer being short of his hearing until this date,
even due to his illness.
It is very sad at this mourning time, we share such comments as he was a Very
Special Star in the Kokani world. No other will be able to replace his
achievements. I do hope you will apologise for this comment as i see this
comment as pure jealousy for his great achievements in his work. The whole of
India has appreciated his wonderful work always and will always be remember
forever."
The writer is obviously a great fan of Boyer's. What the writer fails to
understand is that during his schooldays his classmates called him "beiro".
This was conveyed to me by sources close to Boyer and that I did not make
create it. It was a closely-guarded secret.
The writer says I wrote out of "pure jealously", forgetting that I have praised
his work.
Eugene
