As expected Frederick feels the need to make convoluted comments on relatively simple matters to show he has an opinion on everything.
-------- FN: This does sound good, and leaves us with a warm, fuzzy feeling. A tribute to the dear departed AND a meal for the poor. Sounds like one of those win-win situations that neo-liberal capitalism keeps reminding us about. CP: Neo-liberal capitalism? What's that? Is it connected to anti-Semitism? Will it somehow be connected anyway? I was talking about wasteful and unnecessary expenditure related to deaths, specifically Death/Condolence/Anniversary announcements. --------- FN: But just for the sake of debate, may I ask: * Should the same principle apply in every case where we could cut out the middle-man. Or is there some other principle on which we make the decision? CP: Who said anything about eliminating a middle-man? There always is a middleman. In this case the middlemen are the caterer, the transporter of food, the vendors of stationery items, vendors of beverages, the nuns... -------- FN: * Do we see our newspapers as serving society today, or not? Or is it a mixed bag? * If they aren't serving society, is it because they are making too much money in advertising? Or is the crisis actually traceable to somewhere else (i.e. they're too dependent on big advertisers, cover prices of newspapers have not grown over the years so readers barely matter now, readers are not influential enough in keeping check on the system, growing political and/or industrial control over our media, the rise of a class of professionals within the media whose interests may not tally with those of the wider society, etc, etc?) CP: Where is all this coming from? I spoke about giving to the needy instead of feeding greedy publishers. --------- FN: As you know, I've been living off the media (in a way) for the past quarter century. At the same time, I have a love-hate relationship with the Fourth Estate (or should we say Froth Estate, as it is increasingly turning out to be?) CP: And (in a way) I am part of the advertising industry and so by arguing the case for smaller (or no) Death/Condolence/Anniversary adverts I am hurting my own industry. That is not the point. It's the principle. There's nothing wrong with advertising when it serves an ethical purpose -commercial or otherwise. A Death Notice or even an Anniversary Notice is a way of disseminating information. Notice the little 'Friends and relatives accept this as the ONLY intimation' at the bottom of every Goan Death advert? That is a bloody joke. The friends and relatives who matter have been informed by phone, email, Facebook, what-have-you? The newspaper advertisement is not for them, but for the general public and those who might have been missed out. Now when you release a huge advertisement, as opposed to a small one, what additional information are you conveying? That you are rich? That you want to convey you are in some way superior? Or that the deceased was superior? Will more 'friends and relatives' come to the Mass if there are bigger and more advertisements? A well written obituary that speaks of the deceased and his life and achievements would be far more appreciated and cost nothing. Send it to GoaNet and Goan Voice UK and GoaWorld and every Goan in the world will see it. And those who are not networked are not coming for the Mass anyway. And what about Condolence adverts? What do they convey and to who? They inform the public that so-and-so was beloved by so-and-so and will be missed. Can't that be conveyed in a cheaper and more efficient fashion directly to the family of the deceased? Most important can't all the monies spent on these huge ego-fulfilling adverts be better spent on doing some charity on behalf of the deceased? I have had many people who have written in saying that they have left specific instructions to their next of kin that no money should be spent on such big advertisements and wasteful expenditures. Hats off to them! -------------- FN: Some of us journalists put together a book called *In Black and White*, which is available as a free download in the interest of public debate: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11523/11523.txt Keep in mond however, that this is still ajournalists'-eye-view perspective of the debate. Citizens' voices on the media are yet to be adequately heard or even voiced. CP: What this has to do with Death Advertisements is beyond me but I guess Frederick can't help plugging his products - commercial or otherwise. --------- FN: Being the contrarian that I am, let me point out however that even if media payments can be small in this part of the globe, my work there has created enough of a surplus to allow me the time to focus on issues I love working on. In that sense, I would not say an advert in the media is necessarily a waste of money-that-could-be-put-to-better-use. What I would agree is that our media has a long, long, long way to go before they can claim to be taking care of wider social needs. CP: I never said Death adverts are unnecessary. I was questioning about how many adverts are required and whether the money spent on big adverts could not be put to better use. Frederick is trying to make this about newspapers and journalism. I am talking about necessity and waste. Cheers! ======== Read the original post with photos at: http://cecilpinto.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/the-prayers-of-orphans/