The other day, we were reading The Lady of Shalott in our 19th-century poetry class when the discussion progressed to the allegorical meaning of the poem. It was important to understand the Victorian perception of art and it’s meaning to actually analyse the hidden meaning behind Tennyson’s poem. Though, it can be interpreted in several meanings owing to the excellent level of symbolism that the poet masters but it got me thinking about one of the less important meanings.
I see the poem as a deliberate yet ambiguous critique of the notion of art and females artists (poetesses, writers, authors) in the Victorian era. Art was supposed to be ‘dispassionate’ to cater to a certain kind of universality and timelessness. Victorian society wanted art to remain objective without the infringement of any kind of ideologies. It was as if you were reporting an event without your personal ideologies and bias, thoroughly objective and exactly as you see it. Art was supposed to be like journalism.
But, that is not exactly the major point behind writing this narrative. Like I said, the poem got me thinking and I realised that two centuries later, society thinks in the same way.
We have unbiased and emotionless art but biased and emotional media.
In a society where novels like The Subtle Art Of Not Giving A F**k and How To Win Friends And Influence People are bestsellers and Jane Eyre or The Great Gatsby are ‘ancient classics,’ what can one actually expect from people? Where did we go wrong when the former novels are considered art but the latter are merely emotional stuff?
Where did we go wrong when the media was continuously shouting for a war with Pakistan even though the consequences would be devastating? Where did the sensibility go? Oh, and with the election season coming up, either you are pro-Modi or you are anti-Modi (read anti-national).
My research on the ethics of media for a drama piece taught me that media is considered as the fourth pillar of democracy which shows all sides of a story. Where did we go wrong when a certain set of people only follow a particular media portal for its ideology and the others follow the opposite ideology? What happened to an unbiased piece? What happened to showing both positives and negatives, so that the viewers and readers decide for their own?
It is as if a fact is purchased by different media groups as per their requirements and in a way that their pieces satisfy the needs of their customer base. The company then uses the 10% of the bought fact and adds to it 90% of a secret formula to create a consumption-worthy news article. This is then served to us readers who directly borrow the ideology from the news piece and vomit it out on the internet. Facebook becomes a major platform for all this nonsense.
Honestly, it has been so long since I found an unbiased article/report on Facebook or the internet. As someone who writes, I feel it becomes our utmost important concern to provide a balanced piece. An article that doesn’t omit one side of the story based on either a conservative or a liberal point of view (media bias by omission), or an article that doesn’t use phrases like “experts believe,” “observers say,” and “most people believe” without referencing hyperlinks. This funnily reminds me of that famous Hindi idiom, “chaar log kya kahenge samaaj mein?” translating to, “what will people say?”
I really want to meet these four people, the experts, the observers and that crowd of people who believe your story. Either make me meet them or give me their certified statements. I won’t settle for any less.
On top of that, I am tired of people highlighting either the left or the right. As a reader, I would definitely enjoy opinions and actualities from both ideologies on a certain event or issue. I would definitely like my news just like my coffee, hot, fresh and balanced in flavour.
Stop believing that a particular ideology is always right, no pun intended, I swear. The world is complex, people are complex, the actions and motives behind them are complex. So, how can you expect the truth to be simple and one-sided?
I like my road map with directions of right and left marked clearly but I would really appreciate if my news is served without the bias. It is important to realise that the media is the fourth pillar of democracy and thus, is for the people, by the people and of the people. It shall thus, remain for the people and not for a particular political or monetary support.