Agent Provocateur: Don’t block the ‘Internet Hindus’
Usual Suspects: Virtual jihadis threaten www
Both Kanchan Gupta and Swapan Dasgupta came out with their views on the newly coined term 'Internet Hindus'. While Kanchan Gupta is more accommodative, Swapan seems to have gone overboard liking it to 'virtual jihad'. But the bottom line is, irrespective of the ideological orientation, the media persons are getting worried.
We have often discussed how the leftists control the media. On a few occasions, we discussed about the absence of right-wing intellectualism in all but the internet space. So why is the media getting worried about this miniscule presence of rightists and nationalists? In fact, I would go on to say that a lot of the internet activity is driven by national interest rather than an ardent support for BJP. It is only incidental that BJP happens to the party which is more aligned to our national interest and the rest of the parties are various shades of anti-national parties. A gross generationalisation but I can live with it.
What the media is terming as 'Internet Hindus' is actually 'Internet Nationalists'. The survey results which Kanchan Gupta refers to also points out to this. But because the leftists want to indulge in ritual hindu bashing, they picked this convenient term. Whatever terminology they chose, it wont matter because they just cannot moderate the internet space and they cant withstand the rising tide of public resentment towards media. Coming back to the question, why is the media upset by national activists on the internet?
Our journalists, who are shaping public opinion, have a certain set of motivations and limitations:
1. Ideological blindness: First and foremost, guys like N.Ram just dont bring any great value to the discussion table. If we cut the prose, there is hardly any political insight they bring. I am not saying they lack the ability; it is just that they are ideologically blinded to give any fair and balanced evaluation of events.
2. Insecurity: Journalists need to worry about job security. They need to stick to a certain slant in reporting if they are to survive in the industry dominated by leftists.
3. Lure of sinecure: Most media outlets work as an extension of the ruling government for fear of reprisal. But some journalists sell their wares in expectation of a sinecure job. For example, Harish Khare did this by endlessly praising the dynasty and he was duly rewarded by the congress government.
4. Lack of talent: Journalism was not a good career choice for long. Things might have changed significantly now but it failed to attract talent. So barring a few exceptions, there is pervasive mediocrity in the industry.
5. Poor understanding of technology: Most media people are trying to understand and catch up with technology but they are not still not quite comfortable with it. While this in itself may not be a problem, they are definitely holding some suspicion towards the internet because it is disrupting their existing business model. They are also trying to carry their vast understanding of the traditional industry to relate to the new medium. Unfortunately, this is not how you approach a disruptive technology.
Let me pause for a moment and address Swapan Dasgupta's suggestion to moderate the internet to cut off the poison keyboards. I have great regard for Swapan and I have repeatedly stated this on this blog. But, I have to point out that this suggestion by Swapan betrays suspicion or old style tactics to a disruptive technology. Sorry, Swapan, you got it all wrong here.
6. Accountability: Media has long been acting with hardly any accountability. This is still the case in traditional media. When the media is trying to embrace the new medium, suddenly there is an extraordinary demand for accountability.
The internet audience is working beyond these boundaries. They are challenging the journalists in a level playing field. Our mediamen are not used to their views being questioned. Remember Vishnu "Minaret" Som? And they are not ready for a debate because it means they have to get out of their comfort zone.
The internet audience is demanding enlightened national interest. They are demanding more accountability. Most of them are already highly successful in their careers. They are not dedicating their time as activists for a few bread crumbs or some perks to pep up their lifestyle.
But here is what I think upsets the accomplished journalists the most. The highly successful among them have worked hard, established good networks and built a reputation in the old media industry. But when moving to the new medium, they find that all their past has come to nought. Because on internet, eventually it boils down to ideas. Name can only give a good headstart.
Wrong ideas will invite censure from the faceless readers. It is silly for the media people to lump the readers (another example of old media habits) as "internet hindus" and try to deride them. This is reactionary and definitely not the right approach. Just as a good number of these peoples participate in various discussions on the internet, a more diverse worldwide audience is likely to indulge in debates on Indian matters. And then, this title "internet hindus" will sound as ridiculous as that other communist hallucination called "hindu growth rate". It is important to look beyond such artificial categorizations and recognize the internet for what it is.
Internet is more participatory than the old media industry. This is a huge difference from old style when you consider that the rules of engagement are vastly different. Our media people have failed to recognize and understand both these aspects. They are realising that uncensored reader response is not as flattering. And they are getting upset that their tried and tested tactics are not working here to good effect.
To me, it appears as if this issue is not about "internet hindus". In many ways, our media people are stumbling along their way to the new reality. They are not liking the ride and hence complaining. The hard-wired leftists as usual are blaming it on hindus.
Usual Suspects: Virtual jihadis threaten www
Both Kanchan Gupta and Swapan Dasgupta came out with their views on the newly coined term 'Internet Hindus'. While Kanchan Gupta is more accommodative, Swapan seems to have gone overboard liking it to 'virtual jihad'. But the bottom line is, irrespective of the ideological orientation, the media persons are getting worried.
We have often discussed how the leftists control the media. On a few occasions, we discussed about the absence of right-wing intellectualism in all but the internet space. So why is the media getting worried about this miniscule presence of rightists and nationalists? In fact, I would go on to say that a lot of the internet activity is driven by national interest rather than an ardent support for BJP. It is only incidental that BJP happens to the party which is more aligned to our national interest and the rest of the parties are various shades of anti-national parties. A gross generationalisation but I can live with it.
What the media is terming as 'Internet Hindus' is actually 'Internet Nationalists'. The survey results which Kanchan Gupta refers to also points out to this. But because the leftists want to indulge in ritual hindu bashing, they picked this convenient term. Whatever terminology they chose, it wont matter because they just cannot moderate the internet space and they cant withstand the rising tide of public resentment towards media. Coming back to the question, why is the media upset by national activists on the internet?
Our journalists, who are shaping public opinion, have a certain set of motivations and limitations:
1. Ideological blindness: First and foremost, guys like N.Ram just dont bring any great value to the discussion table. If we cut the prose, there is hardly any political insight they bring. I am not saying they lack the ability; it is just that they are ideologically blinded to give any fair and balanced evaluation of events.
2. Insecurity: Journalists need to worry about job security. They need to stick to a certain slant in reporting if they are to survive in the industry dominated by leftists.
3. Lure of sinecure: Most media outlets work as an extension of the ruling government for fear of reprisal. But some journalists sell their wares in expectation of a sinecure job. For example, Harish Khare did this by endlessly praising the dynasty and he was duly rewarded by the congress government.
4. Lack of talent: Journalism was not a good career choice for long. Things might have changed significantly now but it failed to attract talent. So barring a few exceptions, there is pervasive mediocrity in the industry.
5. Poor understanding of technology: Most media people are trying to understand and catch up with technology but they are not still not quite comfortable with it. While this in itself may not be a problem, they are definitely holding some suspicion towards the internet because it is disrupting their existing business model. They are also trying to carry their vast understanding of the traditional industry to relate to the new medium. Unfortunately, this is not how you approach a disruptive technology.
Let me pause for a moment and address Swapan Dasgupta's suggestion to moderate the internet to cut off the poison keyboards. I have great regard for Swapan and I have repeatedly stated this on this blog. But, I have to point out that this suggestion by Swapan betrays suspicion or old style tactics to a disruptive technology. Sorry, Swapan, you got it all wrong here.
6. Accountability: Media has long been acting with hardly any accountability. This is still the case in traditional media. When the media is trying to embrace the new medium, suddenly there is an extraordinary demand for accountability.
The internet audience is working beyond these boundaries. They are challenging the journalists in a level playing field. Our mediamen are not used to their views being questioned. Remember Vishnu "Minaret" Som? And they are not ready for a debate because it means they have to get out of their comfort zone.
The internet audience is demanding enlightened national interest. They are demanding more accountability. Most of them are already highly successful in their careers. They are not dedicating their time as activists for a few bread crumbs or some perks to pep up their lifestyle.
But here is what I think upsets the accomplished journalists the most. The highly successful among them have worked hard, established good networks and built a reputation in the old media industry. But when moving to the new medium, they find that all their past has come to nought. Because on internet, eventually it boils down to ideas. Name can only give a good headstart.
Wrong ideas will invite censure from the faceless readers. It is silly for the media people to lump the readers (another example of old media habits) as "internet hindus" and try to deride them. This is reactionary and definitely not the right approach. Just as a good number of these peoples participate in various discussions on the internet, a more diverse worldwide audience is likely to indulge in debates on Indian matters. And then, this title "internet hindus" will sound as ridiculous as that other communist hallucination called "hindu growth rate". It is important to look beyond such artificial categorizations and recognize the internet for what it is.
Internet is more participatory than the old media industry. This is a huge difference from old style when you consider that the rules of engagement are vastly different. Our media people have failed to recognize and understand both these aspects. They are realising that uncensored reader response is not as flattering. And they are getting upset that their tried and tested tactics are not working here to good effect.
To me, it appears as if this issue is not about "internet hindus". In many ways, our media people are stumbling along their way to the new reality. They are not liking the ride and hence complaining. The hard-wired leftists as usual are blaming it on hindus.
Posts
