Sunday, July 01, 2007

You have to say what is happening, and how it happened, and where, when. You got to complete the story; you got to find all details, and quirks of that story.

But who chooses this story over the other story, even though if you are covering the whole. There are empirical details side by side as others, so why choose certain empirical nuggets over others to shape the ‘conspicuous truth’ of that story, or why leave some stories uncovered.

Is not all relating to a perspective, each of our own, as we all maintain a lens of our own mental making envisaged through our needles we sew to make our “story material”.

Does an independent news agency exist, can it ever exist? Given the intricacies of wider networks of people, so how many perspectives are there, and why it becomes a sole, prime one at the end? We all can define what alarabiya is, or aljazeera, cnn ect….

Even if we tell a story against all the immoral oddballs or phenomenon of war crimes, nahr al barid, genocides, Nigeria, Al-hashimi killing al-alousi kids, civil strives, and Paris Hilton’s rubbish auction reaching 1.5 million dollars

How cultural relative is this “moral vs. immoral” paradigm is?

And what is even more disturbing and deleterious --how much of moral responsibility do we carry to spread the news of those ever so immoral-imbeciles to awaken yes surely the consciousness, but also smothering the mind of those untouched with dirt, desensitivizing the consciousness level even to a lower level. I do not like violent movies too.

So what makes a good journalism, and is there such thing as a “neutral being” can it ever exist? and who owns these institutions, the thoughtful, sensitive plebian…of course not.

God, it feels a lot better to write questions, than boring dictum.

No comments: