Media gives thumbs up to Shoe maker

Well of course they are. Obvious to anyone. Especially the TV channels, where pompous anchors, full of themselves, breathe fire and brimstone at seemingly hapless politicians. But would we want it otherwise? Clinched as it may sound, the fourth estate can not and should not be denigrated.

Sure some media people think no end of themselves, think that the universe exists because of them, but they do far more good than harm. Their smallest gaffe if discovered is put up on display and magnified mani-fold for the world to see and jeer.

Ideally, a media person must express himself through the media. At least that is what his professional training must equip him to do. But, then the media has limitations. A media person who becomes conscious of these limitations is entitled to step out of the professional bounds and use other means to put across his ideas.

However, so long as he functions within the framework of journalism, he has an obligation to ensure that his conduct is consistent with the requirements of the profession. Media persons must have good working relations with newsmakers. Shoe throwing is not conducive to healthy interaction between newspersons and newsmakers.

Recently, A former BJP office-bearer created a sensation by throwing a wooden slipper at senior party leader L.K.Advani when the latter was going up on stage to address a public meeting in Madhya Pradesh.

The slipper missed Advani, but he became the latest victim of a series of ‘shoe-throwing’ incidents in the country. Luckily, the man identified was not a journalist, but a BJP worker named Pawas Agrawal.

Undoubtedly, Mr. Agrawal was influenced by the earlier incidence of shoe hurling by journalists.

Jarnail Singh, correspondent of the Hindi daily Dainik Jagran, was following the well-established Indian media tradition of imitation when he hurled a shoe at Home Minister P. Chidambaram at his press conference in New Delhi.

There was a slight departure from tradition, though. The Indian media usually imitates the West. Many newspapers are indebted to the West not only for their journalistic style but also for their names.

Jarnail Singh imitated not a westerner, but an Arab, Muntazer-al-Zaidi of Iraq, who had attracted attention worldwide by hurling a pair of shoes at President George Bush at a Baghdad press conference late last year. Muntazer's was an act of protest against the US atrocities in Iraq. He became a hero across the Arab world instantly. He also found admirers in anti-US circles elsewhere.

For other research based articles/views, Click: http://media-mad-ia.blogspot.com/

Definitions change with changing times. So, lets not ponder just about media ethics and their limitation. But we must think on the other part of the story as well.

For example, how good was the shoe thrown at public officials? Is there a good growing market out there for the shoe?

A good shoe is not only the one which fits snugly to the foot that wears it, but is also the one which zips through the air, connects enthusiastically with the cheek of the intended person without giving him a chance of ducking and leaves a good, indelible imprint on the cheek so that the next day when people meet him, they can tell him, “Some cheek you have!”

This is the modern day definition of a good, worthy shoe. And since there is a good growing market out there for the shoe, the shoe companies and many other organizations have started taking this definition quite seriously.

After talking to a few shoe manufacturers and came away highly enlightened and thrilled.
According to the Nike officials, they do not anymore have to advertise their shoes. All the shoes thrown so far have been Reebok. Just see how pathetically have they missed the intended target. Bush, Chidambaram and Jindal were all moving about with a normal, smooth cheek to show. Reebok is not a good shoe. He also claimed that It is an aimless, goalless, pointless, apathetic shoe. Had these people made a better choice, had they thrown the Nike, these three people would not have been able to make any cheeky remarks afterwards.

A social scientist has estimated that the demand for the new generation shoes will grow by a healthy 20% for many years to come. There are so many people out there who are feeling hurt and cheated. And hurling the shoe has caught the popular imagination as a good and quick means of grievance redressal. It gives utter satisfaction to the thrower if he or she connects, does not damage much more than the ego of the adversary and therefore does not allow an ‘attempt to murder’ charge to be slapped on the shoe-launcher.

Therefore, many more people will be throwing it in future. Once thrown, the shoe does not come back. It becomes an exhibit with the police and the court. Thus, a new pair has to be bought. So, the market will grow. And the more people feel hurt, the more will be the density of shoes in the air at any given time.

For other research based articles/views, Click: http://media-mad-ia.blogspot.com/