Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site crystal.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!crystal!ravi
From: ravi@crystal.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: India and the Media
Message-ID: <409@crystal.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 16:17:48 EST
Article-I.D.: crystal.409
Posted: Fri Mar  8 16:17:48 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 05:35:22 EST
References: <2440@hplabsc.UUCP> <197@gitpyr.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 80

> 
> Why single out India? Ditto for ALL other countries, England included. So
> whats your gripe? Wash out the brains of these poor demented Americans? Have
> you cared to think about what the general Indian thinks about the (big baad)
> West? 

Any Indian (with any pride and self-respect at all) must invariably be disturbed
or hurt by negative reporting by the media here.  We just seem solve the
problem differently.  Some of us become angry.  Others among us may rationalize
these feelings and our impotence in two different ways:  Either by repeating
to others (and ourselves) that we really don't care (most of us), or by 
convincing ourselves (despite knowledge to the contrary) that the portrayal 
is, after all, accurate (some of us).

Indians definitely have a far better perception of the USA than Americans 
have of us (educated Indians, that is; if you must bring up the question of 
illiterate Indians, then I suggest you compare them to illiterate 
Americans).  The reason is simply that we hear more about the USA than the
negative aspects of life here:  That the chances of death from violent crime,
for instance, are greater those from heart disease, cancer or auto accidents, 
or that some 30% of children may be sexually molested.  Our perception would be
terribly distorted too if we only heard these negative reports.

You bring up England.  While there is negative reporting about England, there
is a corresponding amount of positive reporting too that creates some balance.
That is primarily because American journalists understand England reasonably
well.  The reason that does not happen with India (or the 3rd world in 
general) is that journalists are not aware of, or even interested in our ways.  
I know they don't have to be, but that's no reason to say what they are doing 
is OK.

> Who else do they have to blame? Ronald Reagan? Or the ever maligned British? 
> C'mon man, stop passing the buck...
> 
> Wonderful!! Aren't we all so proud of that. 
> India also exports high grade iron-ore
> because we dont care to make steel of it. And we get a few quick bucks out of
> these resources without the bother of having to process it. Its all the fault
> of those damn British -:)
> 
> But of course. Jawaharlal Nehru... Indira Gandhi... Rajiv Gandhi... !! -:)


Sure, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt.  They of course, were
properly elected.  Nehru, Indira, and Rajiv, for some reason, were not.  When
the Kennedy mystique gets votes, is what is happening any different from what
happens when a corresponding thing happens back home?


> I don't. Probably I love India as much as you do, maybe even more. But I like
> to consider realities. What you want is biased glorification of India like
> what the ****-ed up Indian media does. Form organizations of Indian-born
> Americans, American-born Indians, or what have you. Speak up for all you
> like. But the truth will remain that India is in a very crummy situation
> (albeit improving, but *very* slowly), and we are the only people to blame.
> Everyone is looking up to dear Rajiv as if he is the avatar who will work
> wonders for India. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. Time will tell.


I am sure you love India as much as anyone else does.  But cynicism is not a
solution to anything.  Is the "****-ed up" media you speak so disparagingly
about any worse than the media here that projects the myth about America 
being the "greatest country" on earth (whatever that means).  (Talk about 
"biased glorification"!)  The point is simply that a positive self-image is
crucial whether you are an individual, or a company or a whole nation.  Ask
any Japanese executive why his workers are so productive.  When one no longer
cares about a positive self-image, there is no more motovation for progress.
(Psychologists agree that the most important charcteristic of chronic
depressives is lack of a positive self-image.)  Just as an experiment, I
suggest you tell an American that his country "sucks"  and observe the natural
reaction.  The main reason for Reagan's popularity is that he succeeds in 
creating a positive feeling in America.  There is no reason to repress 
positive feelings about India.  Whether or not Rajiv is an "avatar", there is 
no reason to chastise people for feeling positive!

Other minority communities have been effective in helping the media understand
their country, culture, or point of view better.  There is no reason why
organizations of Indians shouldn't (whether they are Indian-born Americans or 
American-born Indians or whatever else).  It might even make life for 
everyone a little better.