The bloody lens

Last Thursday I attended a discussion/seminar on the role of media and war reporting.  To be honest, I signed up for this thinking there would be some really good answers or solutions to the way media reports news of war, death, and destruction. There were none!  However, halfway through the presentations I asked myself if I had any answers or proposals for journalists as to how they could or should do the job of reporting war, terrorism and the like.  Surprisingly I didn't have a clear picture or at least one without fueling the event being reported.

Thereon what one of the speakers stated made much sense.  He was for reporting individual lives and events rather than mass numbers and mega wars and attacks.  He said that merely reporting acts of terror or war only 'feeds the monsters'.  He was not for comparing numbers of deaths in combat or terror attacks as this was in a way being insensitive and leading to insensitivity. 

Figures and numbers matter but

• only in as much as each death counts as an individual loss
• not when leading to an 'us vs them' attitude
• not at the cost of becoming insensitive to other forms of violence which are actually more painful and prevalent than a terror attack
• they actually carry out the propaganda sought by the terrorists and bombers (actions are theirs but the voice and message is carried forth by the media!)

Focusing on numbers and discussing the scale of violence is only feeding the monster rather than reporting news and making a positive difference.  Of course, there is the media bias that no reporter or channel can escape.  And neither is every situation the same or a seamless robe.  

Prophet vs terrorist

Yesterday's readings wherein Jeremiah begins lamenting his role as a prophet and then concludes stating that he cannot but continue, of his own accord to be so, offers some insights into the role of suffering and pain.  If given a choice to opt out, he would have taken the chance to quit.  But now he says, he is 'addicted' to this challenging role which invariably includes suffering and pain.  However, the notable point is that his main reason to continue being a prophet is that in the long run he is doing good to people and carrying out the will of God.  There is really no personal thrill involved - hardly any!

May appear very brave and sacred.  But that is the same motivation for the terrorists who spread fear and violence, most often in the name of religion.  What then distinguishes Jeremiah from this group of people?  The one striking difference that I can think of is one related to life and death.  Jeremiah sought to carry out God's will by improving the quality of life.  If at all anyone has to suffer, Jeremiah is willing to take on that role, rather than pass it on to others.  God and people were both important and alive at the end of it all.  In the case of extremists, God's command is all that matters.  Human life has absolutely no relevance; not mine not others.  

Refugee crisis

Today we commemorate the feast of St Basil. He was associated with Capadocia, a place in today's Turkey.  During Mass Fr Sean reminded us of the need to pray for all the people struggling to live in places besieged by war and strife.

The other day I was talking to a confrere I know who is working in Germany and has done his bit of help for the refugees coming from the Non-European countries.  He was stating how families or children are helped to find a place to live, work and study.  Most often the government pays for their food and study.  Adults are given about €400 and children € 250 per month. While some use this amount for their stay, very many preserve it, just in case their application for visa and stay is rejected. Or even if they plan to return, this money is of great value back in their homeland.  Furthermore the danger of terrorists entering as refugees is also quite possible. Difficult indeed to identify.  Yet no discrimination can be done.  All this is truly noble and good. What more can simple citizens do than open their hearts and homes for these displaced people.

Though such goodwill gestures do make a big difference for those involved, they do not really solve the issue at hand or prevent it from escalating. There is a great danger that civilizations and cultures will be totally transformed, some totally lost, if there are no more people living in a particular place. Even in other places the existing culture and scenario is going to be different if people from other places are to be made comfortable.  Discouragement, dissatisfaction, and unemployment will only be taken advantage of by terrorists. Not to speak of the misery and loss of children (a whole generation).
The real will of politicians and policy makers is the one lacking.  Most politicians think not beyond themselves. Those who do, end with their own group or nation.  Not that every political leader is to think of everyone in the whole world, but every time a decision is made, one ought to keep in mind that there is a world!  And that every decision has its far-reaching consequences beyond the borders of one's political authority.  

Terrorism and partriotism

Last night I watched The Rock. The movie has Nicholas Cage, Sean Connery and Ed Harris... all three great actors. Ed Harris plays the role of a disgruntled General in the US Army demanding compensation for the soldiers who lost their lives in covert operations round the world under his command - he does so holding 81 people hostage on the Alcatraz and threatening to annihilate major US towns with some poisonous gases. Though it is truly an act of terrorism and blackmail, Ed Harris is never a terrorist. He does not intend any benefit for himself, rather it is for those who truly deserve merit and honour. Furthermore, during the course of the movie, he deeply regrets the death of the marines sent in to regain the Alcatraz. The best part is when he changes his plans and decides to leave the island without any of his demands being met, for he realises that he cannot kill innocent people to gain what he thinks is right. Connery too adds this line: He will not launch the rockets, he is not a terrorist, I've seen it in his eyes.

That draws me to ponder as when does not really become a terrorist. It is not when one aspires to do good, even if it means the loss of a few innocent. It is not when one passionately is ready to live and die for a noble cause. It is not when one is willing to risk everything for the sake of others benefit. But if one is willing to hold at stake the life of innocent people, people who have no idea of what his intentions are or what reason they are dying, then he is a terrorist.... however good and noble the cause maybe!

Take for instance, the Sri Lankan-LTTE crisis... whoever be the hero and whoever be the villian, for me, the one who plays with the life of the innocent is the terrorist. (Surprising, The Hindu often has the last page fully dedicated to this crisis, while DC rarely mentions anything about this whole issue - I realise, The Hindu is basically a Chennai based paper and surely the tempers there run very high these days!).