The Indian media has become a pro at asking the most redundant and stupid questions. Two instances come to mind-
First, when Pratibha Patil was nominated as the UPA presidential candidate out of the blue, the question being asked by the news channels was "Is India ready for a female president?". I would like to know what the question means. What sort of answer does it warrant? Are we supposed to roll up our sleeves and say, "yeah...bring it on baby, we're ready for you" or stutter and fumble and mumble "uh...umm...I dunno...uh ..uh...I'm not sure..", ask for a few days/months/years to prepare ourselves, after which we will take a deep breath and say "Okay, now we're ready!" What does it mean when they ask us whether we're prepared. How does one prepare oneself for a woman president?
The whole emphasis on her being a woman itself annoys me greatly. I mean, her name has been nominated and no one has any idea about her credentials or what she was doing for a living till now. But no, all that is not important. All the news was about her being a woman. I have to be honest. I keep away from politics largely. Consequently, I don't know many politicians. So I didn't know who she was. I had to Google for more information on the woman who would possibly become the president of the country of which I am a citizen. The least that the news channels could have done was to have "quick facts about PP's life" running on the bottom of the screen when they were debating the goodness of fit between a woman, a president and the nation's state of preparedness for the two of them put together.
The other really idiotic discussion that a leading news channel- I think it was NDTV- was having was sparked by the kidnapping and murder of a young boy by some people he came in contact with through a social networking site on the Internet. The big question was "do social networking sites need greater safeguards"? Fantastic. This is another example of how human beings create something and then give it more power than their own rational thought- for other examples refer to social customs and practices. I am talking of machines, inanimate objects created by man, to be used the way man chooses to, their existence and functionality completely dependant on man.
Questions like "is the Internet dangerous" or "is TV a bad influence" are shockingly moronic! There is no doubt that what happened to the young man was very very unfortunate. But its not the social networking sites that need safeguards. It is the brain of the user that needs safeguards. What can the website possibly do to prevent you from befriending strange people? Wait...why the hell should the website take responsibility for it anyway?
Oh, I just got reminded of a third instance. The whole shaktimaan controversy. If a child watches a superhero jump off a building wearing deep purple and gold coloured clothing that had a rather velvety appearance, imitates him, jumps off a building and loses his life, it really isn't the television shows fault! But there they were, scores of people protesting and asking for it to be taken off the air immediately. Why? Probably because they're afraid of being judged callous if they spoke the truth- that the only people who could be held responsible were the child's parents, or the child him or herself.
