Ashi, Kolkata. M. and I leave today after our brief visit. The afternoon sounds filter in through open windows - a crow cawing insistently, a car's engine turning, sparrows and mynahs chirping. Somewhere in the distance, a politician rides around in a cycle rickshaw with a megaphone, declaiming to his constituency. I've always loved this time of the day in Kolkata when the bright sunlight gets trapped in the mellow filters of my mother's curtains to make everything glow, even the grime of the city looks less obnoxious when viewed through this lens. The Kolkata light was captured best (albeit romantically) by Pradeep Sarkar in Parineeta (I've linked to the video, and if that video is removed, there's always Wikipedia).
So until next time, Kolkata. We enjoyed the weather this time - warm but not uncomfortably so, like late spring in Fairfield County, and the occasional need for a ceiling fan during the mandatory afternoon siesta. Next time we visit, the city will be in a different mood altogether, when the blazing heat and unsparing humidity of summer drives everyone indoors. And then we will lie gasping, breathless, reeling from the hard blows of a Kolkata summer, but lured back again, inevitably, to the City of Joy.
Showing posts with label Travel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Travel. Show all posts
Monday, November 28, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
News of the World - Or How Paywalls Can't Stop Me Getting the News
These days the New York Times has gone behind a paywall. I stop by every morning, with my nose pressed against the cyberglass, gazing at the tempting treats in the form of headlines and first lines. Surprisingly, I don't ache for the days when I could read the content for free. Or, perhaps, not so surprisingly, since the same news is available everywhere else and not just on American websites.
In fact, what has changed thoroughly is the automatic association of certain organizations with news. There was a time when news meant the BBC, and later CNN, for electronic news and the New York Times and the Washington Post for printed news. In India, it meant such creaky oldtimers such as The Times of India and The Statesman and The Hindustan Times. My first few years in the U.S. there were no other options and if I wanted news about India, I had to rely on snippets here and there. There were of course the now defunct soc.culture groups in the days before the Internet became the World Wide Web. My biggest grouse against the western media in those days was that I hungered for news from India and couldn't find any, except silly pieces here and there. And certainly none in an Indian voice. Even further back in the day, way, way way back in the day, I had an opposite grouse with the Indian news media. There was no coverage of the world outside. My connection to world news was BBC World Service on shortwave frequencies. The BBC may or may not have been objective. I realize now, that it was then and remains now the British Broadcasting Corporation, so yes, it was the broadcast arm of the British government. But it was also often the only radio act in town, the behemoth with a presence worldwide, with reporters and cameramen on the ground. So if I wanted to know what was going on in the Middle East, South Africa, Australia and Europe, I would tune in to the fuzzy, scratchy reception of the BBC World Service and listen to what was going on in the rest of the world. When we finally acquired a television in the late 1980s, it was CNN that brought home the vicarious experience of war via its 24-hour coverage of and reporting from Iraq in 1991. Even when the World Wide Web made news more available, I would go to the Indian websites such as rediff, for news about India only, rarely for foreign news.
How the times have changed! For the recent developments in the Middle East, I don't even miss the New York Times. In fact I turn not even to the standard chatter of the talking heads on CNN or MSNBC. Both their reporting and their analyis is at least 24 hours late and often just surface impressions. I find more timely reporting and more accurate analysis on Indian websites and television stations such as NDTV , Headlines Today, and on international news websites like Al-Jazeera English. Thanks to the Internet, they all stream live. I also found interesting and relevant analysis by Indian bloggers, one of whom is a defence journalist working for the TV channel Headlines Today. Shiv Aroor recently spent time in eastern Libya, in Ben-Ghazi, and both tweeted and blogged about the situation on the ground there.
When I stepped back to consider, I found this amazing: for perhaps the first time in my life, I was reading an Indian correspondent's reporting on a foreign war. This would have been unthinkable in the 1980s not because Indian reporters were not good enough but because back then, most Indian news organizations simply did not have the resources to send out reporters to cover foreign wars. So we had no other sources of information except the BBC and CNN. Now there is a variety of sources from which to get news, and in comparison with the competition, western news organizations are coming up short, both in quality and in terms of boots on the ground (or microphones on the ground).
This is because first, there is the undeniable fact that western news organizations are unable to staff bureaus worldwide. Funds are tight, western journalists represent a burden on expenditures, they have to be housed and fed expensively, unlike resourceful Indian and Qatari reporters who are willing to live more modestly in exchange for the excitement of reporting live from international troublespots. In light of this, western news organizations are simply cutting back operations and there are fewer reporters on the ground (with the notable exception of NPR).
However, there also still remains the problem of voice. Caught up in trying to keep in place the shredded lens of a world order that is irrefutably over, western news organizations simply cannot comprehend the sheer mindboggling changes that have taken place in the world. I find it embarrassing to read or watch western analysts struggle to make sense of the situation in Libya, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. They try to fit it into a narrative that is fast unravelling - that of western political and economic dominance. As a result, many western journalists are perceived to be tied to western foreign policy, so much so that their stated objectiveness no longer carries weight, and they are often treated as agents of their countries' governments. It's particularly sad that really good journalists like Anthony Shadid have to bear the consequences of the deteriorating analytical standards of their colleagues. The recent brutal treatment of the four New York Times journalists who were roughed-up and molested by their captors before being, thankfully, released into safety, would not have happened in the heyday of Christiane Amanpour when western journalists were treated as protected celebrities covering important world affairs for the only news channels then available.
In my opinion, the far greater problem is that western foreign journalists are just too...foreign. So they neither seek out nor are they given access to places and people whose sights and voices need to be seen and heard in order for a truer picture to emerge (again with the notable exception of the exceptional Anthony Shadid of the New York Times). Often, it's locally-hired minions who do the bulk of the hard work and the actual reporting. And so the interesting perspectives these days are mostly non-western. Also, the non-western perspective does not, yet, present itself to the world as the voice of power and/or domination. Even though India is rising, it has not yet risen to the point where its journalists can head out into the world with the self-assurance of power, either military, economic or political. Their voices come through, therefore, as the voices of genuine observers and reporters, not as interlocutors or players in international politics. It's a new and very interesting development in the history of foreign correspondence.
And that's why I can live without access to the New York Times on the Internet.Sorry, NYT, whether or not you like it, content can no longer be hoarded or guarded. I suggest you hike your advertising rates to compensate for the free content and to pay your reporters and cover operational costs.
In fact, what has changed thoroughly is the automatic association of certain organizations with news. There was a time when news meant the BBC, and later CNN, for electronic news and the New York Times and the Washington Post for printed news. In India, it meant such creaky oldtimers such as The Times of India and The Statesman and The Hindustan Times. My first few years in the U.S. there were no other options and if I wanted news about India, I had to rely on snippets here and there. There were of course the now defunct soc.culture groups in the days before the Internet became the World Wide Web. My biggest grouse against the western media in those days was that I hungered for news from India and couldn't find any, except silly pieces here and there. And certainly none in an Indian voice. Even further back in the day, way, way way back in the day, I had an opposite grouse with the Indian news media. There was no coverage of the world outside. My connection to world news was BBC World Service on shortwave frequencies. The BBC may or may not have been objective. I realize now, that it was then and remains now the British Broadcasting Corporation, so yes, it was the broadcast arm of the British government. But it was also often the only radio act in town, the behemoth with a presence worldwide, with reporters and cameramen on the ground. So if I wanted to know what was going on in the Middle East, South Africa, Australia and Europe, I would tune in to the fuzzy, scratchy reception of the BBC World Service and listen to what was going on in the rest of the world. When we finally acquired a television in the late 1980s, it was CNN that brought home the vicarious experience of war via its 24-hour coverage of and reporting from Iraq in 1991. Even when the World Wide Web made news more available, I would go to the Indian websites such as rediff, for news about India only, rarely for foreign news.
How the times have changed! For the recent developments in the Middle East, I don't even miss the New York Times. In fact I turn not even to the standard chatter of the talking heads on CNN or MSNBC. Both their reporting and their analyis is at least 24 hours late and often just surface impressions. I find more timely reporting and more accurate analysis on Indian websites and television stations such as NDTV , Headlines Today, and on international news websites like Al-Jazeera English. Thanks to the Internet, they all stream live. I also found interesting and relevant analysis by Indian bloggers, one of whom is a defence journalist working for the TV channel Headlines Today. Shiv Aroor recently spent time in eastern Libya, in Ben-Ghazi, and both tweeted and blogged about the situation on the ground there.
When I stepped back to consider, I found this amazing: for perhaps the first time in my life, I was reading an Indian correspondent's reporting on a foreign war. This would have been unthinkable in the 1980s not because Indian reporters were not good enough but because back then, most Indian news organizations simply did not have the resources to send out reporters to cover foreign wars. So we had no other sources of information except the BBC and CNN. Now there is a variety of sources from which to get news, and in comparison with the competition, western news organizations are coming up short, both in quality and in terms of boots on the ground (or microphones on the ground).
This is because first, there is the undeniable fact that western news organizations are unable to staff bureaus worldwide. Funds are tight, western journalists represent a burden on expenditures, they have to be housed and fed expensively, unlike resourceful Indian and Qatari reporters who are willing to live more modestly in exchange for the excitement of reporting live from international troublespots. In light of this, western news organizations are simply cutting back operations and there are fewer reporters on the ground (with the notable exception of NPR).
However, there also still remains the problem of voice. Caught up in trying to keep in place the shredded lens of a world order that is irrefutably over, western news organizations simply cannot comprehend the sheer mindboggling changes that have taken place in the world. I find it embarrassing to read or watch western analysts struggle to make sense of the situation in Libya, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. They try to fit it into a narrative that is fast unravelling - that of western political and economic dominance. As a result, many western journalists are perceived to be tied to western foreign policy, so much so that their stated objectiveness no longer carries weight, and they are often treated as agents of their countries' governments. It's particularly sad that really good journalists like Anthony Shadid have to bear the consequences of the deteriorating analytical standards of their colleagues. The recent brutal treatment of the four New York Times journalists who were roughed-up and molested by their captors before being, thankfully, released into safety, would not have happened in the heyday of Christiane Amanpour when western journalists were treated as protected celebrities covering important world affairs for the only news channels then available.
In my opinion, the far greater problem is that western foreign journalists are just too...foreign. So they neither seek out nor are they given access to places and people whose sights and voices need to be seen and heard in order for a truer picture to emerge (again with the notable exception of the exceptional Anthony Shadid of the New York Times). Often, it's locally-hired minions who do the bulk of the hard work and the actual reporting. And so the interesting perspectives these days are mostly non-western. Also, the non-western perspective does not, yet, present itself to the world as the voice of power and/or domination. Even though India is rising, it has not yet risen to the point where its journalists can head out into the world with the self-assurance of power, either military, economic or political. Their voices come through, therefore, as the voices of genuine observers and reporters, not as interlocutors or players in international politics. It's a new and very interesting development in the history of foreign correspondence.
And that's why I can live without access to the New York Times on the Internet.Sorry, NYT, whether or not you like it, content can no longer be hoarded or guarded. I suggest you hike your advertising rates to compensate for the free content and to pay your reporters and cover operational costs.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Of Visitors...
Recently, an old friend from India came to visit. I was able to see my home of ten years, my country of residence for nineteen years, through new eyes and to revisit the time when I was a newcomer to the land. To her, America was a nice break from her usual routine. She felt cold in May, for it was much cooler here than in India where the parched land was sweltering, still waiting for the monsoon rains to break. We spent much of the time, chatting, chatting, chatting, making up for time not spent together in the last thirteen years.
Through B.'s appearance and actions, I recalled my slow adjustments in the early years. My friend looked good in her hand-sewn handloom cottons and her big bindi. Her dresses glowed in the luminous spring light at this time of year. But I had looked so out of place nineteen years ago, wearing clothes that looked odd in 1990s Chicago. A lot of handloom cotton whose colors and patterns didn’t look right in the grey fall and winter of the Midwest. A hairstyle that wasn’t quite right either. Like an exuberant peacock in a grim Arctic land. It’s something to do with the way the light falls on the colors in the autumn and winter. I quickly moved to dull plaids and knits, merging my body into the winter landscape.
B.’s little moves also reminded me of my earlier self. The conversion of rupees into dollars and the horrified realization that one had spent so many rupees! The rushing steps to the buses and trains in New York City, only to realize that there was no enormous rush of people all fighting to squeeze in (well, maybe during rush hour, but we went into the city at off-peak times). Her intake of breath and lit-up eyes at the glowing, beautiful buildings on Fifth Avenue, especially the Met, made me remember with affection my similar response to the grandeur and beauty of Chicago’s skyline and Lake Shore Drive. By the end of the trip, I saw B. relax gradually, like I had years earlier, and enjoy the abundance of resources that I now take for granted. What a wonderful visit for both of us!
Through B.'s appearance and actions, I recalled my slow adjustments in the early years. My friend looked good in her hand-sewn handloom cottons and her big bindi. Her dresses glowed in the luminous spring light at this time of year. But I had looked so out of place nineteen years ago, wearing clothes that looked odd in 1990s Chicago. A lot of handloom cotton whose colors and patterns didn’t look right in the grey fall and winter of the Midwest. A hairstyle that wasn’t quite right either. Like an exuberant peacock in a grim Arctic land. It’s something to do with the way the light falls on the colors in the autumn and winter. I quickly moved to dull plaids and knits, merging my body into the winter landscape.
B.’s little moves also reminded me of my earlier self. The conversion of rupees into dollars and the horrified realization that one had spent so many rupees! The rushing steps to the buses and trains in New York City, only to realize that there was no enormous rush of people all fighting to squeeze in (well, maybe during rush hour, but we went into the city at off-peak times). Her intake of breath and lit-up eyes at the glowing, beautiful buildings on Fifth Avenue, especially the Met, made me remember with affection my similar response to the grandeur and beauty of Chicago’s skyline and Lake Shore Drive. By the end of the trip, I saw B. relax gradually, like I had years earlier, and enjoy the abundance of resources that I now take for granted. What a wonderful visit for both of us!
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
The Incredible Shrinking Breakfast...
...or another story about the recession. We were in Washington D.C. this past weekend and stayed at the Doubletree Guest Suites near the Mall. Pleasant place, nothing fancy but great when you're traveling with kids. We arrived on Friday and the next morning, as is the norm, went downstairs in search of the continental breakfast that hotels of this genre usually provide. It was a small spread of muffins, danishes, some cereal, tea and coffee. Not disappointed, we helped ourselves before heading out on the museum rounds. The meal just seemed to be a smaller version of the continental breakfast we have had before on numerous other road trips - perhaps an urban-sized version? But the hotel foyer was small here and we had to dance around other breakfasting guests as we filled our cups and plates. One of the other guests sighed and told me that he stayed at the hotel very often. Upto last year, they had had a much bigger spread laid out in a bigger room, with more items such as boiled eggs and toast. "And there was breakfast everyday," he sighed. "Now it's just this and it's only on weekend mornings."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)