Wires and Lights

History probably wouldn't repeat itself if we actually started taking it seriously and learned from it like we're supposed to. Coz much too often, you come across a speech, a poem, an incident from the past that seems to speak for the current times. Edward Murrow's speech is one of these. Posted below is a portion of the speech from the Oscar nominated movie Good Night, and Good Luck, followed by the full text I found on a rather interesting website called Kill Your Television.


While the speech is timeless and a context unnecessary, the reader might find the background interesting. Ed Murrow, an American broadcast journalist in the 50's hosted a show on CBS in which he focussed on controversial topics which very few journalists of the day were willing to talk about- See It Now. Following his criticism of Senator McCarthy and Red Scare, both the host and the show earned the network's as well as the sponsors disapproval.

The speech was delivered on October 15, 1958, before the Radio and Television News Directors Association in Chicago in which Murrow blasted TV's emphasis on entertainment and commercialism at the expense of public interest.

And with that I leave you with the speech to draw your own parallels in history...

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do--you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair count. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence.

Recently, network spokesmen have been disposed to complain that the professional critics of television have been "rather beastly." There have been hints that somehow competition for the advertising dollar has caused the critics of print to gang up on television and radio. This reporter has no desire to defend the critics. They have space in which to do that on their own behalf. But it remains a fact that the newspapers and magazines are the only instruments of mass communication which remain free from sustained and regular critical comment. If the network spokesmen are so anguished about what appears in print, let them come forth and engage in a little sustained and regular comment regarding newspapers and magazines. It is an ancient and sad fact that most people in network television, and radio, have an exaggerated regard for what appears in print. And there have been cases where executives have refused to make even private comment or on a program for which they were responsible until they heard'd the reviews in print. This is hardly an exhibition confidence.

The oldest excuse of the networks for their timidity is their youth. Their spokesmen say, "We are young; we have not developed the traditions nor acquired the experience of the older media." If they but knew it, they are building those traditions, creating those precedents everyday. Each time they yield to a voice from Washington or any political pressure, each time they eliminate something that might offend some section of the community, they are creating their own body of precedent and tradition. They are, in fact, not content to be "half safe."

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

So far as radio--that most satisfying and rewarding instrument--is concerned, the diagnosis of its difficulties is rather easy. And obviously I speak only of news and information. In order to progress, it need only go backward. To the time when singing commercials were not allowed on news reports, when there was no middle commercial in a 15-minute news report, when radio was rather proud, alert and fast. I recently asked a network official, "Why this great rash of five-minute news reports (including three commercials) on weekends?" He replied, "Because that seems to be the only thing we can sell."

In this kind of complex and confusing world, you can't tell very much about the why of the news in broadcasts where only three minutes is available for news. The only man who could do that was Elmer Davis, and his kind aren't about any more. If radio news is to be regarded as a commodity, only acceptable when saleable, then I don't care what you call it--I say it isn't news.

My memory also goes back to the time when the fear of a slight reduction in business did not result in an immediate cutback in bodies in the news and public affairs department, at a time when network profits had just reached an all-time high. We would all agree, I think, that whether on a station or a network, the stapling machine is a poor substitute for a newsroom typewriter.

One of the minor tragedies of television news and information is that the networks will not even defend their vital interests. When my employer, CBS, through a combination of enterprise and good luck, did an interview with Nikita Khrushchev, the President uttered a few ill-chosen, uninformed words on the subject, and the network practically apologized. This produced a rarity. Many newspapers defended the CBS right to produce the program and commended it for initiative. But the other networks remained silent.

Likewise, when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? I have no illusions about the difficulties reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served--in their public interest--with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China.

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the coporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism.

Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. Not so long ago the President of the United States delivered a television address to the nation. He was discoursing on the possibility or probability of war between this nation and the Soviet Union and Communist China--a reasonably compelling subject. Two networks CBS and NBC, delayed that broadcast for an hour and fifteen minutes. If this decision was dictated by anything other than financial reasons, the networks didn't deign to explain those reasons. That hour-and-fifteen-minute delay, by the way, is about twice the time required for an ICBM to travel from the Soviet Union to major targets in the United States. It is difficult to believe that this decision was made by men who love, respect and understand news.

So far, I have been dealing largely with the deficit side of the ledger, and the items could be expanded. But I have said, and I believe, that potentially we have in this country a free enterprise system of radio and television which is superior to any other. But to achieve its promise, it must be both free and enterprising. There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost.

But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program. This is so because so many stations on the network--any network--will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the F.C.C. But in the view of many this would come perilously close to supervision of program content by a federal agency.

So it seems that we cannot rely on philanthropic support or foundation subsidies; we cannot follow the "sustaining route"--the networks cannot pay all the freight--and the F.C.C. cannot or will not discipline those who abuse the facilities that belong to the public. What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated.

I am frightened by the imbalance, the constant striving to reach the largest possible audience for everything; by the absence of a sustained study of the state of the nation. Heywood Broun once said, "No body politic is healthy until it begins to itch." I would like television to produce some itching pills rather than this endless outpouring of tranquilizers. It can be done. Maybe it won't be, but it could. Let us not shoot the wrong piano player. Do not be deluded into believing that the titular heads of the networks control what appears on their networks. They all have better taste. All are responsible to stockholders, and in my experience all are honorable men. But they must schedule what they can sell in the public market.

And this brings us to the nub of the question. In one sense it rather revolves around the phrase heard frequently along Madison Avenue: The Corporate Image. I am not precisely sure what this phrase means, but I would imagine that it reflects a desire on the part of the corporations who pay the advertising bills to have the public image, or believe that they are not merely bodies with no souls, panting in pursuit of elusive dollars. They would like us to believe that they can distinguish between the public good and the private or corporate gain. So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide."

I refuse to believe that the presidents and chairmen of the boards of these big corporations want their corporate image to consist exclusively of a solemn voice in an echo chamber, or a pretty girl opening the door of a refrigerator, or a horse that talks. They want something better, and on occasion some of them have demonstrated it. But most of the men whose legal and moral responsibility it is to spend the stockholders' money for advertising are removed from the realities of the mass media by five, six, or a dozen contraceptive layers of vice-presidents, public relations counsel and advertising agencies. Their business is to sell goods, and the competition is pretty tough.

But this nation is now in competition with malignant forces of evil who are using every instrument at their command to empty the minds of their subjects and fill those minds with slogans, determination and faith in the future. If we go on as we are, we are protecting the mind of the American public from any real contact with the menacing world that squeezes in upon us. We are engaged in a great experiment to discover whether a free public opinion can devise and direct methods of managing the affairs of the nation. We may fail. But we are handicapping ourselves needlessly.

Let us have a little competition. Not only in selling soap, cigarettes and automobiles, but in informing a troubled, apprehensive but receptive public. Why should not each of the 20 or 30 big corporations which dominate radio and television decide that they will give up one or two of their regularly scheduled programs each year, turn the time over to the networks and say in effect: "This is a tiny tithe, just a little bit of our profits. On this particular night we aren't going to try to sell cigarettes or automobiles; this is merely a gesture to indicate our belief in the importance of ideas." The networks should, and I think would, pay for the cost of producing the program. The advertiser, the sponsor, would get name credit but would have nothing to do with the content of the program. Would this blemish the corporate image? Would the stockholders object? I think not. For if the premise upon which our pluralistic society rests, which as I understand it is that if the people are given sufficient undiluted information, they will then somehow, even after long, sober second thoughts, reach the right decision--if that premise is wrong, then not only the corporate image but the corporations are done for.

There used to be an old phrase in this country, employed when someone talked too much. It was: "Go hire a hall." Under this proposal the sponsor would have hired the hall; he has bought the time; the local station operator, no matter how indifferent, is going to carry the program-he has to. Then it's up to the networks to fill the hall. I am not here talking about editorializing but about straightaway exposition as direct, unadorned and impartial as falliable human beings can make it. Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the stockholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen other than that a few million people would have received a little illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations? This method would also provide real competition between the networks as to which could outdo the others in the palatable presentation of information. It would provide an outlet for the young men of skill, and there are some even of dedication, who would like to do something other than devise methods of insulating while selling.

There may be other and simpler methods of utilizing these instruments of radio and television in the interests of a free society. But I know of none that could be so easily accomplished inside the framework of the existing commercial system. I don't know how you would measure the success or failure of a given program. And it would be hard to prove the magnitude of the benefit accruing to the corporation which gave up one night of a variety or quiz show in order that the network might marshal its skills to do a thorough-going job on the present status of NATO, or plans for controlling nuclear tests. But I would reckon that the president, and indeed the majority of shareholders of the corporation who sponsored such a venture, would feel just a little bit better about the corporation and the country.

It may be that the present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said--I think it was Max Eastman--that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporation that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.

Your Thought and Mine

Your thought is a tree rooted deep in the soil of tradition and whose branches grow in the power of continuity. My thought is a cloud moving in the space. It turns into drops which, as they fall, form a brook that sings its way into the sea. Then it rises as vapour into the sky. Your thought is a fortress that neither gale nor the lightning can shake. My thought is a tender leaf that sways in every direction and finds pleasure in its swaying. Your thought is an ancient dogma that cannot change you nor can you change it. My thought is new, and it tests me and I test it morn and eve.


You have your thought and I have mine.


Your thought allows you to believe in the unequal contest of the strong against the weak, and in the tricking of the simple by the subtle ones. My thought creates in me the desire to till the earth with my hoe, and harvest the crops with my sickle, and build my home with stones and mortar, and weave my raiment with woollen and linen threads. Your thought urges you to marry wealth and notability. Mine commends self-reliance. Your thought advocates fame and show. Mine counsels me and implores me to cast aside notoriety and treat it like a grain of sand cast upon the shore of eternity. Your thought instills in your heart arrogance and superiority. Mine plants within me love for peace and the desire for independence. Your thought begets dreams of palaces with furniture of sandalwood studded with jewels, and beds made of twisted silk threads. My thought speaks softly in my ears, “Be clean in body and spirit even if you have nowhere to lay your head.” Your thought makes you aspire to titles and offices. Mine exhorts me to humble service.

You have your thought and I have mine.


Your thought is social science, a religious and political dictionary. Mine is simple axiom. Your thought speaks of the beautiful woman, the ugly, the virtuous, the prostitute, the intelligent, and the stupid. Mine sees in every woman a mother, a sister, or a daughter of every man. The subjects of your thought are thieves, criminals, and assassins. Mine declares that thieves are the creatures of monopoly, criminals are the offspring of tyrants, and assassins are akin to the slain. Your thought describes laws, courts, judges, punishments. Mine explains that when man makes a law, he either violates it or obeys it. If there is a basic law, we are all one before it. He who disdains the mean is himself mean. He who vaunts his scorn of the sinful vaunts his disdain of all humanity. Your thought concerns the skilled, the artist, the intellectual, the philosopher, the priest. Mine speaks of the loving and the affectionate, the sincere, the honest, the forthright, the kindly, and the martyr. Your thought advocates Judaism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. In my thought there is only one universal religion, whose varied paths are but the fingers of the loving hand of the Supreme Being.
In your thought there are the rich, the poor, and the beggared. My thought holds that there are no riches but life; that we are all beggars, and no benefactor exists save life herself.

You have your thought and I have mine.

According to your thought, the greatness of nations lies in their politics, their parties, their conferences, their alliances and treaties. But mine proclaims that the importance of nations lies in work – work in the field, work in the vineyards, work with the loom, work in the tannery, work in the quarry, work in the timberyard, work in the office and in the press. Your thought holds that the glory of the nations is in their heroes. It sings the praises of Rameses, Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, and Napoleon. But mine claims that the real heroes are Confucius, Lao-Tse, Socrates, Plato, Abi Taleb, El Gazali, Jalal Ed-din-el Roumy, Copernicus, and Pasteur. Your thought sees power in armies, cannons, battleships, submarines, aeroplanes, and poison gas. But mine asserts that power lies in reason, resolution, and truth. No matter how long the tyrant endures, he will be the loser at the end. Your thought differentiates between pragmatist and idealist, between the part and the whole, between the mystic and materialist. Mine realizes that life is one and its weights, measures and tables do not coincide with your weights, measures and tables. He whom you suppose an idealist may be a practical man.

You have your thought and I have mine.


Your thought is interested in ruins and museums, mummies and petrified objects.
But mine hovers in the ever-renewed haze and clouds. Your thought is enthroned on skulls. Since you take pride in it, you glorify it too. My thought wanders in the obscure and distant valleys. Your thought trumpets while you dance. Mine prefers the anguish of death to your music and dancing. Your thought is the thought of gossip and false pleasure. Mine is the thought of him who is lost in his own country, of the alien in his own nation, of the solitary among his kinfolk and friends.

You have your thought and I have mine.

Gibran Khalil Gibran

My Five Rupees

Its not ending any time soon, is it?


A few months ago, I stopped following local news. Having the TV plugged out has helped. I don't follow political blogs either, except Five Rupees, which I started reading regularly after I read an interview with Cyril Almeida, a columnist and editorial writer at Dawn. For the first time in ages, someone actually spoke objectively, which is hard to find even on the Pakistani Blogosphere now.

Coming back... without the TV during the last few days, I was obviously shocked when I read about 4 attacks in a week by the terrorists along with some talk of an operation in Waziristan to crack down on the Taliban. I could already hear the alarm bells ringing in my ears. Those who've been reading my blog would remember my condemnation of the operation in Swat here and here.

The author on Five Rupees asked these important questions which I believe can be answered in my ways. My answers are ceertainly very different from the comments left on the post or the views shared here by Nabeel.

Quick question: does this make you more or less likely to support the Pakistan military going into Waziristan? Isn't it fair to say the uptick in violence -- the World Food program bombing, the Peshawar suicide attack, the GHQ siege, and now this -- has coincided with the fact that army is readying itself for the mother of all counter-insurgent conflicts?

My answer: Have you ever been told as a kid when you came face to face by a stray dog on the street to not be be afraid of it. It will only attack if you provoke it. Let it be and it won't harm you. Most wild animals follow the same principle. They don't bother you unless you cross into their territory. If you harm them, they will harm you.

Maybe its wrong to use this analogy, but that's how I see it. When threatened, they strike back, harder each time. 'The Taliban are not a spent force', many people have said in the last few days. Quite the contrary I believe. How long has it been since the Americans first launched their offensive in Afghanistan? How much have they achieved, really? The taliban have only crossed the border into Pakistan and have spread. If the Americans with their superior military technology couldn't contain, can we really expect the Pakistani army to finish what the Americans started... I reiterate.. this was never Our War to begin with.

Do I have an alternative solution, you may ask? Not really, but I know how I might be able to reach one if I was a policy maker.

I'm a business student, not a politician. In my last 4 years at a B School, I've studied more about Motivation and Human Behavior than I would have in any other academic program. The books say 'Find out what drives your employees and then you can enhance your productivity.' The insurgents may not be your employees, but they certainly have motives; and no, I passionately believe religion is not a factor as far as the top brass of the Taliban is concerned; maybe for the unassuming suicide bombers, hooris and the heaven may be a driving force, but not the ones controlling all of this. Maybe, they're after power. If that's so, A. J. Rossmiller may have hit the nail right on its head. Below are some excerpts from his article Stalemate for The New Republic.

Often when a crisis is invoked, it is to push a particular course of action, to make people believe that a recommended remedy must be undertaken immediately. In other words, warning of an impending crossroads can be a useful bullying mechanism, and that is what is happening now, as proponents of a broad-based counter-insurgency strategy confront those who favor a more focused counter-terrorism mission.

If the situation is a virtual stalemate--that is, if it is not possible or realistic to send enough troops to ensure military victory, and similarly unlikely that the anti-government forces are capable of taking sovereign control--then two potential courses of action emerge. First, the status quo could be maintained. The United States could sustain its force levels, keeping enough troops to preserve the Karzai government and prevent terrorist havens but not enough to eliminate the insurgency; and the insurgency could keep fighting, never taking over the country but maintaining control of some localities. This is not necessarily a terrible option, but it would eventually become politically untenable for the United States, aside from the legitimate question of whether such a sustained effort would be the most effective use of resources for counterterrorism. The second possible outcome is political compromise.

In some areas, the Taliban has acted as a local government--keeping order, providing services, mediating disputes, etc.--and, in others, it is confined to anti-government propaganda and violence. But, through participation in government, its actions can be evaluated by the people and observed by the global community. The Talibome kind of political compromise is unavoidable no matter what the United States does, but, if we acknowledge that, we can influence how it is forged.an should not, of course, be allowed to take over--but a group with a constituency should be allowed to at least try, under a representative system, to participate in governance subject to the expressed will of the people. Whether that simply means greater opportunities for engagement or formalization of political powers for certain demographics--as there is in Iraq, for example--should be up for debate and negotiation, but political process must be the focus, rather than pure military goals.

Some kind of political compromise is unavoidable no matter what the United States does, but, if we acknowledge that, we can influence how it is forged.

But the reality is that political compromise will happen at some point, and, even if it doesn’t happen now, little will change in the near-term. The question then becomes, how many lives, how much money, and how much strategic energy will we expend in the meantime?

The first time the Pakistani government sat down to talk with these guys, many Pakistanis opposed the negotiations. They looked at it as a sign of weakness. I, however, believe there is no other solution. Do we really have to come to a point when the American forces are in Afghanistan? Can we not learn from their experience?

Bringing them to the negotiations table will not be defeat. It will be a tactical victory.

Big Bad Media?

A new story is doing the rounds on Twitter and Facebook. Unconfirmed from any otherwise 'breaking-news crazy' TV channels or newspapers, a rather unknown website reports the story as:

Saad Khan lost his life in the recording of the show when the host Amina Sheikh (the model of Clear Shampoo) gave an under water challenge to him. The boy lost his control and shouted for help but the lame safety and lifeline measures failed to rescue him up and the young man, the father of four had to suffer.

The blame straight goes to the producers of the show which are Unilever and Mindshare for hiring such a sub standard team and the cheap arrangements that became the cause of death of the boy.

The first time I read it, I was skeptical about its authenticity. Why would the mainstream media stay so hush about it, I wondered. And then the reason was clear.

Here's how the business model of a typical TV channel works. There's the TV channel that broadcasts programs in an attempt to maximize its viewership. The higher the viewership, the more attractive it is for an advertiser to place his or her message on that particular channel. This activity is facilitated by a Media Buying House which monitors and in effect controls where the advertiser's ad will be placed.

The money thus flows from the advertiser (MNC) to the Media,controlled by the Media Buying House.

Have you ever heard of cutting the hands that feed you? Why would the Media broadcast a news that taints the reputations of its real gods.

Because that would be the ethical thing to do?

Sadly, Pakistani media and ethics don't mix well together.

I worked very closely with a certain Media Buying House when I interned in the Media department of another MNC last year. News sensationalism, at the time, was at an all time high, and while I was thoroughly impressed with the code of ethics followed by the company, I did begin to question the role of advertising in controlling the media.

News channels are rewarded for sensationalizing news which has led to the current 'Breaking News Syndrome' and shameless self-promoting by news channels. I sometimes wonder if things in Pakistan would really be so bad if the media was not so news-hungry.

The suicide-bombers, the attention-seeking politicians, the angry destructive mobs... would they be out there doing so much harm if there wasn't a cameraman close at hand to cover bring LIVE action to the audiences.

Coming back to the Unilever story...

Can anyone verify the story? And if it is true, Unilever has harmed itself by trying to brush this story under the carpet. Mainstream media may sell its soul but this serves as an example of how new age media is redefining journalism, even in Pakistan.

The price of dignity..

Note: For Facebook and Wordpress readers, please click here to watch the videos.














Ordinary men and women who have never set foot into the Bazaar-e-Husn (literally beauty market), when told of these tawaifs(prostitutes) find themselves asking, 'How could these women sell themselves for money? How could they stoop so low?' These are the men and women who step into Cukoo's Den (a posh restaurant in Heera Mandi) as if into a forbidden enchanted land and return none the wiser about the actual lives of the inhabitants of the Mohalla. And these are the men and women who most need to see this documentary.

Before you go on reading, I hope you have seen the documentary above, and if you think this is eye opening, I urge you to read 'Taboo' by Fauzia Saeed.

The book gives an ethnographic account of the prostitutes' lives. I look at it from an economic viewpoint. As long as there is demand for a particular service, someone in society will provide it. If demand ceases to exist, the service will cease to be available. Then, is it really fair for the self-righteous hypocrites that we all are to direct our disapproval only to the service-providers while the users go blame-free. These prostitutes and kothas are really products of man's lust, which at least in Pakistani society 'is usually grudgingly recognized as a necessary unpleasantness, consequently denied and never discussed.'

That the men go to these women to satiate their appetites with impunity is not surprising, but a failure to recognize consequences of their nocturnal activities irks me the most. How can these men live with themselves knowing that they have caused for more lives to enter this mad mad world from which there is no easy escape.

anaginat sadiyon ki taarik bahimanaa talism
The dark dreadful magic of uncountable centuries
resham-o-atalas-o-kamkhvaab mein bunavaaye huye
Woven in silk, satin and brocade
jaa-ba-jaa bikate huye kuuchaa-o-baazaar mein jism
In every corner are bodies sold in the market
khaak mein lithade huye khuun mein nahalaaye huye
Covered in dust, bathed in blood

Not so Green!

I wrote this 2 years ago, and I feel no different today:

So I may be wearing green and singing Dil Dil Pakistan at the top of my voice, but what is missing is the spirit of independence. 14th August is supposed to be the day Muslims of the subcontinent earned their freedom from the British as well as what was predicted to be a bleak future under Hindu rule. And yet, I’m still asking if the present day Pakistan was worth all the trouble our forefathers had to go through. From my vantage point, the bloodshed was needless; the sacrifices, a waste.

Many a patriotic soul would contend that the rights of Muslims would have been under serious threat in a nation dominated by Hindus. I look around and wonder if the ordinary man in Pakistan has any rights. Even in a Muslim nation, I feel no sense of security even inside my home. The law of the land is not there to protect me or my rights but a manipulation tool for the power hungry. And the saddest part is the apathy. An apathy that is just as much a part of my character as any other Pakistani. An apathy reflected by the collective insensitivity and indiscipline out on the roads or the disgusting tolerance towards corruption in the top echelons as well as lower down the hierarchy. A state of apathy that leaves me hopeless. Hopeless, yet not helpless. But I chose to not help because of the same apathy.

I’m sorry but I don’t see this nation going anywhere. And it’s surprising that it survived so long.

Happy Independence Day!

In a way, its grown worse. The lip service and rhetoric has increased, but I see no substantial change.

A few moments ago on twitter, someone announced a cake-cutting ceremony at one of the busiest roads in Karachi at the strike of 12. Concerned, I tweeted back requesting the person to not block roads. I was accused of 'overreacting on pointless discussions'.

Really?

Does this Proud Patriotic Pakistani not remember the times, he's been stuck in traffic because some political or religious party was celebrating something. Does he not remember the frustration he felt when he had to get somewhere and he couldn't because some people had no consideration for others.

That, in my opinion, in Pakistan's biggest folly as a nation. Most Pakistanis think only of themselves.

"My daughter is getting married, I don't care about the neighbour's sleep. I will play loud music into the wee hours of the night."

"My Quaid was born today, I will block this road and hold a procession. It is the Quaid's city, after all"

"My Prophet was born today. I will steal your electricity to light up my mosque. You are a kafir if you protest"

"My nation became independent today. I will make a racket at 12 am and sleep it off tomorrow. The sick and the old who go to bed early should be happy we are a free nation"

What a sad sad state of affairs. And you can't knock sense into them. That's akin to blasphemy.

I don't mind the load-shedding anymore. I have learned to live with the lawlessness. The corrupt leaders I have stopped complaining about. But this hollow, superficial celebrations going on right now in the name of Independence Day PISS me off.

Stop! Your nation does not need this of you!

Someone just posted this on my facebook and I agree:

Aaj ka cheraga raat ki roshni mein doba nazr aata hai
14th august ki subha jub kal ka insaan soya paya jata hai
tub mera watan yateemi ki aghosh mein akela mehsoos kerta hai...
aaj mujhko woh dadi dada ki kahaniyoon wala Pakistan yaad ata hai

Translation:

The lights and celebrations will fade out with the night
The morning of 14th August will find everyone asleep
It is then that my nation feels orphaned
I remember the Pakistan that my grandparents told me of

I cannot agree more with Nelson Mandela:

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.

me and the movies..

When I watch movies, I plug in my earphones. That's my way of shutting the world out of the fantasy that I'm about to step in. The second the movie starts playing, everything outside the screen stops mattering.

I love movies. I have a knack of falling in love with most movies I watch. So it should be no surprise that I loved Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind. I loved how it had a dreamlike feel to it and how it had me in a trance even after waking up from it.

We love movies because they touch something inside us. Because while we watch the characters play their roles, we continue to search for reflections of ourselves in their fictitious lives. We feel their emotions like its our own coz at a level deep deep down in our subconscious, it is our own joy, sorrow, excitement, or loss that we're really feeling. We love movies coz it is socially acceptable to FEEL while you watch a movie. Real emotions in real lives are usually hidden under layers of facades.

I'm not going to give anything else away. If you want to be blown away by some very realistic acting, a touching story and a lifelike story woven up in a surreal plot, watch the movie.

Will you be there?

So, as you can guess, I'm still listening to Micheal Jackson, and this one I couldn't get over. At first, I thought I like it so much because it speaks for me, something I'd like to say all of my friends, but on second thought, the emotion the song conveys is universal and it speaks for all us humans. All anyone needs is someone to be there for them in their darkest hours, in their deepest despair.

To all those who matter (and you know who you are), I WILL be there.

Hold Me
Like The River Jordan
And I Will Then Say To Thee
You Are My Friend

Carry Me
Like You Are My Brother
Love Me Like A Mother
Would You Be There?

Weary
Tell Me Will You Hold Me
When Wrong, Will You Skold Me
When Lost Will You Find Me?

But They Told Me
A Man Should Be Faithful
And Walk When Not Able
And Fight Till The End
But I'm Only Human

Everyone's Taking Control Of Me
Seems That The World's
Got A Role For Me
I'm So Confused
Will You Show To Me
You'll Be There For Me
And Care Enough To Bear Me

(Hold Me) show me
(Lay Your Head Lowly)
told me
(Softly Then Boldly)
(Carry Me There)
I'm Only Human

(Lead Me)
hold me
(Love Me And Feed Me)
ye yeah
(Kiss Me And Free Me)
yeah
(I Will Feel Blessed)
I'm Only Human

(Carry)
Carry
(Carry Me Boldly)
Carry me
(Lift Me Up Slowly)
yeah
(Carry Me There)
I'm Only Human

(Save Me)
need me
(Heal Me And Bathe Me)
lift me up lift me up
(Softly You Say To Me)
(I Will Be There)
I Will Be There

(Lift Me)
i'm gonna care
(Lift Me Up Slowly)
(Carry Me Boldly)
yeah
(Show Me You Care)
Show Me You Care

(Hold Me)
whoooo
(Lay Your Head Lowly)
i git lonly some times
(Softly Then Boldly)
i git lonly
(Carry Me There)
yeah yeah carry me there
yeah yeah yeah
[Spoken]
In Our Darkest Hour
In My Deepest Despair
Will You Still Care?
Will You Be There?
In My Trials
And My Tripulations
Through Our Doubts
And Frustrations
In My Violence
In My Turbulence
Through My Fear
And My Confessions
In My Anguish And My Pain
Through My Joy And My Sorrow
In The Promise Of Another Tomorrow
I'll Never Let You Part
For You're Always In My Heart.

The Day the Music Died

Actions always had spoken louder than words, but today, words seem so much more important, specially words in the form of a beautiful song tied in a timeless tune. Words of a king whose actions failed him. But, thankfully, his words will be his legacy. Words, that have inspired, entertained, and moved us to tears.

I grew up listening to Micheal Jackson. In fact, Micheal Jackson, might just be my first memories of music. Dad had the entire collection on tape which he played back to back in the car.

I've been listening to Black and White when those 3 words were the only words I could pick up in the entire song. And of course the EAT THIS!


And there was Heal The World, the first song I learned to sing along to...




Listening to this today made my eyes well up. The last few years, all we had focused on was his personal life, his countless strange actions, but we had forgotten the simple message that he had sent out years ago.


The man stood for more than just good music.

He stood up against war and injustice.



He asked us to stand as one.



He begged us to take notice of the damage we've done to our planet.



He reiterated Gandhi's message of changing oneself before the world could change.



And most of all... he made us dance.








Earlier this week, we saw a spellbinding victory from the Pakistani cricket team that brought the whole nation together. Today, I witnessed the whole world come together to mourn the death of a legend, whose message will resonate longer than any of his scandals or controversies.


The Day the Music died is a rock anthem by Don McLean dedicated to the memory of Buddy Holly. I dedicate it to Micheal. RIP! Thank you for the music!

Monsoon Rant

last night, i was hoping that once the rain comes the dust on the trees would be washed away. today i'm thinking of the blood on the streets. that is there to stay. the rains, the tears, nothing can make us go back to a clean slate again.

maybe this is why they always asked us to be careful. to think before we acted or said anything. because somethings just cannot be reversed, and some misunderstanding can never be cleared.

What I once thought were are circles now appear to be parallel lines. Recurring themes are not spread over time anymore. They've taken over the present and its the same demons on every front, and on each one of them, some more blood is spilled every day that will stay there.

Lets TWin Together!

Last night was a delight!

Remember how I said a few days that I don't understand how people could be so passionate about sports. Last night's victory brought me a little closer to understanding that. But last night, I saw the match like I've never seen before.

I was logged on to twitter, and I'm not sure which of the two, Rabia Garib or Awab Alvi, started a new hashtag #pakcricket. And then we partied! I'm not sure how many of us were twittering together, but it was like watching a match in a room full of ardent Pakistan fans. We were all up pumped up and rooting for Pakistan like I had never experienced before. Every four was cheered, every wicket deplored. Maybe this is what it felt watching a match in a stadium where strangers come together with only one thing in common, their love for the team.



Now, Rabia wants to do more than just have everyone twitter together. For the T20 Worldcup Final scheduled on Sunday, she wants to make #Pakistan, #PakCricket and #t20 a trending topic.

Whats a trending topic?

If you look at the picture above, in the center right part of the window, it says trending topics. Trending topics are topics what people on twitter are talking about the most. Current trending topics are Iranelection, or Khamenei(the supreme leader is speaking right now). What this does is that everyone who logs on to twitter will be able to see that there's a WorldCup Final going on, and all of Pakistan has come together in cheering on their team to victory.

How do you participate?

Its simple. The first thing you need is a twitter account. That should be easy to make. We've all made our facebook and orkut accounts, haven't we?

Once you're signed in, you simply start twittering, i.e., post your views on the game in 160 words.



Don't forget to add the hashtags:

This is how twitter's wiki defines hashtags:

Hashtags are a community-driven convention for adding additional context and metadata to your tweets. They're like tags on Flickr, only added inline to your post. You create a hashtag simply by prefixing a word with a hash symbol: #hashtag.

Hashtags were developed as a means to create "groupings" on Twitter, without having to change the basic service. The hash symbol is a convention borrowed primarily from IRC channels, and later from Jaiku's channels.

The hashtags we're promoting are: #Pakistan #T20 and #Pakcricket

All you need to do is while updating your status, include all three hashtags inline and the community will update itself.



Some tricks and tips

1. Download a desktop application to update your tweets. I use twhirl. Another option available is TweetDeck.




2. Begin now, so by the time the game starts, you have the hang of it.


Ask your friends and family to join in
The more, the merrier. For a hashtag to become a trending topic, it has to be updated by the most number of people. To meet our goal for Sunday, we need as many people as we can to twitter. Bring your facebook discussions to twitter. On facebook, only people you've added can share your views. On twitter, once you add the hashtag, you can share your opinions, the joy of winning, with everyone who's following the game. Talk about being a community!

This is for Pakistanis and Pakistan fans all over the world. The war, the power breakdowns, the bombings, we have too much to depress us but this week has been good for Pakistan because the people had their spirits high. It started with CokeStudio, and then the game last night. Lets carry this spirit forward and show the world that we stand behind our team in solidarity.

Here's to Pakistan bringing home the WorldCup! Here's to twinning!

#t20 #PakCricket #Pakistan
uniting Pakistan like never before!

A request to my Wordpress Readers

Due to glitches in the import tool, posts from my blogger account fail to get transferred completely, specially those containing youtube videos. Can you all please bookmark http://sid87.blogspot.com/ instead.

Readers of the blog may also find useful links at the end of each post. Don't forget to check those out. *hint hint*

Buss kareen o yaar

Soulful music? That would be the understatement of the year!

parh parh ilm te faazil hoya
we kadi apne aap no parheya naai
baj baj warna aye mandir masiti
kadi mann apne wich warya ee nai
larna roz shetan de naal
we kadey nafs apne naal lariya naai
Bulleh Shah asmaani ud-deya pharonda ay
Te jera ghar betha unoon pharya ee na

bus kareen o yaar…
I’lmon...bus kareen o yaar…

Ik alif teray darkar

Bus kareen o yaar
I’lmon bus kareen o yaar

Its so amazing to see our new generation being exposed to Bulle Shah through music- first Junoon, then Bandeya and now this masterpiece, brought to us by Coke Studio. I have yet to listen to the other performances from yesterday but WOW!! I don't think I'm going to stop listening to this for a while now...

Here's a literal translation of Bulle Shah's kafi. Its impossible for me to really understand the depth in this great poet-philosopher's pieces, but the metaphors leave you transfixed. Read the translation and then listen to the music again.

He's become a scholar after all his reading
But he never reads himself
He enters mosques and temples running
But never has he entered his heart
Everyday he fights with Satan/devil
But he's never fought temptations
Bulle Shah seeks what is in the skies
He has never sought what he already has at home

Stop this my friend
Stop this search for knowledge

All you need is one 'alif'

I'm not even going to try and explain this. I leave it open to your interpretation.

I'm now tempted to post all renditions of Bulle Shah's poetry here.










Coming back to Coke Studio, here's a little interesting story of what was happening behind the scene from Ali Noor's blog. You may also want to see Ali Hamza's translation of Aik Alif.

I should go back and listen to the other performances now.

For the supernova in my blackhole..

I told you today I'd be writing specially for you coz you not only understand but feel what I say. I had been trying to do that for so long- evoke feelings through words- but I hadn't been able to.
I give you the name of supernova coz in the brief moment this star shines, its radiation exceeds that of the entire galaxy and then it fades away for weeks. You have been that star. You have been the keeper of my secrets, and the only company my tears flow unhesitatingly infront of.
Shine on!