While it's not necessarily a bad thing, nationalism can turn indiscriminate and rather inflammable. Perhaps if I was still an Indian citizen, I would feel differently. Nationalism is equated with one's passion, daring, and sense of pride, a form of proud, admirable insolence. But maybe it need not be so, if we were all to consider ourselves as global citizens. I think that living in Singapore for so many years has equipped me with a kind of global perspective, one that views sentiments like nationalism as necessary, but tempered with practicality. Perhaps nationalism can be instead associated with a reassuring calm that comes from knowing the country's worth, a calm that arises from the competency of being able to respectfully defend against any genuine insinuations against the country. I just can't see something to the effect of Singaporean media going: "Now Bush Blames Singapore for [...]"
Nationalism is not the only kind of mass rallying emotion that the Indian media seems to capitalize on. In the recent Aarushi Talwar murder case, the feelings of shock and injustice of a young girl's death by her father was played upon by the media even when the reality of the situation proved to be different.
I was vacationing in India when I first heard about the Aarushi Talwar case. (
Indian media's feeding frenzy, July 20th 2008, Sunday Times)
What struck me as I watched the reports broadcast on the Indian news was the emphasis laid on blaming the father for 14-year-old Aarushi's murder.
"Smelling blood, the media went into a frenzy of speculation, conjectures and theories, and condemned the father and the family even as investigations were ongoing."
In this regard, I remember reading an Indian news report which stated that the slit on Aarushi's throat was with the kind of precision only a person of the medical profession was capable of (Aarushi's father is a dentist.) The allusions to Aarushi's father as the murderer were not always spelled out but were implicit.
And now the question is: "Is [the media] sacrificing professionalism and ethics at the altar of profit, viewership and circulation?"
In the wake of the Aarushi murder case, Mr Harish Salve, former solicitor general of India says: "It is better that [the media] observe self-regulation in reporting than force the government to impose it." I think this applies to the coverage of Bush's comments as well. But is self-regulation possible when certain characteristics of a country are also applicable to its media? Should the two core sentiments I touched on - nationalism and a strong sense of justice - be balanced with a calm, post positivist approach or should it run with unbridled passion, cleverly geared towards a susceptible audience?
