TED Conversations

Vivek Trivedi

ENGINEER-MECHANICAL, University of Oldenburg


This conversation is closed.

To have control on print and electronic media, making it mandatory to publish some percentage of "any" positives happening around

I am proposing this idea, because at times, I find no control on the news which is being spread by different mediums,it is either biased or too negative. I completely agree over the fact that media is mirror of what's happening in the society, but when they completely forget their responsibility to publish positives happening around, and there is no control on media houses for doing this in free society. It is not asking about controlling what they print, its all about proposing to publish at least some percentage of news which brings a positive outlook from everybody, for example: Success stories of people who brought little but significant changes, steps taken for environment concerns by individuals etc and there may be many more. By glorifying good works of commoners, which do happen at every level of society, it will give a boost to many others who want to start something positive but backout for not being noticed. Being practical, I would consider here that nothing is completely selfless in this world. Consider the kind of news we are being fed everyday:
Politics, crimes, entertainment, strange surveys on relationships, meaningless researches which do not yield anything positive but keeps coming everyday.

Its all about forcing media houses to publish at least something positive on the front page, and on their portals, and there can be an international vigilance body to monitor all electronic media.

I am asking it to be "forced", because all the news around us, isn't helping us anyways.

Aren't you fed up with the words like, loot, murder, rape, racism, attack, violence, strikes, scams, terror suspects, bomb plots etc etc, and this idea is not to oppose these reporting, but its all about bringing forward small positives, no matter if it come forcefully!

Will deeply appreciate views of TED members.

Note: Deleted the word government from the idea, it may be any independent body which can be trusted and accepted.

Topics: digital media

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 9 2012: You have very good intentions, but I am against forcing media to broadcast or write any type of particular set of news.

    You are right though in your analysis about the media in the democratic countries. I shall say even more than you said. Media is not just a mirror of the reality. The media is also the forger (designer) of the mental reality in us and around us, particularly affecting the children & adolescents. Openly, the media likes to underestimate its role in affecting our lives, because it wants to evade the burden of the responsibility laid on its shoulders for the obvious deterioration of our modern society. When I say media I mean to the broader context including also the entertainment industry of movies, music, TV reality shows and so on. The Reporting Media has been more specialized in developing the News industry. And all this is done ONLY for the sake of earning more money, more power on the masses, more influence on the policy makers. In this sense, these industries remind the traditional institutionalized religions which also have become kind of an industry to suck the money of the masses and to gain power over them. What's common to the media and the institutionalized religions that they both act in the name of some noble principles: The one in the name of God and the another in the name of Freedom. But the both industries, like all industries, care more for the size of their back accounts or other benefits.

    Saying all this, I am still against forcing upon media what you suggest. But I side with forcing upon it measures relating to their honesty, relating to giving complete & true information to their consumers and so on. That's why I suggested in my original comment to the talk, JP Rangaswami: Information is food, that the media should be forced to attach to its reports their credibility levels as rated by their consumers. It's exactly like forcing food manufacturers or cigarettes manufacturers to attach warning to their products.
    • thumb
      May 9 2012: I honestly admire your views, and also got deep insights to the problem from the things you have shared. I am also partly convinced that forcing something is not the wisest idea around, but what can be other way out? Do you see any other thing apart from controlling it forcefully? Preaching these things to media houses is of no use, I have tried many times escalating the false and utterly misleading information being published by them. I feel helpless at times, when I see no control over it. Even in the end of any news, we have been left with the option..."Do you like this story?"..... Can social media be useful in protesting against this?
      • thumb
        May 9 2012: Controlling it forcefully has so many anti arguments and reasons. It's against democratic values, it's against democratic laws. Also, what you hate might be favored by others. For example I am repelled by most of the reality shows, but I am in minority with this. The majority of people get deeply indulged in those shows or even get addicted to them.

        You should keep in mind that big changes do not occur briefly or suddenly. It's a matter of long processes and related also to a change in the awareness of the masses. Feeling helpless about things you don't like and cannot change, is common to many other people and happen all the time with countless other matters in your life. The trick is, on the one hand keep protesting in a legitimate manner as much as you can, but on the other hand, not letting yourself getting over-frustrated and over-annoyed by this.

        The way you protest here and try to find others thinking like you is one of the ways. Social media can definitely be a very good way to spread your thoughts. The point is you have to be persistent, patient and try taking everything in a proportionate & balanced manner without giving up the zeal you have to make the desired changes.
        • thumb
          May 9 2012: I am moved by your thoughts and words. I do and will keep trying my level best to see these changes. I shall also try rephrasing my question for the same... Thanks a lot for your help and guidance.
    • May 24 2012: "It's not a production issue, it's a consumption issue."
      Put your self on a "Consumption Diet." Each one of our bodie's senses consumes. We consume our environment's information by sight, sound, taste, scent and touch.
      We cannot control what environments are available, however we can control what environment we allow ourselves in. Be it the movies we watch, the books we read, the websights we visit, the biases we give into, the people we surround ourselves with, the air we breath, the bed we rest on or the perspectives we have; we have the ability to govern our individual habitat and reality. It all regards what we come into contact with, and from there what we choose to remember.
      Exercise focussing what it is in your environment that you can change. Exercise recognising a perspective that uplifts you, listening to music that uplifts you. Exercise reading what interests you.
      I guess what I am trying to make point about, is that we cannot monitor the masses. We can only monitor what we choose to listen to, look at, question about, etc...
      Thank you.
      • thumb
        May 28 2012: It’s both. The both parties should control themselves. If you have read my above posts in this debate, you have seen that I control fairly well my consumption. But I do not think only about myself. Children and adolescents cannot easily go into Consumption Diet. It’s like us when we were children. Here needs to be the responsibility of the producers, manufacturers….. etc.

        I did not say we have to monitor the masses. I said we have to monitor those who monitor the masses, like the media, food producers like McDonald and others, cigarettes manufacturers, etc. I have suggested above how to monitor them fairly, without violating their legitimate rights. Partly it is already has being done. But to dump everything just on the consumption issue is like suggesting to throw piles of 100$ bills at the middle of a bustling road in a downtown, and then saying that the responsibility for so many people who rushed to collect the bills and got ran over by cars, is only of these people because they did not control their consumption habits.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.