Journey of Journalism: From The Killing Fields of Cambodia to Peepli Live

The Killing Fields and Peepli Live are a reflection of their times in terms of media principles and the ethics involved in it. The Killing Fields is set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War while Peepli Live is the manifestation of the Indian electronic media of today. There is a huge difference in the way media principles were treated during the 70’s as in The Killing Fields as compared to the present day scenario. The treatment also differs due to demographic reasons and the sensitivities of the people in a particular country and their preconceived notions for society at large. The media today is more ruthless and aggressive with regard to getting the story. On the contrary, The Killing Fields also tries to showcase the humane element in a journalist. In sharp contrast to this, the journalists of Peepli Live show no compassion for a person who has declared to commit suicide due to the atrocities of his life as a farmer. They are only concerned about getting ‘live coverage’ of such a sensational piece of news, even at the cost of compromising media ethics. Both Schanberg (journalist in The Killing Fields) and Nandita (journalist in Peepli Live) try desperate measures in terms of getting their stories but Schanberg is more ethical in his manner.

Dith Pran & Schanberg in The Killing Fields

The journalist's equation with its sources can be traced by analysing Schanberg and Nandita's dealing with their associates. Sydney Schanberg’s relationship with Dith Pran and Nandita’s relationship with Rakesh are similar in a way because both Dith Pran and Rakesh are locals of the place where these journalists had landed because of their stories. Dith Pran was all the more vital in Schanberg’s journalistic venture as he acted as a translator and guide for him in an alien country. Rakesh, for Nandita was the source of her Peepli story. Schanberg treated Pran with humility but also exploited him for his purpose to the extent that he was left back in Cambodia in a very disturbed state of affairs. Dith Pran had great reverence for Schanberg, just as Rakesh admired Nandita and aspired to become a journalist. Unlike Schanberg, who earnestly kept searching for Pran till he found him, Nandita left the village of Peepli after her story is over, without even realising that Rakesh is dead.

TV Journalist Nandita in Peepli Live

For Schanberg, Cambodia was the highlight of his existence, was peepli similarly important for Nandita? Errr...No!
Reporting from the killing fields of Cambodia was not just the job of Schanberg as a journalist, but also the very essence of his existence. His involvement in the social and political life of the country and his in depth understanding of the subject and plight of the people made him the voice of the country. His life revolved around the people of the country he inhabited during that period. He tried to do justice to his profession in his endeavor to bring out the blatant truth behind the bombings in Cambodia during the Vietnam War. But for Nandita, Peepli was just “another brick in the wall”. Nandita, as a journalist doesn’t connect with the people of Peepli nor does she show the empathy that is exhibited in Schanberg’s character.

The Killing Fields establishes media as a responsible organisation which takes into account the agony of people by investigating in situations where keeping a watch over authority is required. Schanberg, a journalist brings out the loopholes in the US war strategy which turned nightmarish for the people of Cambodia because of the mistaken bombings on the country. Schanberg, by addressing this issue through the power of Press sets an example for journalists and his quest is also rewarded in the end. On the other hand, the television journalists (in Peepli Live) who come to cover a farmer’s (Natha) suicide show no sense of compassion towards him. Natha is just a subject of their story and they reduce journalism to mere sensationalism. Also, Peepli Live emphasises the accepted norm that the print media serves as the source of news or lays down the premises of a story. As far as the perception of media is concerned, print is considered a more serious form of journalism than the popular television journalism which thrives on “Yellow Journalism”, as shown in Peepli Live. 

I think both the films are successful films about journalism and they give a fair idea of their times. The Killing Fields focuses more on the life of Schanberg as a journalist in the backdrop of the effect of the Vietnam War in Cambodia. While Peepli Live adequately presents the nuances of the world of television journalism in India today. Peepli Live comes alive in its portrayal of the real world of the media industry, especially television. The unending quest for ‘breaking news’ every other minute, the race for Television Rating Points (TRPs) among channels, the lack of empathy, unethical practices for getting a story, sensationalism in news, concocting of stories by journalists are some of the aspects of journalism brought out brilliantly in the course of the film. 

From the time of Schanberg (70’s) when we also had journalists who were very respected, to the present time when public perception of media seems to have reached an all time low, what went wrong? Journalism is considered to be a noble profession. When we talk about the time of Schanberg (70’s), journalists were respected because of the work they did and the general perception was that journalists are empathetic people who served as a link between the public and the authority. Journalists were like watchdogs of government and media was a platform for the redressal of people’s grievances. As time passed, journalism gained momentum more as a commercial venture and journalists turned into propagandists of government and administrative bodies. Thus, the respect once commanded by them is coming down. The practice of unethical means has resulted in the overall deterioration of the media community. But generalising on this basis is not right since journalists still play a pivotal role in any country.

Friends for Life

True friends are hard to find

They bring warmth and happiness like the sunshine

They will lend a hand to help a friend

They will stay close to you to the very end

In times of happiness, they rejoice

So you feel like singing at the top of your voice

In times of sorrow, they will be there

To bring you joy or say a silent prayer...

PS: Dedicated to my college gang of girls. I cherish being friends with all of you!

An eye for an eye?

“To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice.”

– Desmond Tutu

The abolition of Death Sentence or Capital Punishment is a topic of heated debate across countries by politicians, philosophers, activists and many others over the last few decades. Every country has its own take on the issue. Many countries have banned capital punishment and others where it still prevails rarely use it. The question is - Should the death sentence be retained or abolished? In my opinion, it must not be retained. The most important reason to validate my stand is that it is irrevocable. The death penalty once executed can’t be amended even if the verdict seems incorrect.

The fact that many innocent executions have taken place, my opinion becomes even much stronger on not retaining the death penalty because there is nothing that can be done if the victim is found to be not guilty, after the execution!  “A prisoner discovered innocent can be freed; the same does not apply to a corpse.” There is no possible way of compensating for this miscarriage of justice. We must also consider what the likelihood is of innocent people being executed - it is inevitable that it will happen sooner or later.

As Stephen Bright, Human Rights Attorney puts it - "It can be argued that rapists deserve to be raped, that mutilators deserve to be mutilated. Most societies, however, refrain from responding in this way because the punishment is not only degrading to those on whom it is imposed, but it is also degrading to the society that engages in the same behavior as the criminals". Many Human Rights organisations and the United Nations have called for a universal ban on Death Penalty. This is perhaps because our human nature still doesn’t allow us to be equivalent to criminals to perform killings and demon-like acts. It simply is unethical and morally incorrect to take someone’s life. “No one, not even the state, has the right to play God.”

A prison warden of New York during the 1920’s put it beautifully, "As if one crime of such nature, done by a single man, acting individually, can be expiated by a similar crime done by all men, acting collectively." Morals and ethics come into play when people raise the question of whether or not the accused should be killed in response to his murder. If so, then how are we different from the criminal deciding whether someone lives or dies? Death penalty degrades humanity at large and makes us as guilty as the criminals. As Mahatma Gandhi rightly said, "God alone can take life because He alone gives it..." "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." On one hand, capital punishment is morally not acceptable due to the killing of an individual. And on the other hand, Will executions really prove to be the deterrent that some supporters of capital punishment expect them to be? It is unlikely the very worst murderers would be deterred because they are typically psychopaths or of such dubious sanity that they are incapable of rational behavior. Certain criminals, e.g. drug traffickers, may be deterred because they have a clear option with defined risks but would the person who has a violent argument with their partner give a second thought to what will happen to them when in the heat of the moment they pick up the knife? There has been no real evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. It is unlikely that a handful of executions a year will have any real deterrent effect particularly on the people whom society would most like to be deterred, e.g. serial killers, multiple rapists and drugs barons. Yet these particular criminals are the least likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the drug barons will use any means to avoid conviction, e.g. intimidation of witnesses.

Another question that irks me is - Can the police, the courts, and the system generally be trusted to get things right on every occasion? They never have been able to previously. How can we rely on the collective judgment of a few people to decide the fate of a man’s life, especially when we have seen the system, the judiciary and the State fail in important decision-making. According to the Human Rights activists and supporters, the death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner. French philosopher, Albert Camus rightly said - "Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders". 

What I feel is that a Death sentence doesn’t deter another criminal from committing a crime. We all have witnessed such examples ranging from the developed nations like the US to developing countries such as India, both of which practice Capital Punishment. The rate of crime seems unaffected by the number of executions taking place. It simply is better to put criminals behind bars and sentence them to life imprisonment. In my opinion, it affects them more because it takes away their freedom and leaves them with no option. Rehabilitation centres and prisons are like a mental torture for the criminal mind. Just as mental patients are kept in an asylum, a criminal too is a mentally sick person who needs to be treated and punished in the prison. As a human being, taking away someone’s life is neither the solution nor our right.

Synthesis of Cinema and Literature

We have always heard people say things like "The book is better than the movie" or "The film didn't do justice to the novel." Many a times even I have put across such opinions. But I sometimes even wonder that books and films are two very different mediums and they convey the idea in totally different ways. So, why make such comparisons!

Cinema and literature are both creative texts and both require a thorough study for the understanding of the medium. Cinema, as commonly perceived is not only a form of entertainment, but also an art form which transcends to evoke a range of emotions in its viewers. Unlike literature, films are considered less serious art form. But with the magnitude of the growth in the industry and its reach, films have widened their horizon not only as an entertainment medium but also as arts of expression.

Literature and cinema differ in their style of storytelling. With a rich literary heritage at our disposal, film makers have always been fascinated and inspired to give expression to their understanding of the literary texts. Film adaptations of literary work are not a new phenomenon. Films adaptations of Jane Austen and Shakespeare’s works are testimony to such a trend. Now we have before us a plethora of options for films – from classic works of literature to modern novels written by young writers.

Films are an expression of the literary work by the director. It is his/her way of interpreting the written text. Roman Polanski’s Macbeth and Vishal Bhardwaj’s Maqbool derive their story from Shakespeare’s play Macbeth. Both films are adapted from the same literary text but still the films are completely different in terms of the backdrop in which they are set. A director takes cinematic liberty in order to devise a distinct narrative strategy. Such creative (cinematic) liberty may at times, enrich the essence of the original work by adding new layers of meaning to the writer’s vision. At other times, it may dilute the effect as well. 

Nevertheless, film adaptations serve a great purpose when it comes to understanding of literature. They not only interpret literature through a new medium but in some cases, also encourage people to read the original text.

"I'm a Papa's Girl"

Sharing something with him has never been an obligation but I’m simply unable to restrain myself from not doing so. I love to confide my fears, anxieties and excitement with him. My dad is my greatest friend, guide and support. I just can’t recall a time when I felt hesitant in asking or telling him about something. He is my confidant.

It isn’t that I don’t share things with my mom but my dad and I share so many common interests and that’s why I connect to him in a much easier way than my mom. My mom follows a daily regimen, quite monotonous and boring one but I don’t blame her for that as she gets up early in the morning and works a lot throughout the day. While my dad (I call him papa) and I enjoy listening to old songs and sipping black coffee at midnight which my mother strongly disapproves of, for obvious reasons that I just mentioned. Nevertheless, we always used get our way and move to the other room with sheepish smiles on our faces. This little time at night gave us a few moments of togetherness which used to be lost during the day, overshadowed by his work and my college.

It had only been a few months that I had passed out of school. I was in I.A 1^st year. Being in college meant like a promise of freedom to me. Not that I was ever restricted from doing what I wanted as far as it was not way too audacious like riding my scooty at midnight in Patna though I succeeded in doing that too (that’s a different story altogether). So, here I was, ready to explore the world in the way I wanted. I wanted to try new things and come out of my cocoon.

Sneha, my college best friend and I often used to chat at night and discuss about our little adventures and things that we would do when we find the right opportunity. Smoking was one thing that fascinated both of us and we were just waiting for the right moment to try this crazy fad. Finally the wait was over. It was a cold afternoon and I was home alone. I called up Sneha and we were chit-chatting and it suddenly occurred to both of us that this is the perfect time for which we were looking for. Sneha managed to get a cigarette from her uncle’s closet and she came to my place as soon as she could. We were thrilled by the thought of smoking. And we finally shared a cigarette. To our surprise, the feeling of excitement soon subsided and the experience didn’t really turn out to be as we had expected. Nevertheless, we were done with one of the things in our ‘bucket list.’

Soon mom came back and Sneha also went home. I somehow felt guilty of doing something stealthily in my own house. But I couldn’t gather the courage to tell mom. Papa came back from office. I was engulfed in this annoying feeling within me which was not letting me be calm and do things straight. I had a sudden urge to tell papa about the day’s happenings but didn’t know how to put it in front of him. I prepared tea for him. And yes, he likes to have tea prepared by me only…flavoured leaf tea! Anyway coming back to my pathetic guilty state of mind, I managed to go to papa who was working on something. As dramatic as it may sound, I asked my mom and Ishu (my sister) to leave the two of us alone as I wanted to talk only to papa. Papa looked at me in amazement at my sudden surprising behaviour. Now it was time to blurt it all out. And so did I, giving him every specific detail of our little adventure. I went on and on. And suddenly I realised it wasn’t as big a deal for him. It made me feel less guilty now. He smiled at me affectionately and said, “I know you’re feeling bad about doing this without our knowledge but I know this is a part of your growing up. I’m glad you came up to me and shared this.” This was such a moment of relief to me and papa had proved it again that he understands me just the way as I would want him to. As curious a soul as I am, I asked him, “so when was the first time you tried a cigarette?”

“I was younger than you when I did,” he said mockingly. We laughed out loud and then I left the room. My mom and Ishu were so curious to know about what had just conspired. Now I had no qualms about it and I narrated the whole incident to them enthusiastically all over again. My mom was a bit taken aback by my audacity but papa helped me understand her concern and I think he also helped her understand my perspective. And that’s the reason why I don’t ever feel hesitant in sharing anything with him because he not only acts as a mentor but also understands me as a friend.

My relationship with him has been through all its moments…from cute and cuddly to cold fights over the silliest things. These things have enriched our relationship and now that I’m away from him I can feel a void within. But even now, when I need guidance for anything under the sun, he’s the one I approach.

I have always been very close to him and everyone at home calls me “Papa’s girl”. And papa says I’m the delicate extension of his dreams. This trust that he has in me has always given me confidence at times when I had crucial decisions to make. It is the driving force that makes me believe in myself. He’s my first love, my hero and a person I look up to. 
Here's wishing a very Happy Valentine's Day to the first love of my life...