It’s like this beta, call in PETA. Let the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals investigate the gratuitous poisoning of pets. First, amateur detective Arjun (Krishna Arjun, Star Plus), pours the contents of a juice can meant for the murder victim, on the floor. The pet cat, gleefully, laps it and immediately collapses in a dead heap. A remorseless Arjun tells the shocked woman, ‘‘I had to (test the juice) — I love your life more than the cat’s’’. Next, on Parchaiyan ( Sahara) Reema Wadhwa is being nursed in hospital by husband Milind Gunaji. Poisoned food intended for Wadhwa is fed to the cat who without so much as a meow, dies. In both instances, the poisoned substances could have been removed and analysed later. Why use cats as guinea pigs? It’s insensitive and politically incorrect. Which is unacceptable in dramas but tolerated, even encouraged in comedies. The other day on Becker (Star World), a real estate agent walks into a pub. ‘‘I am looking for a visually disabled Afro-American?’’ ‘‘You mean a blind black man?’’ inquires a sightless chocolate-skinned dude. See? It makes you smile. But not the killing of cats. In dramas, feel free to marry your son’s ex-wife while he subsequently marries his step-mother, but not before you’ve had a child with her who then becomes your ex-wife’s husband’s step-brother and son. Only if you’re Bold and Beautiful (Star World) can you enjoy such family relationships. Yes, the daily soap is there roughly where it always was: locked in the eternal love triangle. Brooke is still burrowing into Ridge’s heart while wifey Taylor is dutifully and beautifully, decorating their home. Even as Ridge holds Brooke, Taylor recalls him holding her. Television is a public space Where men and women frequently embrace. But it’s not for killing cats. Now that we have brushed the fur off our conscience, onto Gujarat where many people feel Conscience was butchered at Godhra railway station and in the massacre thereafter. Opinion is bitterly divided over the media’s role: some say media coverage exposed the real situation and saved lives. Others blame the local media (print and electronic) and the Hindi-English TV news channels for inciting more communal violence by graphic (read exaggerated) details of the violence. It is said television, in particular, should have exercised greater restraint. The chance to do so occurred, tragically, last week. Terrorism in the temple at Gandhinagar, saw live action but discretion was the defining word. The news channels stressed it was a ‘‘terrorist attack’’, that politicians and people from all communities (read Muslims) had condemned the attack and warned against another tides of March. Of course, their circumspection was aided by three factors: the temple complex was out of bounds to them and this was a specific, localised incident unlike the state-wide street carnage of March. The closest comparison is with the December 13 attack on Parliament last year— except for the casualties. Lastly, the lack of TV cameramen in Gandhinagar for the first few hours when the killings occurred, dampened the news channels enthusiasm: they had to depend on ETV’s local Gujarati channel for visual footage. If the politicians got it right this time, it only highlights how wrong they got it last time. In an interview with BBC World, Thursday, Narendra Modi said that he had to learn ‘‘how to communicate with the media’’. On Tuesday, he (albeit marble-eyed) alongwith Vajpayee, Advani, Gandhi communicated with the media and through it to the public. They went on air, and promptly condemned the attack, called for peace. These were repeatedly broadcast. Advani flew out and Vajpayee flew in. Their screen presence and calm speeches achieved two things: showed a watching nation that they were in charge and soothed ruffled feathers. On the earlier occasion, he Prime Minister waited over a month before visiting. One small thought: maybe like the American media we ought to downplay our own casualties. During WTC, the number dead, injured was the last figure any one wanted to mention. Whereas at the temple, our channels went out of their way to emphasise the casualties: ‘‘6 dead, 40 injured— three children killed’’. This information ran frequently in headlines, on ticker tapes. It’s the sort of statistic, especially about children, that horrifies and outrages people. CNN and BBC World are not so sensitive with the dead of others. In the Israel-Palestine conflict they go on and on about casualties, women and children. Don’t hide the truth but frame it to present a particular picture. Rather than saying — ‘20 people have been killed and over 40 injured in a terrorist attack on the. temple’, what if we announced it thus: ‘There appears have been a terrorist attack on the. temple. The assailants are holed up inside, the Gujarat police have surrounded the complex and there are reports of up to 20 casualties. No untoward incident elsewhere. ’ This reveals but cushions the numbers with other information, gives a sense of immediate action and, hopefully, lowers the temperature. Lastly, a parting shot from Ruby ji (Set Max) who is bent on making women seem foolish about cricket and cricket more foolish than her comments. Before their semi-final match, the Australians were conducting stretching exercises which required them to link fingers — and pull. ‘‘Oh, there are the Aussies,’’ Bhatia observed, ‘‘holding hands. That’s cute.’’
