I am currently reading Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome. This book was highly recommended by a voracious reader (a cousin), who claimed it to be very funny.

And true to my cousin's word, the book is funny. There are parts where I can't help but smile, and some parts where I just have to laugh. The people around me may think I'm crazy, but there's a perfectly logical explanation for my assumed insanity. It's Jerome's style, his words, the sequence of events, and his caracterisation.

Unfortunately, there is one aspect he fails in (according to me). The portrayal of women. Most of the women as shown to be dressed in pretty and delicate outfits, or like people who easily get frightened. And there's more... but I don't want to get into details.

Portrayal of women is a very cliched topic, which comes up repeatedly wherever there are intelligent and concerned people. There are numerous seminars are held, myriads of books are written, and a couple of accusation letters or complaints are lodged. A few such things are reported in the press, but on the whole, the women on TV, print or Internet remain the same. Then there is a lull in such trying-to-make people aware activities. And out of the blue a demeaning ad or movie or soap opera springs up like a jack-in-the-box, and the topic is again discussed like there's no tomorrow.

And then there are those who say, "It's all about money, honey! I make something, I get paid for it, my employees get their bonus, that's all I care about, that's all I'm supposed to be doing." There are others who say, "People are intelligent. The choice is theirs- either they take it or they leave it."

But we yet go on and on, saying it is derogatory, unrealistic, irresponsible... and whatever else that can be said. I wonder why, in spite of no significant action taken, people still continue complaining. Because they know that some day they can make a difference? Maybe. Or because they feel it's their inherent duty to declare what they feel is wrong? Could be. Whatever the reason, I feel it's the approach that's wrong. A bit of sarcasm would help- like the Duryodhana awards for example.

I don't blame Jerome. It was innate for his generation, and his gender(!), of that generation, if not this one!

Where are the Germaine Greers and the Flavia Agnes's? Or the Bronte sisters and Louisa May Alcotts? As for Charlotte Perkins Gilman, I doubt there'll ever be another like her!

Gladiator Russell Crowe just got married. While many young (and not-so-young) hearts have been broken (including mine!), the most heart-broken will be the tabloid scribes and photographers. The pesky paparazzi hovered above the wedding ground in helicopters to get exclusives.

There is absolutely no doubt what must be going on in Crowe's mind during the wedding- Why can't they just leave me alone? Poor fella, he was one of the many targets of the scoop-hungry journos.

It's these journos that could be called the black sheep in the family. They're the ones who'd do anything for a story. Not just any story, but a story which will skyrocket their sales, and make their profits reach unimaginable heights. And they'll stoop lower than the trenches to get the exclusive.

I wonder what can be done to stop this behaviour. But of course, nothing! Because they will never stop as long as people love reading who's dating Liz Hurley, who kissed Anna Kournikova, who designed Halle Berry's Oscar outfit... I believe there will never be a stop to this.

Watch out, Catherine Zeta-Jones! They'll want the exclusive pictures to your new-born baby' s first moments.

I was reading BT today (not P3 though), and came across an article about a nondescript musician "who has carved a niche for himself..." I have never heard of him, even at a recent wedding in Delhi they didn't play his music. The article goes on to describe his tremendous talent, and his terrific music etc.

Below the article, in a teeny weeny font is the simple (meaningless) word- Medianet. It stands for nothing, most readers will think. But it does, and therein lies a brewing media debate the readers are blissfully unaware of.

At http://medianet.indiatimes.com you will come across a list of space and rates to publish something in ToI or its sister publications. What does that mean? It simply means that if you want to sell news to ToI, that's the place you have to go.

So this means you can just pay to see whatever you like in the headlines, or at least somewhere in the paper? Yes. The idea is simple, people approach the Medianet divsion of the Times Group if they want to get soemthing published, and they pay for it. These articles are usually used to promote someone or something- a new restaurant (which actually serves rubber-like rotis), an upcoming actor (probably a druggie who happens to look good), or a movie (one which helps the aspirin-manufacturers).

What about all the hyped-up talk about media ethics, responsibility, objectivity etc. etc. since the Iraq War began? It doesn't really matter, news-sellers say. The funda is- Show me the money, and I'll show you to the world. There's little doubt that earlier-spiritual Indians are now embracing Western materialistic values. So trying to cover the bottom-line and more shouldn't be a surprise. Media Houses, at the end of the day, are businesses out to fill their pockets. This argument will sound good when it comes from Ektaaaaa Kapoor, if she hasn't already used it.

The powerless anti-news selling journos can do little or zilch about it. The answer to their question of whether selling news is the right thing to do will always get the same xeroxed reply (see previous paragraph).

The question is- how do readers react to the idea of selling news? They don't! Simply because they don't know about it!

And what will the poor reader do even if he/she does learn of this? Nothing- because old habits die hard. Or people feel too lazy to tell the newspaperwallah at the beginning/end of the month to change their newspaper. Or they're not bothered. All they know is that they're reading the newspaper and are familiar, if not thorough, with the basics- where the war is going on, the PM's full name, the Oscar winners, Salman's latest antics...

Either way, it's a win-win situation for ToI, and, from what I hear, so it will be for others that follow suit.


PS: Read this article by Sucheta Dalal to know more. (Via Sameer)

Bombay Times (BT) has launched an innovative hoardings campaign. Great concept, with mass appeal- C for cutting chai, C for champagne. B for BEST, B for BMW.

The sheer genius of the campaign, or rather, the reason behind the campaign struck me as I travelled to the stuffy suburbs yesterday. I thought, “Why is BT being promoted by itself, since you cannot purchase a BT without a ToI? Shouldn’t ToI be promoted?”

And then it dawned…of course BT is being promoted to promote ToI! ToI’s quality of articles and stories has fallen like the gold prices.

So now you have Aishwarya Rai hitting back at Salman on the front page (is that even news?) and Preity Zinta wearing a yellow outfit when appearing in court for the Bharat Shah case (err…isn’t that the job of BTP3?). Or you read about Radio Mirchi winning some silly award (like people care!) and that XYZ wannabe visited Planet M (who’s interested in wannabes?).

So poor poor ToI is rusting day by day like an old needle (couldn’t resist this simile) and BT is trying to cover up Big Daddy’s arse.

And I thought parents tried to cover up for their kids…?