![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Tera Guroor?
« previous entry | next entry »
Nov. 23rd, 2006 | 09:30 pm
mood: 
amused
A piece of news that was doing the rounds a few days ago – apparently about a not-so-significant statement made by the super successful Himesh Reshammiya and zoomed over a 1000X by the ever thirsty media.
In an interview, when the mediaperson made a reference to Himesh’s “nasal tone”, he quipped - “Mukesh, R D Burman and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan used to sing in a nasal voice too. But I am blessed to have produced 36 hits in a year”. These were more or less the exact words that he used. Now the media transformed this statement to mean that Himesh insulted the legends of yesteryears and claimed superiority over them. It accused him of arrogance by flashing headlines like “Tera Tera Tera Guroor” – a take on one of hit songs. The point here is this – by a simple application of logical reasoning, Himesh’s words could have meant any of the following:
1. Mukesh, Burman and Khan were good singers too though they sang in a nasal voice. But they were not lucky, while I was fortunate enough to have delivered 36 hits a year.
2. Mukesh, Burman and Khan were good singers but I am not. I had the blessings to produce hits at a greater rate than they did.
3. Mukesh, Burman and Khan were also bad singers like me – We all belong to the “Nasal Brothers Club”. However, while they did not have the luck, I had all of it to produce hit after hit.
4. Mukesh, Burman and Khan were in fact bad singers though they were also accused of singing through their noses. I also sing through my nose – but I am a good singer – this is the reason I could produce so many hits in such a short span of time.
The media conveniently ignored the first three possible premises and blew up the last one beyond proportions. Well, Himesh later on ate his own words to an extent when he made another statement that the three great singers were legends in their own right and he never meant to humiliate his seniors, the hype created did have a percolating effect. Does this mean the media defies logic and thrives on sensationalism? Is it so by design or by choice? Well, my view is that even if some trivial issue has to be sensationalized, it should be done in a way that makes it look important – audience should never get the impression that something is being hyped up for no reason. And I guess most of the successful media agencies are adept at achieving this. Probably, this is just another survival instinct for this part of the professional world.
In an interview, when the mediaperson made a reference to Himesh’s “nasal tone”, he quipped - “Mukesh, R D Burman and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan used to sing in a nasal voice too. But I am blessed to have produced 36 hits in a year”. These were more or less the exact words that he used. Now the media transformed this statement to mean that Himesh insulted the legends of yesteryears and claimed superiority over them. It accused him of arrogance by flashing headlines like “Tera Tera Tera Guroor” – a take on one of hit songs. The point here is this – by a simple application of logical reasoning, Himesh’s words could have meant any of the following:
1. Mukesh, Burman and Khan were good singers too though they sang in a nasal voice. But they were not lucky, while I was fortunate enough to have delivered 36 hits a year.
2. Mukesh, Burman and Khan were good singers but I am not. I had the blessings to produce hits at a greater rate than they did.
3. Mukesh, Burman and Khan were also bad singers like me – We all belong to the “Nasal Brothers Club”. However, while they did not have the luck, I had all of it to produce hit after hit.
4. Mukesh, Burman and Khan were in fact bad singers though they were also accused of singing through their noses. I also sing through my nose – but I am a good singer – this is the reason I could produce so many hits in such a short span of time.
The media conveniently ignored the first three possible premises and blew up the last one beyond proportions. Well, Himesh later on ate his own words to an extent when he made another statement that the three great singers were legends in their own right and he never meant to humiliate his seniors, the hype created did have a percolating effect. Does this mean the media defies logic and thrives on sensationalism? Is it so by design or by choice? Well, my view is that even if some trivial issue has to be sensationalized, it should be done in a way that makes it look important – audience should never get the impression that something is being hyped up for no reason. And I guess most of the successful media agencies are adept at achieving this. Probably, this is just another survival instinct for this part of the professional world.