At least impliedly, let's say - this society is skewed!
A newspaperman I knew referred to a rather well-known politician as an "abominable showman.'' Having put his article to bed, he went off to be entertained at a favourite dive.

But, when he looked up the newspaper the next day, he found the meaning of what he had written originally had taken on a queer complexion. His reference to the politician had been changed to read "so and so …. he is an abominable snowman.'' (!) Either the devil who notoriously resides at the printer's was feeling abnormally cold that day -- or somebody was fast losing his marbles. So he took the newspaper and went to the rather senior gentleman who was in charge of the page, and demanded an explanation.

The man just said one thing deadpan. "Why I changed it… there is no such thing called an abominable showman. Abominable snowman of course is the only thing that there is…." Our man who was fairly seeting upto that point, almost passed out laughing. Let us just say the senior hand's acquaintance with the nuances of the English language was, well, to say the least, abominably wanting…

On another occasion another trusted-hand wrote in a leading piece "the rise and rise…' of such and such a politician. The next day he comes to office and realises that yet another senior hand had deleted that second ''rise'' from the sentence. The customary explanation was demanded. Our senior hand deadpanned "well, I have heard of rise and fall - - but I have never heard of rise and rise.'' This time our man did not know whether to laugh or to cry.

These stories are old but true (at least 10 years old….) recollections from a newspaper office which is not the one that publishes The Sunday Times. But it gives a fair indication of basic issues with reference to professionalism in the English publishing milieu of today.

That notwithstanding there was a reference last week in a newspaper published by another publishing house (as they say formally in these things - not the one that publishes The Sunday Times) of a caper that involved the son of a publishing boss of a newspaper establishment. The inference being made in the paper, can only merit a passing reference here --- which is that the said son now runs this other publishing house, even though he had gained some notoriety for an incident involving a glass of some mildly inebriating brew…

The incident had been already dismissed squarely in the newspapers as a concoction. The young man referred to was present at the location mentioned -- but he was there just for a few minutes, when the entire incident which involved a scuffle had already petered out. The long and the short of it was that he had nothing to do with the incident - - which of course is a fact as clear as the one that he does not run the newspaper office referred to. Modus operandi therefore was - manufacture a story and give the other newspaper a political taint.

All this may sound somewhat abstruse to the uninitiated reader, but the point even though it necessarily needs to be laboured under the circumstances, is that there is something sadly amiss in the publishing milieu of today. It's either peopled by incompetents a la the abominable snowman - - or it's taken over by gentlemen who promise a new media culture, who then deal in stories that are blithe concoctions.

Now that I have delivered myself of that idea (spells relief - - this getting things off the chest!) there is the need to consider the upshot of this kind of laissez-faire approach to nationally important pursuits.

But yet, such situations are symptomatic not just of journalism but of almost everything else in this country - public OR private sector. Renton De Alwis, a former Tourist Board boss who spoke at a recent seminar said something that has been etched indelibly in my mind. Speaking at an event organised by the Press Complaints Commission, de Alwis said "in this country what you become and what you are is determined very often not by how good you are -- but by whom you know.''

Too true. We are living a national farce. National endeavour be it politics, art, private enterprise or just plain newspaper journalese (state, OR private), is often led by people who are total incompetents, and that because they have excelled at the buddy system. There is no need to elaborate further on Renton's dicta on that - "it's not what you do that counts - - it's who you know." i.e: how you play the system.

Now, a buddy system can even be withstood in a developed country. But in a developing milieu, a buddy system can tear apart the social fabric, and create dangerous social tensions. For a country that suffers unremittingly by malign forces that are often traced to social discrepancies (LTTE and other upheavals and insurrections in history) what we do not need is one more cataclysm that's fuelled by rampant incompetence in the system that's fuelled by ''you need to know the correct person'' rules.

Cut to the bone, it means that incompetents who have gravitated to positions of some influence (through accident at best, or by cultivating the right buddies and authorities at worst) should not continue their gross incompetence because it's the system that will eventually come crashing on our collective heads.

It's also quixotic why nobody understands or seems to care how such incompetence impedes production - - or at least output - - and certainly impedes improved output. In other words -- we do not need abominable snowmen in our midst! But of course the system is hamstrung by its own inertia.

In politics, it's banally obvious. National leaders continue in their own merry partisan way of politicking, even with impending peril staring in their face. In the South, peace is being again made into a Tamasha as opposed to making it a serious achievable goal. They closed bars last week for peace day, and took out eight deck poster headlines in the newspapers!! A closed watering hole is not a death-dealing issue certainly -- but it's the vainglorious attitude that counts.

Yet everybody knows about the woebegone nature of politics. But it's in national endeavour and in private sector activity that insidious tolerance of incompetent buddy-system management is most telling. But often, managements -- or a more circumspect way of putting it -- industry leaders - - (I reiterate, private and public sector) are bundles of confused inertia. They have a rigor mortis that's reached them without death.

They are morbidly afraid to rock the boat. So the incompetent unproductive buddy system carries on. Who cares, or who has today, that amount of integrity of purpose? Join the party, this is Sri Lanka! But for those who are in a enforced slumber of sorts, at least there is nothing wrong for us ordinary mortals to prod them just that wee little bit, to see if they can even belatedly wake up for everyone's good, not to mention at least to some extent - their own?

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.