Women and Media Ethics

Media is the means or medium through which information is shared by people at large. The objective of Media ethics is to protect and promote the interest of readers, listeners, and viewers and people in general.  It spells out the news for news writers and editors to ensure objectivity and accuracy in presentation of facts or information.  Objectivity should be the watch word of a medium person. There should never be any room for distorted information amounting to misrepresentation of truths. Media fails to discharge its bounden obligation, if accuracy is not maintained.  Facts must be presented without exaggeration or distortion so that they remain immune to possible public resentment or adverse legal proceedings.

If stating the facts are prejudicial to the interest of the individual and the society, it is better that such truths be not made public.

Yellow journalism is used pejoratively to refer to journalistic practices that focus on scandals and scams by publishing sensational news, especially involving key celebrities and women.  Tabloid journalism essentially offers an independent perspective. Thereby it stands distinguished from other competing media agencies.  They feature local developments and entertaining contents.  Bias of any kind is contrary

to the cannons of journalism. Integrity, Independence and accountability constitute the core principles of journalistic ethics.   Media ought to respect the privacy of individuals such obligation sterns from the right to privacy on part of the individual.  Names of photographs of visitors of rape, abduction and sexual assault leading to their identification are not to be published.

Media should exercise caution by way of catering information so that it doesn’t become unfair in relation to a person, group or community. Media should have due respect for the indigenous tradition, culture and sentiments of the people.  It is unhealthy to hurt the sentiment of a group or community.  Commercialism is permissible to the extent it doesn’t violate the basic ethical standards.

Women are now seriously examining how the developments in the media since globalization has engendered or hindered their progress and struggle for equality. As a powerful socialising agent, media has become an important tool as well as site of struggle for women seeking to eliminate sexism and violence against women.

The role of media remains crucial in communicating and popularising women’s issues, concerns, and actions from women’s perspective. Media otherwise has the power to shut out and further make invisible the women’s agenda.

The globalized media, caters information designed to build up a consumer-oriented culture. The media’s target readership is urban, westernised, rich and middle class consumers. There is at times complete negligence of gender related issues. Women in the globalized media are seen mostly as consumers as well as commodities. Print media has undergone profound changes in the last two decades. Both vernacular and English print media has had a compound impact on the readers. Women and women related issues and news are presented more but in a context and perspective which may not be empowering.  Visual media has engulfed the lives of people. TV too has done its bit in promulgating women issues. A study conducted by 'Sansristi' a center for gender development, aims to read critically the representation of portrayal of Women in the print  and visual media.  The study covered both national and local dailies, Magazines and also the T.V. programmes.  A local news paper ‘Dharitri’ rarely provides news on rural and  marginalized women in the state, who are hit the most by the

onslaught of globalization. The news paper usually  carries provocative and advertisement exposing women’s bodies and depicting female sexuality.  This certainly defeats media ethics.  A local magazine ‘Kadambini’ mainly depict women as only capable of doing household work and wearing loads of jewellery.  The magazine focuses on the upper class life style, consumerism and the luxuries, which have become an indispensable part of the upper crust of the society.  Issues relating to the marginalized women and the day to day reality of women are  completely sidelined.  Media covers the marginalized women  but marginally. The most disturbing fact is that media is more inclined  towards the elites, not to these women, towards glamour not towards struggle and empowerment.

Dr. Jayanti Jagadev,  N-3/94, IRC Village, Bhubaneswar-751015.

When silence speaks loudest: the power of the blank front page

Rather than quietly submit to a libel ruling restricting press freedom, the Ecuadorian paper El Universo published a near blank front page last week. CNN reportedthat the white space filled all but the bottom of the paper, where the paper published an Ayn Rand quote that said, in part, "When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice, you may know that your society is doomed."

The blank page followed a judge's decision to sentence editorial page editor Emilio Palacio to three years in jail for writing an editorial criticizing the president Rafael Correa. According to The Miami Herald, the offending article called Correa a dictator.

It was not the first time Correa reacted strongly against the press. He has called Ecuador's media "political actors who are trying to oppose the revolutionary government." His previous run-ins with the press includes a lawsuit against a director of daily La Hora for an article describing his actions as president as "shameful". He is also pursuing legal charges against two investigative journalists who revealed that the president's brother had gotten large contracts with the government.

In the face of these tight press restrictions, a blank page can speak loudest. Newspapers that impose censorship in such an obvious manner both attract reader attention and cleverly navigate a system in which they are penalized for speaking out. Censorship is a tricky issue to draw attention to because readers cannot physically see it. Publishing a blank page pushes the issue to the forefront of news. Journalists are denied press freedoms, and then in turn deny the public the news it expects.

Newspapers all over the world have used the 'black page' tactic. Earlier in March, six Estonian national dailies published a blank front page or a black page inside their newspaper to protest a proposed law that would punish journalists for protecting their sources. WAN-IFRA joined the newspapers in condemning the law.

Similarly, Hungary's newspaper organized a blank page protest last December due to a proposed law sanctioning "unbalanced coverage", according to BBC. The bill stipulated that Hungarian media outlets would have to fill at least half their programming with European productions and sanctioned breaches of rules on coverage of sex, violence, or alcohol. The law was passed despite the blank page protest and an online explanation of the proposal's dangers by Judit Bayer, a Hungarian journalist.

Italian newspapers took the concept even further last year, imposing a nearly-complete 24-hour news blackout protesting a proposed gagging law. The black-out was a radical approach to press freedom threats. Journalists feared the law would protect politicians, especially from scandal, by forbidding journalists to print transcripts of police-intercepted phone conversations. However, not everyone in media agreed that it would be the most effective strategy. Il Giornale, owned by Burlusconi's brother Paolo, continued to print through the blackout. The editor explained that while he disapproved of the gagging law, he believed that the media's pitfall would be to "put the gags on ourselves".

Whether blank pages are a "gag" or an asset is unclear. Some, such as the effort in Hungary, have failed to mobilize readers and change government policies. However, blank pages are an important means of drawing attention to an issue. When La Salle University dealt with an embarrassing story about a marketing professor inviting exotic dancers to an off campus symposium, the dean of students told the student newspaper that it was not allowed to run the story as a headliner. He instructed the student paper to run the story below the fold, a sanction students technically complied with by leaving the top half of the paper blank. In this context, the move is especially effective, as readers are not being deprived of a story. Instead, the half blank page brought deliberate attention to the article.

To commemorate World Press Freedom Day this year, WAN-IFRA sponsored a "White Space" initiative on May 3rd, in which some editors agreed to publish blank space on the front page of the paper to highlight the importance of a free press. However, the planned date of the initiative fell right after one of the biggest news stories of the year, Osama Bin Laden's death, and did not draw the attention it hoped.

Blank page protests are best used sparsely. Although they deprive the public of the news they depend on, when done right, they also draw attention to invisible issues. A constrained press cannot deliver unflattering stories to better inform voters, which is a crucial component of a functioning democracy. Ecuadorian papers should not bet that a 'blank page' tactic will overturn the unfavorable verdict, but in this case, it can make a statement louder than words.

Changes in the Ethic of Television

In television, everything has changed: the screen in the home is bigger and flatter, the styles of programming, the choice of delivery systems, and the business of television itself is different from what it was a half-century ago. 

While I work hard to keep up with technology and embrace the ever-quickening pace of change, I am concerned about what has happened to the television business we loved and what's yet to come. I'm concerned as a television producer, writer and director. Moreover, I'm concerned as a parent...and an American citizen. Trust me—my concern is real.

I have concern that the television business as we know it—no matter how profitable for some—is at risk for all. At risk because we have abandoned precepts that balanced entertainment and responsibility; because we have confused fiction with truth; because we have redefined the word "reality."

I'm more than concerned; I’m distressed and disheartened. And most of all, I'm disappointed in what's become of television and radio, press and journalism. And I can't believe what it's done and is doing to the nation.

Is there any reason we should be surprised by the shouting matches we see at a televised "town hall meeting" after a generation has grown up on beat-downs that are passed off as "television talk shows"? Where's the difference? The public now sees such yelling as completely acceptable behavior—commonplace. 

Is there any reason we should be surprised by the threats of violence—and actual violent attacks—against members of Congress and other political leaders after the verbal fights that are encouraged on weekly "reality" shows in the name of entertainment and  for the sake of ratings?

Are we too naive to think this sort of content doesn't influence behavior? I’m convinced that it does. And deep down we have to know it.

Is there any reason we should be surprised that the country is so polarized when, on TV competition series, you either win or you lose? But if you lose on one of those shows, you're not through. You get the chance to badmouth the winner, guaranteeing that your video will go viral and you may get picked for another show.

For months, through the presidential primaries and caucuses, we’ve been in a downward spiral of "political-speak" where opinions on health care, contraception, and the economy pass for fact.  Sadly, it won’t end with the political conventions.  Expect the volume to rise as the arguments become louder, angrier and too often based on misstatements, half-truths or lies.

It was Mark Twain who wrote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world in the time that the truth is putting its boots on." Through hate radio’s microphones and television’s skewed newscasts, this perspective is more true today than ever.

We had the means to educate, entertain and inform an American citizenry; to move the country forward. For years the networks and local stations did that. Washington safeguarded the process through strict license renewal procedures aimed at assuring that stations were held accountable to the communities they served. 

Coming up in this business as a rock DJ at WHUC, in Hudson, New York, I knew the "rules." We broke for news on the hour and the half-hour.. The result, across the country: if you listened to radio, even "top 40" radio, you heard the news.

In local television, we had to canvass viewers with community ascertainment surveys to base our public affairs record and create programming that would address the needs and concerns of a diverse city. That was at WBZ-TV in Boston and every television station across the country. The result: television shows that mattered locally.

The issues were the central focus, not boisterous personalities who considered themselves above the news...or worse yet, as important as the news itself.

But that has all changed.  If the public owns the airwaves, as the Communications Act of 1934 maintains, show me how the public is better served today, without expectation of news or programming about community issues on most stations.

Of course, we can't reset the clock. But with everything that's changed in the last 25 years, is the principle of free speech better honored today given all the hate speech that's carried daily on America's radio and TV? Are the media more responsive to the cities and towns they reach when the concept of local ownership is a thing of the past? Is prime time television really better than it used to be?

Traditionally, there's something unique, brave and wonderful about our voice. Not just the sound and the volume, but what we have to say to the world. Yet those of us in the news and entertainment business—the story-tellers of the American experience—are not the gate-keepers of the media. Congress, the FCC, political parties, lobbyists, sponsors and special interest groups are. And, in turn, through legislation, too many of the monolithic broadcast and cable giants have become virtually uncontrolled, and maybe, by now, uncontrollable. And along the way the press is less like the heralded fifth estate of old and more like a slum landlord, posting eviction notices on the time-honored basics of unbiased reporting and intelligent debate.

We—all of us—let this happen through both action and inaction, through trusting others and through promises that were never kept.

No matter where you stand on political lightning rods like the old Fairness Doctrine, media consolidation, and Internet neutrality, can we agree that, as producers, writers, directors, reporters, actors and artists (and as viewers and listeners) we have all lost something precious? Can we agree that we miss it?

I believe we create less worthwhile content in a 500-channel television universe than we did on four channels. And, though we are no less creative, we have fewer creative opportunities. As a result, American culture is really on the line. We are exporting the worst imaginable images to the rest of the world through television, and we've compromised the meaning of "responsible broadcasting" at home. We've shown how easy it is to trade civility, honesty and respect for 15-minutes-of-fame.

Back to "reality TV." We all have guilty pleasures and watch a few shows. But even a little Internet research, or a glance at TV Guide reveals that we have been shown more than 700 reality shows in recent years. Multiplied by 8, 13, 26, or 100 episodes, and you'll get the true picture of television these days.

And what's real about most "reality TV"? Very, very little. The shows are manipulated, assisted, time-shifted, pre-arranged and re-arranged, and still they're called "unscripted." We're told there's no acting. Nothing could be further from the truth. The impact is profound and probably permanent. By now, too many viewers, let alone network executives, have grown up on this unreal "reality."

Is there an alternative?  No.  We are left with a marketplace where bookstores are quickly disappearing and publishing is in a tailspin; an America where public education, public television and public radio broadcasts are de-valued and de-funded; and where the network financial bottom line can't seem to buck the trend.

Last year was the anniversary of a seminal speech about television. Vital Speeches of the Day considers it one of the 25 speeches that changed the world. Number 22 in fact. It was delivered May 9, 1961 before the National Association of Broadcasters. The speaker—then-FCC Chairman Newton Minow. Though he has since clarified his comments, they bear repeating today in the original context as reported. Chairman Minow stated:

When television is good, nothing—not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers—nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse.  I invite you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there without a book, magazine, newspaper, profit-and-loss sheet or rating book to distract you—and keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that you will observe a vast wasteland.

But that "vast wasteland" of 1961 included Bonanza, Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color, The DuPont Show of the Week, Ed Sullivan Show, Jack Benny, Alcoa Premiere, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Dick Powell, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Red Skelton, The Steve Allen Show, Naked City, Perry Como, David Brinkley's Journal, Armstrong Circle Theatre, The Untouchables, Dr. Kildare, Ben Casey, CBS Reports, 77 Sunset Strip, The Bell Telephone Hour, Rawhide, Route 66, and Twilight Zone. That was the schedule that Newton Minow criticized.

It looks pretty good from 50 years out!

For the most part, those remarkable shows, and many classics that followed, fiction and non-fiction alike, have given way to a schedule that we should be ashamed of. It has transformed our industry, our businesses, our culture and our lives. And while there is good work done by good people, too much of TV today depicts the worst in us. And the truth of the matter is—it’s not true.

Is it possible to bring the noise level down on today's TV programming so we can hear the heartbeat of the American spirit? Truth be told, there are dynamic portrayals of the American spirit in some observational documentary series. And a handful of television or cable networks continue to provide time on their schedules for programming that is truly excellent.

But generally speaking, many programmers set the bar they are trying to reach so low, we trip over it when we, as creators of content, go in to pitch anything meaningful. The American spirit is hardly visible through a cloud that obscures better content. That cloud is reality TV. 

In television, everything has changed: the screen in the home is bigger and flatter, the styles of programming, the choice of delivery systems, and the business of television itself is different from what it was a half-century ago. 

 While I work hard to keep up with technology and embrace the ever-quickening pace of change, I am concerned about what has happened to the television business we loved and what's yet to come. 

I have concern that the television business as we know it—no matter how profitable for some—is at risk for all. At risk because we have abandoned precepts that balanced entertainment and responsibility; because we have confused fiction with truth; because we have redefined the word "reality."

I'm more than concerned; I’m distressed and disheartened. And most of all, I'm disappointed in what's become of television and radio, press and journalism. And I can't believe what it's done and is doing to the nation.

Is there any reason we should be surprised by the shouting matches we see at a televised "town hall meeting" after a generation has grown up on beat-downs that are passed off as "television talk shows"? Where's the difference? The public now sees such yelling as completely acceptable behavior—commonplace. 

 Is there any reason we should be surprised by the threats of violence—and actual violent attacks—against members of Congress and other political leaders after the verbal fights that are encouraged on weekly "reality" shows in the name of entertainment and  for the sake of ratings?

 Are we too naive to think this sort of content doesn't influence behavior? I’m convinced that it does. And deep down we have to know it.

 Is there any reason we should be surprised that the country is so polarized when, on TV competition series, you either win or you lose? But if you lose on one of those shows, you're not through. You get the chance to badmouth the winner, guaranteeing that your video will go viral and you may get picked for another show 

It was Mark Twain who wrote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world in the time that the truth is putting its boots on." Through hate radio’s microphones and television’s skewed newscasts, this perspective is more true today than ever.

We had the means to educate, entertain and inform an American citizenry; to move the country forward. For years the networks and local stations did that. Washington safeguarded the process through strict license renewal procedures aimed at assuring that stations were held accountable to the communities they served.  

In local television, we had to canvass viewers with community ascertainment surveys to base our public affairs record and create programming that would address the needs and concerns of a diverse city. That was at WBZ-TV in Boston and every television station across the country. The result: television shows that mattered locally.

           

But that has all changed.  If the public owns the airwaves, as the Communications Act of 1934 maintains, show me how the public is better served today, without expectation of news or programming about community issues on most stations.

Of course, we can't reset the clock. But with everything that's changed in the last 25 years, is the principle of free speech better honored today given all the hate speech that's carried daily on America's radio and TV? Are the media more responsive to the cities and towns they reach when the concept of local ownership is a thing of the past? Is prime time television really better than it used to be?

Traditionally, there's something unique, brave and wonderful about our voice. Not just the sound and the volume, but what we have to say to the world. Yet those of us in the news and entertainment business—the story-tellers of the American experience—are not the gate-keepers of the media. Congress, the FCC, political parties, lobbyists, sponsors and special interest groups are. And, in turn, through legislation, too many of the monolithic broadcast and cable giants have become virtually uncontrolled, and maybe, by now, uncontrollable. And along the way the press is less like the heralded fifth estate of old and more like a slum landlord, posting eviction notices on the time-honored basics of unbiased reporting and intelligent debate.

We—all of us—let this happen through both action and inaction, through trusting others and through promises that were never kept.

No matter where you stand on political lightning rods like the old Fairness Doctrine, media consolidation, and Internet neutrality, can we agree that, as producers, writers, directors, reporters, actors and artists (and as viewers and listeners) we have all lost something precious? Can we agree that we miss it?

I believe we create less worthwhile content in a 500-channel television universe than we did on four channels. And, though we are no less creative, we have fewer creative opportunities. As a result, American culture is really on the line. We are exporting the worst imaginable images to the rest of the world through television, and we've compromised the meaning of "responsible broadcasting" at home. We've shown how easy it is to trade civility, honesty and respect for 15-minutes-of-fame.

Back to "reality TV." We all have guilty pleasures and watch a few shows. But even a little Internet research, or a glance at TV Guide reveals that we have been shown more than 700 reality shows in recent years. Multiplied by 8, 13, 26, or 100 episodes, and you'll get the true picture of television these days.

And what's real about most "reality TV"? Very, very little. The shows are manipulated, assisted, time-shifted, pre-arranged and re-arranged, and still they're called "unscripted." We're told there's no acting. Nothing could be further from the truth. The impact is profound and probably permanent. By now, too many viewers, let alone network executives, have grown up on this unreal "reality."

Is there an alternative?  No.  We are left with a marketplace where bookstores are quickly disappearing and publishing is in a tailspin; an America where public education, public television and public radio broadcasts are de-valued and de-funded; and where the network financial bottom line can't seem to buck the trend.

It looks pretty good from 50 years out!

 For the most part, those remarkable shows, and many classics that followed, fiction and non-fiction alike, have given way to a schedule that we should be ashamed of. It has transformed our industry, our businesses, our culture and our lives. And while there is good work done by good people, too much of TV today depicts the worst in us. And the truth of the matter is—it’s not true.

 Is it possible to bring the noise level down on today's TV programming so we can hear the heartbeat of the American spirit? Truth be told, there are dynamic portrayals of the American spirit in some observational documentary series. And a handful of television or cable networks continue to provide time on their schedules for programming that is truly excellent.

But generally speaking, many programmers set the bar they are trying to reach so low, we trip over it when we, as creators of content, go in to pitch anything meaningful. The American spirit is hardly visible through a cloud that obscures better content. That cloud is reality TV. 

        

Once upon a time, running a newspaper was a fairly simple proposition.

I'm not talking about those golden days before the Web destroyed newspapers’ carefully crafted business model, although in retrospect, those decades of double-digit profit margins and a near monopoly of news in local markets do seem pretty sweet.

No, I'm talking about a period that began in the U.S. in colonial times and ended in the early decades of the 19th century.  It was a time when newspapers were essentially house organs of political parties or commercial interests, when editors and publishers knew which side their bread was buttered on, and there was no need to spend a lot of time agonizing over what stories needed to be covered and how and where they would appear in the paper.

But by mid-century, that was beginning to change.  It turned out that there was more money to be made selling advertising than by accepting subsidies from commercial and political sponsors.  In 1870, only 13% of daily newspapers in the 50 biggest U.S. cities identified themselves as “independent.”  By 1900, 47% of them did.  By then, advertising revenue made up 55% of total newspaper revenue.

And so publishers and editors had to learn how to deal with a new challenge; how to keep advertisers happy while still maintaining a degree of editorial independence.

Advertisers, on the other hand, were only too happy to sow confusion.  They were not averse to blurring the lines between “news” and advertising.  The typical North American newspaper at the turn of the century would frequently feature three types of content on the page: news, advertising, and a hybrid that was essentially advertising disguised to look like news.

For a little extra money, just about any advertisement could be re-written and placed in the newspaper disguised as a news story, with nothing that would allow the reader to distinguish between material that had been paid for by the advertiser, and that which was generated by the newspapers’ own reporters.

Newspapers were often contractually obliged to engage in this kind of deception. Those dealing with the Jennings Advertising Agency, for example, were required to agree to “reprint on news or editorial pages of said newspaper, such notices set in the body type of said paper and bearing no mark to indicate advertising, as are furnished from time to time by said Jennings Agency.”

These kinds of arrangements were welcomed by publishers, who were only too happy to oblige a prospective advertiser, but they were loathed by most editors and reporters.  By the 1920’s, as journalism began to develop codes of ethics, asserting the separation of advertising from editorial was high on the list of priorities, and has remained so ever since.

The wall between “church and state” was not to be breached, though it was always far more porous than many journalists cared to admit.  From the start, there has been a strong whiff of mythology about the separation between the business office and the newsroom, but rhetorically at least, the idea that editorial decisions would be made independent of the wishes of advertisers has long been considered to be one of journalism’s most fundamental principles.

On the evening of December 16, 2012 a 23-year-old woman and her male companion boarded one of the private buses which often ply the roads of Delhi, the bustling metropolis and capital of India .  These buses charge travelers a nominal amount to take them short distances.

The detail of the events which followed have been covered extensively by the Indian and international media. The woman, a physiotherapy intern, was raped by a group of men inside the moving bus; she was beaten and mutilated with an iron rod to the point that she was disemboweled. Battered, naked and bleeding profusely, the two were dumped near an expressway in Delhi, where they were found by a passer-by. The woman died from her injuries thirteen days later while undergoing emergency treatment in Singapore.

Six men were charged in connection with the assault and were arrested. Police claim that the main accused, the driver of the bus, Ram Singh, has since committed suicide in prison; the rest of the men await trial in Delhi’s Tihar jail. What was new about this news story? Daily and women are molested no action was taken against them, by solving one case ,it not enough to stop the crime .Now media channels are focusing towards their money and popularity ,it is not really ethics which we studies in our school or college days. It is all about the cases which increase the TRP of the channel and this delhi gang rape done this only. The real world of a journalism is not present in this world.

Delhi, after all, had frequently been referred to as the rape capital of the world with 706 rapes reported in 2012, and a city where, activists believe, the majority of rapes go unreported. Conviction rates are near zero; one person was convicted of rape in Delhi in the year 2012 and he received a prison sentence of three years, light by Western standards. Most rapists are simply ticketed and let go. With more reported cases in 2011, rape in India registered something around 9.2% (that percentage as just assume it) rise over the previous year. More than half (54.7%) of the victims were aged between 18 and 30 and Delhi accounted for over 17% of the total number of rape cases in the country. Estimates that in India, more than two million women go missing every year, starting in utero, followed by a life of violence, inadequate healthcare, inequality, neglect, bad diet, and lack of attention to personal health and well-being. Today we don’t know how many gang rape take place, because we can’t believe in news channel that is world is for money. I think all news are paid news in this world , not real journalism was disappear from our society .

Money make the news and only money destroy the news, it all the game of powerful person which play with it .  What exactly ethic means to us “Ethic Media is a multi-dimensional creative firm committed to bringing you the highest level of creativity, strategy and excellence. We are passionate about creating elegant solutions that deliver results. At Ethic, we work to exceed your expectations… every time, every day”. Ethic is about hard work and heart. Ethic shapes our decisions and guides our actions. It separates the good from the best. Ethic stands for quality and reliability. Ethic is what makes you stand out from the crowd.

This is our ethic which we forget and not use in our day-today life . I think that our society  is responsible of that , we live who societies want from us , then this ethic is not applicable to society and this only use for study purpose not use in our personal life.                                               

DahiHandi is the soul of the celebration of Janmaashtami. DahiHandi is filled with joy and excitement just like any other festival.  However.what differentiates it from other festivals is how subtly it explains the importance of unity and teamwork.

DahiHandi is all about teamwork. The success of DahiHandi is in breaking the Handi by forming a human pyramid. Thus, here the goal is common, which naturally brings all the Govindas together. The first step to success is the alignment of the Govindas to the Handi: the goal.

Once, the goal is defined, the next is the work towards achieving that goal. The first step is in deciding the right mix of people. This is important because, the human pyramid is composed of many layers and each level is equally important for reaching and ultimately breaking the Handi.

The base is often composed of people who are strong enough to anchor the pyramid. They play the role of a foundation in any great tower. A tower won’t stand without a strong, robust foundation. Thus, the base level of the human pyramid is very critical. More and more levels/layers of Govindas keep getting added depending on the height of the Handi.

It is very important for each Govinda to understand that each one of them is important to break the Handi and that each layer in the human pyramid is critical in holding the layers above them. Thus, the Govinda who breaks the Handi is no more important than the layers of Govindas who make it possible for him to reach the Handi.

One another interesting lesson to learn is how the pyramid fights it’s way to reach the Handi. The road to reach the Handi is not easy with water being poured over the pyramid to break the pyramid. It is after many collapses that, the Handi is reached ultimately. These obstructions are handled as a team which is so critical; with each layer trying to protect and balance the layers above.

Finally, the Govindas are driven by a spirit which is the driving force for reaching the Handi. No goals can be reached without a common spirit and alignment to the common goal - this is the lesson we need to imbibe always when working in a team

Ganesh Chaturthi Fascinating Facts

Ganesh Chaturthi, the birthday of Lord Ganesha is celebrated every year during the Hindu month of Bhadrapada with much fervor and enthusiasm. The ten 

day long festival ends on Ananta Chaturdashi with the immersion of Ganesha idols. Slogans of Ganpatti Bappa Morya, Purchya Varshi Laukariya , accompany the procession of Lord Ganesha while he is being taken for Visarjan or immersion.

It is believed that Lord Ganesha himself descends on Earth to bless his devotees on this day and anyone who worships him during this time is certain to 

find success in whatever he endeavours. From how Ganesh Chaturthi was first celebrated the way it presently is to the myths surrounding the curse of staring at the moon during the festival .Lord Ganesha is also refered as "Vigana Harta"  and "Buddhi Pradaayaka" . In fact, there are around 108 names of Lord Ganesha, but Ganesha and Ganpati are more common.

Ganesha Chaturthi is also the day when Lord Shiva declared Ganesha to be above all Hindu Gods, excluding Vishnu Lakshmi, Shiva and Parvati.

Lord Ganesha is sometimes represented with only one tusk. This form of Lord Ganesha is known as Ek Dant. There are many myths about the missing tooth of Ganesha. The most common is the story about the tooth being lost as it was hurled at the moon who had offended Ganesha by mocking him.

It is considered unlucky to look at the Moon during Ganesha Chaturthi. According to Hindu mythology, once while returning from a feast, Ganesha riding 

atop his mouse, was accosted by a snake. On seeing the snake, the petrified mouse dropped Lord Ganesha on the ground. Because of the impact of the fall, the belly of Lord Ganesha burst open and the food he had at the feast spilled out. Ganesha gathered all the fallen ladoos and modaks and stuffed them back in his belly, using the snake to hold his belly together. Chandra (Moon) who was watching everything burst out laughing. This enraged Ganesha and he broke his tooth and hurled it at the Moon, cursing him to never be able to shine again. Later, the Moon sought forgiveness and the curse was undone. But the myth about looking at the moon as a bad luck omen still prevails.

Though many believe Ganesha to be a bachelor, there are numerous instances where Ganesha is represented with two wives-Ridhi and Sidhi. Both of them were created by Brahma to placate Ganesha who was distraught at not having any wife when several Gods and deities had more than one. While Ridhi stands for wealth and prosperity, Sidhi symbolises intellect and wisdom. It is believed that anyone who worships Lord Ganesha also invokes the blessings of his wives.

The elephant-headed god Ganesh shown reclining in a Hazare-like pose during a Hindu festival last September.Last year, journalists dissected the Anna Hazare phenomenon to including his Gandhian persona.

Last year’s anti-graft movement, driven by a group called India Against Corruption gained momentum after Mr. Hazare went on hunger strike in April and reached a high point in August, when Mr. Hazare was detained by police before another planned public fast. Growing public outrage put pressure on authorities to allow him to go ahead with the gathering, which tens of thousands of Indians attended.From that he came in frame then  Social worker Anna Hazare has won $1,00,000 Allard prize for international integrity, instituted by the University of British Columbia's (UBC) .

Hazare was presented the award at a function held in Vancouver on Wednesday for his fight against corruption, said a statement issued by his associate Datta Awari.

Hazare was among the three finalists selected for the award. The other finalists were Global Witness - a group based in London and Washington DC, and Sima Samar, an advocate for human and women's rights. Global Witness has initiated numerous campaigns against natural resource-related conflict and corruption while Samar has been active spreading awareness about the detrimental impact of corruption on the promotion and protection of people in Afghanistan. Both the finalists have got prize worth $25,000 each.

Peter Eigen, John Githongo and Chen Guangcheng were among the last six nominees. The list was prepared after a comprehensive review process and the finalists were selected from more than 100 nominations across 48 countries.

This increase his level and also he is proud for india .That why anna hazare is celebreties person not only in India but also in internationally.

We know about social media and their pros and cons . It refers to the interactions among people in which they create , share and exchange information and ideas in the communication , with the help of networks. It all depends on mobile and web based technologies to create highly interactive platforms through which individual  and communities share, cooperated, discuss and modify user generated content. 

Now social media network become  involve in our life and all the our work depends upon network which done by our self  but plenty of help taken from this. Social media was created by our self only but know media was playing with us ,and  operated us like they want. They are part of our life.

We can't live without them because they keep us update at very minute . From one place we can keep eye on the whole world . Almost all conversation do by social media. The benefits are more but as we say "one coin has two face" then this social media is for benefits and also for the negative things which harm the views. 

The second face of coin is to hurt the watcher ,we make friends an start talking with them without knowing about their past and present . This can harm from any way which we can't think also . Something we are right but it effect can be change through times. 

We do online shopping on that it was easy but it danger or risks to type our account number ,it is risky jobs.

All the things are have two sides then one only will benefit to us and second side will harm to us . So don't depends upon purely on anythings. Use it but don't give your privacy things on social media.

If u thought social media was only for big brands and businesses, then its time you changed your view on the subject. As the social media wave sweeps across India, housewives too are using its reach and power to make their mark as business women , bloggers and among other things. If you are passionate about something, then a mind career break post marriage or kids needs not  put you out of action .Take a leaf out of the experience of these spunky India women and unleash the power of social media .

Our Indian housewives commonly never think about media , she is happy with her family only , her world is only in her family .she is finance manager in her family . she now all the things which is present in her family an she is master on that works. In India  housewives presents which not work anywhere and not involved in an extra circular activity, and only keep mind towards her family  and her household work . She never show excitement towards the politic and not interest to know who is next PM of our country or who can be eligible of that ,this is our Indian housewives  which present in 19's century.

And now housewives are capable to understands media system and kept their view in industry due to women are educated compare to 19's century  housewives. In 20's century ,we get housewives which say that media is related to argument theory , only do argument and no conclusion from their conversion . She understand that all the public behave like spiral of silence which want to ask something but they cannot say it.

We seen that now women can also handle the business and also the family . we has to proud to get this women to us in our life to improve the things. I thing now world is work under women .And that is true .

This life  is a stage and everyone has to play  role and leave this stage .As we see that movies or film leaves a great impact on lives of people  and they focus on the daily routine  of individuals. so they can impress the audience in both ways positively and negatively .We cannot  deny influence of Bollywood on our lives.

 Indian youngsters are crazy for Bollywood movies and this increasing day by day . Bollywood always represent the India cultural  by its unique ideas through its media  aand this influence has affected the Indian  youth in terms of psychological , cultural and in moral values. Youth always follow the Bollywood ,when Bollywood make some change then youth also make them .they started to act like Bollywood and they serious on it .

Bollywood movie are based on men and female love but some of them base on social issues and realities story .As  the film industry has started Indian movies show significant violence which could stimulate crimes. Indian youngsters has huge impact of Bollywood  on daily base and they use to follow their dressing style and behave in same manner like they use in their language and different terms . It has also promoted the bad habit of smoking as their favorite actor was doing in movies . These habit dispute the society  values.  Bollywood also change way of thinking of youth and older people, for older people they understand the youth  properly and youth understand the older because with help of Bollywood movie youngster make sure that at what time older change their mind. 

Bollywood is a place their we see some truth worth story and some are fake.But then also it says as face of society . From  Bollywood impression now youth has more attraction towards  opposite sex, copying styles, cultures and different norms and values of Indian society. Media also played vital role in promotion  of movie . Media also take part to improve our society's youngster from our values of India

.   

Now I realize  what excactly team work means, today my doctor i.e Mr .kriti. soni get awarded from BMC brihanmumbai municipal corporation at 2 pm . He completed our MBBS from Mumbai university. He started  our clinic in year 1981 as a doctor in kisan nagar , located in thane area. And his wife also a doctor in shanti nagar it also located in thane area only ,she is specialist  of women .she is quite famous doctor in her area . He was famous know  as Dr.soni in the area. He is very strick in behaviour  and like to follow discipline ,also expect  from all the patients  . His medicine is very usefull to patients then they hear and follow the rules which create  by Dr.soni

I say its my doctor then it means that I am working as compounder, last 4 years then we are one team for doing social work indirectly .we  work together and understand the things immediately. I liked his style of work he work sense last 31 year on that time I don't  know him .But know I admire him .

In 31 years he never seat on his chair while checking patients  because his patients are more in number compare to other doctors which located in same area . We work as team ,there are total 4 compounder are their expect me . So our work  as a team we co ordinate with each other .when some compounder is not present then other compounder  who is feel he/she adjust it and this only happen in team work .

This team work also presented in media industry ,all reporters correspondents,editors  and all others are co-ordinate with each other .That good connection between the worker that convert into best result comparative working individually. This team work cannot stay where conflicts in member and ideas could not match then this move ti greater lost in a company or in any place.

Team work has to be presented in our life which made less work load on our self and more.

Collapsed building in thane, Mumbra building collapse 10 killed, this type of headline we read daily and ignore it ,this is how we act with our society problems . Now  we mumbaikar became as a habitual human being who adjust in any problems and with headline on rape issues  and  any other problem which related  to society. Now we getting familiar with collapsed buildings.

We always point out to the rolling government ,but it should be our responsibility to do things properly. We get  impact from which showed by media person ,i.e we think  government has be change but what benefit we get by changing government , all the system one at the same only police remind changing. We can not believe in our government because talk are more comparative work are very less. After winning the election then no matter what is happening  in India this view of our government .

We  mumbaikar has to be change our self, our think and behavior that except all the things immediately.This may be happen all time with our self  for instance we are terrorist attack  and others . We have to speak for our benefits and fight for our problems. We need good infrastructure then we have to take part from our side for development of our country .When our society development then only our country development .

We see satyagarh movie , director Prakash Jha .We get inspired and this inspiration  only remind for one day .We have to kept our mind stable , then only some result will be come out. Why we inspired from wrong things and we excited to do so then why for good things we ignore it and behave like a innocent which do not things .  

We has to be  construct in India from the bottom level  then only we say our development are going in  correct way. Not only government people but  we also participate in the work .I know India has very large population country , worked process go slowly, one moral always use in  India that is "slow and steady win  the race". From slowly only we start our development then future generation will be best .  Not for us but for our future we have to  worked hard.