Recently, two editors resigned and two newspapers were \’closed down\’ by the government albeit for a week or two.
One editor was forced to resign by circumstances of \’inaccurate reporting\’ and took full responsibility, the other appeared not to have had much choice, although his paper reported that he resigned voluntarily. A third newspaper seemed to have gotten away with a warning.
In all three cases, the editors-in-chiefs apologised for their \’mistakes\’ or error in editorial judgment and one had resigned as well. All three newspapers received warning letters from the Internal Security Ministry and the Cabinet ordered one to close down indefinitely. But, that is not the full story, there is RTM, TV3 and ntv7. What else, God only knows?
What is it about media publishing that makes it such a risky proposition?
I have a simple answer, but it is a big word: Anthropomorphization. Yes, even Microsoft Word does not recognize it.
The meaning
Now, what does this word mean and what does it have to do with the problems in publishing?
My teacher of philosophy, science and religion at the George Washington University, Prof Sayeed Hossein Nasr first \’educated\’ me on this big word. He concluded on the philosophical underpinnings of these subjects with wisdom and stated, \’A veil reveals as much as it hides\’.
In the completeness of true knowledge, all symbols of representation reveal and hide truths, both stated and unstated. And, the word used to describe this phenomenon is Anthropomorphization.
It refers to all human effort to describe things of the \’sacred realm\’ using \’human words or forms\’. The skills and competencies needed to do the task well are the faculties of the mind and faith of the heart.
For instance, in the Old Testament days, the Israelites, did not use the word \’Jehovah\’ to describe God, as we know it in the Romanized or English form today but instead used a shortened form of \’YHWH\’ without the connecting vowels to speak about that sacred truth. Almighty God is too sacred to completely describe because of their fear of being wrong about Truth and thereby contaminating our earthly appreciation of that Truth.
Similarly, within Islam, the \’description\’ of Allah is almost always limited to sacred texts and totally barred elsewhere. That is not to suggest that the \’Anthropos\’ (Greek root for humans) that man is, we will ever be limited or satisfied in this search for knowledge, through the limits of search or any constraints in the form of expression of that Truth. Consequently, in all civilisation history, whether Greek, Hebrew, Arabic or English, there are \’anthropomorphized words\’ used to capture the essence of Absolute Truth in the forms of Theo, Yhwh, Allah or God. Although used, they are also considered \’reserved words\’ or \’sacred words\’ and traditionally used cautiously with some reservation limits.
However, post-Descartes and the Copernican Revolution, with the dethroning of \’sacred knowledge\’, their \’new science\’ allowed scientists to talk about a new truth through the methods and language of empirical science.
Consequently, modern science established her own worldview and discussion of \’truth\’ divorced from religious truth. In the resultant history of all these language groups and religious/philosophic thought which were influenced by modern science, there have emerged two different schools of thinking and believing: the school of philosophers and the school of religionists (who live by faith and not reason).
The former encourages discourse and doubt but the latter prohibits such \’rationalistic freedoms\’. Their thinking and those of their ardent followers throughout the generations will continue to be alive, as long as we live. They are different schools of thinking and being.
Bridge-builders
Consequently, returning back to the risks of journalism in the search for and limits of truth-seeking and their subsequent dissemination.
A journalist\’s greatest challenge is first, appreciating truth where it is found and then, reporting it in a simple enough form for the readers to understand and appreciate the same truth.
In this challenge of \’communication\’ they become \’bridge-builders\’ between the known and the unknown, between the knower and the unknown.
Some times, most communicators use simpler forms of expression and especially art forms are popular. Cartoon is only one such art form of expression and communication. The greatest question for most actors within the school of philosophers (i e those who seek wisdom, and not just religion) is what is the appropriate method to seek and find Truth, wherever it is found? In this search for wisdom, some questions that come to mind are, can there be faith without doubt?
What is faith without doubt? Is doubt the limit of faith, or is faith beyond doubt, or without doubt? On the other hand, can we make or reduce all such \’thinking and communication\’ into simple blacks and whites of the subject matter? Are we even serving the cause of man to do so? Is life meaningful without discourse, question, doubt and dialogue? Can all truth be reduced to only backs and whites? Where then do the colors of God\’s rainbow fit it? Are they black or white or only grey? How then can man appreciate the beauty of creation without limiting life to only the whites and blacks of expression? Are not the colors of the rainbow as much reflective of the beauty of nature? It is within the context of these questions that I would like to review and appreciate the problems of the risk of journalism with truth.
Within the context of the above discussion, what is the place of art in the expression of beauty, especially of the sacred form? Is it allowed or should it ever be allowed? Or, will it lead to the anthropomorphization of man to the extent that he consequently loses all faith?
What is faith?
What then is faith? Can we not fall into a \’faith-in-faith\’ danger, without any real faith? Is not religion and faith a private and personal matter? Can religion be mandated? What is the role of the head versus the heart in matters of faith? Are the sacred and the secular, really opposites? Or, is the sacred the full set and the secular a sub-set of the sacred?
Are we limited by words or utterances as the only form of self-expression? Can we not also think doubts without even expression? Can there be other forms of reflection or expression which add value to appreciate the real beauty of the creator, and his creation? I suppose we can have a thousand more questions and doubts! But, is it really healthy to question and doubt? Or, is it too \’reductionistic\’ and therefore damaging to one\’s faith?
Are Malaysians so immature that they need to be protected against \’a lack of faith?\’ Where and when does the freedom of expression cross the line of decency, without causing riots and anger?
What is the line between art and science with faith? These questions remain and continue.
