By Saswat Pattanayak
I see a clear bias of The Economist: a colonial bias. Even as Tony Blair report on Africa suggests that foreigners who pay bribes should be punished, and foreign firms that extract minerals from African soil should be more transparent in their dealings with local governments, The Economist is quick to point out that foreigners do not cause corruption. Indeed it justifies the international scams as it goes on: “For every shady multinational, slipping a minister a sackful of cash for a contract, there are thousands of African policemen robbing people at roadblocks or African bureaucrats inventing pointless rules so that they can demand bribes not to enforce them.” Indeed, in the post-colonial discourse, the roadmap to police brutality or bureaucratic corruption in Africa could have been carved out more critically, more radically. The articles on Africa remind one of Richburg’s “Out of America”—a tale half-told, poorly told.
Noticeably, The Economist has a different style sheet; one which makes for the clarity, style and precision. And this stress on precision is evidently clear, and unfortunately so, when it rejects the UN proposal to bridge the “digital divide” by systematizing the IT infrastructure and urging the private firms to contribute profit percentages to this cause. The Economist argues that digital divide is not about computer access, it should be about the mobile phone access. It even proposes names of companies which specialize in providing mobile access in developing countries and why they should be encouraged to sell more.
Justification: “A computer is not useful if you have no food or electricity and cannot read.” (Now, I am sure, though, that one does not need to be an economist to know that cell phones have alphabets on them and they need to be electrically charged too!) I wonder where are the business acumen and wisdom that can speak for power of equal access to information dissemination which can be regulated by non-profit sectors run by the state, rather than uneven costly communication that will reap profits to few telecom giants. Of course The Economist is clear regarding its opinion that state run telecom agencies should be abolished!
However, no one knows who wrote those long pieces, latter of which even paint the cover, and if it was the view held by The Economist per se. But its frustrating to see one of the leading media endorsing views such as, “History shows that the earlier competition is introduced, the faster mobile phones start to spread.” Its concern for “food, electricity and literacy” seem proverbial in face of a question that I may ask: Whose history? Continent of Africa never “historically” needed competition to survive, if the imperialists had an inkling of history redefined by them.
The welcome relief came via The New Yorker, which of course I think is a magazine of a different genre: literary criticism of political world. Easy read, yet incisively crafted, a comment on Hunter S Thompson depicted him as belonging to a time when journalists believed that fearlessness and humor and honesty could make a difference. And Louis Menand adds, “It’s sad to be reminded that the time in which such a faith was possible has probably passed.” If that was a comment, one could be equally taken in by the type of personal narrative The New Yorker offers. Apart from the narrative indicative of a personal history of Orhan Pamuk, the magazine has family pictures of the author and one cartoon too, to situate the reader in the story. The “long and complicated life” of Dan Rather was well written and so were the literary section. On March 7th, Umberto Eco wrote for New Yorker and on March 14th, John Updike. That’s astoundingly remarkable!
The down side: The New Yorker can eat its own words and Thompson will emerge winner again. The satire in form of “Shouts and Murmers” was pathetic. No one wants to argue with the obsession the country has with Bin Laden but to accuse Laden of sending his troops instead of not going himself to the front of war is clear indication of a myopic vision that oversees the American domestic scene where similar and stronger arguments can be situated. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden is not sending troops worldwide and it is Bush II, who is definitely not going to the warfront.
All the more reasons why we could wish for the Gonzo to come back. He would have paused awhile as he did in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and said, “I hit the brakes and aimed the Great Red Shark toward the shoulder of the highway. No point mentioning those bats, I thought. The poor bastard will see them soon enough.”
Its time the more “respected” magazines took to seeing the bats, else we would lose the ‘true magazine writer’ (as Thompson was called in a tribute) to alternative gonzo media that we cannot despise and yet will not fully subscribe.