Media and Publicity

Now we see that media is suddenly taking a lot of interest in all the small issues and create enough hype or publicity so that concern people need to work overtime on the same. May be Media has no other work or better news rather than creating a hype. But at the same time it brings so much of attention of the people that it is impossible for both accused and complainant to be away from media and their private life is like a open book. Unfortunately, all the issues which media is taking up are getting converted in ex-marital affairs and gets more publicity and the living life of we Indians. Are we all Indians are getting more westernised and loosing our culture? Or this issues are more in so called high society? This is a debatable issue and I will be coming up with more details on this soon but I will appreciate every one's feedback on the same.

Lets be abnormal to survive in our country

Oil Politics

Oil prices are high at at $ 135 barrel and there was enough chaos created by media and politics on day 1 of increasing petrol and diesel price. Media continued to criticise government and put lot of pressure on all the parties to do some action. Some state government reduced the local levies and helped people in paying lesser for petrol. Now the Petrol in our country avail ables from Rs 42 a liter to Rs 58.50 a liter though we all are Indians and pay the tax. There is no uniformity in taxes and the price of petrol. Now the media has forgot about it and politicians and leaders are busy in making this country more corrupt. No one is talking about price reduction. Where do a normal human go?

Answer is be abnormal. If you don't get it than go ahead and snatch it else keep suffering and keep criticising the country and government.

I Am Sorry

I realize that by saying I’m deeply sorry, it might not be enough and sufficient to address the pain and hurt I’ve caused you.” Marion Jones, the golden girl of the Sydney Olympics, wept openly as she uttered these words on 6 October 2007. It was a sad day for sport. The only woman in history to win five medals in athletics at a single Olympics finally admitted in the New York District Court to having taken performance-enhancing drugs. A sprinter and long-jumper, who won three gold and two bronze medals in the 2000 Olympics, she had repeatedly denied taking steroids. But
finally, she apologized to the world for her actions. She admitted she had taken drugs from September 2000 to July 2001. “I want you to know that I’ve been dishonest… I have let my country down; I have let myself down. I betrayed your trust,” said Jones outside the court. “Sorry seems to be the hardest word,” a famous star once opined. Indeed, for Marion Jones it was hard enough admitting her mistake. However, one can guess that she probably had little choice, knowing that she would face a severe penalty if she did not plead guilty.

A commentator writes that sorry may seem to be the hardest word for many of us, but atonement is the new selling factor for celebrities. In other words, the word ‘sorry’ is uttered not so much out of fear of possible punishment but simply to bury the past.

The French football maestro Zinedine Zidane recently apologized for his infamous head butt on Italian defender Marco Materazzi in the 2006 World Cup Final in Germany. “It was inexcusable. I apologize,” he said. More recently, the Argentine football legend, Diego Maradona, put to rest the longest-running, most-debated and much-relished episode in footballing history. In an interview, the little genius apologised for his ‘Hand of God’ goal in the 1986 World Cup quarterfinal against England in Mexico. Maradona scored both goals in the 2-1 victory over England more than 20 years ago. His first goal in the quarter-final match was deemed by the match referee to be a legitimate header past England goalkeeper Peter Shilton, but replays confirmed he had illegally punched the ball in with his hand.
“If I could apologise and go back and change history, I would,” said Maradona. Many experts have commented that Maradona’s statement itself deserves to be a subject of debate – maybe for another 20 years to come!

Business Sense

Over the years, many sportspersons, politicians, and religious and social leaders have gathered enough courage to apologize and bury their erroneous past. Sometimes, even corporate giants have said sorry to save their reputation and their share of the market. For instance, in 1982, Johnson and Johnson recalled 30 million bottles of Tylenol pills from retail stores after seven people died from cyanide-laced pills. (Time, 30 April 2007). The company dealt with the potentially damaging situation by issuing a public apology and introducing tamper-proof packaging.

In another incident, it was reported that David Neeleman, CEO of JetBlue, an American budget airline, embarked on a week-long media apology tour after 100,000 travellers were stranded when “bad weather decimated its operating ability.” In one case, JetBlue passengers were left on a snowed-in runway for more than nine hours. Neeleman was reported to have said sorry in national newspaper ads: “Words cannot express how truly sorry we are for the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that you, your family, and friends and colleagues have experienced.”

Saying sorry is effective. Just imagine how you would feel if you were offended or wronged by a person; what would be your reaction if the person did not want to acknowledge his or her mistake and apologize for it? The chances are that you would hold a grudge against that person and probably share such sentiments in your social circles.

Missed opportunities

Why would saying sorry – no matter how hard it is – still be important? Why do some people find it harder to say sorry than others?

One would venture to guess that pride and ego hold some of us back in saying it. We know for sure that not admitting a mistake can be very detrimental – not only for personal relationships but also for seeking solutions. Depending on the nature of the mistake, not admitting one can possibly have catastrophic consequences.

In 2000, the Japanese company Snow Band did not react to reports of outbreaks of food poisoning caused by their milk product until some 60 hours after the first reported incidents. Five days later, some 6,000 people had become sick. Consumers and the media were outraged that top executives in Tokyo had not even acknowledged the incident, let alone take responsibility for it. Consequently, the company went out of business.

Whilst the kind of mistakes we make in our everyday lives may not cause catastrophes or affect too many people, the negative consequences of not admitting our mistakes can nonetheless be harmful and disastrous. Personal relationships can be damaged. More importantly, doors to solution-finding remain stubbornly locked. Admitting a mistake and apologising for it is the key – if not crucial – requirement in unlocking the door to find a positive way forward.

Trust - a philisophy

Trust is as elusive in philosophy as it can be in practice. Philosophers often simply ignore or presuppose it, and when they do consider it, they often struggle to explain it or confuse it with other things. Nonetheless, by considering some major philosophers’ thoughts on trust and related matters, we can reveal certain important features of it, and see why it might be so elusive, in both philosophy and practice.

Rethinking

As at the end of every bad film, however, there is perhaps one last chance to avoid disaster. And it is our natural love and sympathy, and our sense of morality which point us in the right direction. These nobler parts of human nature suggest that when we trust others, we are confidently relying on their good disposition towards us - we are relying on their love or sympathy for us or their sense of morality, for instance, rather than on their egoistic interests, habits, or irrationalities. Thus trust is a special kind of reliance, reliance on others’ good disposition towards us. In contrast, if I expect my friend not to steal my bike just because I have asked him to leave a deposit, then I may be relying on him not to steal it, but I am not trusting him. (Nor is he likely to remain my friend for long!) Similarly, if I rely on others not to attack me in a state of nature just because I believe that it is in their self-interest not to break our agreement and that they are rational enough to recognise this, again I may be relying on them, but I am not trusting them.

Conclusions

If we stick to a picture of human beings as moved only by self-interest, love, sympathy, or their sense of morality, then, the rationality of trust will remain obscure. Many of our most valuable cooperative activities will seem to be irrational, and will seem to persist only through blind habit or hope. Our friendships and our visits to the doctor will continue to be haunted by the Machiavellian conclusion: that if we are not confident that others are moved by self-interest, love, sympathy, or morality not to harm or steal from us, we should attack them before they attack us. If we act on this conclusion, mutual distrust and attack will spiral and we will soon find ourselves in a decidedly ‘miserable condition’. But if, out of habit or hope, we do not act on this conclusion, we will be blindly putting our faith in irrationality to keep our cooperation afloat, and we will struggle to cultivate and maintain trust, because we will not fully understand it. We are thus likely to do it more harm than good. Recognising that human beings may take responsibility for how their behaviour influences others’ decisions, however, offers us a way of explaining how trust can be rational. It thus also offers us a way of beginning to understand how trust can be genuinely cultivated and maintained. This does not mean that trust will necessarily be any less elusive in practice, particularly among those who mistake common reliance for genuine trust or believe in the common picture of human nature. But given the potentially disastrous consequences of such misunderstandings, the importance of making trust a little less elusive in philosophy should not be underestimated.