Robert G. Brown-Summary of Deshpande

If ever there was a reason and a time to declare “That opinions are like assholes, everybody’s got one”, this article entitled “The Confident Gaze” grants me that privilege to assert this declaration. Although Shekhar Deshpande attempts to support his claims that National Geographic’s primary attraction to it’s readers is the magazine’s ability to portray a balanced perspective when covering controversial issues to our Westernised World, sadly enough his attempts fail, due to a lack of illustrative evidence and a fixed personal perspective that is driven by subjective rather than objective interpretation of the material he presents. He claims “This power to transform the most repulsive results of human actions around the world into images that are digestible is what makes for the culture of National Geographic.” (pg. 2 par. 6) How does one do this without distorting the impact of the message that one is trying to convey? The point is, you can’t if you are attempting to bring the “truth” of the matter to the forefront. To hide or soften the matter related to arriving at the truth offers no benefits whatsoever to either side searching for the truth. Does offering more comfort to the issues surrounding homelessness generate stronger and more effective solutions to its eradication? I don’t think so. Does presenting a prettier picture concerning the realities of fetal abortion generate a more tolerable society responding to this ongoing matter? I don’t think so. Another claim he makes is “What attracts a common reader is that the magazine provides a balance of images of both, once irreconcilable aspects of life in other cultures. That increases the comfort level of its readers. They get education through information that is “balanced” and they get entertained in the beauty of its representation, which denotes such an urge to give the reader his money’s worth.” (par.2 pg.3) I feel that he presents a diminished capacity to the real meaning of balance in respect to the portrayal of content. If you’re going to talk about life in a balanced manner, you can’t just refer to all of its good while neglecting the bad; you have to include both. To try and edit the content and present it as balanced after the edit is a lie. In order to generate the kinds of real change that a person or culture need to make in order to achieve their intended goals, sometimes you need to shove their noses right into the “shit” in order for this realization to spring forth. One of the main reasons for National Geographic’s success is because of its demonstrated consistent ability to produce this unbiased information in pictorial and documentary form. A great example of this was when they were covering the Vietnam War and presenting to the public all of the atrocities of the war. The truthful impact that this material presented greatly influenced the war’s end, regardless of who won, and it wasn’t us. So, next time you decide to interpret what or how National Geographic Magazine is presenting its material, try and do it from a “clear lens” vs. a “misty lens” perspective and maybe you’ll arrive at the truth.