 |
| Barbra Streisand and her bungalow |
Streisand Effect is a kind of boomerang. I had no idea
about this until I read an article in a Malayalam weekly this morning. The
article was discussing the BBC documentary on Modi and the Indian government’s
response to it. The writer of the article says that BBC should be grateful to
the Modi government for all the publicity it got because of the government’s
attempts to ban the documentary in India.
There is nothing new in the
documentary. Whatever is mentioned in its both parts together is already known
to anyone who has cared to study the 2002 Gujarat riots and their aftermath.
Most people wouldn’t have taken the documentary seriously had it been left to
its normal course.
The article mentioned above cites the
example of what happened to American singer and actress Barbra Streisand. She
filed a case against photographer Kenneth Adelman and got results that were
just the opposite of whatever she wanted.
Adelman was the founder of the
California Coastal Records Project. He photographed the coastline of the state
from a helicopter for the project. The photos were posted to the Internet and
made copyright-free. There were 12,000 photos one of which was of the bungalow
belonging to Ms Streisand. The lady took Adelman to court for allegedly violating
her privacy. She demanded $50 million as compensation.
She lost the case. Worse, she was
asked to pay $175,000 to Alderman for covering his expenditure related to the case.
Still worse, until the case was filed only six people had downloaded the
concerned photo and two among the six were the lady’s lawyers. But within a
month of the filing of the case, 420,000 people downloaded the pic.
What Ms Streisand wanted was to
protect her privacy. What she got was wide publicity. This is known as
Streisand Effect. Britannica Encyclopaedia defines Streisand
Effect as a “phenomenon in which an attempt to censor, hide, or otherwise draw
attention away from something only serves to attract more attention to it.”
If the Indian government had just
left the documentary alone, it would have just come and gone like any other TV
programme. But the government’s kneejerk reaction kicked up a lot of discussion
and debate on Modi’s actual role in what came to be labelled by many as ‘genocide’.
India’s censorship of the documentary drew global attention, says the article
mentioned above. All prominent news agencies gave it much importance.
Will Modi ask Mukesh Ambani to buy up the BBC now?
Hari OM
ReplyDeleteThe BBC does not require such increase of awareness; it is one broadcaster that is known the world over. The point is well made, though. We had an example of the Streisand Effect here when the ex-chancellor decided it was wise to threaten a journalist with lawsuits for bringing to light the possibility of his having done dodgy tax stuff whilst in office. He is now out of office. No smoke without fire and all that! YAM xx
Of course, the BBC has its worldwide recognition as well as popularity. When we were young, we were made to listen to the BBC news in order to improve our English and also to give us the most reliable kind of news. The credibility of the broadcaster is beyond question. Nevertheless, this documentary on Modi wouldn't have got such publicity had it not been for the censorship precisely because it doesn't add any new info about the issue.
DeleteSo far, the negative publicity has worked to the advantage of the magician Modi. It is uncommon to see him afraid of a documentary, which has only increased its publicity.
ReplyDeletePublicity matters in the end, even negative publicity!
DeleteI read this up recently when Shashi Tharoor referred to Streisand effect in an interview with Barkha Dutt on the BBC handling fiasco. Your last line in this post is classic!
ReplyDeleteTharoor is both knowledgeable and principled. We need more people like him in politics.
Delete