Love Vs Lie Detector

Posted on | August 20, 2009 | Comments

“So do you actually love him?”

She thinks, agonizes, sweats.

So does he.

An audience of a zillion watches with bated breath.

Hold it.

What is she sweating for?

Trust is frail.

It can break at the slightest poke.

Especially in times of greater individual insecurity than ever before.

What was she agonizing over?

If she actually loved him, why was she worried?

Because the machine’s endorsement of her love was critical in the social context?

What was he agonizing over?

That a “lie” would brand him wrong, never mind what the truth was?

No, don’t expect any links to articles on the veracity of lie detector tests in this post.

I actually don’t care if the lady in question actually loved the man in question or not.

I have a question.

Do programs today operate independently?

Is the social impact they have not a part of the criteria of selection?

This is not a TRP argument.

That’s business.

As a business target, a channel’s job is to gain a greater audience, hence provide a bigger/richer target audience, and hence invite bigger advertising investment.

But a channel cannot ignore the fact that it has a social context too.

Sure, a condom brand’s future sales could lie in it promoting irrational and promiscuous sex.

But it doesn’t work that way.

I have a problem with Sach Ka Saamana.

It’s selfishly irresponsible.

Yes, every contestant is an adult, who probably signed a 40 page agreement before even appearing on the show.

But who are we fooling?

A contestant?

The poor bloke or lady doesn’t know what will hit him/her before it actually does.

Any mass media medium HAS to operate while being cognizant of the impact it will have.

You cannot transfer the responsibility on to the participant.

In any case, most participants who brave terribly intrusive questions actually declare that they desperately need the money.

Like the lady in question tonight.

Individuals are weak, foolish, susceptible and gullible.

Channels are not.

Tonight’s episode, where the young lady, even though she did it of her own free will, was rather saddening – it painted a rather sad picture of the channel and of us, the viewers, who gave the channel reason to telecast such stuff.

I, at a point, did NOT want to know of her personal life anymore.

I hated the sight of her agonizing over that single question.

And her man as well.

The machine can take a flying ****.

Why should we even hear a human subject another human to this crap?

PS:

On a rather unscientific count : enough has been said about love being the most misunderstood emotion of all times.

How do we expect a machine to understand, diagnose and rule a verdict on it?