Thinking young
Lalitha Sridhar
Wanted : Young, attractive, photogenic, bright, articulate person to fill pages of a leading publication. Age only bar. Informal dress code preferred. We encourage Western styles. English proficiency a must. Great exposure (sic) guaranteed.
The job? Lead anchor or other top slots for the leisure supplements.
The reward? Instant celebrity.
Thinking young is nothing short of a media epidemic these days. I gave three possible topic options to my editor : a doctor whose distinguished contributions to the mental health sector in the last fifty years are nothing short of legendary; a physically challenged scientist who has a string of accomplishments to her credit, a dedicated activist who is doing a lot of good work in Rain Water Harvesting and source segregation of solid waste. To each, the conversation went something like this :
"Sounds good. Is she young? Is she attractive?"
"No, that she isn’t."
"Hmm, then let it be. Too bad. We have been having too many oldies off late."
Or
"Ditto."
"Yes, she is. Really smart and very pretty too."
"Get her for me. How soon can you deliver?"
My editor is a good woman. I genuinely like her. She is a reliable professional. So good, in fact, that I am not sure if she really believes in this way of thinking or has simply allowed the official line to become hers.
Where a story will be placed, how much space it will be given and how many times it will be redone with minor variations is decided by who it is about. If the profile is about someone young and photogenic, it gets lead prominence - someone balding and on the wrong side of fifty is sent away to the bottom of the fourth page. If you are a gorgeous model with a preference for backless cholies and impossible stilettos, you get to become the lead story - once to talk about your engagement to a famous guy, then about the preparations for the marriage, then the size of the ring and the designer of the trousseau and finally, the countdown to the event (the wedding itself can be covered in the reporter’s words). Generally speaking, young people have far better chances of becoming celebrities. ‘Serious’(environment, gender, development) is definitely boring.
It’s not only potential employers, scholarships, fellowships, endowments, associations, clubs and sundry other applications which like the age band stay between 20-40, give or take a few years. Advertisements, as we all know, favour young, curvy females or young, hunky males. They could be selling anything - products that can be correlated to the young like, say, bright cosmetics or zippy scooters. But also universal applications - television sets or even hair oil. Organizations which work with the elderly, like the Dignity Foundation in Mumbai, rue the manner in which older people are marginalized both from society as well as the public consciousness.
It can have a direct and depressing effect - it is assumed that older people are unproductive and consequently, have lesser spending power. Not the sort of news subject that fits easily into circulation figures which tom-tom - "we reach the largest number of upwardly mobile (in various euphemistically worded phrases) homes in x state" and so on and so forth. No matter what the language or the words, the message remains the same - older people are not wanted. The media, particularly the tabloid press, is definitely a medium which believes so. Exceptions are allowed in the rarest of rare cases, which beat age and wrinkles via the lowest common denominators of youth (good looks, fame/notoriety, reckless gumption, or all of the above). Ageless examples can include a Parmeshwar Godrej with her can’t-you-see-how-young-I-am designer couture, a Liz Taylor with her countless cosmetic implants or an Amitabh Bachchan who rose like a
Neither the media not the advertising fraternity considers (consciously not too often, in any case) older citizens as experienced and inspiring voices worth paying better attention to. Besides stereotypes like dreadful mothers-in-law, we have benign grannies and grandpas perennially doling out ‘traditional’ advice or, alternately, suffering from arthritis. Which is why we get to see the Roma switches type of ad - the family keeps flicking the contraption, completely awestruck by its many virtues, as the old man on the hospital bed goes into fits of seizures. Or we have the Asian Paints commercial where a ‘poor aging man’s wife turns into a blimp while the exterior emulsion continues to look, but of course, young.
There are some unsettling assumptions here about the young as well. (This section adapted by the Consumer’s Digest of the Consumer’s Association of India from the book "Deadly Persuasion" by Jean Kilbourne, Free Press.) Consider this : "Buy this 24 year old and get all his friends absolutely free". That’s an ad for MTV directed to advertisers. It gives a somewhat different perspective on the concept of "peer pressure". Advertisers, especially those who are selling tobacco and alcohol, are forever claiming that advertising doesn’t influence anyone, that kids smoke and drink because of peer pressure. Kids who exert peer pressure don’t drop into school like Martians. They themselves are highly influenced by advertising, sometimes very deliberately. In the global village, the "peers" are very much the same, regardless of nationality, ethnicity and culture. Like most people, we like to think that advertising has no influence on us. This is what advertisers want us to believe. But, if that were true, why would companies spend over $200 billion a year on advertising? Why would they be willing to spend over $250,000 to produce an average television commercial and another $250,000 to air it? The media round us up into groups and spends a fortune on research to learn a lot about us, using techniques like polls, trends analysis and focus groups. The Oscar ceremony is able to command one million dollars for a thirty-second spot because it can deliver over 60% of the world’s women to advertisers. Advertising supports more than 60% of magazine and newspaper production and almost 100% of the electronic media. Make no mistake : the primary purpose of mass media is to sell audiences to advertisers. We are the product. And if it all only boils down to buying and selling, the media’s exclusion of the elderly and inclusion of the young, says a lot with its silence.
Its an attitude that is contagious. Media organizations appear to actively encourage staff to wear the editorial outlook, quite literally, on their sleeve(/less)s. A friend found a far less worthy colleague get herself a promotion plus plump pay hike when the woman obligingly turned up in a tight T-shirt with some cleavage thrown in (or should that be out?) for good measure. I have been advised to get myself a ‘look’. This generally qualifies as slim, svelte and sophisticated - preferably in a decidedly Westernised fashion though exclusive ethnic wear can make a statement by itself. I am guilty of being none of the above. If I did not have enough language (English, of course) to throw about, it’s likely I would have trouble crossing the reception in the lobby. One editor admits that "I was like you when I first joined. I had to change. You have to see how important it is - it changes the way people look at you. You need to get yourself an attitude." And I thought I did not have to listen to my mother any more.
It’s sad, really. The media very convincingly and surreptitiously underscores the fact that everything increases in value as it ages - books, wines, furniture, trees, antiques. Everything, that is, except human beings.
Contact: sridhars@md4.vsnl.net.in