 |
| We generally refer to fashionable or unfashionable to illustrate whether or not someone or something fits in, with the current fashion trend, or a mode of expression. Strictly speaking fashion is often used as a synonym for style, glamour and beauty, which is commendable. |
| by Victor Cherubim
( September 15, 2012, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) Wherever we are, we change with the seasons and the seasons change with the times. Whenever we are undecided, whether in business or the business of governing, our ways of approach to situations, too may change. Likewise fashion trends change, as style of dress, cuisine, literature, art, architecture, is fluid. The change is rapid and mostly without explanation.
Recently, a conspiracy of fashion has exposed the Royals in Britain. We read that : “Prince Harry put the ‘crown jewels’ on display in Vegas,” enjoying a private break frolicking last month, prior to taking up duties in the forces abroad. Perhaps after seeing the photos, wannabe model Poonam Pandey wrote in Twitter, how she was smitten by the Prince. It seems all she wanted was publicity.
Media attention has since focussed on another member of the Royals, the Duchess of Cambridge, who is now the centre of embarrassing images whilst staying in Provence, France, with Prince William last week.
Sri Lanka has too often come up for flak. We have seen the media hounding the President over months. When they had squeezed the pips, they tried to tear down the image of the Defence Secretary. The print media ensnarled him and thrashed a story of abuse of privilege, defaming his character.
The papers, it appears, are out for the kill. Grabbing headlines sell papers, similar to the worst excesses of the paparazzi in a different year. Besides, through crude circulation of videos, inciting religious hatred has resulted in bloodshed in Libya, Egypt and Sudan and enormous anguish to say the very least, to peoples beliefs and values everywhere.
What is happening to our ideas of dignity and decency?
Critics maintain that those in power, both national and international leaders are accountable. This may be so. But is it justifiable to treat them as if they are “public property;” that their every action is under scrutiny? We are informed that there is no such thing as privacy and everything is up for grabs. The French publication, “Closer” with a circulation of 414,000 admits that there was no breach of safety or security as Prince William and Catherine were clearly visible at their Chateau, from the street and the pictures are “not in the least shocking.” But who decides what is acceptable? It is understandable that “everything goes” as far as ethics and morals for this celebrity woman’s magazine. The saddest part is that there is little that can be done in pursuing the so called aspect of, “freedom of information,” and oddly accepting it as a “little disproportionate.”
We generally refer to fashionable or unfashionable to illustrate whether or not someone or something fits in, with the current fashion trend, or a mode of expression. Strictly speaking fashion is often used as a synonym for style, glamour and beauty, which is commendable.
Wearing print is in fashion in London. Designers are inspiring their debs with their manipulation of digital technology, as prints clash and colours are vibrant. Sliming a woman’s silhouette with a range of fashion as part of a pattern to flatter women is fashionable. As everything needs a new look, what has gone out is the tight leather craze of last winter. In its place optical illusions in prints and patterns that play tricks in vision, are now in vogue.
With the likes of Madonna and Victoria Beckham not using their vocal chords but trying their hand at inspiring Style Street, a new media is in the making. From recording studios to fashion icons, these vocal idols are no longer courting the size of their young audience with their melodies, but are now selective in their new chosen field in fashion. It is the content of fashion rather than its conclusion that comes as their new message.
Morals, ethics and values provide behavioural rules for individuals as well as for society and for governments.
Values are the rules by which we make decisions about right and wrong, good and bad.
Morals however, have a greater social element to values and tend to have a broad acceptance.
Morals refer to moral conduct. Whilst ethics tend to be codified into a formal set of rules which have to be adopted by groups of people. Thus ethics is internally defined and adopted while morals tend to be externally imposed.
To take the moral high ground means to adopt a morally superior position. Whether it is the media or the video, it is the accepted norm that neither can speak from a position of superiority,
as the reasons for their action can be murky and can be challenged in law. The way that the media can be challenged is through defamation and the way that ethics can be imposed is through public belief.
Codes of conduct have varied throughout history and within different cultures and they often change with changing contexts.
Post a Comment