By Anil Netto
Much has been said about trying to be objective and impartial in news reporting. But however much journalists try to be impartial, the news reports they write can never be completely impartial or “balanced”.

The reason is that the journalists’ own prejudices and conditioning, the environment they come from, their professional and socio-economic background, their geographic origins (whether they are rural or urban) — all these factors will influence their writing and reporting.

Last weekend, I was facilitating a workshop on citizen journalism.

One of the topics we discussed was the question of perspective. In any given situation, there are many different perspectives from the vantage point of so many different players.

Take for instance the Kampung Buah Pala crisis. There are so many different players in this saga: the villagers, the trustee, the original landowner, the current landowner, the developer, the state government, the condominium buyers, the federal government, the police, the politicians outside government, the activists, the judges, the lawyers, the bureaucrats, the media, the business community, the wider public....

Is it any wonder there are so many different views being expressed that it sometimes gets a little confusing?

How you look at the situation — and what position you take — depends on which vantage point you are at.

Many of those looking in from the outside will view the villagers as greedy, demanding and unreasonable, given the kind of reporting we have seen. In fact, a few of the participants at the citizen journalism workshop viewed the villagers the same way. They had been exposed to what those outside had been saying.

But then an amazing thing happened. During the workshop, we organised an exposure trip for the participants, most of them urban city folks, mostly professionals who were interested in writing.

We spent just two hours in the village. Before leaving for the village, the participants were asked to use all their senses to carefully observe what was going on around them and to record them. They were asked to observe, listen, touch, smell, and taste (yes, they tasted the fresh well water that was overflowing onto the ground in the village).

They strolled around, gazing at the wooden houses perched on hillocks, smelling the fresh village air, observing the curious goats and the moo-ing cows grazing in open-air enclosures. They chatted with sad-eyed villagers; and they used their “sixth sense” to feel the whole gamut of emotions in the village.

They sensed anger, frustration, helplessness, despair, confusion, solidarity, and a community spirit (which most urban folks seem to have lost).

The next day, I asked them about the experience during the trip.

Nearly all of them said their immersion into the village had changed them. At first they were fearful of the villagers (because of the way they were portrayed in the media), but then they discovered that the villagers were actually quite friendly and glad to see people interested in their lives.

Most of the workshop participants said their perspectives and impressions had been changed — and that just by a two-hour visit to the village. They could now see things better from the villagers’ perspective. Imagine how their thoughts and impressions would change if they lived there for a month, a year, a decade —or all their lives?

Similarly, we would never realise the full extent of someone else’s despair and helplessness, their sense of injustice if we never experience it ourselves. We might guess what it feels like, we might think we know what it feels like — but we will never know unless we walk in the shoes of those who are suffering.

They say, you will know a person by the friends she keeps. Similarly for a political leader — who does he associate with most of the time? Is it the ordinary rakyat? Other politicians? Tycoons and developers? The longer the time you spend with any of these groups, the more likely your perspectives will be shaped by those groups.

And similarly, who did Jesus spend most of his time with? There were quite a few players around him at that time: the rural country folks, the temple priests and elders, the Roman leaders and their troops and the city dwellers. He chose to spend most of his time with the peasants and the destitute.

It is thus largely not surprising that he viewed the world from the perspective of the oppressed rural folks rather than the ruling classes. Growing up in that context, as he witnessed the pain, the suffering, the burdensome loans and taxes, the uncertainty of life all around him, he would have wanted to respond in a deep and abiding way.

Looked at in this way, it is easy to see that the sublime teachings of Jesus, the Beatitudes, were largely shaped from his perspective of the pain, the suffering, the daily grind and the sorrow of ordinary humble village folks, especially the peasants and the destitute that he moved around with for around three decades - not just two hours.

From Matthew Chapter 5: 3 How blessed are the poor in spirit: the kingdom of Heaven is theirs. 4 Blessed are the gentle: they shall have the earth as inheritance. 5 Blessed are those who mourn: they shall be comforted. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for uprightness: they shall have their fill. 7 Blessed are the merciful: they shall have mercy shown them. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: they shall be recognised as children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted in the cause of uprightness: the kingdom of Heaven is theirs. 11 Blessed are you when people abuse you and persecute you and speak all kinds of calumny against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven; this is how they persecuted the prophets before you.