[cooldude001]

"The media—and society in general—mistakenly expect an individual to speak for a particular group, whether or not that individual truly represents the views of the entire group."


The assertion claims that the society often considers an individual's statements as being representative of an entire group, even when they merely represent his own views. While this may be true in many cases, it would be making an unqualified generalisation to assert that this phenomenon always holds.

There have been many instances in our history when labelling of individuals occurred against the wishes of the subject in question. Many a times have we noticed a famous personality like a political leader expressing his own personal views on a topic, only to find later that their views have been attributed to the whole government. Such instances abound in chronicles of human history, and in contemporary newspapers.

For example, a few years back a minister in British governemnt spoke out against homosexual movement in a a personal interview. This led to an outrage and demand for the resignation of the whole governement. Finally, after much mud-slinging, the minister was forced to resign. As another instance, Prince of Wales recently made an uncharitable demand about the nature of Indian nationalist movement. Such views were seen in India as being representative of the British governement and they gave rise to intense movements in India, even after several disclaimers by the British governement. As a final example, consider the case where a sports editor in a newspaper in India, in a private interview, expressed his opinion against women's reservation in parliamentary seats. Much hue and cry ensued, as this view was seen to be the formal policy of the newspaper. After several rebuttals by the media house in question, saying that these views are only personal views of the sports editor and do neither reflect nor affect the general views of the newspaper, this editor had to resign.

Even in the realm of bureaucracy, off-the-cuff remarks made by officials in a govenrment ministry are seen as indicative of the government policy. An athelete who is caught of doping in Olympics leads to adverse views against the whole contingent. Same goes for personal comments by a senior official in the business community. An effect of this phenomenon can be seen in the rapidly proliferating media relation companies that work assiduously to maintain a good public image of celebrities and high-profile businessmen.

On the other hand, there have also been instances where the views of certain individuals were classified as being relevant only to their community, when in effect, they addressed much larger concerns.For example, while Mahatma Gandhi in India always spoke for all humanity, his ideals are often quoted only in the context of Indian freedom movement. Similarly, the ideals and struggles of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King were relevant for all people, cutting across the barriers of race and nationality, yet their statements are often compartmentalised so that they refer only to the community from which these leaders hail.

While all the above evidences seem to strengthen the argument, it would be a fallacy and a dangerous generalisation not to present a few examples when the views and opinions of an individuals are considered as being their own. In many cases, the remarks of radical writers are regarded as merely being a reflections of their own opinions. For example, the book "Satanic Verses" by Salman Rushdie offended many fundamentalist Muslim groups in Iran, and led to a fatwa on his head. Yet, his views as expressed in the book were not seen as representative of the larger Indian Muslim community to which he belongs. Similarly, often the remarks of actors and actresses in Hollywood are often seen as expressio of their personal opinions, rather than a public announcement of the Hollywood community's views.

In sum, we conclude that many a times this is the case, that the remarks of certain individuals are seen to be representative of their community, even when they are nothing more than an expression of personal opinions. This can be attributed to the basic human instinct to classify and generalise everything - including movements, people and opinions. However, this is not always true, and valid exceptions exist. Consequently, while the assertion of the topic prima-facie does carry some merit, it should be qualified and judged on a case-by-case basis before being outrightly sanctioned.