The immediate reaction that this is an attempt to jump on the bandwagon of remakes of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is quite justifiable. However, while the title and the moral are borrowed, this is definitely not a fairytale. The Brothers Grimm were astonishingly perceptive and talented to have exemplified mankind’s primary flaw in the garb of a vain witch. Sadly, while children have always found the tale entertaining — the reason it endured — one feels catawampus about the complete ignorance displayed by adults for the moral embedded therein. The sockdolager buttressing the earlier observation is that the screening of the two remakes in succession, other than the normal debate on the entertainment value, will only elicit comments and criticism about women and age. The irony is that the word ‘fair’ has many meanings other than beautiful, including unprejudiced, satisfactory, reasonable and unbiased, all of which, contrary to chauvinistic belief, extend beyond the females of the species. Substituting these various definitions of the word fair in the famous rhyme reveals the true meaning of who is the fairest of all, and the realisation that the infamous witch exists within everyone sets in. Grievously, this is but a fleeting lollapalooza, quickly clouded by vanity. Predominantly everyone is hornswoggled by narcissism, especially when it comes to political insight or religious queries. The art of self-deception is the foremost culprit in cultivating this ‘know it all’ personality. What amuses is the repeated accompanying assertions designed to portray modesty; I am but a humble Pakistani, and these are personal views submitted with an open mind and they should know better. But try to recall a singular instance when ‘their’ view was ever palatable to a know it all. The great foofaraw associated with political scandals can at best be termed a marketing gimmick. In most cases, the benefits to society of such breaking news remain elusive. Heated debates on the power shortage, railway’s inefficiencies and the rising cost of bare necessities are the norm with experts, bumptiously blaming mismanagement as the sole culprit. What discombobulates the masses is the apparent incompetence or apathy of government, if the pundit’s assertions regarding simplistic solutions are correct. Logically, a rational government cannot be expected to alleviate its predicaments, especially when elections are around the corner. The pursuit of truth remains a dilemma from which there is no apparent escape. A small diversion to confess know it all behaviour. A presentation, ‘Seven wacky words born in the USA’, I stumbled upon recently, was the catalyst for a personal challenge on whether or not these words could be coherently utilised in a write up. While apologising for a torturous read, feedback is humbly solicited. Reverting to the subject, perhaps it has become exigent to articulate the problem statement lucidly. If everyone believes they know it all, even when evidence to the contrary is available, why have chat shows? Recollection of personal experiences of the idiot box does not spotlight a single instance of an anchor deferring to another. In cases where two heavyweights are pitched together, obviously on the channels’ insistence, the outcome can be deemed hilarious. The uncomfortable body language, the plastic smiles and the childish attempts to overshadow peers is strikingly visible to the masses. What is most befuddling is the programme format where three or more persons are bracketed together on the screen in separate windows and all are under the illusion that constantly talking loudly will win laurels. Since none of the participants cannot or most likely do not want to understand the opposing arguments, the viewer is treated to a senseless free for all. To complicate matters further, the anchor’s misguided belief that he should dictate proceedings results in screaming even more, none of which positively contributes to the debate at hand. The icing on the cake is that at the end of each show, the viewers are magnanimously called upon to acknowledge the ‘humble’ and ‘analytical’ efforts of the host and come to their own conclusions. Amazing. The most humorous episodes are where a participant is confronted with hard evidence contrary to disclosed position. The host, spurred on by the arsenal at hand, is quick to seize the initiative, must to the discomfort of the guest. Curiously, even in such instances, conclusions are a mirage and the audience remains unable to comprehend the objective or the outcome of the enterprise. The one and only reason for this confusion is that if no one is prepared to listen to his opponents or peers or any third person for that matter with an open mind, for cultural, social, political, or business or for any other reason, there will never be an intelligent, non-emotional conclusion. Perhaps this article should have been about the art of listening rather than thinking. The catastrophe is that when a vastly illiterate population is coerced into deriving conclusions from incomplete information, the results can only be chaotic. Being a self-confessed critic of the theory of democracy, this turn of events can only strengthen the know it all attitude. Democracy thus can only evolve into autocracy. Nonetheless, chaos is not in the best interest of our beloved country, already reeling from political and economic instability. Free for all, confrontational chat shows serve no purpose other than strengthening preconceived notions and protecting ivory towers. A small observation: pitching political rivals in a chat show is a concept generally alien to western media — ever wonder why? But seriously, there is a case for reporting facts to the populace if democracy finally turns out to be evolutionary, except that in order to be productive, these need to be appropriately analysed for relevance, public interest and need to be conclusive. An interesting format would be to pitch seasoned analysts or members of the intelligentsia against each other on key issues with a jury of their peers selecting the winner. Such an exposé of the opinion-makers might even positively nudge the evolutionary process, one way or the other. What the nation definitely does not need is an endless debate on polarised issues, spurred on probably by misguided loyalties or maybe egos. The need of the hour is identification of precise and concise solutions for the plethora of problems facing the have-nots. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who has solutions for it all. The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad and can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com