Of horses’ asses, 22-minute debates and news channels

This story may or not be true, but it’s a great read. From www.naciente.com: American railroad tracks are 56.5" wide - because the English built the first railroads in America and they used that width. Why did they use that width? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that’s the gauge they used. Why did “they” use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that were used for building wagons which used that wheel spacing. Why did wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Because older wagon ruts throughout England used that spacing, and if they changed it, wagon wheels would break by either falling into or being forced out of the old ruts, which were 56.5" wide. The old ruts were that size because the roads were built by the Romans, who arrived in England in 54 BC and left about 400 AD. Their wagons, and their chariots before their wagons, used that spacing, and that spacing was used all over Europe and wherever Rome conquered, because their wagons used the identical wheel base everywhere. So the modern railroad track width derives from the Roman chariot. Why was the Roman chariot track width 56.5"? Because that was the width of a chariot that would equal the width of two “standard” Roman horses. Thus, wagon and horses would fit through the same narrow street. Specifications and bureaucracies live forever! [caption id=“attachment_53923” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The viewer doesn’t want programs limited to 30 or 45 minutes; the viewer wants solutions to the problems that he faces. The viewer is not looking at his watch – you are. Kamal Kishore/Reuters”]  [/caption] Today, we watch news television programs that are 30 minutes or 60 minutes long. Never longer, unless they’re covering a live event. Deduct the commercial time, and we’re talking about programs that are anything between 20 minutes and 45 minutes. So news programs and news channels pre-decide the time it will take to discuss – and, presumably, find consensus on, or a solution to, a vexatious and puzzling problem. So the points of contention between Indian and Pakistan need to be discussed and solved in a maximum of 45 minutes. The problem of corruption in Indian politics has to be solved in a maximum of 45 minutes. Runaway inflation gets 45 minutes, as does the shortage of education infrastructure. And so on. Why can’t we have debates and discussions that take more time? Why can’t we take, for example, a whole day, or two days, or a week to discuss and arrive at a solution – or at least to get nearer a solution? Because, like the horses’ ass story above, 30 or 60 minutes is what we’re used to. No one wants to challenge the status quo; it’s easy and comfortable carrying on with what we’re used to. It’s changing the status quo that brings one the laurels – and the profits. To all those who head news channels, remember that it was Kerry Packer who, fed up with seeing the batsmen’s backsides every other over, decided that cameras were needed at both bowling ends. It was Kerry Packer who introduced coloured clothing, cricket under lights and the white ball. If cricket is alive today, much of the credit will go to Kerry Packer –  because he thought of a ‘railroad track’ different from any he had seen. If news television in India is to survive, it needs to worry, as Packer did, about what the viewer wants, not what the channel wants. The viewer doesn’t want programs limited to 30 or 45 minutes; the viewer wants solutions to the problems that he faces. The viewer is not looking at his watch – you are. Carry on with the way you’re going, and the viewer won’t care a horse’s ass. As news anchors keep saying, “Sorry, we’re running out of time.”