Poets and authors often used "simile or metaphor" to emphasize the effect of their notion or a phrase.
To quote, "She ran like the wind" is a metaphor.
The intent obviously is to say that the person has run at an amazing speed.
"Like the wind" gives the degree or intensity of her speed.
So the content/text "She ran like the wind" serves the purpose to convey the message.
In modern day talk everyone, knowingly or unknowingly use some vocabulary, spice up to convey their intent.
Many a times, at a restaurant I encountered a typical conversation.
When I asked someone how the dish was, the reply was "Its fuckkkkkin Dellllllllllllicious"
His intent was the dish was so good that I should try. The way he conveyed it to me has created a curiosity to make a definite try.
But on the other hand the content/text that he used was maybe a bit "overboard" as per "civilized" standards.
Here is the key. If I really try to focus on his abusive language, I am sure to miss out on that wonderful dish. At the same time, if one doesn't draw a line on the content, the intent is surely gone.
In a different scenario, not all have the gift of effective and fluent speech, however they try to convey a message as per their own standards.
If I really get carried away by grammatically wrong and funny accent, I am sure to miss out something important that either benefits me or the other person.
When Manthena Satyanarayana talked about the importance of replacing sugar with honey for a good 30 minutes for "free", people damned about his intent and probably made fun of his content(talking style and mannerism)
Whereas when the same was "endorsed" by Amitabh and Dhoni, for a huge remuneration, people listened to it.(In this case, at least people cared to hear)
In such a case, it is we who are at loss for not grasping the intent.
Professionals like doctors and lawyers are a good example, where they try to focus on the intent of the speaker rather than the content.
But when the situation goes beyond control and when the "morality" of the content is in question, Surely the intent is lost in the woods.
One such case that I have encountered has raised my doubts on the intent vs content.
To make things worse it was aired in a news channel, ignorant of norms of censorship.
I did not see a necessity to air the highly "immoral" content. It is enough if one is informed about what has happened, but it is not really required to witness at this level.
I am posting the video only to prove the disgusting motive(read TRP ratings) the channel had. Please do excuse me if I have offended by any means
Since then I stopped watching that channel.
I hope Ambika Soni(Woman) Minister for Information and Broadcasting feels a time to revisit the regulations and censorship in media.
P.S: When Janet Jackson and Justin Timber Lake's "unintentional" episode in 2004 Super Bowl happened, the content was a good enough reason for CBS to pay a heavy fine and lose the rights for Superbowl since then.
