Allow me to report a dialogue I sometimes have with myself. It goes like this. Voice in my head (VIMH): What kind of news TV would you really like to watch? Me: Just the kind I watch now, for example, Times Now, while debating Indo-Pak talks, saying Jaswant Singh and Strobe Talbott had champagne and caviar every time they met; remarkable journalism. VIMH: No, seriously. Me: I am serious; I read around eight newspapers fairly seriously and, for this column, mostly watch four or five news channels; newspaper-reading never gives me those aha moments that news TV-watching does; Medha Patkar told NDTV the media should unite the forces (various Naxalite factions) rather than create more backbiting, NDTV found this unexceptionable and asked whether there may be a latent (yes, latent) historic opportunity now vis-à-vis the Maoist problem. VIMH: So you couldn’t be bothered as long as news TV provides you with these moments of joy? Me (a little offended): Hey, I am a socially aware person, and since you insist, here’s my very short list of what news TV should or shouldn’t do.
1. The bottom-of-the-screen scroll that’s frequently called Breaking News. Cong behind FM on fuel price hike; sources say India to talk tough on terror with Pak; home minister to assess Maoist offer; BJP to agitate on price rise — how much intellectual and capital investment and what degree of internal organisational reform are required to realise this stuff is not “breaking news”? Very little, one would imagine. But strangely (pleasurably for my selfish reasons), news TV won’t change tack. Note, here, that India TV has a whole news segment called Breaking News. However, I think if India TV reforms itself, society will be a net loser. Let’s keep India TV out of this.
2. Anchor-reporter chatter. Anchor says just take us again through what happened, reporter again takes us through what has happened, anchor says so what’s really significant in this is… and recounts a part of what has happened, reporter says yes you are right and takes us yet again through that bit of what has happened, anchor asks an impossible question to the reporter, like, tell us, what are your sources saying, sources being what they are, they are mostly not saying anything when news is happening, so the reporter (you feel truly sorry for him/her at this point) has no choice but to again take us through what has happened, anchor says right, that’s a crucial piece of information and unless it’s time for the next headline or a commercial break, again takes us through what has happened. What has happened to the viewer by this time? Well, I love it. But, yes, from society’s point of view, a change in this pattern would be highly desirable.
3. Talk TV. It’s late evening, and on every major news channel there’s a news TV senior staffer hosting a group of panellists almost all of whom appear far less knowledgeable or smart than they actually are. This is, to my mind, news TV’s signal contribution to public discourse. Some panellists break free of this, but they are a tiny minority. Talk TV can invite a panellist to explain in some detail the issue at hand, internalise that opinion and ask a relevant follow-up question, give some more time for the answer, and then give another panellist the same privilege. If there are just two well-chosen panellists (instead of three or four or five) and one well-informed show host, talk TV can actually leave with the impression that something useful was talked about. Me, I like the jumble of words and sentences, the occasional non sequiturs, the ferociously fragmentary nature of the conversation, the fact that I am no wiser after the show’s over, but a lot more entertained. But, yes, it would be useful, wouldn’t it, if a news TV debate educates and informs a bit?
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment