The print media is called the Fourth Estate.
During World War II spies were known as the Fifth Columnists. What of the
electronic media (EM)? Should we call them the Sixth State of modern society? I
would certainly not call them the sixth sense, for reasons that I shall
elaborate.
Actually, I don’t see much sense in the EM,
and would side with Justice Markanday Katju, Chairperson of the Press Council
of India; that they too require some form of monitoring or control. They have
no doubt created awareness about corruption and criminality. But on the whole I
find them much too prone to sensationalism, rather than making sense of what is
happening. For them TRPs mean everything. In the mad scramble for breaking news
they often trip over the truth.
A case in point was the 4th
anniversary of the UPA Govt on 22nd May. I was requested to
participate in a panel discussion by a leading Hindi TV channel of U.P., based
in my hometown, Kanpur. Since I knew the owners and staff of the channel I
accepted their last minute invitation. There were two MLAs, one from the BJP
and the other from the Samajwadi Party. There was also a senior Congressman in
the studio, and a video uplink with some more politicians in Lucknow, the State
capital. A couple of us were representing civil society. The anchor was about
30 years of age, and his lady assistant was just about 20.
The show began on a pre-determined line of
scams, corruption and inflation. There was only passing reference to the
achievements of the UPA 2 Govt. In this one-hour show the anchor did most of
the talking, from his given script, followed by the BJP legislator. It became
increasingly obvious to me that this was not a discussion or a debate, but a
one-sided diatribe against the Central Govt. Though I do not belong to any
political party I felt that the entire programme was heavily biased, and a few
neutral civic activists like me were called in to just legitimize the show.
When I was asked to speak I categorically
stated that the programme was prejudiced. If indeed we wanted to fairly assess
the “report card” of the UPA 2, then a more balanced view should have been
projected. Even inflation was often seasonal. For example, two years ago sugar
was Rs 50/- per kg; today it is down to 37/-. Besides, my son, who is a
post-grad in Economics, tells me that inflation is the natural consequence of
development. I ventured to say that incomes have also gone up. The lowly
rickshaw puller now charges a minimum fare of Rs 20/-, a skilled worker like a
mason or a carpenter charges Rs 400/-, and young graduates are earning more
than their parents ever did.
The anchor and his assistant did not like my
observations and never asked me to speak again! They may even have got a prompt
from their backroom boys. My consolation was that some viewers phoned in to
tell me that they liked what I had said.
The moot point, however, is that today the
idiot box has a far greater impact than the Fourth Estate. In the print media
one is obliged to think, reflect and even evaluate what one reads. Writers have
also to be careful about their claims. This does not apply to TV, as there are
no easy recording or rewind buttons. There was an old saying that pictures
never lie. But any media person will tell us today how easy it is to distort or
morph an image. Visuals always have greater impact. I recall December 1992,
when the BBC kept showing images of the Babri Masjid being demolished. It
contributed in no small measure to the communal flare up that ensued. With
greater power the EM definitely requires more responsibility.
Coming back to channels and anchors, I will
limit myself to the four major English language channels – CNN-IBN, Times Now
(TNN), NDTV and Headlines Today (HT). By the time I get home from work and have
my dinner it is usually past 10 pm, the time when all these channels have their
lively debates. I have time and again noticed that an issue that is
sensationalized in the nighttime debates is usually relegated to a small column
in the inside pages of the next day’s newspaper. A case in point was the stand
off between India and China over oil exploration rights in the South China Sea
about a year ago. Going by the debates one expected India and China to be at
war any moment. Nothing happened.
In the recent past several panelists have
been berating anchors for putting words in their mouths, or not allowing them
to speak. Some of the shriller anchors, who have now mellowed are Karan Thapar
(CNN) and Barkha Dutt (NDTV). Among those who encourage the panelists to speak
and don’t impose themselves are Kirti Razdan, Sonia Singh, Bhuvan Shome and
Sreeniwasan Jain, all of NDTV. Borderline cases are Rajdeep Sardesai (CNN) and
Rahul Kanwar (HT). Among the shrill voices are Sagarika Ghose (CNN) and, the
worst of the lot – you guessed right – Arnab Goswami of TNN.
I find this man obnoxious. He never allows
panelists to express themselves freely, prods them into error, and asks “simple
questions” that have to be answered as Yes or No. I would like to ask Goswami a
“simple question”. “Have you stopped beating your wife, just say yes or no?” If
he says “Yes” it implies that he had been beating his wife earlier, and if he
says “No” it means that he is still beating his wife! Goswami, and anchors like
him, do not believe in fifty shades of grey. For them everything is either
black or white. Truth is the ultimate casualty. Such obnoxious anchors are
debasing debate. Why can’t TV anchors be like the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, who
actually speaks the least, and gives everybody an opportunity to be heard?
From anchors, let me move to the panelists.
Other than the official spokespersons of the recognized political parties, each
channel seems to have its favourites. I often wonder how ad gurus like Suhel
Seth and Alyque Padamsee, or Lord Meghnad Desai of Britain, can pontificate on
any topic under the sun? Chandan Mitra, Swapan Dasgupta and D. Raja have such
fixed views that if you have heard them once you don’t need a repeat
performance.
Let me touch also on the familiar Christian
faces on TV – John Dayal, Rev Dominic Emmanuel, Maxwell Pereira and Flavia
Agnes. The first three are Delhi based, and the fourth is from Mumbai. One
wonders if TV channels cannot look beyond these two metros? Dayal and Emmanuel
are the usual public face of the Christian community, of whom I find Dayal the
more balanced and forthright in his views. During the infamous Ireland abortion
case one channel picked up a “Brother” from Mumbai who was so desperate to toe
the official church line that he did more harm than good.
As for Pereira and Agnes, they are called to
speak on their respective areas of competence – the police and women’s rights,
and they do a good job. I don’t envy Pereira the hopeless task of defending the
indefensible, the cops.
So the next time that you are watching TV,
especially a volatile panel discussion, do a reality check to see if it is a
debate, a dialogue or a diatribe. Also do check the next day’s newspaper to see
if the “Breaking News” of the previous night has broken into the headlines.
June 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment