The Travesty of Televised News

Let’s begin with a confession. I am addicted to the English News on television. Whenever I get the time, I try not missing the four leading English language news channels that I can flip between. I dearly hang upon each word spoken by the anchors, the spokespeople of various political outfits and sundry political and social commentators. I smirk when the anchors outsmart the wily politicians. When a few TV savvy politicians give it back to the anchors, I relish those moments as well. I also submit that the scope of the following observations is strictly limited to the broadcast of English language news channels in India. Hindi News telecast has reduced itself to such abysmal depths that it makes itself unfit for scrutiny in this space.

First and foremost, you have the ubiquitous anchors most of whom have made a mark as broadcast journalists. The top three channels have three of the most popular figures of broadcast journalism in the country, as `the face of their channel’. Interestingly, all three of them had surfaced in the first major English language channel and have the distinction of being groomed by the father figure of Indian broadcast journalism. They honed their craft under the tutelage of this benign father figure. Two of them chose to branch out and launch their own channels with the support of powerful media barons. One remained. All three of them are now considered `the voice of the chatterati’ and are granted privileged status, over their poor country cousins in the other news channels, by politicians and personalities alike. Between them, they vie for the breaking bytes from politicians and personalities. Everyday they compete to score their brownies by being the first to extract a quote from what is now termed as the `newsmaker of the day’. The distant fourth in this race of channel supremacy is a bunch of brats who have been launched in an English News channel by a prominent media group that has been publishing the leading political magazine in India and have earned the distinction of producing the first privately produced Hindi News in the country. Those brats are much younger, more irreverent and certainly more virulent. They think that is the only way their voice can be heard above the two bigger daddies and the one and only big mommy of news. Along with these prime players there are a bunch of ambitious `on the field’ reporters who aspire to adorn the chairs of these `anchor stars’ one day. Even in the face of grim tragedy, they push hard for that one byte that will be played as headlines through the day. Stardom is not a distant dream for these wannabes. These figures, both the primary as well as the secondary ones, constitute the first brigade.

These days all the major political parties, irrespective of their peculiar brand of politics, ensure they have at least one spokesperson, who is not only articulate in the English language but also a glib speaker, well versed in oratory and possesses the qualities of a virulent debater. They are either erstwhile Supreme Court lawyers, or ex/present day editors and journalists or party ideologues. They outdo each other by the sheer decibel level to which their voices can rise. The ruling party and the main opposition party also employ services of erstwhile public servants with a track record of public speaking. Till recently, one party had hired the services of a wily horse trader who excelled in arguing, using common place country bred wisdom though his pronunciation was scoffed at by the scotch drinking brigade. (Presently, he has been thrown out by his god father and speaks only for himself and his film star friends now). Some regional parties despite having established strong political presence in their home states are yet to acquire their own spokespersons well versed in the finer nuances of the English language and public speaking. They are the ones who are scoffed at and looked down upon rather condescendingly by their colleagues from other parties. This entire group constitutes the second brigade.

The third group comprises of a motley collection. There are newspaper journalists and editors who feeling slightly thwarted by the growing popularity their counterparts in news channels have readily jumped in to join the bandwagon. Their numbers are increasing by the day as more are falling prey to the lure of being a TV personality. Then they are these social commentators who have willingly abandoned their high horses for more popular appeal. Some have bartered the anonymous confines of academia for reaching out with their views, some find it an ideal platform to espouse their own brand of radicalism and there is even one who has virtually given up his peerage to make his fringy haired persona familiar with the chattering classes in India. There are also a group of social workers and activists who have found it more glamorous to reach out to drawing rooms rather than dusty court rooms and river beds, with their forever shrill speak.

These groups combine to form the face of English News on television in India. Each group has an agenda, hidden or apparent. They have to grab eyeballs for the survival of either the channel or the political party they belong to, or for their individual charisma. Their blemishes are easy to deconstruct and understand. Without passing a moral judgment, one can try to analyze the repercussions their presence has on the mindset of the educated urban middleclass. Though each channel has a distinct style of presentation, the methodology is similar. The ultimate aim is to boost TRPs at any given cost, no matter what that cost signifies in the larger social perspective. They simply need the numbers for survival. Or else, they run the risk of being labelled dodgy, arid and not being entertaining enough.

The mantra of news on television is infotainment. Everything from a political gaffe to a terrorist attack has to be presented in a way that ensures viewers remain glued to their television sets. It is intrinsic to the nature of this particular audio visual media. Dry facts do not engross a captive audience always hungry for either action or tamasha. A farmer committing suicide is not attractive enough without showing the gory details or how his widow cries and child howls. Even that is not as engrossing as a political heavy weight being ousted from a party and people from all walks of life commenting on it with either wit or rancour. It is fun to hear that byte. Without bite, any byte loses meaning. The need is immediate effect. The conversation is not engaging enough without its fair share of rabble rousing or humour or drama. Politics, economics, social malaise, national tragedy all need to be enacted to grab eyeballs. News on television is a reality show. It has to be pre-designed and packaged in a manner that looks attractive. This is the age of appearance. Hence, anchors, field reporters, commentators have to look telegenic. Even those from the political spectrum who do not fit standard definition of good looks have to either be too rancid or funny to warrant attention. A dreary looking person talking dispassionately about serious issues is both a boor and a bore. Serious analysis fetches the lowest TRPs and hence is shoved to non prime time space if at all that particular channel has any intention of focusing on it.

The troika of the English News anchor brigade make it a point to be acerbic and sardonic. They are forever ready to repartee. If they had not been so, they would not have climbed popularity charts. In their own way, they are stars of the space they occupy. One listens to them because they are brands unto themselves. The younger anchors of the channel that runs a distant fourth in the race have to shout and assert their presence to be heard. The haloed three have marketed themselves well simply by creating a fan base by blogging, tweeting and being omnipresent 24x7. Their hairstyles, scarves and ties are subject of discussion in the cocktail circuit. More than the news they tell, the emphasis is how they tell it and from where they tell. These two men and the sole woman are intelligent enough to feel the pulse and position themselves right in the midst of an action during moments of national crisis or tragedy. They will no longer confine themselves to the stolid confines of a studio when the momentous occasion arrives. Over a period of time, their mentor and the doyen of English News in India has fallen prey to this phenomenon and chosen to dumb himself down to boost TRPs of the channel he owns. When his protégé and now the co-owner of a rival channel throws in the gauntlet, he is ready to take it up and fight from his own turf. He was once considered sacrosanct, the `holy cow’ of news television. Unfortunately, he has given up that mantle to be a part of the rat race. So they present news that is smartly packaged with state of the art graphics. Their intention is not merely to relay information. They have to retell it dramatically to make an impact. They have to break news to make it newsworthy. Everything is turned topsy-turvy in order to create headlines. The staid news is for Doordarshan to tell. Their job is to create reality shows. News is a show where their role is of the emcee.

The politicos too, especially the spokespersons of various political parties, have become smart enough in their bid to outsmart their rivals on television space. The tardy politicians are forbidden by their bosses from opening their mouth in front of TV cameras for fear of ridicule. One such politician lost his job when he made an off the cuff remark during a moment of national crisis during a terrorist attack in Mumbai. Even an influential Chief Minister was given marching orders because he was seen visiting a venue where disaster struck with his film actor son and a maverick film maker. Political parties now ensure that no one speaks out of turn on television or is seen at the wrong place at the wrong time. Big brothers are always watching cautiously before any slob can open his mouth. In the current scenario only a handful of interlocutors are allowed to speak on behalf of the party. Usually these persons are professional lawyers or journalists with enough experience of doublespeak in public life. They debate jocularly, shout louder than their opponents and speak vituperatively but largely keep in mind the sanctity of the forum. Their line of logic and even the idiomatic expressions they use have begun to sound predictable and stale. Yet they manage to maintain the status quo on television.

The commentators are a varied lot. But they remain united by singular desire of making themselves heard on television. Whether they are senior journalists or social scientists or activists, all of them have allowed themselves to be allured by the transient glory of being recognized albeit for a few minutes on prime time. From an eminent Indian member of the House of Lords in Britain, to the editor of the revered newspaper from Chennai, to the vociferous activist of various causes ranging from saving a river to communal violence in Gujarat, they all jostle for attention in televised debates. The allure is simply irresistible.

In the sheer din of these assorted, clamouring voices, people on television often can not hear what they are speaking, leave alone ponder about what they have spoken. The moment is supreme. Making headway during a heated debate is of fundamental importance. Personalities no longer speak on television. They give bytes.

This reality is not exclusive of news being telecast on satellite channels in India. It is by and large a global phenomenon. However, in the western world, a tiny minority of public broadcast television still exists. Not in India. The only variant of public utility broadcast in India is Doordarshan which still presents news in a shoddy manner, largely toeing the line of the government in power and becoming its dull gazette.

This is not a diatribe against news channels that telecast news in India. These broadcasters have served the democracy in an admirable fashion and evoked huge interest among the urban middle class about ground reality. They have become arbiters of change. Much of what they do is indeed laudable. The truth is they reflect the times in which they flourish. Notions about popular culture have been completely redefined. Our society has created its own Frankenstein that it can no longer control. We have willfully chosen to ride a tiger. The effect is all pervasive. Even newsmakers like terrorists who strike, do so in a particular manner as they know that sort of an act with make the incident telecast worthy. It is a catch 22 situation. Newspapers too have reinvented their own idiom in order to survive. Simplification is the order of the day. This variety of spice is the official flavour of the times we live in. We can not afford to insulate ourselves any longer from the overall trivialization of life. We are a society in a state of flux. News presented on television merely reflects this phenomenon.

The best we can do is to ponder on it for a while before switching on the television set and getting sucked into this sopoforic universe.