Times were when TV news bulletins in India were pretty uncomplicated; read by grim-looking men or women, as if they were always on the alert to effortlessly announce a national mourning for 7 days due to the demise of someone. They seemed to have been chosen especially for (a) their inability to shock the viewers of the day in any way, by deviating from the mandated path (b) their determination not to betray any emotion during the half hour bulletins, regardless of the content of the news and as if invisible guns were being held to their heads to ensure that (c) their ability, at the end of the bulletins, to consistently and painfully pretend to ease their faces into a fleeting grimace or a twitch, indicative of a desire to smile reluctantly!! Whatever they used to do over the radio without inflicting their physical appearance on the listeners, they continued to do on TV, except that highly unappetising visuals were added. The most exciting news was delivered in an unwavering monotone, with a tombstone-like expression. Grainy, low-resolution photographs which stubbornly yielded no clues as to what they were about until you read the captions below, (thereby enhancing the mystic value of the experience), were on offer to provide clinching evidence to the viewers, lest the absence of emotion in the news-readers prompted disbelief! Why am I into this yarn about the virtues of TV news of 80s and 90s now?? Well, the circus that goes on in the name of TV news nowadays, on private channels, accompanied by noises from the veritable Tower of Babel, is making me wonder -no, I am more or less convinced - if some very farsighted sage in Doordarshan in the early days designed the news that way to save the viewers the present day agony!!
Today, when one switches on the TV during evening prime time and favours private news channels, one cannot but flinch in the face of the frontal assault and quiver in one's sandals. Every news channel produces a barrage of words and the news-reader or the anchor is not the only person using high-decibel lung power. The TV screen is invariably divided into a few boxes, ranging from three to eight (I am actually waiting for the day when the boxes further multiply to accommodate only thumbnail sketches of some 24 people) and filled with faces. Faces of an assortment of politicians from different parties, legal luminaries who are not hard-core politicians, but might as well have been, actors who are a bit more intelligent than acting out dumb roles according to the director's bidding, loud-mouths who have arrogated to themselves the right to comment on any event and other chosen `experts' in `general vacuousness'. If you are not familiar with your anchor's mug shot, you might wonder whether he/she has been nudged out of the screen sideways, by the invaders! Actually, no need to worry; the anchor is the king and he/she keeps one box on the screen permanently tenanted and lets go only when it is time for him/her to occupy the whole screen between news items!
Do you blame me for being nostalgic about the TV news of the days of yore? I believe that barring a small percentage of the population which has masochistic tendencies and wants to go through the panelists' collective babel on every news item, most people would be happier if news is given to them without any attempt at interpretation or analysis by experts. Most of us are capable of interpreting or understanding what a statement or an event means and yes, a couple of sentences from the anchor to put things in perspective are most welcome. But the chaos that inevitably erupts on the screen when the panelists are identified and the first question is asked, reinforces my theory that the old-style DD news was qualitatively streets ahead.
Let me explain:
Many of the so-called panelists invited by the anchor have absolutely no sympathy for the viewers and are intent on grabbing attention by offending sensibilities. They remind me of Mayflies or Onedayflies, which have a very short life span of a day or so - 'here is an opportunity and I will say what I want, whether it makes sense or not and others be damned'!! Some completely lack basic debating decorum and very seldom one hears a single voice speaking, at a time. Rude interruptions are the order of the day and the anchor does not seem in control, except when he is ready to shut down the programme.
Politicians appearing on the panel indulge freely in `newspeak'. A lot of words are uttered, cliches used and verbal jousting takes place, but do they say anything meaningful or significant? The good speakers have mastered the skill of saying a lot without meaning anything while the others dont merit attention anyway. Moreover, in these days when even the senior-most politicians lack clarity as to what the stand of the party is on any issue at a given time, what can be expected of these minions who walk into boxes on TV screens for a couple of minutes? Even when such politicians are cornered on screen with some evidence of duplicity or something otherwise wrong, they mumble some inane justification without betraying shame.
How many times during one evening can you see the same set of people, holding forth on the same or similar news items, in different channels?? Unabashedly one or the other appeals to the anchor, when interrupted by an encroaching co-panelist, `Arnab, Arnab, Arnab (they have to repeat this because even the anchor does not recognize them otherwise!), either let me speak or I might as well leave now because I have to go to another channel'. I do wonder if the news channels pay the panelists for appearance.
If you watch BBC or CNN News, you usually see an anchor and another roving correspondent on the screen discussing an event or news item. If experts are required, to the extent I have seen, one or at the most, two people are asked to provide their inputs, which they do civilly. There is no attempt on the TV screen to engineer a street-fight kind of scenario involving the panelists. However, this is indeed the norm in Indian news channels.
`All panel discussions are bad' is not my case. All I am saying is that there is no need to interpret and analyse every single news item with a panel of about 8 people. If the event or the news is significant enough, move such a panel discussion away from the news programme and provide a separate platform for that discussion.
I am glad Doordarshan is true to form and is chugging along with pretty much the old format most of the time. If only they are a bit more lively! But, who said one can have everything one wants all the time??
Today, when one switches on the TV during evening prime time and favours private news channels, one cannot but flinch in the face of the frontal assault and quiver in one's sandals. Every news channel produces a barrage of words and the news-reader or the anchor is not the only person using high-decibel lung power. The TV screen is invariably divided into a few boxes, ranging from three to eight (I am actually waiting for the day when the boxes further multiply to accommodate only thumbnail sketches of some 24 people) and filled with faces. Faces of an assortment of politicians from different parties, legal luminaries who are not hard-core politicians, but might as well have been, actors who are a bit more intelligent than acting out dumb roles according to the director's bidding, loud-mouths who have arrogated to themselves the right to comment on any event and other chosen `experts' in `general vacuousness'. If you are not familiar with your anchor's mug shot, you might wonder whether he/she has been nudged out of the screen sideways, by the invaders! Actually, no need to worry; the anchor is the king and he/she keeps one box on the screen permanently tenanted and lets go only when it is time for him/her to occupy the whole screen between news items!
Do you blame me for being nostalgic about the TV news of the days of yore? I believe that barring a small percentage of the population which has masochistic tendencies and wants to go through the panelists' collective babel on every news item, most people would be happier if news is given to them without any attempt at interpretation or analysis by experts. Most of us are capable of interpreting or understanding what a statement or an event means and yes, a couple of sentences from the anchor to put things in perspective are most welcome. But the chaos that inevitably erupts on the screen when the panelists are identified and the first question is asked, reinforces my theory that the old-style DD news was qualitatively streets ahead.
Let me explain:
Many of the so-called panelists invited by the anchor have absolutely no sympathy for the viewers and are intent on grabbing attention by offending sensibilities. They remind me of Mayflies or Onedayflies, which have a very short life span of a day or so - 'here is an opportunity and I will say what I want, whether it makes sense or not and others be damned'!! Some completely lack basic debating decorum and very seldom one hears a single voice speaking, at a time. Rude interruptions are the order of the day and the anchor does not seem in control, except when he is ready to shut down the programme.
Politicians appearing on the panel indulge freely in `newspeak'. A lot of words are uttered, cliches used and verbal jousting takes place, but do they say anything meaningful or significant? The good speakers have mastered the skill of saying a lot without meaning anything while the others dont merit attention anyway. Moreover, in these days when even the senior-most politicians lack clarity as to what the stand of the party is on any issue at a given time, what can be expected of these minions who walk into boxes on TV screens for a couple of minutes? Even when such politicians are cornered on screen with some evidence of duplicity or something otherwise wrong, they mumble some inane justification without betraying shame.
How many times during one evening can you see the same set of people, holding forth on the same or similar news items, in different channels?? Unabashedly one or the other appeals to the anchor, when interrupted by an encroaching co-panelist, `Arnab, Arnab, Arnab (they have to repeat this because even the anchor does not recognize them otherwise!), either let me speak or I might as well leave now because I have to go to another channel'. I do wonder if the news channels pay the panelists for appearance.
If you watch BBC or CNN News, you usually see an anchor and another roving correspondent on the screen discussing an event or news item. If experts are required, to the extent I have seen, one or at the most, two people are asked to provide their inputs, which they do civilly. There is no attempt on the TV screen to engineer a street-fight kind of scenario involving the panelists. However, this is indeed the norm in Indian news channels.
`All panel discussions are bad' is not my case. All I am saying is that there is no need to interpret and analyse every single news item with a panel of about 8 people. If the event or the news is significant enough, move such a panel discussion away from the news programme and provide a separate platform for that discussion.
I am glad Doordarshan is true to form and is chugging along with pretty much the old format most of the time. If only they are a bit more lively! But, who said one can have everything one wants all the time??
6 comments:
So pertinent!. The immature news channels are due to sponsored and paid nature. We have half-bakeds like Arnab the other guy in Headlines today. Barka Dutt thinks she is media goddess. DD is better considering its free. But why watch Indian channels which are always breaking when we have BBC and AlJazeera?
Well written. Very true."Panel discussion" is absolute chaos - synonymous with "Parliament"
Sriram
Varad-san:
Well articulated. It is true Doordarsan quality is even better than most of the channels (be it debate contests or other scientific programs or religious ones) more home work done and hence it is better. They have less commercial intent and focus more on spreading the mesg / info etc. We cannot blame the Pvt channels, they go by what they perceive are the latest fads, onus then is on the viewers to avoid. It is sad that none of your incisive observations can be denied. :-(
regards
madhu
Great blog! My first reaction was 'Nothing gets discussed in parliament, so we need a platform for the articulate educated politicians and cable TV fills the gap!'
That feeling soon changed as I saw the insincerity in almost all of them. They bravely try to defend some idiotic decisions of their higher ups, and their eyes betray them as you can see either they are uncomfortable or lying thru their teeth. Civil society people try to look aggrieved all the time. I especially hate the way Renuka Choudary makes faces while others are attacking her party, and the fact that the cable shows her theatric(k)s all the time.
I can go on, but to conclude, to the question why are there so many panelists? Have you seen the number of faces featured in the display boards, greeting a politician for his birthday(they don't say when!) or his 'blessings' to the aam janata on X'mas and NY and Pongal (All in one!). This is India Varad, and we have people! Lots!
I fully agree with you. We use these channels only to watch the tickers to get the real headlines, but there again, we very often encounter the claims of that channel being the first to "break" the news. Even worse are the investgative reports or the reports of Citizen Journalists, barring a few exceptions. In our house, we have voted for DD News long back.
Well written and very true. Many panel discussions are nothing but cacophony. What to do ! They have to fill the slots for 24 X 7.
-Vasu
Post a Comment