TV Talk Shows – All heat, no light. . . .
Every news channel has its daily dose of 'intellectual' content and one-hour or half-hour talk shows, dealing with topical subjects. The ostensible effort is to bring experts on the topic or theme of the day, and to allow them to discuss an event or a subject in a manner that is stimulating and to analyse the issue, as also to pointing the way forward. This is the theory part of it. The practice as has been established over the past ten years or so is that each such show gets reduced to a shouting slanging match; the more aggressive the word, tone and gestures, the better. In fact, anchors would really get pleased if the participants actually come to blows! At least there should be fiery words, charges and countercharges and flame-throwing on all sides – that is the crux for an 'intellectual' show. Sound bytes are more important than expression of lucid thought; bitter verbal assault and counter-assault, and staccato attack in rapid gun-fight fashion is to be preferred to rational, well-argued content, with appropriate rebuttal. The programmes are appropriately named 'cross fire', 'big fight' and the like.
The recognition of 'experts' is done with immense care. Generally, two or three participating 'experts' from opposing political parties are invited; it can be guaranteed that from the first bell, they move into level charges and countercharges on the political plane, irrespective of the nature of the topic under discussion. Typically, a one-hour programme will have eight or ten 'experts', including one or two presumably neutral to provide a 'moderating' voice. Apparently the expert participants are each expected to explore, analyse and expound complex issues and problems, and come up with credible solutions, all in thirty seconds!
Many anchors in such programmes carry outsized egos. Firstly, they behave through the programme in such a manner that they seem to exhibit more knowledge than the 'experts' on the topic of the day. Secondly, they dominate the technical aspects of the discussions; overrule the experts' views on his own field of specialisation. Thirdly, the anchor would interrupt anyone rudely if he or she expresses a view contrary to what the studio wishes to push; at an early stage, the mike could be cut-off and handed over to someone else. It is a tall order indeed that the anchor has to be the final arbiter and the greatest expert on each day's topic, with the topic varying 365 days a year! Besides, the anchor is fond of his, or more likely her own voice. In a group discussion with six experts, the anchor would take thirty minutes to air his/her own views (or what is given by the studio) to contradict experts, and assert his/her predetermined position; taking out another fifteen minutes for ads and other distractions, and finally the six experts would have all of fifteen minutes to assert their statements, develop a debate, bring in facts, and identify possible directions. It is even more true in a half-hour show – each expert may get twenty seconds before he is cut off. Thirdly, anchors set impossibly funny goals for the experts in each talk show – the anchor's initial introductory statement would state that the function of the debate was to find solutions: 'how to eliminate terror' or 'how to eradicate poverty' or 'how to develop an environment policy' – all these to be done within one hour. I would not be surprised if many of them indeed feel they achieve their goals! In fact one hears the anchor occasionally articulate with apparent frustration in the closing comments, 'I had hoped that we would find solutions today; unfortunately we could not manage it' – give him one more hour next week!
Sting Operations – O camera, where is thy sting?
A number of years back, Tehelka's sting operation was broadcast on TV. It was a sensational first – the anatomy of corruption was exposed for public view. There was naturally a huge gasp heard all over the country; what everybody knew about politicians was actually shown on the screen, how the event developed, in all its gory details. With this kind of visual evidence available, an 'inspired' debate was created whether such operations are legal, whether they can be used as evidence in a court of law. Naturally, high-priced defense lawyers, and 'human right activists' jumped in to defend against harassment of innocent victims, and the potential for fake sting images. All possible road blocks were created; designed to ensure that this major highly effective new medium would not be harnessed to combat crime, expose corruption and, generally come to the aid of the judicial process. As a result of the hullabaloo, the weapon of 'sting' has now been cocooned in sheets of precautionary restrictions, as to nearly preempt its effectiveness in any situation.
Since Tehelka, a large number of sting operations have been broadcast on TV on different occasions. It is noteworthy that hardly any resulted in actually exposing crime from the legal point of view or resulting in conviction. The original Tehelka is probably ten years or more old now; however, the courts have not finally pronounced on the guilt or innocence of the main protagonists, which of course is par for the course in our judicial process.
In the highly corrupt society that India is, where everyone knows that there are worms under every stone or inside every pit, systematic attempts have been made to stymie the effectiveness of a powerful microscope, which can record visually the commitment of an irregularity. If a false sting operation takes place, the person(s) perpetrating should be given exemplary punishment. If the present laws do not provide for that, they need to be amended appropriately. But the mere apprehension that sting images may be concocted, true as it may be, cannot be an argument to sideline this weapon and effectively take it out of use. During the course of the trust-motion debate in Parliament on the nuclear deal, there was a sensational story of some MPs being bribed; there are reports that photographic evidence existed. However, the TV channel which had information on the transactions apparently did not dare bring it to public view, presumably for fear of reprisals and of becoming themselves the victims of severely debilitating court proceedings, or to get sucked into the politics of the day. It would be recalled that in the original Tehelka sting, the pioneers of the process were the initial victims – they were harassed, hounded, and prosecuted, as if they had committed a crime; all they did was to expose crime. Indeed, the FIR based on the sting operation was not lodged for a considerable period against the main protagonists. This, of course, is fully in consonance with the prevailing practice in India that in far too many situations the person reporting a crime becomes the main accused, the person named in the FIR usually manages to turn the tables!
Justice Katju of the apex court has reportedly commented that we need more stings. In a corrupt society this is a weapon to harness, to produce dramatic results. This tool can be effectively used in thanas, tehsils, district, courts and so many other places where the average citizen has interface with officialdom; effective mobile phone cameras with high technical capabilities are now available – it will be a pity if the opportunity is lost to contribute to eradication of corruption. That, it can be abused is no final argument against it; if that were so, we need to ban guns, alcohol, automobiles, credit cards and so on. A major initiative in this regard has to come from the judiciary to provide a healthy environment for legitimate use of the weapon. The media, one feels, should be courageous enough to take this issue to higher levels.
It is also interesting to note that when a noteworthy sting, exposing a fraud, is broadcast by one TV channel, there is no echo or mention of the same by the other competing channels. Even when the subject of the sting is a fairly important newsworthy VIP, the other channels ignore the event and proceed as if the broadcast of the sting did not exist. Clearly, the commitment of all channels is to their own viewership ratings, and that alone; nothing to do with any other objectives like combating corruption, exposing the truth and the like.
Role of Media in opinion building – the image is all . . .
In the years after Independence, the daily newspapers were the main medium to convey information and news to the public. The opinion pieces, some of them well researched and quite effective, were generally read by a limited class of society, and did have some role in opinion building. In due course, the Indian language newspapers started having larg
er reach including in smaller towns and larger villages; there was larger availability of competing news and views, with stress on local issues, available in a wide-spread manner. All this, while the All India Radio or Doordarshan Radio was available all over the country, mainly spreading the government's perspective or point of view.
Only in the past two to three decades, television has emerged as the primary purveyor of news and information, especially in urban areas. It is to be noted that, with some exceptions, the content is generally geared mainly to middle class urban audiences and to generally portray middle class urban values, geared to younger audiences. It is also necessary to point out that quite often, mere news does not get purveyed, but a strong dose of opinion and attitude also accompanies it. Thus, the TV news channel is not averse to taking strong positions on the flimsiest of evidence, or on thin shards of logic which may not stand scrutiny. In other words, sensational portrayal of views and attitudes is quite common in many channels on a variety of subjects including politics, social mores and the like. The influence of the medium on public opinion can be irrationally high, including on local politics, frequently reflecting the personal attitudes of the channels' owners or of an influential news editor. There is little to check irresponsible opinion expressed subtly through slanting the presentation in the desired manner. Quite often one can observe uninformed half-baked opinions trotted out as policy prescriptions, flogging one limited aspect to the exclusion of the other elements potentially in the picture. Many channels just get carried away by the news of the day, and extrapolate liberally. It is not uncommon to find a slant given to 'Breaking News' by subtly disguised or misleading headlines to influence public opinion. Doordarshan is recognised to be a propaganda machine; however, few viewers recognise the bias that the private channels bring into their news reporting.
Nearly everyday, one news channel or the other has an 'opinion poll' or 'viewers' poll', designed to underline a point of view. Depending on the context, the topic can be quite esoteric, trivial or important or even bizarre: some sample topics – should we go to war on Pakistan?, should Dravid retire?, should kissing be permitted on the screen?, etc. The basic requirement of any random sampling process is that all bias in the tested sample needs to be eliminated. This primary requirement is usually not fulfilled in such opinion polls. In the first place, only those with access to e-mails or internet could participate; at most, English speaking people using SMS. This can hardly be termed as representative. In any case, frequently the purpose is for the channel to project its own perspective and point of view through the opinion poll. It is also frequently quite amusing to see the anchor working overtime to influence the online polls, cutting short the expert opinion which tends to oppose the desired result. The apparent effort is to 'solve' all national problems in the public arena through this method; fortunately not too many take it unduly seriously.
It must also be recognised that the media, particularly TV is a premier player in our national scene. The English and vernacular newspapers played a significant role in pre-Independence days in moulding public opinion against the British. However, in recent years, television has taken over the role of influencing public opinion, especially in urban areas; the language newspapers still hold an important position in rural parts, particularly in the states where the level of education is high. The average viewer of TV would be well advised to be wary of the opinions trotted out in the medium, and confine himself to getting the hard facts.
Regulation of the Media – who will watch over the watchdog? . . .
From time to time, there is no question but that the media overreaches itself, mostly probably due to over-enthusiasm. For example, there has been much criticism of the blow-by-blow media coverage of the Mumbai blasts of November 2008; my personal view is that this was done extremely well. However, opinions can differ; indeed there is a school of thought to the effect that the coverage compromised certain security aspects, and could even have led to additional casualties. Be that as it may, indeed every system needs regulation, as we have seen in the context of other institutions. We have also noticed that in the Indian context, no institution can self-regulate itself with distinction.
Surely the alternative is not government control or government regulation. In a very sensitive medium, like television or newspapers, it will be disastrous to have the heavy hand of government reaching out to throttle dissent or to enforce 'morality' norms. Indeed the efforts made in late 2008 by the I&B Ministry to issue 'guidelines' was rightly scuttled. In a country like India where rules and regulations are flouted with regularity, an open and voluble media is an effective watchdog, which should be allowed to bark without government intervention. However, regulation is indeed essential, and has to be done with delicacy but effectively.
There is no ready answer to this question. Perhaps the media may itself appoint a high level committee or even a single commissioner or ombudsman to assess departures from the code, and device punitive measures where required. Any management of the matter purely by a committee or a group of interested media representatives, as it is today, will be thoroughly ineffective. This machinery needs to be supplemented by a body or a person, independent of the media, but commanding respect, universally acknowledged to be independent, to function as the media commissioner, with wide ranging powers to take decisions on departures from the norm.
The Private Corporate Sector – How to make profits by influencing politicians? . . .
As seen elsewhere, there has been rapid growth of the role of the private sector in the economy in particular as well as in society over time. Whereas the large PSUs dominated corporate activities in the first decades after Independence, much of this running has been taken over by the private sector. With the liberalisation process of the early '90s along with opening up of the economy in different directions, the private sector has 'flowered'; while the small and 'tiny' and informal sector has continued to play a significant role, the medium and large sector has come into its own in recent years to play a major part in the economy. The present attempt is not to discuss the role of the private sector in the economy, but to focus briefly on the impact that the activities in the private sector have insofar as they impinge on governance issues.
In the first decades after Independence, when licence-permit raj was the order of the day, practically every large business house would focus its top managerial and entrepreneurial resources mainly to influence government policy or to obtain individual concessions, naturally on a private quid-pro-quo basis. Investments in 'influencing' the government paid more dividends than focus on improved technical or managerial attention to the business itself ! Thus, every large house had a key liaison person based at Delhi, with access to senior politicians and senior bureaucrats. Even till about the '80s or mid-'90s, the quantum of 'rent' to be paid to influence decisions was relatively low; even ministers were amenable to give individual concessions for the consideration of just a few lakhs; for many senior officials, perhaps a bottle of Scotch or the equivalent was enough! (I have even been witness to a finance secretary of the Government of India, casually and routinely calling a major government owned financial institution in Mumbai to buy heavily the shares of a particular private sector company to shore up its value – almost certainly there was no immediate 'consideration' for this clear act of felony, except some goodwill or as a gesture – this was in the '80s). Somehow, along with liberalisation, the numbers have changed; the private sector entrepreneurs have now to deal with much larger demands, in individual cases running up to many crores. Thus, benami transactions, payment through devious foreign exchange and hawala transactions, all have become quite common. In most land transactions, the large or even medium-size builders have had to convey astronomical sums of money, mainly in cash, in black. Sadly, such transactions have become the order of the day, and the numbers involved on a case-to-case basis ever-increasing. When the minister affixes a signature for a consideration, of say ten crore rupees, the official machinery under h
im will demand and get an additional, say one crore rupees; the entrepreneur does not mind the extra expense so long his pending work is concluded. It is now crystal clear that the decision-making system is distorted by the active involvement of the business class in bribery; perhaps they cannot be blamed – they have to get the work done, otherwise they have no place under the sun.
The industrial sector is also well armed for collective lobbying, with agencies like CII, ASSOCHAM, FICCI as well as many sectoral trade associations having organised themselves extremely capably. These trade and industry bodies have acquired considerable clout, and reach into the highest decision-making levels. Contrast this with the position of the farmer or the rural labourer, indeed the self-employed small man, who neither has any lobbying ability nor any agency to represent his interests. The voice of the tiny entrepreneur or the farmer goes totally unheard; government, when inclined to amend policy, consults only the topmost echelons in the private sector. This is a serious gap in our decision-making process. Thus while making policies for the construction industry or for industrial land-related matters and the like, government tends to consult really the big builders' lobby – otherwise known as the mafia, for advice. The top three or four largest sharks advise government how to handle all the fish of the sea; the government generally accepts the advice of the shark for one reason or the other, usually the 'other'! This metaphor could be repeated for other industrial sectors also. Thus, there is heavy distortion in overall policy making in favour of the 'big guy' – leaving the small or tiny operator by the wayside.
Goverment In India Page 24