T

he breathless and ridiculous TV coverage of

Prime Minister Narendra Modis visit to the
United States in English and Hindi, and the
blanket coverage of the Sweeping of India on a slow
news day, has annoyed many people of an otherwise
equable temperament. As one of them put it, she
feels somehow abused by TV news gangs.
The reaction, fairly widespread, reminded me of
an impromptu experiment I conducted some months
ago. It was during one of those utterly depressing
seminars in Delhi whereby think tanks seek to gain
visibility, perchance to attract some
funding later on.
There were nearly 50 people
present, all but one or two highly
educated. Most of them were there
for mooh-dikhai (showing your
face). Like me, they would stay till
lunch, eat and scoot, which is par
for the course in Delhi. The organ-
isers only want their signatures to
show the list to the donors.
To relieve the tedium, I thought
I would conduct a small sample sur-
vey. I passed around a chit asking
them to name five institutions in
contemporary India of whom they were most
ashamed. (My apologies to the hosts whose photo-
copying facilities I used to get 50 copies made.)
The private TV news media figured in most of the
responses and it came even higher than the bureau-
cracy and Parliament. That takes some doing.
Later, over the extended lunch, I started pester-
ing the respondents to explain their answer about
the media. Depending on their intellectual prove-
nance, I got different answers. I present them below
by categories.
Irritating on all counts
The economists gave the standard textbook expla-
nation that this was the inevitable consequence of the
free-for-all model of competition, wherein there are
no barriers on entry or exit. Since entry is cheap but
staying alive in the business is not, they said, all firms
were targeting the largest market segment, which
also happens to be the most illiterate in each socio-
economic group.
Ergo, the news seeks more to entertain than to
inform. Just how the entertainment is provided
depends on the editorial judgment
of the channel. Nonsensical sensa-
tionalism is the common element.
To which I may add what we were
taught in first-year college: product
differentiation in a highly competi-
tive market leads to exactly the
same result as a monopoly which,
in fact, can provide greater diversi-
ty. In the case of media,
Doordarshan (and the BBC)
stands out.
The bureaucrats gave a much
simpler explanation: much of what
was reported as TV news was plain
wrong, they said. The reporters, by and large young,
inexperienced and ignorant, simply had no idea of
what they were reporting on. Since a lot of it was
either technical or legal or procedural, their reports
were often just rubbish.
The politicians said each and every channel was
biased in some direction. That isnt surprising con-
sidering how many channels are owned by political
parties, politicians and corporate entities. Some of
the news anchors, they said, had political ambitions
as well.
The journalists all from print said kids barely
out of their shorts were allowed to editorialise since
they didnt have the facts. Indeed, they said, even if
these were given to them in a news kit, they didnt
have the time to digest the facts, if at all they could to
start with, that is. (This reminded me of the story
about the young TV reporter who once asked a
finance minister for a quote and after he had spo-
ken, asked him who he was.)
The laypersons gave the best assessment of all.
They said not all of the programming was bad but in
general it tended to be more bad than good. They
also grumbled that they were exhausted by the shout-
ing matches on prime-time programmes marketed as
news but which comprised only a lot of biased opin-
ions. Since they were all highly aware persons, they
also asked why the opinions of the people who were
constantly invited on these programmes superior to
their own. One of them even asked if some of the
panellists were on retainer.
Looking ahead
These survey findings point to an interesting future
for non-TV news, especially for ink-on-paper print but
also for radio: digitise, shorten and be quick. Many
newspapers are moving in that direction though
not quickly enough, because people have got used to
free internet content.
But the moment someone comes up with a work-
able business model which must exclude pop-up
ads on your phone TVs goose would be cooked, if
not wholly then, as Pandit Nehru said in a different
context, in substantial measure.
How should TV pre-empt this? By getting back to
what it should be doing, namely, improving quality in
every possible way and avoiding parading opinions,
especially of the anchors, as news on prime time.
Why is TV news so awful?
Then there is that story about the young TV reporter who begged a finance minister for a quote and then,
after he had spoken, asked him who he was
ILLUSTRATION BY BINAY SINHA
LINE AND LENGTH
T C A SRINIVASA-RAGHAVAN