Credibility of Television Debates
Discerning television viewers often complain about two things. One is about the tendency among some channels to sensationalize issues in the hope of boosting their TRP. They repeat the same report, and replay the same images ad-nauseam, till another equally ‘spicy’ story emerges. The second complaint is about the various channels that give an intellectual aura to certain issues by bringing them up for ‘serious debates’.
As for the first category, the less said, the better. They revel at the ratings they get, thanks to the breaking stories they break, without a break. So long as viewership goes up, and advertisement revenue keeps rising, they remain upbeat and happy. They are quite forthright about what they are, and have no pretensions to the contrary.
The more subtle ones are the debates that start at 9 pm, especially in the English channels from India. The channels vie with each other to be the first to debate any current issue. Some of them call themselves ‘national television’, or even ‘the most-watched channel’. The debates also carry fanciful names, to draw the viewers.
Political issues often take centre-stage. Political parties are represented by their spokespersons. Sometimes one wonders why they participate at all, when they are barely allowed to complete a sentence or present a point of view. This is mostly the case when they are on the defensive. They are interrupted, or drowned by the anchor’s louder volume or vantage position.
In some of these debates, the most glaring is the anchor’s agenda and his or her unseemly eagerness to get it endorsed by the panelists. In other words the debate is a misnomer, or a farce. It is a shouting match where the anchor is involved in a ‘mock-fight’ to authenticate his or her views. In other words these clever anchors believe that all their viewers are as gullible as they are. Surely there are some anchors that are quite balanced. They give due respect to the panelists and let every one of them have their say. They do moderate without being high-handed. But that species is rare. Our very first concern therefore must be to sift the grain from the chaff.
If there are no serious political issues available, the next best thing is to dig out something and politicize it, and plan a debate. There are some familiar faces in each channel that pontificate or theorize on various topics with an air of authority. “All our TV channels, which are largely Delhi-based, seem to have come to the conclusion that all the intelligence, all the knowledge and all the expertise on every subject under the sun resides in Delhi and that, too, in a few people, certainly not more than about 30 or 40” (M N Buch, in IE) .They do get punctured occasionally but that’s a small price to pay for nation-wide visual presence. Rhetorical outbursts and pronouncements are heard off and on. Some debates are a real cacophony, and resemble a street fight, a virtual free-for-all. There are times when two or more people talk over each other, leaving everything incoherent and confusing.
Television viewers must be on their guard, and be circumspect on the hidden agenda if any. Take a look at the inevitable conclusion that comes around. Was it looming large right from the word ‘go’. If it is clearly pre-meditated, it surely is an insult to the intelligence of the viewers. Some of the anchors over-reach themselves by being too opinionated and judgmental to the extent of making a debate a farcical spectacle.
Debates should be intellectually stimulating, informative and interesting. They should inform, educate and even entertain the listeners in the right proportion. There should be no undue bias. There can be criticism, where required, without being one-sided, arbitrary or prejudiced. Fairness and equity should be the guiding principles, to achieve long-term credibility. The media in general and the visual media in particular have an enormous reach and so they should be a responsible watchdog, rather than being obtrusive, arbitrary and high-handed. They should not be a law unto themselves, which is the case unfortunately in many instances.
Media trial is a matter of grave concern today. It is a negation of human rights. Sometimes individuals are pilloried, leaving them with no chance to defend themselves. As Alexander Pope says, ‘at every word, a reputation dies’. What about those who become victims of the media trial? There should be a law to make character assassination of individuals and institutions through the media, a punishable offence. Alternately the existing law governing defamation should be suitably amended. The aggrieved should be able to seek justice in a court of law. That day, hopefully, is not far off.
About Author:
Prof. Mathew C. Ninan is the Principal of the reputed Little Rock Indian School in Brahmavar, Udupi District in Karnataka. He is the recipient of the Kannada Rajyotsava Award for Education from the Udupi District in 2014.
Mathew Ninan is echoing the observation of a large number of people in the country.
Tele debates are a farce and since limited to 30 minutes or at the most 1 hour, preclude a serious discussion.
I think they should be banned.
I fully endorse what Prof Ninan has to say about the ‘debates’ on television channels. They are a cacophony and defy all principles of responsible and logical exchange of views and expression of ones opinion. It is a bad exposure to our youth who need to imbibe one of the cardinal principles of democracy i.e responsible dissent, and respect for others views. Speaking out of turn, interrupting someone in the midst of his/her speech, shouting down someone with a dissenting view , are inimical to democracy. It is best that responsible and democratic minded citizens avoid such debates and the… Read more »
Preaching and practices seem to be different for all these people – what a farce ?
As usual an apt and informative article by Professor Ninan and I fully concur with him. The views expressed by the Anchors are most of the time biased, imposing and party oriented. Viewers should not be unduly influenced by these channels.