The Indian TV News Media

I think my generation has seen the biggest revolution in mass communication technologies in India. 

I was born in an era when there was this huge valve set radio, to which the whole family tuned in for the 9 PM news. We also synchronised our watches and clocks with the beeps when the clock struck nine. It started like "This is All India Radio. The News. Read by Lotika Ratnam." It was a 15 min broadcast, that covered all important events of the day. Six decades later I still recall names like Surojit Sen, Devaki Nandan Pandey, Pamela Singh, Melville de Mellow, etc. They were household names and they were legendary, never controversial.

Then came the age of the television. Though technically it started in India in 1959, it actually came to the masses from the late seventies and early eighties. It brought in a different culture in a news broadcast. We not only heard the news but we saw the news. The newsreaders not only gave out news but also made a style statement with their immaculate dresses. I remember Salma Sultan, Niti Ravindran, Gitanjali Aiyer, Rini Simon, etc. 

From the beginning, it was all Doordarshan. The age of private news channel started with NDTV when in 1988 it started "The World This Week" every Friday night. The expansion in news coverage and credibility in tv journalism began with the privatisation of news channels. I remember when I was stationed in Paris for a diplomatic assignment in 2007, for PM's visit NDTV, and not Doordarshan, had to be provided for the PM and his staff at the hotel. Such was the trust in the news even at the highest level of the government.

Dishing out news obviously brought in big bucks. That also brought in a number of players into the field. Today, we have probably hundreds of 24 hours news channels in English, Hindi, and all the regional languages of the country. That also brought in fierce competition among them. Every channel wanted 'Breaking News' to scroll across its screen as often as possible. Thus started the process of trivialisation of news. To most 'news' did not anymore mean 'noteworthy information', but just 'any damn information'. 

Sometime during the current decade came the channel called Times Now. Its news anchor revolutionised the news altogether. It changed from an anchor who coordinated the news clips through an interlinking narrative, to a debate among 'experts' invited to the programme. It started with one channel and now it is a normal practice for all. All political debates from beginning to end have at least 4 to 5 people screaming at each other simultaneously, along with the anchor. The language used if not unparliamentary is definitely ungentlemanly. For geopolitical subjects, we see representatives from neighboring countries who are brought in but are shouted down the moment they open their mouths to speak. I wonder why they turn up and why do I see the same faces regularly for all such debates, if not for monetary considerations! It is reduced to just a circus and definitely no more primetime news.

That brings in another aspect of the affiliations of the news channels. Their pro or anti-government stances are evident even to the dumbest of the viewers. Their leftist or rightist leanings are so damn obvious. Some harp the government lines under the garb of sound bytes and interviews and some provide a platform for the opposition to convey their message to the masses. They no longer care to hide their affiliations.

As I write this piece, there is a raging war going on among the pan India channels over the death of a Bollywood actor and his manager. Channels have taken upon themselves to do what they feel the state police under the influence of the state government has not only not investigated the cases but have tried to shamelessly cover-up, in the process projecting themselves as accomplices to a crime. Somewhere between rhetorics, jingoism, petty squabbling, name-calling, political punches, and counter punches lies the truth and may, I fear, will remain there forever when the dust settles after deals between the big guns have been struck and some small fishes are incarcerated to show that all agencies have done their due diligence. Be that as it may, I must grudgingly accept that despite all the shortcomings it is a good job done by the news media. 

The fourth pillar of democracy is very vibrant in our country. It should remain so. But today we are exposed to media of the whole world. I see no attempt by our media to go international. Our media houses have no interest in the hot spots of the world. From our media, we will know which Bollywood star has gone to Dubai and for what, but to know what is happening in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait we will have to tune into BBC or CNN. Are we never going to see any analytical news anchors on our media or are we doomed forever to see the likes of what goes on in the name of "Debates" at prime time news hour? Can that not change? Or is THAT the money-spinner?