The Oracles of English TV News

IN Media Practice | 17/04/2008

One would think that most people who watch English language news bulletins on a channel like NDTV would prefer balanced, clearheaded reports of newsevents (and controversies too, if it comes to that). Being a regular watcher, one is more and more baffled about the journalistic standards the channel subscribes to.

Take the Olympic torch event in Delhi. On April 15 Mr Prannoy Roy was presenting the 9 pm news laced with his own opinion on all matters. The news is completely editorialised and the anchor never seems to doubt the wisdom of his own biases. It is one thing to explore various points of view through debate, quite another to pass off one’s opinion as an aside or closing line after each item. True, the news may sound friendly and chatty but it becomes that much devalued as news when this is done.

Mr Roy was wondering aloud in the bulletin as to why the Indian government was over doing the security bit – 15,000 security men on the short stretch of the road, is this republic day or what???. But this is followed by an item on the threat of the Tibetan protestors stopping at nothing to disrupt the torch run (which actually answers the question posed in the first instance!). Does NDTV prefer the Indian government not to take any precausionary measures? Perhaps, the channel should  go ahead and suggest what reasonable security is under the circumstances to the Home Ministry.

Barkha Dutt on her 9 pm bulletin on 16 April invites a young Tibetan activist and goads her on to reveal if they will indulge in self-immolation or violence at other locations when prevented from obstructing the torch. Will they ‘stop at nothing’ to take on the 15,000 strong Indian security force? Does Ms Dutt realise that she, in her eagerness to make the event more eventful, is actually making it possible for some young and excitable lives to be lost? She will no doubt be there to cover it live and she will have more bereaved and tearful families to interview, perhaps? The two sobering interviews with Saif Ali Khan and Leander Paes, did nothing to dampen her zeal.

Robert Merton, a well-known sociologist, developed the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy. ‘The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come ¿true¿. (as quoted in Wikipedia). Where was the need for the anchor to suggest self-immolation as a protest option?

By stoking the fires of protest and citing London, Paris and self-immolation attempts of a few years back, Ms Dutt was putting pressure on the young Tibetan activist to commit to a similar course of action. Often the mere possibility of media presence and media attention propels events towards unfortunate consequences. Rajiv Goswami’s self-immolation during Mandal agitation is one such example. It is to the credit of the Tibetan activist that she did not fall for the goading, but the viewer got all the options for protest from Ms Dutt. 

The question that needs to be asked is, should media stoke controversy in this manner and lead to serious personal loss to the individuals who have a stake in the event? If this media intervention is not there, setting the parameters and boundaries for public expression of protest, the community may actually come up with more innovative and effective responses. Again, to cite Merton, ‘the only way to break the cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy is by redefining the propositions on which its false assumptions are originally based’.

All stories cannot be handled like ‘Save the Tiger’ campaign. Media cannot choose the desired outcome and force it to happen – especially where there are different views on the nature of the issue and what can be done about it.  ‘Once people convince themselves that a situation really has a certain meaning, regardless of whether it actually does, they will take very real actions in consequence and …. if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.’(Thomas cited in Wikipedia.). It is not the role of the media to actively intervene to create such meanings. This perpetuates, what Merton calls a ‘reign of error’. And then, once the media sets a course of action in motion, there is no guarantee that it will stay the course and follow up. The history of journalism is a graveyard full of great stories that have fallen on the wayside after attracting a brief burst of interest.

To a lesser degree but quite often in other reports like the Indo-Pak people to people  relations, Kashmir issue, or even LK Advani, there is a an attempt by Ms Dutt to sentimentalise and push the individuals appearing in the bulletin to break-down on camera. This is an attempt to shape public opinion by using the emotions of affected people unfairly on the viewers. It prevents the viewer from thinking about the issue in a critical rational way, with the limited amount of information that the channel choses to provide and then hits home with the tears of the affected. This is also a form of exploitation of the individuals who need the help of the media, by monetising their grief.

To conclude, the job of a news bulletin is not to polarise opinion but to enlighten. It is not to direct or orchestrate events but to allow them to shape up on their own and to report on them with fairness. Television has made stars out of anchors but it is important to remember that an unobtrusive anchor who quietly ferrets out information and a camera that does not draw attention to itself are the best things that can happen to a show. An anchor is neither an oracle nor a messaiah.