Instant analysis on TV is nothing but fluff

Instant analysis on TV is nothing but fluff

When General Musharraf was making his famous speech to the world in January, it was being "analysed" by TV anchors as he went along. What was the hurry, guys? Want to solve the tangled Indo-Pak imbroglio in one hectic evening?

By Manjula Lal

The silence on April 30 was deafening - and welcome. Doordarshan decided not to telecast the censure motion in Parliament on the Gujarat issue. Other channels just showed highlights with telling effect, especially Indefensible Minister George Fernandes` acceptance of violence against women as a way of life. Since the general public already knew that the fall of the government was not imminent, didn`t we know beforehand that the whole debate mere sound and fury, signifying nothing? Weren`t we relieved that some smart-alecky news anchor was not going to analyse it threadbare for us? At most, we just wanted the curtains rung down on this scene and the next Act in the political drama to unroll.

For instant analysis on TV often ends up being nothing more than fluff. Television does take the lead in breaking news, but the papers are better placed to do the editorializing, to give a perspective, to mull over options.

For instance, take what Sahara TV anchor Vinod Dua said during the day-long coverage of Assembly poll results (February 24) "Every Congressman from the top level to the bottom says `The party high command will decide` or `Mrs Sonia Gandhi will decide`". He may have thought he was making a telling comment on that party`s structure, but it was also a comment on the pointlessness of the whole TV coverage. All the jabber-jabber blah-blah the channels were indulging in, trying to make us all excited about the results, could hardly have caused a ripple among viewers. After all, hadn`t the papers already told us UP would get a hung Assembly? Paranjoy Guha Thakurta was already saying it on CNBC: "I am sure there is no alternative to President`s Rule in UP." But the latter, as well as all the other anchors and guests, continued to go through their paces, because space (in terms of time) is pre-determined on television. In a newspaper, you still have a choice at the end of the day to kill a non-copy, to decide whether to write an editorial on a particular issue or not, to downgrade or upgrade display. Print journalism is also constrained by the fact that some person or library will keep a clip of it. Whereas nobody is keeping a video recording of what you said, except your own organization.

As far as Assembly results were concerned, all channels that day were jumping the gun, as results were still coming in, by congratulating themselves on the `exactitude` of their exit polls. At one point, Dua said that all channels had predicted that BSP would get around 85 seats. But the tally later ended up being 98. More proof of the central theme of this article: that the fluff just wafts in the air, it`s not something you can hold in the palm of your hand.

Harking back a bit, contrast all this super-fast analysis to the statement made on January 23, 2002, the day after the attack on the American Centre in Kolkata. FBI Director Robert Mueller, who happened to be in Delhi said, "It has been only eight hours since the incident happened, and it would be too early to tell what the motivation for the attack was…I will wait to see the facts and it would inappropriate to categorise it to anything at this point of time," he continued.

Such squeamishness about rushing to any conclusions is not part of TV credo. Achors seem to be able to analyse everything threadbare within minutes of an event taking place. Of course, tv anchors are not like you and me - apart from being photogenic and glib of tongue, they are much quicker on the uptake, more adept at one-liners and retorts, and less likely to say later, "I wish I`d thought of that right then" - because they do think of everything right then. They are able to analyse quickly the political angle, the social angle, the technical angle. In fact with geometric precision, every corresponding, alternate and dissected angle of the issue at hand.