When the TV brigade muffed it

BY sevanti ninan| IN Opinion | 25/07/2008

IDIOT BOX

Sevanti Ninan

It is good of the political class to keep the media in business. What would be nice is to get the perspectives media consumers deserve from the access that our mike  wielders have to the political theatre, as the Times of India terms it.Because it is a little sad that so much that was on display earlier this week in our tumultuous democracy, should be boiled down ultimately to so little.

For a couple of weeks now the media has been talking itself silly about the notion that in the run up to the Vote of Confidence the politics-industry nexus  in policy making as well as the vote-for-sale culture has been out in the open. Then their fairy godmother gave them this  22^nd July evening  gift, another Bangaru Lakshman-like  image to live off. If it was nothing but numbers and innuendo about deal-making  until then, it was nothing but images of currency thereafter. For the satellite TV channels that is, barring DD News which post 5 pm on that day, had its anchors desperately pretending that nothing had happened.

So what did those who watched what was treated like a political soap opera, miss out on?  The debate, for one. There was some pretense of showing it across channels initially, but always with the numbers running above, and after a while, with Mayawati and Amar Singh in full flow outside Parliament, it made more sense to focus on them rather than tedious speeches. Or, on the numbers alone, because that was the big story wasn¿t it? (Arnab Goswami to his correspondent on Times Now: "Give me the mathematics—don¿t analyse Advani¿s speech.") I caught one exception: ETV ran the debate as it unfolded, a Telugu translation running alongside.

But was the mathematics really the story, particularly since nobody came within a yard of getting the outcome right?  Can it even be most of the story when you have that rare thing on hand: Parliament actually applying itself to a debate on issues, forced to function if not all day on both days, then most of the time? A chance to discover what our politicians have to say when the country¿s future is being discussed?

Thanks to the Lok Sabha channel and Doordarshan for the most part, both citizens and journalists across the country who wanted to watch,  got the action unmediated. The much-maligned public service broadcasters have their uses. You discovered that MPs could  change colour from marshalling facts when it was their turn to speak, to  becoming champion shouters when it was someone else¿s turn. There was the BJP MP from Orissa Karbela Swain holding forth on the US sub prime crisis, and then switching effortless to Chief Rowdy even when his own party¿s MPs were speaking. But ofcourse pride of place in the lung power pantheon should go to the CPM¿s  Chief Heckler Mohammad Saleem, who when it was his turn was allowed to speak uninterrupted for the most part, but did not care to return the compliment.

Despite the negative power of a damning image, the television coverage of the debate on the Motion of Confidence in the Council of Ministers  reflected  the limited imagination of those who wield this medium. For three quarters of the debate  every news channel hyperventilated about the numbers. Thereafter they could not see beyond those wads of notes. It did not matter if the last hour of the debate saw some impassioned oratory from some seldom-heard MPs. Telecasting them live at that point was out of question. Once you had the picture of the day there was no question of letting it go off the TV screen.  Even if those who heard the  National conference¿s  Omar Abdullah or the  Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen¿s (MIM)  Asaduddin Owaisi, found their faith in parliamentary democracy restored somewhat.

Take Somnath Chatterjee. He was of great interest to all the TV channels when the big question was to resign or not to resign.  They could not stop hounding him. But his conduct as Speaker on the day of the debate, interested them not at all. The Indian Express put together a story on it next morning. A day after the debate ended it put together excerpts from the better  speeches made. All newspapers displayed a far greater sense of occasion than television did. Their ideologies are more discernable in some cases than those of TV channels, but surely, better an ideological perspective than none at all.

TV has two overriding compulsions. One, the fear that their audience will go away if  they  do not dumb down. That is why they rush around catching Govinda arriving at the airport to vote , or Dharmendra talking about his bad knee with his wife smiling indulgently, or Priyanka¿s long-legged appearance in trousers. Or keep beeping UPA ka ECG. (Star News) 

Two, their need to constantly hear themselves speak. There were Arnab Goswami and his fellow panelists constantly interpreting, not necessarily accurately. And dozens of others. The assumption is that chief honcho exchanging wisdom with junior colleagues is somehow more enlightening than being given the speeches straight. Thery all did it.  It is extraordinary how so many channels can mean no choice at all. 

And if TV brought us the image of the stashes of notes within the Lok Sabha it also served up a breathtaking cop-out. Whatever the reason for CNN IBN¿s failure to telecast whatever footage  they had on cash for vote,  they will not be able to dispel the sceptisim  of their fellow journalists  for some time to come. Khabar har keemat par is IBN 7¿s slogan. So what happened this time?