Television Discussions: Looking For Civility and Reason

chillibreeze writer — Harish Menon

Panel discussions on Indian television have come a long way from the sleepy and monotonous sessions of the Doordarshan era. Back then, the static camera and uninspired presentation of views actually killed the informed arguments of the panelists.

With the media boom, the picture has changed considerably. Apart from the lively involvement of audience and the eloquence of media-savvy panelists, technology also ensured the involvement of speakers from across time zones, promising a deeper, broader and more enlightened discourse on issues.

Not only are today's newsmakers and commentators seemingly more open to instant reactions to their views, they are also well versed - in varying degrees - with the dynamics of live media. However, what one very badly misses is good old civility in conversations. By ‘civility’, one does not mean mere non-use of un-parliamentary language. I mean ‘civility’ in the very basic sense; something like ‘wait for your turn to speak’, which is taught to kindergarten children.

Nature of the problem
By nature, we Indians are a garrulous lot, no doubt. The understated adjective, ‘argumentative’, which Professor Amartya Sen bestowed on us, is perhaps a quality that flows in our bloodstream. But should that stop us from having reasonable debates on TV without out-shouting each other? I think there are two parts to the problem, besides the fact that we are inherently argumentative.

First, television news, as the cliché goes, is no more just news today. It is entertainment. It is competition. It is also often a direct response mechanism that gives panelists the first taste of public sentiments.

Given this scenario, most Indian panelists – very often regular fixtures on particular channels – look to make the most out of their 30-60 minute daily airtime quota to ensure that they are heard. For such a desperate lot, it is irrelevant whether a fellow-panelist is making a pertinent point, answering specific questions or stating facts that could give the discussion a fresh perspective.

Sound and fury...signifying nothing?
Irrespective of the political inclination of the panelist or news channel, discussions today are generally all sound and fury. That brings us to the second aspect of the problem. One of the primary reasons for the cacophony on television is plain bad handling by producers as well as anchors. Why can’t it be made clear before the start of the program that volubility will not be considered a plus point? Why can’t anchors be better trained to moderate discussions? And finally, why can’t we have better learned panelists for specific topics? For instance, on a discussion in the aftermath of 26/11 on Times Now, we had Shobha De offering views on the tactical and strategic mistakes on the NSG and actually pitted against the NSG chief himself!

The usual suspects
Times Now often has a certain non-entity called Rahul Easwar (at best a college level debater) to defend the hooligans of Sriram Sene and Shiv Sena. This gentleman doesn’t even get his facts right and survives debates on shrill assertions. Twice – once on Times Now and then on NDTV – Eeaswar was censured by a fellow panelist and the anchor for making provocative statements. One such statement was actually in favor of Sati.

The other extreme of his ideology is the soft-spoken Swapan Dasgupta whose voice is often lost in the barrage of his “louder than thou” co-panelists. Recently, on NDTV’s Left, Right and Centre, which was discussing the fuel price hike, it was Rajiv Pratap Rudy and one of CPIM’s young faces who simply outshouted folks like Business Standard editor Sanjay Baru. Rudy was audacious enough to assert that the common man doesn’t bother about economics! Rudy was promptly corrected by a lady in the audience.

But the most annoying is perhaps the anchors’ self-righteous diatribe. In the zeal to make their own view-point the most dominant one (to hell with balance or objectivity!), they often pepper other speakers’ views with irritating ‘buts’, ‘ifs’ and, if necessary, ‘you suck!’ (No, I did not make up the last example. It was used by a ‘senior’ anchor on Times Now against Arundhati Roy).

At the end of such a session, and particularly from Rudy’s statement, it was clear that the idea was never to reach out to the layman. It was just to make sure that one’s sound box was the most sought after by the pandering visual media.

Editor's note: Most articles submitted to Chillibreeze go through a selection process. Only 30 percent of submitted articles are accepted for publication on the Chillibreeze.com featured article list. All accepted articles are edited and proofread for glaring errors of punctuation and grammar. Sentence structure is changed in certain cases and sometimes, entire sections are rewritten. If you notice any errors that have slipped through the cracks, do let us know! (Email us at info at chillibreeze dot com).

Chillibreeze's disclaimer: This is a contributed article and was published on Chillibreeze in October, 2010. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of Chillibreeze as a company. Chillibreeze has a strict anti-plagiarism policy. Please contact us to report any copyright issues related to this article. The relevance of the facts and figures cited (if any) could change after a period of time.

More on Chillibreeze.com

Other popular articles on Chillibreeze

Fatima Bhutto’s Songs of Blood and Sword
Bollywood: New Century, New Horizons
How to Write a Business Newsletter
Surviving Summers in the Gulf
The Reading Habit: A Story of Personal Transformation

Out of 5 “chilies”, our editorial team gave this article...

—About our writer:

An accidental journalist, Harish C Menon slogged as a reporter and slouched as a copy editor for nearly seven years with reputed establishments like The Times of India, PTI and IANS, before taking a break. He currently works as editor of an upcoming bank’s research publications that mostly cover subjects like economy and industrial sectors. If the mismatch hasn’t still boggled you, here is some more – Harish’s chief interests are history, international relations and cinema.

>> Read more articles written by Chillibreeze writers:

More resources for Writers on Chillibreeze.com

Chillibreeze offers Indian writers the opportunity to work on customer projects. We are also India’s biggest writer network and a one-stop shop for Indian writers and editors. The writers’ section on Chillibreeze offers freelance writers and editors a variety of tools to advance their careers. Resources for writers include:

Assessment of your writing, editing and proofreading skills

Writing courses

Expert Feedback on your article

An opportunity to promote yourself on our website

Top websites for Indian writers

Tips and resources for Indian freelancers

Book Publishing services

And more………………..

Explore our writers’ section using the links on our left-hand side menu.