Opinion: Lure Of The Small Screen

By M H Ahssan

Private television channels have acquired a conspicuous presence in the country. They provide news and information, debate and discussion and a great deal of entertainment. They are rumoured to earn vast advertising revenues some of which they devote to the promotion of good causes. Their owners and managers like to say that their main aim is to serve the public interest. Those who work for them also seem eager to make that known to their viewers. At the same time, they also appear to be very dogged in the pursuit of their own commercial interests.

When a young girl dies under suspicious circumstances or rumours circulate about misconduct in high office, television reporters accompanied by cameramen are among the first to appear on the scene. They serve their viewers by providing information instantaneously and continuously. The information is accompanied by commentary and by speculation about the possible causes of what might be happening and why. The information provided is of value to the public, particularly where interested parties seek to suppress it.

But not all the information provided on television is of significant value. Much of it is trivial and ephemeral. The analysis provided is sometimes acute and incisive, but often it is empty and vacuous. There is a strain towards the presentation of information in a striking and dramatic form. Much of what takes place in our public life is ordinary and humdrum, but with some effort even the most banal happenings can be given a portentous air. Television reporters and anchors habitually adopt a breathless manner, which even the most seasoned newspaper columnist or radio broadcaster cannot easily simulate.

Like the other media, television provides both information and entertainment, but it combines the two in its own distinctive way. When Doordarshan held the field by itself, there was very little entertainment, and the information was bland and stereotyped. This has changed with the entry of private television channels into the field. Even Doordarshan is now less dull and stodgy than it used to be. Our newsreaders do not have to be grim faced as in China or Russia, and the women among them do not have to cover their heads as in Iran and Pakistan. It is good to see greater variety in dress and deportment although, personally, one regrets the passing of the sari.

While the media in general combine information with entertainment, private television channels make a special effort to present information and analysis in an entertaining way. The line between entertainment and
information is in any case never clear and, where there is acute competition to hold the viewer’s attention, it is easily crossed. Leaving aside the embarrassment and anguish caused to individuals and households, matters of public security and institutional propriety tend to be given short shrift. Newsreaders and analysts know how to simulate both grief and concern, but this loses something in credibility when their presentation is regularly interrupted by commercial advertisements that are anything but solemn or sorrowful.

What is worrying about private television is the cut-throat competition between rival channels. The competition affects the manner in which news is presented and, in the end, also its substance. It is natural that when an interesting or important story comes to light each channel should strive to be the first to present it to the public. It is also natural that it should wish to claim that its own story is exclusive. But such a claim serves mainly its own commercial interest rather than any identifiable public purpose.

The urge to stay ahead in the competition for consumer attention finds expression in the frenzy for ‘breaking news’ common among private television channels. When there is a plane hijack, a terrorist attack, a political assassination — or a successful landing on the moon — it is natural for the news editor to wish to break the news early or even to be the first to report it. Here the electronic media have an advantage over the papers and, within limits, competition provides a healthy stimulus for swift and immediate reporting.

What is presented as breaking news is not always very striking or dramatic. It is, in fact, often quite insubstantial. When something has to be shown as breaking news, there is pressure from within to present it in a dramatic way even when the matter is quite ordinary. It is, in any case, very difficult to view an event in perspective when it is unfolding before our eyes, so when there is pressure to present it as breaking news, that is how it will be presented.

I have often wondered what will happen if no momentous event occurs for one whole day or even for two successive days. If there is no breaking news, will it have to be invented? No account of unfolding events can be free from the more or less active use of the reporter’s imagination. Private television channels should not be blamed for seeking to augment their revenues, but they, on their side, should not cut too many corners. Nor should they be blamed for seeking credit for providing a useful service provided they do not make lofty moral claims about being the citizen’s shield against the authorities. It should not be too difficult for the citizen to determine what they do in the public interest and what they do for profit and, further, to see that the two are not always convergent.