Television Discussions: Looking For Civility and Reason

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 decency of the panelists.

With the media boom, the picture changed. 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.

By nature we Indians are a garrulous lot, no doubt. The understated adjective, ‘argumentative’, which Prof 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 that 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.

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 programme 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!

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 favour 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.