Hospitals and the Political Farce in Andhra Pradesh
Out here in Andhra Pradesh, we are living through life changing times. From the 9th of December 2009, when the central government announced its decision to initiate the process for the formation of Telangana state, neither the politicians nor the media have had a breather.
While the Telangana protests subsided instantly, several of the political parties that have openly promised Telangana during the recent Lok Sabha elections have burnt their boats and are hitching their political fortunes to the integration bandwagon. The political parties like Telugu Desam and Prajarayam do not see their long-term future wholly in Telangana as their social base is in Andhra but their economic interests are in Telangana. The social base is essential for their electoral fortunes which they cannot afford to alienate. Some of the Congress bigwigs are not immune to this either. This political dilemma and the desperation to secure their investments in Telangana is manifesting in a political farce that has not been witnessed in the state in a long time.
The latest is the antics of the Congress MP from Vijayawada, Lagadapati Rajagopal (LR), whose family enterprise Lanco runs power projects, infrastructure projects and owns hundreds of acres of land around Hyderabad. He has been vociferous in his opposition to the demand for separate state for Telangana and had run-ins with the activists before the latest series of incidents. After the central Home Minister’s announcement of statehood for Telangana, Lagadapati threatened to go on hunger strike a la K Chadrasekhar Rao (KCR). LR sat on fast, was put in a hospital in Vijayawada, but insisted on being treated at NIMS in Hyderabad, the same hospital where KCR was kept under arrest while on fast. When the state refused, anticipating trouble, he walked out of the Vijayawada hospital in full view of the 200-odd policemen and disappeared for several hours in a SUV to surface at NIMS in an auto rickshaw. He sprinted into the hospital with the police and TV cameras chasing him and got into a bed in the ICU!
Through out this ridiculous drama, the television channels were looping the footage of the man running into the hospital and lying in the ICU, without really asking the questions that arise in the minds of the public – there was utter chaos at the Vijayawada hospital, then at NIMS with activists and politicians descending on the place unmindful of the ordinary patients who are there for treatment. What happens to the other patients and emergency services when such gross misuse of a public utility is not only tolerated but found entertaining both by politicians and the media? Every celebrity scamster, politician, accused, today checks in to a hospital to avoid arrest. In the process, the medical profession appears to be deeply complicit in entertaining this gross abuse. What is the integrity of a doctor who shields an accused and gives false medical reports? Is the job of the media over, by just reporting what the doctors say …. Not just reporting but repeatedly scrolling alarmist reports about the condition of some politician or the other who is leveraging this as a strategy? Is this not also a medical ethics issue?
For instance, NIMS sheltered actor Balakrishna when he shot and injured two people in his house. His fans arrived from all over the state, daring the state to take any action. The doctors went on air giving health updates to the media, all the time sheltering the actor. NIMS had several celebrity patients like Ramalinga Raju of Satyam and KCR himself. There are several politicians on fast unto death in the Andhra region today, whose health the doctors are characterising as deteriorating to the media. In this process, is the medical profession being deeply politicised to give politically correct medical assessments? The other fall out is on the ordinary patient who has difficulty getting fair services at normal times, and can hope for very little in such chaotic times.
The media instead of questioning the misuse of hospitals as political battlegrounds descend on the hospitals to get exclusive footage for their channels. The extreme inconvenience caused by the presence of both the media and the politicians remains unaddressed. How essential is it to chase Lagadapati into the ICU? One did not see a single channel question why a man who can sprint into the hospital needs intensive care. Intensive care signifies life and death for anxious families. How can someone get into a hospital bypassing the security (which was nowhere to be seen - in a Hyderabad which saw serial bombings by terrorists), without being examined by a doctor and being formally admitted to ICU? Can an ordinary person sprint into the ICU of a hospital without the intervention of the medical experts? Under whose care was he admitted? What tests were recommended? The channels kept looping the footage and the anchors went on to discuss the antics of the politician with an indulgent smile, while the impact of this on people who are at the hospital for genuine reasons is not even an issue. The presence of the media, instead of making the hospital administration watch its step, seems to encourage it to host ‘celebrities’.
The net result of this rash of fasts by sundry politicians across the state, and the uncritical media reports about them, appears to have completely trivialised the issue of statehood to Telangana. The issue has been on a slow burn for over 50 years with several genuine problems that need addressing. It is a historic occasion that needs a critical and rational debate about how best to take it forward. The only channel that appears to have caught the mood of the moment is HMTV which brought together activists and intellectuals from all walks of life for an extensive debate on the issue. TV9 too has been airing longish interviews/call-in programmes with politicians like KCR, Undavalli Arun Kumar and Jayaprakash Narayan. The really entertaining programme continues to be the political spoof run by TV9 called ‘Evari gola varidi”
Looking at the political scenario in Andhra Pradesh, one wonders what would happen if there is no coverage for some of the political activities that are cropping up across the state. One has repeatedly seen a handful of people burning effigies and screaming into the cameras on tight shots and creating a false picture of the public mood. Five minutes after the event, there is no one at the scene of action. This convenience of television coverage that magnifies small events has made long-term, sustained building up of grass roots opinion unnecessary. Today it is ‘hit and run’ activism that suffices and gets the maximum mileage and instant public and policy responses. The new politician seems to understand this game too well. Now it is for the media to resist this, if it wishes to serve public interest.
Thursday 24 December 2009
Monday 21 December 2009
Planned Inertia
Planned Inertia
One of the major recommendations of Akash Bharati, the comprehensive report that laid out the road map for the future of Indian broadcasting immediately after the Emergency, is to scrap the Broadcasting wing of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The report argued that such a wing is anomalous in a democracy where media must operate as autonomous institutions, autonomous both from the market and the state. The report of course, emphasised the importance of a Broadcasting Council to regulate and to redress grievances.
When one looks at the planned inertia of the I&B Ministry that surpasses the moral inertia of the media industry, one is compelled to think that no ministry would have been better than a ministry that chooses to abdicate all its crucial regulatory obligations.
What are the regulatory obligations?
One, ownership: From the days of the First Press Commission, the ownership of media has been a matter of debate. Several commissions and expert groups have raised the problem of money from other businesses financing media enterprises primarily to generate a favourable policy environment and to promote friendly political actors to serve this purpose. Today, with the phenomenal and haphazard expansion of the media industry, it is clear that a large part of the investment into media is not just from the real economy as in the earlier phase, but from dubious sources – speculative finance, real estate and other parts of the ‘parallel’ economy. There is also a strong enmeshing of political interests in this. When a newspaper is started or when a television channel is started, is it not the responsibility of the licensing authority to examine the sources of finance and the antecedents of the promoters?
The state is constantly juggling with the FDI figures, is it 20%, should it be 26%, or is it better if it is 100%? Perhaps it is time to define what the colour of this money is, in addition to the percentage or whether it is from internal or external sources (is it ok if the investment comes from Indian mafia and not from overseas?). Is this like a ‘Christie’s auction’ (or a Swiss bank account) that the state chooses to accept known fronts acting on behalf of ‘unknown’ backers? The recent statements of the Minister for I&B promising greater scrutiny of applications for news channel licenses should have been policy rather than an after thought. And then, what about those licensees who are already ruling the airwaves? Media licenses are given to dubious business/political interests who are already under a cloud.
Two, advertising: Advertising has always been seen as a legitimate source of revenue for media. News to advertisement ratio/ price-page schedule is a dead idea, maligned and killed by the media industry. Today, glossies, newspapers, some news channels and movie channels, all carry disproportionate number of advertisements and without adequate gap between spells. Shouldn’t there be specific rules to define the amount of advertising, kind of advertising and the manner in which it is shown?
In the entertainment sector, channels routinely show paid promotional programming for building hype about some films, often by way of discussion programmes on the issues in a film with the stars from the films participating. The half an hour slots that promote hotels, stores and other commercial establishments that are obviously sponsored by the owners are shown without clarifying that the programming is paid for. The problem in such cases is, the viewer does not know that the praise heaped on the films or establishments is not neutral/fair judgement of the channel. Shouldn’t there be mandatory disclaimer next to the station logo that the programme is paid for?
Today, the arena for product and corporate promotion is not confined to advertising space alone, but has infiltrated the news columns. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon is the rampant virus of ‘paid news’ during elections. But the malaise is so wide spread that news gathering in normal times over the last several years is also being done for some monetary or other consideration and rarely ever on the merit of the event or issue. This is widely known and managed by those who seek publicity. False celebrities and dubious talent abound on the best channels and newspapers. A politician’s mediocre poetry here, a pathetic designer line from a celebrity there, is all part of the fare. There is a conspiracy of silence about this as well, as it was about ‘paid news’. The Unions of Journalists are helpless in dealing with this as the culprits are from among their own ranks. Should there be some form of registration of practitioners by an independent, professional Media Council (like the Bar Council or the Medical Council) with the threat of deregistration for unethical practices?
As far as the pay channels are concerned, two other important issues need to be debated:
1. Some paid entertainment channels earn subscription revenues and go on to advertise on the channels far in excess of the 12 minutes per hour limit (an unwritten rule followed by channels in general). The movie watching experience of the viewer is of no particular concern to the channels. The viewer is paying directly (through subscription) and indirectly (by watching ads) for the same content and is forced to accept poor quality viewing experience to accommodate the channels’ desire to make more money. Any one who has attempted to watch a two and a half hour feature film on TV will vouch for this. It would take nothing less than four hours or more to watch.
The Television Without Frontiers Directive adopted by EEC and the UK limit advertising to 20% or (12 minutes) in any clock hour. The Directive also defines the number and nature of breaks in programmes – a) in films, news and current affairs programmes, and documentaries breaks should be limited to one for every period of 30 minutes; b) and children’s programmes, one break is allowed only in a programme of more than 30 minutes duration. The TWF states that ‘in order that the interests of the consumers and TV viewers are fully protected, it is essential for television advertising to be subject to a certain number of minimum rules and standards…’ Since 1950s UK also has the system of pre-viewing and approving all advertising shown on broadcast television. No such worldview seems to prevail in India.
2. The channels promote magic remedies like lucky stones and astrological solutions that clearly violate the Cable Act and also the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. Some of these ads run close to five minutes at a time and are being routinely shown on television channels.
“In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India the Supreme Court was faced with the question as to whether the Drug and Magic Remedies Act, which put restrictions on the advertisements of drugs in certain cases and prohibited advertisements of drugs having magic qualities for curing diseases, was valid as it curbed the freedom of speech and expression of a person by imposing restrictions on advertisements. The Supreme Court held that, an advertisement is no doubt a form of speech and expression but every advertisement is not a matter dealing with the expression of ideas and hence advertisement of a commercial nature cannot fall within the concept of Article 19(1)(a)”. (cited from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/media.htm)
The major paradox of this game of course is, there is no content code in place for the channels (which are threatening to self-regulate), while the Cable Act has all the necessary clauses about superstitious content and promotion of magic remedies. Are the channels free to air objectionable material, but it’s the cable guy who gets the stick for showing it (of course, right now it is one big unregulated delinquency fest for both the carriers and the channels)?.
The Ministry of I&B has made specific efforts to implement the Cable Act by asking the state governments to constitute state and district level monitoring committees. It is not clear whether such committees are constituted, how often they meet and what transpires at the meetings. The Information wings are also required to give wide publicity to the existence of the committees to get feedback from the public. A crucial requirement however is left out – the need to conduct meetings regularly, to put the complaints received and detailed minutes of the meetings on the I&B Ministry’s web site.
Three, news content: During political crises, such as the Andhra/ Telangana protests, the electronic media loop the most disturbing bits of footage and repeat them several hundred times in the span of a single day, often without masking the “LIVE” legend on the corner of the screen. Some of the most provocative statements from both sides of the argument are taken and run repeatedly. In the context of the lumpenised, criminalised politics of Andhra Pradesh, this is completely irresponsible as the lower level activists of all parties are on the streets to provoke and drive passions up rather than to engage in rational debate. As part of content regulation, this must be stopped. If the channels are short of fresh footage, it should be their problem to make the news interesting by other means and not by repeating a ‘two second’ act into a 24 hour event. The frenetic unthinking verbal onslaught of ‘live reports’ by untrained and combative reporters speeds up the befuddlement. ‘Live’ reports sound like the running commentary at the Deccan Derby without the language skills or the sense of purpose! Channels must also be prohibited from packaging news footage with music and sentimental songs and repeating the footage ad nauseum. Violation of the rules must be penalised with fines.
There are some regional channels which have specialised in lighting fires of conflict in league with the political vested interests, and then once the events take on a life of their own on the street, cash-in on it further. Some media houses no longer just report news. They make it happen, much of it by speculating about future actions (predicting violence; falsely attributing deaths to causes/events; anticipating and goading suicides).
The case in point is the much-publicised event of K Chandrasekhar Rao visiting TV9 to donate for their flood relief work. KCR was in political wilderness after the Lok Sabha elections. After his public donation, TV9 took the opportunity of putting him live on air (three anchors took turns) to hold forth on a range of issues from his personal habits to national politics. This coup on one channel was followed by other channels, each giving KCR the opportunity to answer phone-in queries and clarify his stand on matters public and private. The channels began giving extensive coverage to his proposed fast unto death and the rest, as they say, is history. Should the media houses be allowed to raise funds and relief? Not just TV9 but other channels and newspapers also did the same. What is the accountability and repercussions of this, and primarily is it the role of the media houses?
According to TV9’s own mission statement:
Electronic media today appear to be the ‘single biggest threat’ to the internal security of the country (to borrow a phrase from the PM) and its democratic traditions, by whipping up passions around issues that require sensitive handling.
After 26/11 one would have thought the state would have gotten its act together and come up with an independent media regulator to take charge of the media industry and bring it back on track. That was reason enough.
The commercial media operate and behave like hardcore businesses, but when it comes to regulation, they wish to be treated with kid gloves as they claim to serve the values of free speech. The legendary Mexican peasant leader Emiliano Zapata described free market as ‘free foxes among free chickens.’ If those with economic muscle buy up advertising and news space for their own promotion and deliberately falsify the public discourse with media as willing vehicles profiteering from this process, does the media industry still believe it has the right to seek special privileges under the freedom of speech clause? More importantly, what should the moral authority of the state protect - the citizen’s right to ethical journalism or the media’s right to sell its soul?
The recent ‘will they, won’t they’ saga of content regulation by I&B Ministry and the nervous response to the need for an independent regulator for broadcast industry that has teeth (unlike the Press Council of India) is a telling example of the state’s abdication of its moral responsibility to enforce a cleaner media environment. If you want to protect a modicum of the freedom of the chickens to a safe existence, you will need to restrain some freedoms of the foxes, especially since we are not in a jungle but claim to be a part of a ‘civilized democracy’.
One of the major recommendations of Akash Bharati, the comprehensive report that laid out the road map for the future of Indian broadcasting immediately after the Emergency, is to scrap the Broadcasting wing of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The report argued that such a wing is anomalous in a democracy where media must operate as autonomous institutions, autonomous both from the market and the state. The report of course, emphasised the importance of a Broadcasting Council to regulate and to redress grievances.
When one looks at the planned inertia of the I&B Ministry that surpasses the moral inertia of the media industry, one is compelled to think that no ministry would have been better than a ministry that chooses to abdicate all its crucial regulatory obligations.
What are the regulatory obligations?
One, ownership: From the days of the First Press Commission, the ownership of media has been a matter of debate. Several commissions and expert groups have raised the problem of money from other businesses financing media enterprises primarily to generate a favourable policy environment and to promote friendly political actors to serve this purpose. Today, with the phenomenal and haphazard expansion of the media industry, it is clear that a large part of the investment into media is not just from the real economy as in the earlier phase, but from dubious sources – speculative finance, real estate and other parts of the ‘parallel’ economy. There is also a strong enmeshing of political interests in this. When a newspaper is started or when a television channel is started, is it not the responsibility of the licensing authority to examine the sources of finance and the antecedents of the promoters?
The state is constantly juggling with the FDI figures, is it 20%, should it be 26%, or is it better if it is 100%? Perhaps it is time to define what the colour of this money is, in addition to the percentage or whether it is from internal or external sources (is it ok if the investment comes from Indian mafia and not from overseas?). Is this like a ‘Christie’s auction’ (or a Swiss bank account) that the state chooses to accept known fronts acting on behalf of ‘unknown’ backers? The recent statements of the Minister for I&B promising greater scrutiny of applications for news channel licenses should have been policy rather than an after thought. And then, what about those licensees who are already ruling the airwaves? Media licenses are given to dubious business/political interests who are already under a cloud.
Two, advertising: Advertising has always been seen as a legitimate source of revenue for media. News to advertisement ratio/ price-page schedule is a dead idea, maligned and killed by the media industry. Today, glossies, newspapers, some news channels and movie channels, all carry disproportionate number of advertisements and without adequate gap between spells. Shouldn’t there be specific rules to define the amount of advertising, kind of advertising and the manner in which it is shown?
In the entertainment sector, channels routinely show paid promotional programming for building hype about some films, often by way of discussion programmes on the issues in a film with the stars from the films participating. The half an hour slots that promote hotels, stores and other commercial establishments that are obviously sponsored by the owners are shown without clarifying that the programming is paid for. The problem in such cases is, the viewer does not know that the praise heaped on the films or establishments is not neutral/fair judgement of the channel. Shouldn’t there be mandatory disclaimer next to the station logo that the programme is paid for?
Today, the arena for product and corporate promotion is not confined to advertising space alone, but has infiltrated the news columns. The latest manifestation of this phenomenon is the rampant virus of ‘paid news’ during elections. But the malaise is so wide spread that news gathering in normal times over the last several years is also being done for some monetary or other consideration and rarely ever on the merit of the event or issue. This is widely known and managed by those who seek publicity. False celebrities and dubious talent abound on the best channels and newspapers. A politician’s mediocre poetry here, a pathetic designer line from a celebrity there, is all part of the fare. There is a conspiracy of silence about this as well, as it was about ‘paid news’. The Unions of Journalists are helpless in dealing with this as the culprits are from among their own ranks. Should there be some form of registration of practitioners by an independent, professional Media Council (like the Bar Council or the Medical Council) with the threat of deregistration for unethical practices?
As far as the pay channels are concerned, two other important issues need to be debated:
1. Some paid entertainment channels earn subscription revenues and go on to advertise on the channels far in excess of the 12 minutes per hour limit (an unwritten rule followed by channels in general). The movie watching experience of the viewer is of no particular concern to the channels. The viewer is paying directly (through subscription) and indirectly (by watching ads) for the same content and is forced to accept poor quality viewing experience to accommodate the channels’ desire to make more money. Any one who has attempted to watch a two and a half hour feature film on TV will vouch for this. It would take nothing less than four hours or more to watch.
The Television Without Frontiers Directive adopted by EEC and the UK limit advertising to 20% or (12 minutes) in any clock hour. The Directive also defines the number and nature of breaks in programmes – a) in films, news and current affairs programmes, and documentaries breaks should be limited to one for every period of 30 minutes; b) and children’s programmes, one break is allowed only in a programme of more than 30 minutes duration. The TWF states that ‘in order that the interests of the consumers and TV viewers are fully protected, it is essential for television advertising to be subject to a certain number of minimum rules and standards…’ Since 1950s UK also has the system of pre-viewing and approving all advertising shown on broadcast television. No such worldview seems to prevail in India.
2. The channels promote magic remedies like lucky stones and astrological solutions that clearly violate the Cable Act and also the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. Some of these ads run close to five minutes at a time and are being routinely shown on television channels.
“In Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India the Supreme Court was faced with the question as to whether the Drug and Magic Remedies Act, which put restrictions on the advertisements of drugs in certain cases and prohibited advertisements of drugs having magic qualities for curing diseases, was valid as it curbed the freedom of speech and expression of a person by imposing restrictions on advertisements. The Supreme Court held that, an advertisement is no doubt a form of speech and expression but every advertisement is not a matter dealing with the expression of ideas and hence advertisement of a commercial nature cannot fall within the concept of Article 19(1)(a)”. (cited from http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/media.htm)
The major paradox of this game of course is, there is no content code in place for the channels (which are threatening to self-regulate), while the Cable Act has all the necessary clauses about superstitious content and promotion of magic remedies. Are the channels free to air objectionable material, but it’s the cable guy who gets the stick for showing it (of course, right now it is one big unregulated delinquency fest for both the carriers and the channels)?.
The Ministry of I&B has made specific efforts to implement the Cable Act by asking the state governments to constitute state and district level monitoring committees. It is not clear whether such committees are constituted, how often they meet and what transpires at the meetings. The Information wings are also required to give wide publicity to the existence of the committees to get feedback from the public. A crucial requirement however is left out – the need to conduct meetings regularly, to put the complaints received and detailed minutes of the meetings on the I&B Ministry’s web site.
Three, news content: During political crises, such as the Andhra/ Telangana protests, the electronic media loop the most disturbing bits of footage and repeat them several hundred times in the span of a single day, often without masking the “LIVE” legend on the corner of the screen. Some of the most provocative statements from both sides of the argument are taken and run repeatedly. In the context of the lumpenised, criminalised politics of Andhra Pradesh, this is completely irresponsible as the lower level activists of all parties are on the streets to provoke and drive passions up rather than to engage in rational debate. As part of content regulation, this must be stopped. If the channels are short of fresh footage, it should be their problem to make the news interesting by other means and not by repeating a ‘two second’ act into a 24 hour event. The frenetic unthinking verbal onslaught of ‘live reports’ by untrained and combative reporters speeds up the befuddlement. ‘Live’ reports sound like the running commentary at the Deccan Derby without the language skills or the sense of purpose! Channels must also be prohibited from packaging news footage with music and sentimental songs and repeating the footage ad nauseum. Violation of the rules must be penalised with fines.
There are some regional channels which have specialised in lighting fires of conflict in league with the political vested interests, and then once the events take on a life of their own on the street, cash-in on it further. Some media houses no longer just report news. They make it happen, much of it by speculating about future actions (predicting violence; falsely attributing deaths to causes/events; anticipating and goading suicides).
The case in point is the much-publicised event of K Chandrasekhar Rao visiting TV9 to donate for their flood relief work. KCR was in political wilderness after the Lok Sabha elections. After his public donation, TV9 took the opportunity of putting him live on air (three anchors took turns) to hold forth on a range of issues from his personal habits to national politics. This coup on one channel was followed by other channels, each giving KCR the opportunity to answer phone-in queries and clarify his stand on matters public and private. The channels began giving extensive coverage to his proposed fast unto death and the rest, as they say, is history. Should the media houses be allowed to raise funds and relief? Not just TV9 but other channels and newspapers also did the same. What is the accountability and repercussions of this, and primarily is it the role of the media houses?
According to TV9’s own mission statement:
The news is a very powerful source of communication and during times of need it is necessary that the channel be a source of crucial information for those in need. Therefore, our disaster coverage will be designed to help people in distress, and all criticism and negative commentary will be withheld until after the incident has been sufficiently resolved.Every word of the mission was violated during recent coverage of floods in Andhra Pradesh.
Electronic media today appear to be the ‘single biggest threat’ to the internal security of the country (to borrow a phrase from the PM) and its democratic traditions, by whipping up passions around issues that require sensitive handling.
After 26/11 one would have thought the state would have gotten its act together and come up with an independent media regulator to take charge of the media industry and bring it back on track. That was reason enough.
The commercial media operate and behave like hardcore businesses, but when it comes to regulation, they wish to be treated with kid gloves as they claim to serve the values of free speech. The legendary Mexican peasant leader Emiliano Zapata described free market as ‘free foxes among free chickens.’ If those with economic muscle buy up advertising and news space for their own promotion and deliberately falsify the public discourse with media as willing vehicles profiteering from this process, does the media industry still believe it has the right to seek special privileges under the freedom of speech clause? More importantly, what should the moral authority of the state protect - the citizen’s right to ethical journalism or the media’s right to sell its soul?
The recent ‘will they, won’t they’ saga of content regulation by I&B Ministry and the nervous response to the need for an independent regulator for broadcast industry that has teeth (unlike the Press Council of India) is a telling example of the state’s abdication of its moral responsibility to enforce a cleaner media environment. If you want to protect a modicum of the freedom of the chickens to a safe existence, you will need to restrain some freedoms of the foxes, especially since we are not in a jungle but claim to be a part of a ‘civilized democracy’.
Sunday 6 December 2009
TV9 brings you the floods, live!
TV9 brings you the floods, live! | |
One saw several reporters in waist deep water, waving mics at people for sound bites. Another reporter on a boat waved the mic for bites from a person in neck-deep water! TV channels in Andhra Pradesh are repeat offenders of a cardinal sin in news – do not draw attention to thyself. | |
Posted on The Hoot on Thursday, Oct 08 11:07:45, 2009 | |
Disasters bring out predictable responses from political opponents. The incumbent government is always wrong. It fails by every yardstick. All political forces hide behind great concern for public welfare while undermining each other’s achievements and image. But then, political parties and media feel that they are entitled to engage in ‘Monday morning quarter-backing’ and fix blame wherever they choose to. The news consumers’ expectation from media, however, is that they also report accurately on advance warning, rescue and relief information. The ubiquitous presence of Telugu channels at various locations of the floods in Andhra Pradesh was initially heartening to see. As the intensity of the disaster dawned on the channels, however, the scramble for ratings once again took precedence over responsible reporting. From the afternoon of the first day itself TV9 began claiming that the government has failed miserably and TV9 reporters themselves were in the forefront of rescue operations! The channel kept repeating footage of a reporter helping a family get into a boat by holding their infant. What must have been a simple humane gesture is quickly turned into promo material for the channel. This footage was repeated a number of times. The channel was sanctimoniously scrolling quotes from a Telugu poet, urging people to set aside self-interest and help one’s neighbour while every bit of reporting by it was being hawked for glory. On 5 October, the channel began to split screen and show its own relief operations along with the news coverage. Disaster research from all over the world shows that international aid amounts to just less than 4% of the effort while the local people helping each other, NGOs with local groups and the state machinery itself play a major role in mitigating disaster effects. Invariably, it is always the media that gets to the spot first. That is nothing unusual. In this case of Andhra Pradesh floods too, the media reached early, while the army, along with NGOs and state machinery, have struggled silently to reach out information as well as relief to the people. The role of the media in such a scenario would be to show what is being done and where relief needs to reach. The media’s role should be to support relief efforts and to facilitate information. Instead, some channels were falling over each other to outdo each other in self-aggrandisement. The CEO of TV9 presenting the news himself, asserts to the camera that the state has failed miserably, and it is TV9 that is rescuing people and the people are grateful for the favour! It is important to pitch in wherever support is needed in relief effort but where is the need to show the nameless ‘officials’ (adhikarulu, the channel kept referring to) in a negative light in the first hours of the unfolding disaster? With passing of time, bafflingly, the channel juxtaposed its own bravery against the ‘total failure’ of the administration and negative bites from the opposition politicians (are we entering the era of governance by the media and not by the elected state?). In contrast, the coverage by other channels was more balanced. The administration in Andhra Pradesh today has many sources of trouble at a time like this. Saakshi, the channel run by the earlier chief minister’s son is doing its own bit of fault-finding reporting, though on a lower key. The opposition parties such as Telugu Desam are out already with claims of administrative failure. By all accounts, the disaster is an unprecedented one, in the extraordinary force and suddenness with which it hit initially. Once the state could foresee the course of events, advance-warning systems were put in place and some 5 lakh people were moved by the state agencies to safer places. Hundreds of camps were set up to provide succour. (Yes, it is possible to do this without the TV channels’ help). A disaster and relief effort of this scale deserved better participation from the media than the ‘me Tarzan!” kind of chest thumping and self-promotion. Call it adrenalin rush, call it the Barkha-effect, channels (with a few honourable exceptions like ETV2, perhaps) began to rapidly lose all sense of proportion. Once one channel started the trend, other channels (like Gemini, TV5) began to claim rescuing people etc. Melodramatic film scores and appropriate songs were soon dug up to accompany the footage and script writers began to wax eloquent to sensationalise a tragedy that the people were living through. Whether it is the dirges that accompanied the 3-day long, 24x7 coverage of YSR’s tragic death or the current tragedy, the news itself is rendered unreal and theatrical with falsely sentimental text and the filmy music that goes with it. This has become a routine strategy for most channels. It lacks professionalism and goes to underline the fact that news production requires a different approach from mainstream cinema – an understanding of what can be said and how it needs to be said to be of greatest use to the viewer. Dramatisation of news may get the channels TRPs but misleading, over-dramatised and unexamined information does great disservice to the people. In times of disaster, should media concentrate on what is happening at the scene of action and give relevant, useful information to the viewers as well as the people affected or should they navel gaze and do ‘look ma, how high I can jump!’ kind of reporting with the antics of their own reporters? One saw several reporters in waist deep water, waving mics at people for sound bites. Another reporter on a boat waved the mic for bites from a person in neck-deep water! The teams were also distributing food to the marooned people in neck-deep water while those rescued and sheltered at state-run centres were declared “miserable and desperate to go home”. The channels are repeat offenders of a cardinal sin in news – do not draw attention to thyself. The event is important, not the messenger. In their anxiety to score brownie points, political parties are wont to criticise. While we are all used to this, it is distressing to see TV channels undermining and sometimes even making light of the enormous work being done silently by various agencies. The complete insensitivity with which this self-promotion was done is beyond any code of conduct or ethics. One aspect that was missing was the information from official sources like the district administration for information about the location of relief camps, safe locations and medical camps nearest to the affected areas. That would have been the most relevant information for anyone watching the channels. Similarly, there was complete neglect of the operations of the army, NGOs and civil society volunteers. Only some channels bothered to refer to the relief work being done by non-government organizations and mutual help through citizens’ initiative. It is such stories that celebrate the human spirit in times of crisis. Though the enormity of loss to the farmers and to the state infrastructure was emphasised by the channels, by far the most visible on TV9 was its own attempts at mobilization of public contributions to relief operations. Every time someone came forward to contribute, there would be a long bite from the individual praising the greatness, integrity and sincerity of the channel. The 24x7 coverage is used as a loud plug for the channel. While it is commendable that large-scale response for relief was mobilised from the public, every instance was pushed to the hilt to applaud itself. And lastly, the possible answer to the question, ‘why the negative coverage’, and to speculate about the political realignments that are rapidly shaping up in Andhra after YSR’s passing: TV9’s bosses are major beneficiaries of YSR’s largesse. They were given one of the largest SEZs in the country, the 5000 acre Satyaveedu SEZ. YSR used the channel for a regular programme, ‘Mr Chief Minister’. These are just two better-known cases of the close links between the YSR family and the channel. When TV9 takes up the ‘sufferers’ cause’, and decides to pillory the Rosiah government for its ‘complete failure’, it may do well to remember that the team in place is very much the YSR team and tomorrow WHEN YSR’s son takes over (which is what all right thinking people of AP are expected to desire), the unnamed bureaucracy and the same ineffective officials are certain to be his team as well. ETV2, the usual suspect, is playing it cool, giving very balanced coverage. The present Congress dispensation is vastly more desirable than the YSR legacy for the Eenadu house. Saakshi TV owned by Jagan also needs to behave if it does not want the displeasure of the high command. In the current scenario, TV9’s shoulders are the ideal perch to shoot from. Whatever is the story behind the scenes, for me, the sight of the reporter in knee-deep water holding the mic with a wound bunch of wire in the right hand and holding an infant aloft in the left hand is a representative image not just of how not to do reporting but also of how not to rescue. It is to be seen if the reporters doing the bidding of editorial central command and reporting their hearts out, will wake up to find themselves in the swirling waters of political intrigue. | |
Misogyny in Telugu serials
Misogyny in Telugu serials | |
Gone are the days of mother-in-law taunting the daughter-in-law to irritate. She now gets her kin knifed on a highway by her henchmen. Telugu serials are empowering women by making them evil. | |
Posted on The Hoot on Sunday, Aug 16 12:47:30, 2009 | |
Whenever one sees soaps on Telugu television, one is filled with amazement at the extent of anti-women programming on them. In the early years of commercialization, there were several soaps that showed women as victims who cry copiously their way through an exhausting 1000+episode drama. After much criticism from women's groups and general viewers on the lack of agency for women and woman's life being completely beyond her control in television dramas, the trend has changed. Today, one sees soaps where women from rich, educated middle class families act like the mafia dons. They have a strangle hold on their families. They have henchmen who do their bidding with impunity. They order killings, kidnappings with ease and maintain goons on their payroll. Revenge against, and distrust among close kin is the norm. One is not normal if one does not get one's brother's children kidnapped for ransom. Gone are the days of mother-in-law taunting the daughter-in-law to irritate. She now gets her kin knifed on a highway by her henchmen. ('Chandramukhi' on ETV at 8 to 8.30 weekdays, another show ' The law and order machinery that appears occasionally on the shows merely takes the brutality of the whole drama to a higher pitch, mostly acting on behalf of the villains. Looking at the shows one wouldn't suspect there's an operational Cr PC or legal system in the country. Murders are planned and executed at will for the most trivial of causes. Intent to kill is the easiest mode of expressing displeasure on these serials (Much like the Queen of Hearts in In the good old days of Doordarshan monopoly, there was some attempt at defining what is socially responsible content and getting good quality television drama done by respected people from the film industry. Generally, there would be a male or female lead who essentially represented decency and goodness. The storyline would have drama emanating from social circumstances and events, not evil impulses of criminal minds. There's nothing redeeming or elevating in the way drama built around evil plays out on channels today, especially when the message, 'evil always wins' is reinforced day after day. In a masala film it takes Good two and a half hours of suffering (along with us) to figure out how to overcome Evil. In a TV soap, it takes Good three and a half years to figure out how to overcome Evil (if Good has any such intentions). The novelty is that women are into the Evil-business big time. This, I presume, is the channels' take on empowerment of women. There are other shows on these and other Telugu channels as well which have female roles born out of the mind of a misogynous scriptwriter. It is amazing how many scriptwriters are working with intolerance and violence as the basic impulse of dominant female characters. The channels are teeming with wannabe Bolly-Tolly-whatever-wood scriptwriters/directors who want to out-gore and out-scream your routine Telugu film. I am sure the serials are being used as calling cards by many of them for film breaks. The lumpen culture of Telugu mainstream cinema has a natural leash, the box office. Time and again we see big budget/ big name films biting the dust and unknown films finding favour with the audience. This, despite the stranglehold a few families have on the Telugu film business. One can almost hear suave media dudes telling you, use the remote. Don't see the channel. But the problem with the current environment is the me-too programming that translates into TINA (there-is-no-alternative) programming for the viewers. If a raunchy dance programme gets 'good ratings' in one market area, there are a hundred downmarket clones on every channel at the same time slot. We have seen that with Kyonki Sas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi, with KBC, with Antakshari and as God is my witness, WE WILL SEE IT in the case of Sach Ka Saamna! Television suffers from the lack of a clear measure for viewer support, something akin to the box office. As the N.O.I.S.E.com spoof so clearly (and scientifically) explains, everyone claims top ratings. The television industry is perpetuating a dubious ratings business that is systematically undermined by the more powerful players. It is rumoured among the insiders that in some sample districts separate sets are provided for TAM homes, which are supposed to be tuned in to the predetermined channels, while on their own sets the families watch whatever they normally watch! Also, heavy payments are made to the cable operators for carrying the channels next to the most viewed channels to get enough accidental hits while channel-hopping. In the present system of bouquets, channels also hide behind the coat tails of more popular channels in a bouquet and claim popularity. It is like you are paying to see a Shabana Azmi but the bouquet has four Rakhi Sawants bundled free with it. The 'market buzz' then goes on to tell you everyone is paying for four Rakhi Sawants and the viewers can't have enough of her! No mention of Azmi. Now, why should we take such an insult to our intelligence? More than the sanctimonious sermons on self-regulation, the State needs to put in place a foolproof system like CAS all over the country, where the paying subscriber must have the power to dump channels they disapprove of individually and pay for those that they really wish to see. In the current digital system, it should be easy to monitor and collate viewer support electronically. MSOs must be mandated to make such information public. Technology can provide the solution, if the government does not dither and succumb to the pressures of the lobbies. | |
Transparency and the media
Transparency and the media | |
It is of great importance for the public to know who the owners of the newspapers and the channels are and what their primary source of funding is. It is also important to know who is on the Boards of these enterprises... | |
Posted on The Hoot on Monday, Aug 10 17:35:14, 2009 | |
Parliament elections are over. The verdict is unambiguous. The new government has presented its budget. And the corporate media are once again hounding the already schizoid government on 'reforms' and 'disinvestment'. Much like the 'now-on-now-off' reforms from the government, the urgently needed reform in the attitude of the corporate media is also on 'loose contact'. The aggressive anchors of some English channels seek to push their stock-market fetish (what one could call the ESOP-speak) down the throats of the unsuspecting viewers and the reluctant ministers who surface on their programmes. One could dismiss this as part of an effort to fill airtime, but for the fact that often such programming raises conflict of interest issues as well. For instance, a leading channel (with a private airline for its business partner) is orchestrating a loud campaign on disinvestment in public sector airlines to the extent of questioning whether government should be running airlines. The channel should have scrolled its association with the private airline as a disclaimer while telecasting the two interviews with the Minister for Civil Aviation. The tone of the anchors is, 'what is good for us is good for The owner of the channel was deriding the public sector airlines as the worst in the world. While some may agree, it is still his opinion. He held a one-on-one argument with the Civil Aviation Minister on why the private airlines should be supported by whatever means - bail out, buy equity, whatever. The gist of the channel head's argument is: 'It is a waste of public money if the government supports Air The minister in this case held his ground admirably (whatever the policy outcome, after such relentless pressure from an interested party) in both the interviews. The same channel also was orchestrating the candidature of one of their Directors for the post of President of India some time back. The person may be iconic and of impeccable credentials, but the channel still needs to let the public know of his particular relationship with it. Incidentally, no other channel was plugging for him so hard. One wonders how many viewers were aware of this when they were asked to vote on the campaign. While one is deeply appreciative of the commonsense of the person on the street in not falling for such campaigns, nevertheless the over all ethical issue remains. Think what would be said of Doordarshan if it ran an orchestrated campaign to promote one of the eminent directors on its board of governors! Such influence peddling would be unethical journalism by any standards. On a related issue, there is much debate on transparency in public life in a democracy. Often media, the primary champions of transparency confine the idea to state and central government institutions. But the private sector, which ultimately is run on public money anyway, sees itself outside all frameworks of accountability, more so the media industry, which strong-arms public and policy agenda on many issues with varying degrees of success. For instance, there are over a dozen TV news channels and several newspapers in Andhra Pradesh. Except for a few owned by prominent people, little is known about the antecedents of the investors of the rest. Very few of these have updated websites. Those that do have websites like TV9 have removed detailed information about their investors, who happen to include Srini Raju (erstwhile CEO of Satyam and boss of iLabs - which seems to have changed its name to Peepul Capital) and others. (Only iLabs is mentioned, no mention of the other directors and their background). The websites of both ETV and RTV, which clearly state ownership and information about the other businesses the channels are involved in, are exceptions. Some of the websites (HMTV, for instance) are still under construction. It is of great importance for the public to know who the owners of the newspapers and the channels are and what their primary source of funding is. It is also important to know who is on the Boards of these enterprises, the stakes they have and the terms of their engagement with the enterprise, as sometimes it is these people who surface on the same channels as experts. Broadcast legislation should mandate it as a licensing requirement for channels in the public interest that the information about the entire board of directors and their antecedents should be placed in public domain. Now only listed companies have their information so available. But it takes a highly motivated, savvy search to discover the information. This information should be made easily available to people who visit their websites, as has been made mandatory for state-run institutions under the RTI Act. In a country where every piece of printed material, including 1/8 demi pamphlets are mandated to carry information on the source, the publisher and the printer, major news operations that sway public opinion are allowed to operate without the minimum requirements of transparency. It is not enough that the government agencies know who they are licensing to spread information and entertainment. The audience has a greater need to know to put the information they receive in perspective. If we accept journalism as a special category of business that is allowed sweeping powers to access and disseminate information, it is also necessary to treat it as a special category of business with special requirements to practice transparency. It cannot be allowed to hide behind the excuse of private domain information. And lastly, an idle comparison of Doordarshan with the private channels: Doordarshan may shoddily promote the cause of a party in power and change colours as soon as a new dispensation takes over. We know it may profit an individual officer in some way while it does not do much good for the channel. But the ownership of private channels is not up for assessment every five years. They indulge in unapologetic self-promotion and promotion of the interests of their corporate cronies and political friends for profit and political clout as long as they are the owners of the enterprise. This routine strategy is occasionally flagged with a good investigative story or documentary, absolving the channels of their long-term responsibility to the viewer. (Is poverty alleviation possible through crony capitalism?) If tomorrow the channels get into financial trouble, must the government treat them on par with Doordarshan and provide liquidity to �'ave the industry'? | |
Time for an equal time rule?
Time for an equal time rule? | |
If one examines this issue, the origin of the problem is in the severe lack of access to the media time and space that all candidates face. Time for an equal time rule that mandates airtime to all contesting candidates? | |
Posted on The Hoot on Saturday, May 23 12:21:03, 2009 | |
The great Indian election juggernaut moved, and as ever with the faceless Indian voter, delivered the least expected permutation under the circumstances. But the long election process threw up several disturbing issues for the media professional. One of them was already featured on this website, the issue of 'paid news'. Following a complaint from the The seminar concluded on the optimistic note that the Press Council will hold an enquiry and that the debate on the issue must be widened to include media bosses nationwide who are at the epicentre of this ethical mess. But the argument this piece tries to explore is if there are ways in which this kind of situation can be handled by better regulation, given the extraordinary credibility with which the Election Commission handled most issues in these elections. If one examines this issue, the origin of the problem is in the severe lack of access to the media time and space that all candidates face. In a modern democracy, media are the primary vehicle for reaching the electorate. Denied this, the electorate may not even know that some candidates are in the fray. This is a serious limitation on the candidate's Right to Communicate with the voter in a democracy. The media invoke their democratic right to free speech whenever the state attempts to regulate them. As a quid pro quo, the democratic state must assert its right to call up on the media to give low-cost airtime and space to all contesting candidates during elections to facilitate the democratic process. Impose an equal time rule that mandates airtime at time slots with good viewership and prime space in newspapers. Such equal time legislation exists in US, European countries and even Our public broadcasters, AIR and Doordarshan, also follow this to this day. The Election Commission assigns time slots and duration based on the national/ regional status of the political party. It issues coupons to the political parties for two rounds of transmission in an electoral cycle, which they can use after duly adhering to both the broadcast code and the election code. Most parties do use the opportunity, as a large chunk of electorate does still constitute the listenership/viewership of the state broadcasters. This has an important advantage in democratic politics. Since the Election Commission has put restrictions on campaign spending, it gives the candidates a chance to take their message to the people in a fair media environment. The more important issue is, many candidates, especially the independent new entrants to politics, may not have the finances to launch a media blitz, the way major parties do. By providing prime time transmission slots of short duration, it can be ensured that the electorate get to see and hear all the candidates and their manifestos. In print media too, most papers bring out district supplements and election specials during elections. As a part of the effort, the papers should be mandated to provide a quarter page of the broadsheet or half page of the tabloid every day after the notification of elections to the day of polling to the candidates in the fray in the local area to use the space to project their candidature the way they choose to. This could effectively prevent the practice by newspapers of selling news space during elections and actively blacking out or providing negative coverage to those unable/unwilling to pay. If the Election Commission imposes this as a democratic necessity to provide fair access of all candidates to the voter through media, it will nullify the need of candidates to buy access to media. The equal time principle is a healthy, tried and tested formula for fair access to media in a democracy. While Prasar Bharati is still practicing it, it is time the principle is extended to commercial media, both print and electronic. This leaves political advertising alone, which the parties can still use depending on their resources, while ensuring that all the candidates have a fair chance of presenting their case before the electorate. Such an equal time/space rule, if administered under the supervision of the Election Commission, will ensure that the candidates' Right to Communicate with the electorate is protected while ensuring that the electorate gets to know ALL the candidates who are seeking their vote, and not just those with social connections and economic clout. | |
YouTube candidate
YouTube candidate | |
Like all great strategists, from his early days as Lok Satta chief, JP has been using media, particularly television, to reach out to a larger audience. The campaign of Jayprakash Narayan of Lok Satta... | |
Posted on The Hoot on Tuesday, Apr 14 14:59:24, 2009 | |
Is he an insider or an outsider? All media houses in Andhra Pradesh are watching what he does keenly. None of them are ignoring him, but no one is proclaiming him the next CM either. This is the curious case of Dr Jayaprakash Narayan, who is the chief of Lok Satta Party in Andhra Pradesh, whose short signature has an uncanny resemblance to that of Pandit Nehru's (JN with a flourish). He is a man driven by this sense of destiny that he is meant to lead and transform. Unlike Shashi Tharoor who joined the Congress Party or Mallika Sarabhai who's taking on L K Advani as an independent, JP, as he is popularly known, has started his own political party. After chucking a job in civil services, JP, who is a medical doctor by training, began his life in civil society by starting the NGO, Lok Satta, to bring about reforms in governance. He is a fine bilingual orator and inspires a great deal of confidence. Though critics from the conventional political parties dismiss his sphere of influence as limited to the educated upper middle class that does not vote, he commands much respect in political and media circles. The extraordinary social capital built over the years as an IAS officer close to NTR and later to the then governor of Andhra Pradesh, Krishna Kant, the fact that he belongs to the rich Kamma entrepreneur community with an extensive network of goodwill spanning industrialists to film producers, has all worked in his favour. Some senior film people like Tammareddy Bharadwaja are campaigning for him. Like all great strategists, from his early days as Lok Satta chief, JP has been using media, particularly television, to reach out to a larger audience. He hosted a current affairs discussion show, Pratidhwani, on ETV2 for several years. He writes regular edit page pieces in Telugu newspapers, particularly Eenadu. When the relationship between the Eenadu management and Chandrababu Naidu was going through a bad patch towards the end of Babu's tenure, there were whispers that the Eenadu house was investing in JP as a potential future leader of Andhra Pradesh. JP converted Lok Satta, the NGO, into Lok Satta, the political party. Several months ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, he began a prime time phone-in show on TV5, presumably paid for by him, to answer viewers' questions on governance issues. This is supposed to be a live show, but the channel is known to pre-record and edit the 'live shows' on which callers are also featured. Leaving the nature of the show itself aside, JP has been working steadily over the last several months on cultivating a very large presence on Telugu media. This strategy has eliminated the problem of lack of recognition for his party and what it stands for. Being a meticulous manager, he got a logo designed for Lok Satta a few years ago, but just when it has become well recognized, the Election Commission has allotted the whistle as a symbol for his party. His candidates and himself are whistling into their constituencies to let everyone know that they have arrived and their symbol is the whistle. The Lok Satta party has nominated 249 candidates for assembly against a possible 294 seats and 33 MP candidates against a possible 42 Lok Sabha seats. The cadre built during the NGO days of Lok Satta, much of it consisting of retired bureaucrats, judges, teachers and other educated people, is pitching in to campaign for the party. The communication strategy of the party (barring public rallies) however is largely similar to that of the conventional parties - road shows, door-to-door campaigning, public meetings, television, newspaper coverage and advertising on FM radio and TV. The party has fairly extensive visibility on mainstream commercial media, pop-up, scrolls and what have you. Some twenty campaign vans are doing the publicity, which also includes street plays. Most political parties in Andhra Pradesh also use publicity vans and groups who perform folk forms. Street theatre and folk troupes are in high demand this election season. Traveling by regular long distance trains across the state and addressing people on the trains and at the stations has been an innovation of Lok Satta's campaign. Lok Satta is also putting the new media to good use, a la Obama. They are working through the social networking sites like Orkut to mobilize professional groups to participate in public events. A large number of JP's appearances on TV channels are available on YouTube. For the older generation who do not frequent social sites, the campaign has created mail groups through yahoogroups and other such groups. According to the party spokespersons, Lok Satta supporters in the From its NGO days, Lok Satta has a huge support base among the NRIs. A large part of the funding also is believed to come from NRI contributions. Interestingly, it is probably the only party in the country that advocates voting rights for NRIs. The media have not picked this up though the Telugu channels have been paying much attention in their election specials to the specific issues espoused by political parties. Considering the popular belief that it is the diaspora funding that has stoked the fires of movements such as Khalistan, and the larger issue of taking the control of local politics away from the local people and opening it up for manipulation by those who have economic clout but do not even live here, is something that needs a serious debate. Specially, when the main plank of the party is to empower. Lok Satta declares in its manifesto that it will eliminate caste, and its vestiges from all governance issues within one term in office. But its web site gives a caste-based split up of the candidates it has nominated for Lok Sabha and assembly. Despite these contradictions, Lok Satta has opened up a new avenue for educated middle class to enter politics. It has influenced the media agenda also to some extent. However, the party appears to have had difficulty in finding candidates to field. In some instances, the candidates have been accepted for their 'courage' in coming forward to contest. Media reports also suggest that in cases where more than one candidate was vying for a seat, the local party units chose the candidates by a pre-poll. This strategy has led to some unusual choices. Mr CVL Narasimha Rao is the Secunderabad Lok Sabha candidate. Apart from being a small time actor in Telugu films and a lawyer, he is an office bearer in an organization, 'Bharya Badhitula Sangham' (roughly translated as 'Harassed Husband's Association'). He has been campaigning for the dilution of Section 498a of Indian Penal Code (also known as the dowry law) and introduced the celebration of International Men's Day on 19 November to The media have predictably not highlighted such issues with regard to candidates in any party in their 'fact' programming. Almost all the Telugu channels have unveiled political satire programmes in recent times, 'Evari Gola Vaaridi' on TV9, 'Pin Counter' on iNews, to name a few. Some of them are quite creative and are providing much needed relief from the contentiousness of news programming. A sign that neither Lok Satta nor JP are being taken lightly is that he is featured on these shows along with the biggies of the conventional parties, YS Rajasekhara Reddy (Congress), Chandrababu Naidu (Telugu Desam), K Chandrasekhara Rao (Telangana Rashtra Samithi), and Chiranjeevi (Praja Rajyam Party). Unlike election-time media blitz, the strategy of JP has been to chip away at his constituency gradually over the months and years, through a sustained media presence, reiterating his ideas. This, with effective use of new media, has made him the most recognized face of his party and has brought his major campaign plank, cleansing the political process, centre stage. Much like the other parties, there appears to be a dearth of strong second rung leadership. Lok Satta is too closely identified with JP alone. Come May 16, the verdict will be out. The people will decide whether to reject Lok Satta as an insider much like any other political entity, or to embrace it as an outsider with a new message for a healthy democracy. | |
Prince in the Pi(libhi)t and other poll-time maladies
Prince in the Pi(libhi)t and other poll-time maladies | |
Anchors should record their own shows, analyse them interruption by interruption, trivial question by trivial question and see if there's some real news they can add to beef it up... | |
Posted on The Hoot on Saturday, Apr 04 14:31:57, 2009 | |
One thought that this was a different election. An election, post-Mumbai floods and post-Kasab, that would see a responsible and vibrant media leading us into an era of enlightened politics. There was some talk of a large number of educated middle class entering politics and also mobilising voters. Of course, our dear TV anchors lined up the educated middle class politicians early in the season to tell them that they can't win (that's what 'people' are supposed to be saying), and went on to merrily chase familiar prey. On the day the Congress Party released its manifesto, some reporter at the press conference asked the PM something about Advani. There was not a word about the manifesto on any news bulletin thereafter. The news programmes led with the 'unusually combative Manmohan'. This is followed by a rash of stopping bucks, big fights and facing the nations, all in the company of Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sudhindra Kulkarni, Jayanti Natarajan and Kapil Sibal, and the like. No sooner than this subsided, as BJP was gearing up to talk of development and governance, Varun Gandhi's famous last words (?) on how a certain community needs to be dealt with hit the channels. The networks gave it the 'Prince treatment' (how the little fellow was rescued from a bore well pit). When did he say it, how did he say it, did he say it or not, no he must have said it, if he did say it, does BJP endorse it, will he be a candidate, should he be arrested, oh why is he arrested, is he in danger, oh why is he moved to safety ... ad nauseum, again all in the company of Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sudhindra Kulkarni, Jayanti Natarajan and Kapil Sibal etc., so much so that the animal-protecting mother of the Prince of Pilibhit lamented that her dear boy (who incidentally called for chopping up people) was being lynched. A vexed Mani Shankar Aiyer blurted out that he came to the programme expecting to speak about Panchayat Raj and not about Varun Gandhi. In the melee, it is the BJP which got ample mileage to give a considered justification for its politics of the trishul under the benign and fair gaze of the anchors. So a good number of people I know have sworn off the total insanity of news programmes. Just skip the stuff and you will be rewarded. If you tune in post-news, you may catch a documentary 24/7 which may tell you what's happening in the real Like in Doordarshan days, if you want authentic news about If you like some calm election analysis, without Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sudhindra Kulkarni, Jayanti Natarajan and Kapil Sibal, tune in to Lok Sabha TV where senior journalists and academicians give you a good overview of political trends in the states one at a time, every day. Not opinion polls - assuming that one wants to understand the issues and factors at play and leave prediction to astrologers. Interestingly, it is the same cacophony in regional channels too. In Andhra Pradesh, where assembly elections are also going to be held, there has been a brazen display of lumpen politics across the board. There is an unseemly scramble to get tickets and all the parties are welcoming the floating turn-coats devoid ideology and public morality. The channels gleefully and regularly bring to the viewers 'leaders' with dubious backgrounds from all parties launching violent mobs to attack each other and their own offices if denied tickets or positions. Each channel is owned by a loyalist and aggressively shows the misdemeanours and rifts in the other party. The independents and the educated who have filed the nominations have no chance of getting media exposure, as arson and mayhem is not part of their election strategy. One will not be surprised if the voter turn out is at an all time low in Andhra Pradesh, considering the viciousness of the campaigns. If there are any sane voices in the whole process, those are of the chief election officer and the few election watch groups. We do not know what the world would be like five years from now. There is a great media bazaar in In their own interest, one only wishes that the anchors record their own shows, analyse them interruption by interruption, trivial question by trivial question and see if there's some real news they can add to 'beef it up' (with due apologies to animal protectors). | |
Telugu channels in election mode
Telugu channels in election mode |
During this election season the Election commission should ensure that the media is not manipulated by candidates, political parties and partisan lobbies.... |
Posted on The Hoot on Sunday, Feb 15 22:29:04, 2009 |
The general election season is upon us. The juggernaut of Indian democracy is lumbering up to roll and its festive season for the 24/7 news channels. In fact, what with launches of new parties, road shows, mergers and defections, Telugu channels have been put in election mode over the last several months by the political parties. The Telugu news market is getting crowded: there are five news channels in the market and four more are expected to launch soon. Within this cacophony of daily TV news, several strategies are being adopted by channels which, as part of its election expenditure monitoring, the Election Commission needs to take account of:
In all the cases, the programmes are anchored by regular anchors who are closely identified with news and current affairs content of the channels, giving an impression that all the programmes are in the public interest.
It is the viewer's right to know who is underwriting the cost. In election season, the content of the programmes is likely to get increasingly partisan, and the viewer needs to be aware if such content is being paid for by the interested parties. (Fortunately, in case of five-minute-long promos of lucky gems and stones, the Telugu channels do superimpose the word 'advertisement' on the footage.) Similarly, in case of paid-for programming, 'supported by' should be mandatory, and popular anchors and presenters associated with routine 'fact' programming of the channels, must refrain from presenting the programmes. In case of print journalism, sponsored pages are given distinctly different fonts and layout, in addition to clearly letting the reader know that the content is paid for. Generally such content is not listed on the contents page. Another related issue is the word 'live' that appears on the screens for many of the pre-recorded programmes that may include phone-ins too. These have been heavily edited and sanitised, to suit the point of view of the channels. The viewers are under the impression that a programme is 'live', when in fact, it has been pre-recorded and edited. The viewers' judgement of a programme or speaker in a spontaneous and candid discussion is unlikely to be the same, if s/he is being shown a heavily edited version that masquerades as a live programme. The more disturbing aspect of such programmes is the phone-in element. If it is pre-recorded, if the channel is putting callers through, how have these callers been lined up? Who is calling, and what are they saying?
A more old fashioned concern is that of 'equal time' and 'fair play' principles, which were very much an issue for broadcasters during election time. The news broadcast code of the government takes it seriously and tries to push it in letter, if not in spirit. But private broadcasters do not allow their style to be cramped by any such limitation. A related issue is the problem of some political entities and their friends being able to spend heavily on media publicity, while passing it of as programming generated by the channels in the public interest. When an attempt is made to bring in voices that are contrary to what the channels wish to promote, the 'so called live' programmes edit out the undesirable parts, which could well be characterised as an unethical manipulation of content. It is thus imperative that, during the process of electioneering, the Election Commission must pay attention to the uses and abuses of media by candidates, political parties and partisan lobbies, and also expose the extent of concealed expenditure. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)