I have nothing but admiration for the highly gripping manner in which news and views are presented in TV channels. Of course, the official channels may seem to lag behind the private ones in vivacity and aggressiveness, but this is not for want of talented people. In fact, those in our print and visual media and advertising firms are more than a match to their peers anywhere in the world in sharpness of intellect, quickness of grasp and self-assurance.

Official channels are by their very nature prone to caution and restraint, in view of their having to adhere to stringent norms of accountability and neutrality, besides having to eschew sensationalism and overkill. The private channels enjoy much greater freedom, particularly in dealing with controversial issues, and, therefore, prove attractive to much larger audiences and much greater number of advertisers and sponsors.

There are, however, certain do’s and don’ts to be observed by both official and private media if they are to enhance their appeal and credibility. These are essentially known tenets of professionally run media, but they still bear reiteration by way of refreshing the memory of the young bright producers and anchors now peopling the channels.

Most debates — going by whatever brand names — put out on the news channels are weighted heavily in favour of resource persons from the North, and most of the time, preference is shown to the same few experts/commentators from outfits in Delhi and the Gangetic plains with the result it is their faces and voices that fill the programmes. Indeed, you can guess with unfailing accuracy the likely persons who would be called for any impending debates on particular topics.

The channels call persons from the South only when the events or issues exclusively pertain to that region, and even then, their familiarity with the field of expertise available is limited, not going beyond one or two well-known public figures. The news channels should make it a point to draw on the large number of knowledgeable commentators from think-tanks, academia, civil society and business and industry in the South. It is time they drew up a panel which balances commentators from all parts of the country.

Secondly, too many persons should not be invited to participate in discussions. The larger the number, the greater the chances of disjointedness, and loss of depth and focus. Some of the invited persons are also handicapped by not being able to put in more than a few words edgewise. To my mind, three is the ideal number which would allow for an in-depth exploration of the various aspects of the issues.

Thirdly, the same channel should avoid covering the same issue under two separate rubrics/formats at short intervals, with the same participants. For instance, in NDTV, the “Big Fight” on Saturday and “We, the People” on Sunday, or in CNN-IBN, the discussions in the course of news analysis and “Face the Nation” on the same day, deal with overlapping subjects.

Finally, anchors should learn not to be shrill. They should talk least, leaving as much time to the participants as possible. A safe ratio is 1:10 in terms of both minutes and words as between the anchor and the participant. When a member of the invited audience asks a question, it is totally unnecessary for the anchor to repeat the question from beginning to end, and even go to the extent of elaborately paraphrasing it. The person who is asked the question should be presumed to have intelligence enough to have understood the question, and allowed straightaway to give his answer.

B. S. RAGHAVAN

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line