As yet another general election slides by into the gloom of history it is useful to ask what our dominant memory of it will be. My bet would be on the way it was covered by television.
It may well become the dominant memory regardless of whether the exit polls turn out to be right or wrong. They are probably wrong because they lack what is called "emotional" intelligence or the sense of time and place. But we will soon know.
Thanks to the three weeks over which voting was spread out, not to mention the election mode in which the country has been since last October, television got a huge chance to establish its credibility. And it blew it.
In the sort of work that I do, I get to meet highly intelligent, but politically uncommitted, people. They have no axes to grind and it is noteworthy that not one of them has had a kind word to say about the way television has covered these elections. Be it the opinion polls or the exit polls or the routine election programming, everyone seems agreed on one thing: the sheer banality of it all.
But what has happened is not surprising. Except for NDTV, all other channels, in a bid to maximise their share of the market, cater to the lowest common denominator. They dumb down -- sometimes, as a well-known journalist said, to the level of the station bosses.
NDTV caters to the premium market and can afford to be a bit lofty. But its anchors need to review their performance this summer. An opinion poll will show them why and how. For instance, some of them could stop shouting at viewers as though they were on a DTC bus. Of Zee, Aaj Tak, etc the less said the better.
Programmes have stretched on and on with guests being predictable and anchors, in the belief that they are being provocative, being just plain silly when not being offensive. Voters think all politicians are the "same". Now viewers are likely to begin to think that most anchors are the same as well -- rude, loud and stupid.
Rude because of the frequent interruptions with their own views and stupid because of constantly trying to stir up a controversy -- if necessary by twisting the words just uttered by the guest. I have heard many viewers complain that, while they were watching something, the anchor kept saying "what you are saying is" or "aap ke kehne ka matlab" and ignoring the guest's denials.
Contrast this with CNN or BBC, who in spite of the peculiarly one-sided way in which they cover Iraq, are otherwise pretty much all right.
The other day there was a programme on CNN about the leaking of a CIA employee's identity. The woman's husband was on the show, as were a couple of senators, one from each party. They knifed each other mercilessly -- but only when their turns came. And the anchor stayed out of the fray.
Everyone knows that Indian politicians need to be cut short, especially when time is as limited as it can be on television. But surely the ground rules can be settled beforehand. In fact, when that is done some of the house-trained politicians come across remarkably well.
The problem of not having smooth spokesman on the show has arisen because, on the one hand, of many politicians being busy otherwise and, on the other, because of the need of the station to "have" someone on the show, never mind who. As long as a mouth comes along, it will do. Never mind to what it is attached.
That's fine, but what are viewers supposed to think when some inarticulate or garrulous fool is foisted on them? Or when print journalists who are also MPs come on the show? Which hat are they wearing?
This quest for a mouth takes care of the anchor's programming needs, but it ignores the viewers' needs completely.
You turn on your set to get a sense of what is going on and what you get is a cockfight instead. It is not known how many television anchors read a paper as cerebral as this one. But here's something their owners, at least, should think about.
In the print media, there is a gatekeeping function performed by the editors, who at least try to keep rubbish out, not always successfully but by and large.
On live television, that is obviously not possible. This requires the anchor to exercise Herculean self-restraint. The owners and managers could sensibly ask how many actually do that. Very few, I can tell you.
In India, election coverage is very hard to plan and manage. It requires a lot of money, manpower, management time, intense scheduling, and above all, a sense for telling when the correspondent is talking through his hat.
On television, which has to keep track of other news as well, the problems are obviously hugely greater. This, one would think, would result in more discriminating choices being made. But the opposite seems to be the case.
The need to keep coming up with fresh visuals -- that too of boring "celebrities" of whom some are barely out of their nappies -- is so great that practically anything goes. Much of the rubbish that has been going on television in the last six weeks would never get through in a newspaper. When even prime time shows start to suffer from a variant of this problem, it is time for the station heads to sit up and take note.
Of all the things that must be paid heed to, perhaps the most important is the growing talk in the marketplace. People are beginning to whisper about stations being in the pay of one party or the other. This is patently untrue but, unless nipped early, capable of inflicting huge damage.
The owners and managers must take this seriously and not dismiss it as "just one of those things". If it is just plain bias, which is human, it must be acknowledged as such, if only to prevent the perception from becoming firmer. This, in turn, calls for a serious analysis of the footage over the last six weeks. Not easy, but probably necessary to maintain credibility.
It is also customary for media organisations to become very self-congratulatory after big events like elections and budgets are over. Sometimes the self-praise is well deserved.
But not, I am afraid, this time.
Powered by 
