Here are two concepts that you may be familiar with.
The first is the media elite. There is a sense in which people in the media are regarded as being removed from their readers of viewers. We are said to have our own
pre-occupations, our own motivations and our own perspective on the world. Often, we are criticized for being so obsessed with our own interests and our own advancement.
The second is the concept of inclusiveness of new and social media. The difference between old media and new media, we are told, is that whereas old media allowed for a gulf between journos and their readers/viewers, new media is a more inclusive concept. When I go on to Twitter, for instance, any of the 3,30,000-odd people who follow me can offer a comment which they know that I am certain to see. Similarly, the Internet makes for an inclusive society. There is less sense of a journo speaking to his readers from a distance. Each day, I receive dozens of questions on my website and no matter where in the world I am, I try and take time out to answer all the interesting ones.
Both concepts seem to me to be well thought-out and I have few real problems with them.
But here’s my question: is the Internet losing its sense of being a reflection of the views of society at large? Are many of those who blog and tweet (and I don’t just mean those sad losers who escape from their pathetic little lives by spending hours abusing other people on the net) beginning to believe that they constitute a secondary elite?
Let’s take just one example. It is now common for bloggers and tweeters to complain that the media are only interested in circulation and viewership (or TRPs).
What is circulation? How are TRPs computed?
Circulation is the aggregate of the number of people who subscribe to a publication. TRPs are a measure of viewership. The higher your circulation the more people you reach. Likewise with TRPs.
When bloggers tell you that TV channels are only interested in TRPs, what are they saying?
| "We have a bizarre situation where traditional media are criticized for fulfilling their role of appealing to mass audiences on the grounds that the programming does not appeal to a tiny minority on the Internet..." |
In effect, they are saying that TV channels are only interested in reaching as many people as possible.
And why is this a bad thing? Surely the people the TV channels will reach will be just like the bloggers, ordinary people with an interest in some aspect of the news.
Why should it be a form of abuse within a medium that is supposed to empower ordinary people to attack traditional media for trying to reach more ordinary people?
Or, look at it another way. If a programme gets high TRPs, then this means that lots of ordinary people have liked it. The ordinary people may be right or wrong to have liked it – I pass no value judgments here – but the fact that they liked it is a reflection on them, not on the TV channel. So, why blame the channel? Why not blame the viewers?
The answer is obvious. Some of the more opinionated bloggers and tweeters believe that they are part of an elite. They distance themselves from the tastes of ordinary people and have contempt for the kind of programming that gets TRPs (i.e. is preferred by ordinary people).
Thus, we have a bizarre situation where traditional media are criticized for fulfilling their role of appealing to mass audiences on the grounds that the programming does not appeal to a tiny minority on the Internet (and compared to TV audiences or newspaper readerships, the blogging elite is really tiny).
I do not dispute that bloggers have a right to regard themselves as an elite. My point is more limited. Such is the arrogance of the blogging elite these days that even when it attacks journos, it is effectively dissing the vast majority of media readership and viewership.
Which is fine. It’s a free country. You can diss who you like. You can ascribe as many wonderful, elitist qualities to yourself as you like.
But the next time I see attacks on journalists from pseudonymous bloggers who complain that the journos are only trying to get TRPs (i.e. reach a mass audience), I will wonder: just who do you guys represent? Are you speaking on behalf of viewers and readers? Or are you just another anonymous elite that feels emboldened to pass judgement on the rest of the world from the darkness of your rooms?
Name:
Please enter name
E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Please enter email
Please enter a valid email address eg. xyz@abc.com !
Friend's Name:
Please enter friend name
Friend's E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Please enter friend email
Please enter a valid email address eg. xyz@abc.com !
Additional Text:
Security code:
Other Articles
-
It is not only the right thing to do on an intuitive level but also entirely in accordance with the principles on which this nation was founded.
-
My point is that in a country as large as ours, a numbers game makes no sense unless you look at the larger picture.
-
It is tempting to see the revolt as a failure because Pawar got nothing of consequence in Delhi. But it would be a mistake to do so.
-
This was an unnecessary reshuffle, forced on the nation by Manmohan Singh’s unwillingness to hold on to the finance portfolio.
-
And the end has an emotional power that is unusual for comic book pictures. What a pity it is the last movie in this trilogy!
See All