Medium Term: Why sensation is replacing news on our TV channels

Have you noticed how news channels are getting more and more breathless in their coverage of the news?

How anchors tend to shout rather than speak? How every bit of news, no matter how mundane, is deemed worthy of a Breaking News headline? And how sensation is

increasingly replacing the sort of thing that used to be regarded as news?

 

   I would be surprised if you hadn’t because the news channels themselves certainly have.

 

   Currently, the news channels and the advertising industry are locked in a fierce battle over ratings. The news channels say that the current system in which ratings are declared every week is bad. It should be replaced by a system where such ratings are announced only once a month.

 

   Nonsense, say advertisers. We are in the business of spending the money our clients give us wisely. We need information that is accurate and up-to-date. In an ideal world, we would like ratings that are instantaneous. At the very least we would prefer the current system of weekly ratings that allows us to judge how well a show is doing. Why should we have to wait a month to find this out?

 

   Well, because the weekly ratings are having a detrimental effect on content, respond the news channels. They are forcing us into a situation where we are obliged to take the short-term view rather than aim for long-term reliability and authority. Because programmers know that the ratings will be announced in a few days’ time, the try and make every show as sensationalistic as possible in the hope of garnering more eyeballs. Replace the current system with one where channels are judged on a monthly basis and we will be less focussed on minute-by-minute sensation.

 

   Advertisers are unconvinced by this explanation. It is up to a channel to decide quite how sensationalistic it wants to be, they argue. Why should it matter whether the ratings are announced weekly or monthly? Surely, any high-minded channel which eschews cheap conflict, bogus sermonising and hollow sensation should have the courage of its convictions. It is entirely bizarre to say as the news channels do: Tell us how we’re doing on a monthly basis and we will be responsible; but if you tell us on a weekly basis, then we will be irresponsible.

 

   There are merits in both cases and I am not going to pass judgement on them or even attempt to decide which view is correct. But the dispute tells us something about the current crisis in the TV news space. When news television first came to India, it was broadly derivative of the BBC or CNN. Now, it has become a visual form of talk radio with shock jocks, instant sensations, manufactured controversies and a thrill a minute. (I have dealt with this in a previous post.)

 

   The news channels blame this on advertisers. They say that advertisers are guided solely by ratings and that ratings reflect too many extraneous factors. For example, they suggest, if a channel runs an expose involving a film star’s sex scandal, it will probably get massive ratings. But many of those who tune in will not be core viewers of news channels. When the next programme focuses on, say, the political crisis in Uttar Pradesh, they will return to Imagine or Colours. By focusing so closely on hour-by-hour ratings, advertisers are driving channels to focus on winning large numbers by catering to the lowest common denominator.

 

"While the news channels may succeed in their quest to force advertisers to accept a monthly ratings system over one that provides weekly ratings, I am not sure that this will greatly influence the nature of television content though it might have some effect on its overall tone."

   There is another factor, also advertiser-related, that is guiding news channel programming these days even though this is rarely discussed. For some reason, advertisers have decided that the only viewers they care about in the news channel universe are young males. They don’t care that much about older males and they have no interest in women viewers. So, any English news channel that wishes to appeal to advertisers must maximise the number of young to early middle-aged males who watch its shows. As for women viewers, they are welcome to switch to cookery programmes on some other channels.

 

   I have no idea why this should be so. But once you realise that this is the focus of English news channels, then a lot of the programming begins to make sense. This explains why there are so many shows about cars and gadgets, both subjects that appeal more to men than they do to women. It also explains why the entertainment and nightlife programming has now significantly upped its babe factor and why shots of pretty girls, often scantily clad, find their way into more and more shows.

 

   Most significantly, it also explains the guiding force of most English news channels. If your desired viewer is a young, urban, middle-class male then your programming must reflect his attitudes and his prejudices. It must become more masculine, more confrontational and full of macho posturing. Because such viewers tend to feel politically unempowered and electorally impotent, the guiding principle of your news philosophy must become ‘all politicians are fools and thieves and we will fix them on prime time’. In that sense, all that a successful anchor has to do today is to imagine that he is channelling the spirit of Om Puri at Ramlila Maidan.

 

   Once again, I am making no value judgements. Television is a commercial medium. In India, news channels are funded largely by advertiser (rather than subscription) revenues so they are under some obligation to give the advertising industry the kind of programming it demands. And if advertisers have decided that they only want to reach male viewers through news channels then there is not a lot that the TV industry can do.

 

   While the news channels may succeed in their quest to force advertisers to accept a monthly ratings system over one that provides weekly ratings, I am not sure that this will greatly influence the nature of television content though it might have some effect on its overall tone. What remains to be seen is whether a medium that is so dependent on advertising revenues can ever break free of the stranglehold of commercial considerations and find its own paradigm.

 

   I will offer one parallel, however. In the mid-90s, when the consumer revolution hit Indian society as a consequence of liberalisation, advertisers demanded that newspapers change to reflect this revolution. We were told that nobody was interested in politics or in the issues that mattered. We had to focus instead on parties, fashion, films and other frivolous issues. Some newspapers took the bait but others held firm.

 

   And guess what? The wheel has now turned full circle. Even those newspapers that were once accused of ignoring serious news and focussing on frippery have recognised that Page 3 cannot replace Page 1. We may all have criticisms of the newspaper industry but most people will concede that our papers are no longer dumbing down deliberately.

 

   On the other hand, the news TV industry is dumbing down at an alarming rate. But perhaps, this too is a trend. And just as sanity returned to newspapers, the same will happen to television.