Some 26years ago, my parents bought a television for the first time. We were pioneers. We were one of the few homes that had the good fortune of having a television at home and it was always fun to have neighbors and their household help come over to watch specific programs that were being aired. There were weekly movies, and daily programming aired by the local doordarshan station, or the programs aired at night from the nation's capital. The news broadcast was something I would grudgingly bear with, because I wanted to watch the programming that followed. I was all of 8 - 10 years old. But I remember, when the elders gathered around, one of the topics of discussion would be the news, the news reader on TV, and the way the news was delivered. Unfortunately today, we don't really care about all of that. What we keep asking for is a mature news broadcaster. And again there is this constant comparison with foreign news channels. I have lived abroad for over seven and a half years and this problem of so called maturity is more about passing the buck than accepting the fact that "what you see is what you really want".
News channels have to get viewership and every news channel, has its very specific target audience. When you target a section of society, you have to cater to what they want. Once when watching Star News at a friend's house in London, I couldn't stop laughing - I hadn't seen Star News in a long time and the latest breaking news on that channel was "Bipasha pe hamla" - and in true movie style with special effects of the camera zooming in and out multiple times - "Bipasha pe hamla" being said with the echo sound effect - I immediately took notice - and guess what some fan threw a piece of tissue paper at her which hit her on her face - I'm sure it did a lot of damage to her sensitive skin and probably wiped off a little of the make-up on her face - but was it something you could term as an "Attack"? It was probably some one who was star struck that couldn't get close enough - he/she decided to kiss a tissue paper and throw it at her face- and blame her reflexes for not ducking or avoiding it. Anyway, that said - I soon realized the kind of news that was delivered on a daily basis on that channel. It catered to a target audience that liked such news items. An audience that demanded that news be presented in a theatrical and overly dramatised fashion. If Star News caters to this audience, why is the rest of the population complaining that the news media is immature? The fact that they can get this section of people to watch their channel, helps companies target specific products to these people too via their commercials.
On the flip side, if all the news channels met the standards of being what we're calling "mature", it would make it difficult for those news channels to survive commercially. Each news channel serves a specific need and they need to differentiate themselves based on what they offer. It could be because they use well known anchors or just sensationalism.
The so called maturity of the International counterparts is quite misplaced. What we're probably comparing it with, is what these news channels broadcast in India. If you lived in the US and watched CBS / ABC / NBC / CNN / Fox or even Barbara Walters and 20/20 OR watch the regular news broadcasts of the BBC / ITV / Channel 4 / Five in London - You will realize that they cater to specific audiences too. Obviously, what the local market wants in those countries is different from what the local market wants in India. Its a different culture. The way we live our lives in India is different from the west. Instead of generalizing, what we should compare is specific parameters on which the quality of the news broadcast can be compared on an equal footing.
Is there a problem with the production quality or a problem with the news reader's diction or is it a problem with the sets that are used? News content, presentation, sensationalization etc., are market dependent and cannot be used to rate the maturity of the industry.
Maybe we should wonder why our audiences are immature - but immaturity is very relative.
blogathonindia, blogathonindia1
3 comments:
I remember a story that Aaj Tak did some time back on the political situation in Chennai. Very dramatically it read, "Jaya Ka Badla"! Filmi and so funny!
I think the good old days of journalism are long gone. Now it is a mere business and television houses are getting more and more commercial. It is coz we want trash? Who knows!
Hi...While you may be right in saying that the comparison with International media may not provide solution, I still don't agree that it is because we Indians want to see dramatised trivial tid-bits about so-called stars and starlets, that these channels are doling it out at such rates. In fact, it would be presumptous to assume that there is no serious news-viewership or rather that it wouldn't make commercial sense.
Take the case of HT - Mint. I think they have proved that it is quite worthwhile to provide news and analyses which makes sense to the serious reader..If a newspaper can do that, then why not news channels ?
I didn't intend to imply that there is no market for the serious news-viewer. There is a segment, and that segment is catered to by a different set of news channels (DD, BBC, CNN etc.)BBC is not dependent on revenues from commercials aired, most of their revenues come from License fees that TV owners pay in the UK. I'm not sure if its free to air in India or if a subscription is paid to them by the cable owners here... similarly CNN is not dependent on commercials from India they make most of their money by airing commercials in the US... All i'm saying is that we're expecting too much from indian news agencies, who depend on advertisement revenues.
Post a Comment