Vinod Mehta wrote something in his column in the last issue of Outlook which I found quite interesting. What he was writing about was the essential boisterous nature of a democracy which is comparatively young and in which the realization of what all democracy entails is even younger in its constituents, the people who make up this democracy. Without his permission, I feel some of what he wrote bears reproduction: ‘A healthy and vibrant democracy of necessity is loud, messy, chaotic, confused, abusive and disputatious. Because we live in a free and open society, each citizen is entitled to his or her opinion and point of view. Quite often it seems there exist 1.1. billion opinions in the country, all vigorously articulated……I don’t wish to sound like a totalitarian aesthete, but frequently the decibel level of our democracy reaches ear shattering levels. Everything from road rage to Taslima Nasreen to Dilip Vengsarkar becomes “vital” and “critical”. ‘
I could not agree more with Mr. Mehta. We have had a democracy for quite a while now, but the urgency and insistence on articulation of points of view, the desire to opine on something that we may be related to only obliquely at best, is something new. And the unfortunate problem is that more often that not this articulation is not always lucid or coherent. Or even fair. This brings up the question of what has changed recently to bring about this change? Have we, as a democracy matured? Has the democratic spirit finally woken up and is now demanding to be heard? The answer, I think, lies in something more prosaic - The birth of the Hydra Headed Media.
It would be naïve and condescending to assume that when our democracy was younger, there were no points of view to be articulated or there were no opinions to be voiced. Possibly there were more, given that the pace of things somehow seemed to be slower, allowing more time for ideas to germinate. It is just that, often, the conduit to channelise the articulations seemed to be a lot more localized, the target audience restricted to the few gathered around that paanwala in Chandni Chowk, the patrons in that coffee house on Park Street, the regulars at the arrack joint in some southern state or, at worst, the people you had invited for dinner sitting at your table. For the more adroit there were Letters to the Editor, the efficacy of which was again limited. To reach a wider audience you had to be someone of ‘consequence’, something that not everyone could manage to be.
The arrival of 24x7 news channels has changed all that. Along with other less notable feats, what these channels have achieved is Democratisation of Voices. Say something, anything on an issue that is even slightly topical, back it up with some more people saying the same thing, preferably in loud voices, and you are guaranteed airtime on at least one of the million and one news channels which have sprouted. Everyone now seems to have an opinion, because everyone now seems to be accorded importance. The fact that this importance is only created and assigned because of the necessity of generating TRPs is of course an inconvenient truth. And the fact that this artifical importance is fleeting and temporal, till the next set of voices are heard, is something that is chosen to be ignored- a bit like ersatz coffee if you please; the first sip is often the only drinkable one! Therefore, as a consequence, we have the unique and hitherto unknown privilege of watching grimacing faces on our TV screens postulating about how some line from a song in Madhuri Dixits’ new film has hurt their sentiments, about how the dancers in a song from Bhool Bhulaiya were disrespectful to something or the other- in short, endless cacophony ad nauseam ad infinitum.
One of the most interesting news channels to watch is India TV, not because of the journalistic quality of its reporting but because of the lack thereof. Sundays are usually reserved for one main news item, which consists largely of about two minutes footage, a few photos of the people involved and a few quotes from assorted people. That they manage to sustain their entire Sunday programming on something so thin is extraordinary and praiseworthy. Today it was the Moon Das episode, about her ‘lover’ killing himself and some of her family in the process. The same two minutes footage formula was applied, with this nasal voice-over pointing out ‘facts’ and raising ‘questions’, all of which seemed to suggest that, as far as India TV was concerned, it was Moon Das herself who was to blame. Without getting into the veracity of it, the only issue to really consider is whether this is fair? Whether India TV has any business to pre judge an issue based on largely nothing? Until these questions are answered, and I am sure they will never be, we will just have to suffer these misbegotten products of our vibrant democracy, the necessary evils of our belief in Free Speech.
I could not agree more with Mr. Mehta. We have had a democracy for quite a while now, but the urgency and insistence on articulation of points of view, the desire to opine on something that we may be related to only obliquely at best, is something new. And the unfortunate problem is that more often that not this articulation is not always lucid or coherent. Or even fair. This brings up the question of what has changed recently to bring about this change? Have we, as a democracy matured? Has the democratic spirit finally woken up and is now demanding to be heard? The answer, I think, lies in something more prosaic - The birth of the Hydra Headed Media.
It would be naïve and condescending to assume that when our democracy was younger, there were no points of view to be articulated or there were no opinions to be voiced. Possibly there were more, given that the pace of things somehow seemed to be slower, allowing more time for ideas to germinate. It is just that, often, the conduit to channelise the articulations seemed to be a lot more localized, the target audience restricted to the few gathered around that paanwala in Chandni Chowk, the patrons in that coffee house on Park Street, the regulars at the arrack joint in some southern state or, at worst, the people you had invited for dinner sitting at your table. For the more adroit there were Letters to the Editor, the efficacy of which was again limited. To reach a wider audience you had to be someone of ‘consequence’, something that not everyone could manage to be.
The arrival of 24x7 news channels has changed all that. Along with other less notable feats, what these channels have achieved is Democratisation of Voices. Say something, anything on an issue that is even slightly topical, back it up with some more people saying the same thing, preferably in loud voices, and you are guaranteed airtime on at least one of the million and one news channels which have sprouted. Everyone now seems to have an opinion, because everyone now seems to be accorded importance. The fact that this importance is only created and assigned because of the necessity of generating TRPs is of course an inconvenient truth. And the fact that this artifical importance is fleeting and temporal, till the next set of voices are heard, is something that is chosen to be ignored- a bit like ersatz coffee if you please; the first sip is often the only drinkable one! Therefore, as a consequence, we have the unique and hitherto unknown privilege of watching grimacing faces on our TV screens postulating about how some line from a song in Madhuri Dixits’ new film has hurt their sentiments, about how the dancers in a song from Bhool Bhulaiya were disrespectful to something or the other- in short, endless cacophony ad nauseam ad infinitum.
One of the most interesting news channels to watch is India TV, not because of the journalistic quality of its reporting but because of the lack thereof. Sundays are usually reserved for one main news item, which consists largely of about two minutes footage, a few photos of the people involved and a few quotes from assorted people. That they manage to sustain their entire Sunday programming on something so thin is extraordinary and praiseworthy. Today it was the Moon Das episode, about her ‘lover’ killing himself and some of her family in the process. The same two minutes footage formula was applied, with this nasal voice-over pointing out ‘facts’ and raising ‘questions’, all of which seemed to suggest that, as far as India TV was concerned, it was Moon Das herself who was to blame. Without getting into the veracity of it, the only issue to really consider is whether this is fair? Whether India TV has any business to pre judge an issue based on largely nothing? Until these questions are answered, and I am sure they will never be, we will just have to suffer these misbegotten products of our vibrant democracy, the necessary evils of our belief in Free Speech.
And that is my opinion!
No comments:
Post a Comment