The problem seriously afflicting the 4 th estate of our Democracy the Media

By : Amit Bhushan Date: 31st August 31, 2013 The electronic Television media has emerged one of the most powerful communications medium for people in positions of influence. It helps such people deliver there view point for the consumption of common man who is supposed o be satisfied with symbolic debates on issues between people of eminence. Quite a few of such people of eminence have worked hard to secure a place for themselves and are able to articulate themselves well but there are also those who place on the panel is secured due to other factors and not ruling out commercial reasons here and these interest tend to project their narrow views with either little scrutiny or through active support by presentation team giving prominence to these articulations. Take an example on the Land Acquisition Bill. Various media panels have held debates and presented views of eminent panel including quite a few clearly vested interest holders. The common man is given to consume that the Bill is about protect the Land Rights of Farmers for whom stringent supporting provisions are given in the bill which would henceforth ensure adequacy of compensation to the Farmers. The television media has spent much time in taking a dig at robust opposing political dispensations getting on together to support the bill. It also depicted some industrialist crying hoarse that the bill could kill the industry. Other than this fact, the audience of the commercial television media has been kept at a complete loss with reference to curiosities. The people at the bottom rung of the commercial television media are often agog that the coteries of senior journalist hijack the show with the superficial stuff, often to keep the content light for general public consumption and high TRP. The favourite pastime of the journos depicted prominently on prime time is related to two factors viz. persons and incidents. Much time is spent on celebrating personality cult by bringing in people without checking track record to gloat over issues of general concern. The second order of priority goes to demonizing people by play up the right information to support arguments. The same things happen about select incidents which are played up or down. The journos are well aware of what gives TRPs as well as the pulse of a largely idol worshipping public taste and pattern for information consumption. It is correct that the common man may not be interested in details which he finds of no use and which can be ascribed to as boring. However, the common man is interested in understanding the differences that are there in the diagnosis of the problem that is prevailing amongst the lawmakers. And simple question about the top 3 prevailing symptoms of the problem followed by a fifty to hundred word statement about the diagnosis of the problem, if presented can be of great help. This can then be followed by discussions on the provisions of the bill that are designed to tackle the problem and how could these interact & impact the various government departments and personnels to mitigate the woes and worries of public. It is only lately that some of the television presenters have become alive to the direct and indirect results and have started questioning about the likely results. Although a good

trend, however a slogan (in name of policy or Law) followed by positive and holocaust scenarios of likely results may yield only short term journalistic achievement. Instead of focusing on issues, policies and processes/formulas; the commercial media loves to constantly focus on personalities, slogans and the mundane. Irrespective of whether the tone is supportive or reprimanding about issues highlighted by commercial media, it generally has low impact since it only leads to a stray activity getting machined, putting little scrutiny on policy making. This is even as a bad policy has potential to impact scores of people in a negative manner while a stray incident may just have a negative impact on a few only. The public experience with the lawmakers is such that their policy proposition needs to be under scrutiny irrespective of the political parties raising them. Very few parliament members maintain such transparency where there records are available in public domain. Even where their record are in public domain, often these are not in shape where a common is able to consume the basic intent of a lawmakers interventions or proposed bills which may then be followed by detailed scrutiny by people who have deeper interest. It is just about one Bill or Policy, but with references all public activity. The mainline media rarely covers important policy initiatives of states and even major states are left unreported. Instead what goes on is play is stray incidents or personality goof ups which yield higher TRPs. The structure of the media industry with biased opinion in public as to what constitute mainline media is in a way one of the responsible factor. The non-mainline media is unable to attract resources in terms of adverting revenue to maintain sort of intellectual and independent editorial board which is able to exercise without being impacted by commercial consideration and can afford to be able to take on antagonism of at least some people in power. Such media also lacks the pull factor where in TRP driven personalities make themselves available from multiple sides to balance debates and hold proper presentation of public issues. However it is high time that people in media identify the areas where they would like to build upon their image and add significantly to deliver value to public.