Vinod Mehta: TV presents two (polarised) sides of the story

Firstpost spoke to Vinod Mehta, editor-in-chief, Outlook India, on the state of news media in India today. Mehta shares his views on news television, on the challenges that ‘static’ or print media faces, on the role of advertisers and on regulation. In the first installment of the interview, we discussed the good and the bad of news television, and on the need for self-regulation. What is the state of Indian news television? Indian television news channels have evolved their own character, and are distinct from television news elsewhere in the world. The fundamental fact of Indian TV news is that content is driven by competition. There are already 300 news channels with another 100 waiting for clearance. With this kind of competition, it is inconceivable that the economics makes any sense. At the very most, not more than two can survive given the size of the advertising cake. The cake is growing, but not in proportion to the exploding number of channels. Whatever TV news editors may claim, they have not just one eye, but both eyes on the TRPs. [caption id=“attachment_115947” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Vinod Mehta, editor-in-chief, Outlook India”] [/caption] Therefore, they have to do things which are not 100 percent kosher as far as professionalism is concerned. You have to a) live with that and, b) The viewer does not protest. I’ve met so many people who say Arnab Goswami is ’this’, Rajdeep Sardesai shouts a lot, I dislike it, and so on. But they are also the most assiduous watchers of television news. If the viewer were truly offended involved and changed the channel, it would effectively combat this kind of news reporting — and viewers don’t do that. I also think there’s some hypocrisy involved: viewers actually love the shouting and screaming and sensationalism. That’s Indian TV news. What can be done? Do we need television news to be regulated? Every news channel editor says: yes, we must have self- regulation — but for the other channel, but not us! When it comes to constructing their own news, they think very little of professionalism and traditional norms, such as getting both sides of the story or three sides of the story. In fact, they try and guess the poplar mood. There’s an element of populism involved. Take the recent Anna Hazare movement. How many of the editors and anchors who shout very loudly in favour of Anna Hazare actually believe in what he’s saying? But the editors are aware that a story like Anna Hazare, for a middle class, urban audience, is very appealing, and therefore, play to that. Now, having played up the story for four to five months, they now think that there may be some doubts among the audience against the Anna Hazare story. So the media is also raising questions about [Team Anna]. They change very subtly based on the popular mood, or what they perceive to be the popular mood. They are extremely good in gauging the urban, middle-class popular mood, and have their fingers on the pulse. For example, they know that Jessica Lal will work; so they let it go on and on. The same is happening with corruption which is very big now. I once went on a program on NDTV which was scheduled for 30 minutes — but the program went on for two hours. I got a bit fidgety with the delay and asked them why they were extending the program. It was because of the number of emails and calls that the channel was receiving. They believed that viewers wanted to see more. So they just extended the program and changed their whole schedule. This is how they determine not just the content of the news, but what prominence will be given to [a particular news item]. Do channels do a good job? Are they balanced in their coverage? Overall, they have a difficult job to do, and they do it well. In the end, we always look at the negative points of news television. But look at the good that has been done by them. Though they trivialise politics, they have made politics more accessible. People can see the Prime Ministers in their bedrooms. Issues may be trivialised, may be simplified, and sometimes even distorted, but at least you are aware of the issues. The other good thing that they’ve done is to tell viewers about, say, a flood somewhere or a rape elsewhere. Sadly, wherever there’s a possibility of dramatic visuals, they pounce on that. But that’s a side issue. The good is that they do send their crew to these places, and they will pursue the rapist, because that’s a lovely story. In that sense, they have done many good things. But they are certainly loud and they don’t believe, really, in presenting two sides of the story. It’s also not just about presenting two sides of the story. That’s the old trick, in journalism: take two polarised sides, and the more polarised, the better. And the actual value lies in the middle ground in any story, in any situation, which they very seldom explore. Often, when I’m on news programs on TV, and two spokespersons are there, say from the Congress and the BJP, I hardly get a chance to speak. I may be on camera for 50 minutes, but I’m actually on air for about a minute. They want you there because the anchors want a semblance of impartiality, so they get one or two others like me. Actually, all that they want is for the two main protagonists to have a go at each other — and they throw a few crumbs at people like me once in a while. What are your views on self-regulation? It is in our own interest that we get an independent regulator comprised of people from the industry and eminent citizens. But we have to ensure that, under no circumstances, should we allow the government in – in any form. We are being very short-sighted here. If we go on procrastinating and if we go on delaying creating an effective regulator with punitive powers, then we are inviting the government to step in. For the moment, public support is with the media, but it is slowly turning against us. The moment the government senses that there is enough anger against the media or opposition to the media, they will step in. They’re already trying to do so. They take one step forward and another one back. So I think we would be very stupid and short-sighted if we didn’t create one very fast. We’ve been talking about this for at least 5 years plus, and nothing concrete has come of the discussions. And by very fast, I mean we should do this in the next three months.