MxMIndia

Category: BLOGS

  • TV debates? Better spend the time watching a reality show. A porn star any day for me over a narcissistic, gassy TV anchor

    Anil Thakraney: The TV gas chamber

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    It’s been a long time since I watched a TV debate. Because I found, much after a lot of torturous viewing, that it’s a huge waste of time. Might as well watch Bigg Boss 5. It’s far more interesting, at least the participants are fresh faces and they look glam too.

     

    Here are some reasons why TV debates suck big time on our news channels.

     

    1. The same dull and sleepy faces. The same spokespersons of various political parties hop from studio to studio each night. Each a big bore, and each clueless about his/her leader’s real agenda. And compelled to support any idiotic dictate from their bosses. If you are glued to your idiot box when people like Abhishek Singhvi, Chandan Mitra and that lady from BJP pontificate each evening, you badly need a life.

     

    2. Because news channel editors and their assistants are too lazy to make an effort to discover new voices, we are stuck with the same ‘experts’ each evening. Suhel Seth, Shobhaa De, Prahlad Kakkar, etc, are now telling us how to decode every news item. From terrorism to FDI in retail to the Kingfisher mess to harassment of women. In such a vast nation, is it so difficult to find new voices? And more importantly, voices of people we can trust and respect?

     

    3. The entire concept is fraudulent. Because the anchors deliberately pick people with extremely polarised views, the debate becomes an exchange of gas. Like a school boys’ discussion. No one ever concedes that the other guy may be making a valid point, even if he/she feels so. That admission will appear to be a sign of ‘surrender’ on a TV debate. So the participants keep yelping at one another rather than talking to one other. I particularly avoid watching debates on theBhopalgas tragedy. Because gassing levels shoot through the chimney on those days.

     

    4. The anchors, who are supposed to be neutral, almost always throw in their two bits, thus adulterating the show by injecting their own agendas and biases into the discussion. This murders the concept of a debate, reducing it to a charade. I have often noticed that the much celebrated, award winning anchors lose their patience with guest speakers whose views they don’t approve of. You call this a debate? I call it nautanki.

     

    Like I said, better spend the time watching a reality show. A porn star any day for me over a narcissistic, gassy TV anchor.

     

    ***

     

    PS: Everyone is appreciating Mr and Mrs Aamir Khan for going public with their surrogate baby. There is even talk of making the couple spokespersons for surrogate parenthood. Well, methinks we are giving the couple too much importance out here.

    Aamirbhai had NO option but to reveal the truth in the media. How else could he have explained the presence of a bachcha in the house, with missus having shown no signs of pregnancy? Trust some people to jump at making virtue out of necessity.

     

    Anil Thakraney is a Mumbai-based columnist and commentator and is a former adman and editor. He is Editor-at-Large, MxMIndia. The views expressed here are his own.

     

  • In Freaking News, Ranjona Banerji reviews the fare on prime time news and the morning papers

    It’s the economy, stupid

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Perhaps appropriately, the problems of the Indian economy have taken centre-stage. Some newspapers are concentrating on the falling rupee while others are concerned about the falling industrial growth rate. Both seem to be legitimate headlines. The general consensus seems to be lack of governance and the general drift of UPA II. Says The Times of India in its editorial on Wednesday, “If the political class needs a crisis to see that policy gridlock is strangling our economy, then that crisis is upon us… But the onus is also on the opposition to forego bloody-minded politics which makes the government’s job harder.”

     

    The Indian Express in its editorial concentrates on decline on the Index of Industrial Production and comments, “Unfortunately the slowdown has hit us at a time when real interest rates are negative.” However it cautions the Reserve Bank to wait and watch before “taking action”. It also brings up the valid point of many students coming out of management institutes being unable to find jobs if industrial and services growth on a downward spiral.

     

    The Deccan Chronicle in its editorial looks at how Indian companies are now looking abroad to invest their money, given the situation in India. “What India and the economy urgently needs to grow at this point is low inflation, low interest rates, immediate implementation of the new manufacturing and procurement policy, and a business-friendly transparent environment to unleash India’s unmatched entrepreneurial strengths.”

     

    The Economic Times carries a feature on the rupee crisis headlined “India Inc sends an SoS to RBI’. A Subba Rao of the GMR group is quoted as saying, “It’s like a natural calamity, like a tsunami… with the rupee falling so fast and so sharply, there is only so much you can do.”

     

    A discussion on Times Now on Tuesday had FICCI chairman Rajiv Kumar practically begging politicians to sort our their problems and prevent a further downslide in the economy. His predictions were dire unlike Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s somewhat sanguine assurances that things were not so bad.

     

    **

     

    Given our current obsession with corruption, two stories in Wednesday’s newspapers deserve attention. The Telegraph, Calcutta, has a story on how the Jyoti Basu government handed the AMRI hospital land in the Dhakuria area of Kolkata between 1994 and 1998 at rates that will remain frozen till at least 2024. Unlike other such deals, there are apparently no provisions for revision of the rental rates. The state government has, according to the report, acquired the land in 1991 to provide affordable healthcare.

     

    The Indian Express’s flyer story looks at the various irregularities in the Noida farmhouse allotments, from which a key member of the Anna Hazare-Jan Lokpal movement also benefited – Shanti Bhushan and his son Jayant. The Express report provides details of various transgressions and concessions, many of which appear to be inexplicable.

     

    **

     

    Even as TV continues to be the chief champion of Anna Hazare and his campaign for his Jan Lokpal Bill, the print media conversely continues to question. The Economic Times in its second editorial on Wednesday says, ‘Anna Hazare has displaced the my-way-or-highway sort of undemocratic attitude reminiscent of authoritarianism and a vigilante-style notion of justice and that is part of the problem.” It cautions against actions which will lead to anarchy.

     

    eom

  • Anil Thakraney finds the new Tata Docomo ad peppy, alive and full of masti

    Tata Docomo: Old idea, fresh play

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    Tata Docomo has done one rather smart thingie. Instead of using Bollywood stars to connect with the whole of India (their appeal down south is always suspect), they have created two commercials specifically tailored for the Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu consumers. Using the local movie stars: Ram Charan Tej and Vijay. This should help immensely in building a bond with the locals.

     

     

    [youtube width=”400″ height=”250″]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNiUp0b0c4U[/youtube]

    The commercials are however not based on a new concept. It’s the same old ‘always stay connected’ idea. In the TVC, the film star, who’s the protagonist, laughs when his neighbour, a young lad, hits a girl with a water balloon. The girl in turn calls and energizes her tens of pals to seek ‘revenge’. This follows hordes of people chasing our hero till he gets hit by many balloons. Not only is the idea not fresh, it seems to have been inspired by Airtel’s ‘Har ek friend zaroori hota hai’. In short, too much deja vu out here.

     

    Having said that, must confess the execution is peppy and alive, and full of masti. It is also the sort of script that, I imagine, will appeal to the southern audiences, so good show on that front. Neat job done by the ad filmmaker.

     

    Rating: (On a scale of 1 to 5): 2.5. The marks go for good treatment

  • In Freaking News, Ranjona Banerji reviews the fare on prime time news and the morning papers

    TV news = Bigg Boss?

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    As has happened with newspapers, there are small signs that television will also walk along the same line – the journalistic desire to question the intransigence of Anna Hazare and his insistence on his version of the Lokpal Bill. The political classes appear to be certain that they want more time and will not be harried into passing a bill which may be inadequate. The enormous scope given to members of Anna Hazare’s movement has been considerably reduced on television as other news enters the cycle.

     

    On Wednesday, for instance, the black money debate in the Lok Sabha got much play on television and led, as usual, to plenty of screaming and shouting on panel discussions later. The tendency of these leaders of society to yell and brawl on TV shows remains appalling and a tremendous indictment of Indian manners. However, it is also fair to say that most people do not behave like this in real life, thankfully and perhaps neither do these habitual TV guests when the cameras are turned off.

     

    **

     

    The terrible news of the deaths of more than 100 people in West Bengal from drinking contaminated illegal alcohol dominated Thursday’s TV bulletins, which includes the international channels as well. TV of course is concentrating on the human story so we will get the bigger picture from the newspapers. West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, already getting flak from a once-enamoured media, now has to do damage control on a number of fronts and this is bound to be further debated.

     

    **

     

    James Murdoch, son of media tycoon Rupert, has now admitted that he knew about the phone-hacking practices used by journalists in his newspapers. Earlier this year, James had told a British parliamentary committee investigating phone-hacking that he knew nothing about it. More media scrutiny will – and must – ensue.

     

    **

     

    The Indian Olympic Association has decided not to boycott the Olympic Games, as demanded by the sports ministers, some activists and a few sportspersons, in spite of Dow Chemicals’ involvement in the Games. More debate is expected and more TV-inspired pyrotechnics.
    TV news in India is like the Bigg Boss for those with intellectual pretensions.

     

    eom

  • In Freaking News, Ranjona Banerji reviews the fare on prime time news and the morning papers

    Turning 50 and other problems!

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    I was quite happy to discover that this is my 50th update for Freaking News and am unhappy to find that I was so wrong yesterday. By the evening, it seemed that TV had decided that the shenanigans of Team Anna required as much exposure as possible and that being sensible was just a whole lot of horse feathers, while being unreasonable was so much more fun. So there were members of the core committee of the anti-corruption movement doing their normal threatening and grandstanding all over TV and this morning had an unpleasant photograph of Anna Hazare and Kiran Bedi ominously wagging their fingers at us. Bedi on Times Now was as annoying as she can be, insisting that the Cabinet and Parliament must go no further than the Jan Lokpal Bill.

     

    But it was later that matters got really appalling on Times Now as Mumbai-based film-maker and activist Ashok Pandit (I did not recognise him because his grey hair has turned black) accused another guest of being a terrorist because she looks like one (a Muslim, she was, of course – Hamida Naeem, a lecturer at Kashmir University). What was even worse was that although Arnab Goswami said “no personal remarks”, he did not stop Pandit and neither did the other guests, Madhu Kishwar and retired general, Shankar Prasad. The issue was the death of a young shopkeeper in Kashmir who was beaten to death because he refused to shut shop. The people who killed him are called “stone-pelters”, a special breed of humans who exist only on TV land. TV wanted to know why the Armed Forces were blamed for all kinds of things but “stone-pelters” are not condemned with the same outrage by hardline separatist groups in Kashmir. The many specious conclusions in this argument need another whole article to deal with them.

     

    So I was wrong again because I really believed that the deaths of 145 people from drinking adulterated illegal alcohol in West Bengal needed more prominence.

     

    **

     

    The end of the American occupation of Iraq got plenty of play on international channels but only minimal on Indian TV, not unnaturally. The newspapers as usual filled in the gaps.

     

    **

     

    The Hindu has an interesting editorial on how the BJP loved Union home minister P Chidambaram when he was tough on Naxals and Maoists but are currently gunning for him because he targeting Hindutva-inspired terror groups. Who knows, this may well be true.

     

    **

     

    After the Parliamentary debate on black money, newspapers could have given us more figures on the parallel economy in India, its size and reach. The problem is not just about money stashed abroad: it is as much about the money within India which never enters the system and so bypasses not just tax but also quality control and standards laws.

     

    **

     

    Incidentally, just for the information of our ultra-jingoistic TV-wallahs, the battle against the Armed Forces Special Protection Act is not limited to Kashmir – the act is also why Irom Sharmila has been on a hunger strike for over 10 years in Manipur. Do we as journalists have the mandate to take sides without adequate information?

  • It's very clear by now that, drunk on the TV media's fan-like support, members of the team have become arrogant and Dubya-like in their attitude. The 'my way or the highway' deal. How healthy is that approach for democracy, we all know quite well.

    Anil Thakraney: Cut the Anna crusade

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    It is fashionable to credit the social media for Team Anna’s stupendous run. They have managed to hilao the government big-time, and it is often said their oxygen is the support provided by tweeters and facebookers. I totally disagree.

     

    The real fuel for Anna’s campaign comes from the television media. It is they who, in their childlike enthusiasm, have converted the saint from Ralegaon Siddhi into a god-like cult figure. And quite frankly, I am not surprised. It’s our TV media’s belief that any story that generates ratings must be given liberal play, even if it demolishes every tenet of good journalism. From no angle can you justify the role played by the assorted news channels as crusaders and poster boys for Team Anna. When the social media does that, it becomes understandable. Because the virtual world consists of individuals fed up of corruption… dudes who don’t really comprehend the complexities of the Lokpal bill, and are basically venting steam. That’s fine. But for professional journalists to become recruitment agents for Anna is simply an appalling situation.

     

    Anyway, what’s done is done. Team Anna is threatening Hunger Strike Part 2, this time from the ‘salubrious’ Mumbai. At least this time around the news channels must respect the principles of journalism and desist from going over-the-top on the coverage. Because it’s very clear by now that, drunk on the TV media’s fan-like support, members of the team have become arrogant and Dubya-like in their attitude. The ‘my way or the highway’ deal. How healthy is that approach for democracy, we all know quite well.

     

    Bottom-line: Let Team Anna fight its own battles. Report the story, like any other story, and no more. There are other interesting ways to get good ratings. Try village horror stories. At least they don’t threaten Indian democracy.

     

    ***

     

    PS: Wieden + Kennedy’s London office has found a charming way to wish you this season. The agency has set up a window outside their office, from where passers-by can take part in the celebrations. Lovely idea.

     

    Link: http://achoirofyou.com/

  • Rahul Dravid warns that not thinking about the fan is one of the reasons for the fast-diminishing crowds at Indian stadia. And how this portends very badly for the future of the game. It's TV that is busy slaying the goose that lays the golden eggs

    Anil Thakraney: Treating the fan like shit

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    Everyone’s talking about Rahul Dravid’s speech at the Bradman Oration. It is sharp and insightful. And it proves that the man is not just a great batsman, he’s got a thinking brain when it comes to the sport. Jammy makes many pertinent points about the dangers to cricket, but one that caught my attention was on disrespecting the fan. Quite coincidentally, I had alluded to this in an earlier post.

     

    Dravid warns that not thinking about the fan is one of the reasons for the fast-diminishing crowds at Indian stadia. And how this portends very badly for the future of the game. He is right, of course, and I believe it’s TV that is busy slaying the goose that lays the golden eggs. Because the BCCI earns almost all its revenues from television rights, they have paid scant attention to the stadia. The last time I made the mistake of going for a one-day match, it turned out to be such an awful experience, I swore never go back, even if someone paid me a whole lot of money to do so. Stinking, dirty toilets. Crowd mismanagement. Shortage of drinking water. Very uncomfortable seats. It was like the organizers were saying to me: “Who asked you to come here, you idiot? Go home and watch.”

     

    Dravid categorically states that it is no fun for the players either. That it is depressing playing in front of empty stadia. Really hope the BCCI is listening to him and takes urgent measures to sort this out. If they won’t take the rest of us seriously, surely they must pay close attention to what the experienced cricketer has to say. He can’t be wrong.

     

    [youtube width=”400″ height=”200″]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qr4bK63WxXY[/youtube]Here’s the link to Dravid’s speech if you haven’t watched it yet. In addition to his views, the suits must pay attention to his style. Dravid makes very serious points, but he doesn’t bore the audience. Something to learn from here for those who speak at seminars. Boring speakers who never fail to put us to sleep. (One of the main reasons I politely decline invitations to seminars.)

     

    ***

     

    PS: Completely wacko ad from BurgerKing,Russia. It’s over-the-top and bizarre, perhaps an indication of the desperation caused by their declining market share. But you have to say one thing: At least they’ve made the burger the hero!

     

     

     

  • Ranjona Banerji presents her take on nightly news and the fare in the morning papers

    When Indian TV woke up late

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    What is news? What has happened or what you think your viewers/readers want to know about. All the news that’s fit to print is the motto of The New York Tines but does that make any sense to our TV channels? As news broke of the death of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il – first on Al Jazeera on Monday morning. As BBC and CNN interrupted their regular bulletins, Al Jazeera had already put together a package. In India however news was divided between Anna Hazare’s latest plans, the whereabouts of Pakistani something-or-the-other Veena Malik and something about Rahul Dravid which I did not waste time on. It took at least half an hour for Indian TV to wake up to “breaking news”.

     

    “Dumbing down” as a concept is most insulting to those it is aimed at – readers and viewers of the news. It implies that they are too stupid to understand events and can only digest a tasty amalgam of entertainment news and whatever can be dramatised and sensationalised. Yet, one would assume that a change of diet with truly “breaking news” should occasionally be alternated with pap, so that the system does not become incapable of dealing with change.

     

    **

     

    Meanwhile, Anna Hazare and his antics continue to keep the media busy. As he hops all over the country, the camera follow. We understand that the biggest showdown of all is about to take place in Mumbai on December 27 when more people than were at Ramlila Maidan will apparate themselves in solidarity. Sorry to use Harry Potter jargon, but it sounds a bit like that to me.

     

    My maths teachers convinced me long ago that I had little understanding of this magical subject and it has largely remained a mystery to me. But even I can extrapolate that 100,000 people is a mere drop in the ocean when compared to India’s population of 1.2 billion. However, TV and newspapers continue to assure us that Anna Hazare represents all the people of India and when we express doubt, they bring on Kiran Bedi who can shout it at us till we retire hurt.

     

    **

     

    Time Magazine’s award of the ‘Person of the Year’ to ‘The Protestor’ was a masterful stroke. Indeed it has been, from Tunisia, Egypt, Yeman, Libya and Syria right up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. In a sense, India Against Corruption activists also fall into this category, but CNN-IBN, showing a slight shortfall of imagination, gave their award to Anna Hazare. Is this stating the obvious or acknowledging the Indian propensity to create icons and god-like figures out of thin air? Or even worse, an example of TV’s need to legitimise its own news choices?

     

    **

     

    In happier news, Sunday supplements were full of ways to celebrate the party season, what to eat, what to buy and what to gift. Gingerbread houses and other such delights took the mind away from the hurly-burly right to where it matters – the stomach. Or was it the wallet?

  • While I can understand the producers wanting to promote Don 2 – even planting those cheap 3D glasses inside newspapers is okay to a point – Shahrukh must understand that his continuous presence in the media is going to hurt his charisma in the long run. How much of the star can we take?

    Anil Thakraney: Doesn’t SRK get it?

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    Oh no! Don 2 (it actually should be Don 3, because the earlier Don was a rip-off of the original Bachchan film) is all set to hit the cinemas and we will have to sit back and ‘enjoy’ Shahrukh Khan’s nautanki, as he shuttles from one TV studio to another, desperately hawking the flick. He just did ditto for Ra.One and pakaoed the hell out of everyone. The popular Twitter joke at the time was: The only thing left for SRK to do is to insert breaks during the film’s screening, so that he can plug it!

     

    Did the media hero’s 360-degree effort for Ra.One save the film? Despite all those tall claims on initial collections (which would have happened even if Khan didn’t do the studio rounds… his name anyway gets lots of folks interested), the film was dissed by all and sundry and reportedly lost some money. So what is the use of all this mad self marketing?

     

    Now, while I can understand the producers wanting to promote the film – even planting those cheap 3D glasses inside newspapers is okay to a point – Shahrukh must understand that his continuous presence in the media is going to hurt his charisma in the long run. How much of the star can we take? In fact, I gave Ra.One a quiet miss because the last thing I wanted after his full-on blast in the media was more Shahrukh Khan. Sure, the content-starved TV channels will welcome him with open arms. Because it gives them a chance to talk about all issues unconnected with the film, including SRK’s opinions on how to end communalism in this nation, and how to send a man to Uranus (okay, I made the last one up). But what good does all that fluff talk do for the film’s fortunes?

     

    Dear SRK and all the other stars: Guys, spend all this moolah and energy on creating sparkling content. Two, zealously protect the mystique around your own image. And three, leave the TV studios to the netas and to Mr Suhel Seth.

     

    ***

     

    PS: I sincerely hope Anna’s Jan Lokpal bill gets passed in toto by the government. Not because I believe it will end corruption, but because I don’t want Team Anna doing their number from Mumbai. The traffic is already a mess out here, and we just can’t handle another frenzied public spectacle.

  • Everybody wants to be a part of the action and the media is the vehicle to fame. Unfortunately there has been a tendency for single numbers to be blown up and the complete picture obfuscated to drive home a point.

    Newswatch by Madan Sabnavis: In media showbiz, real figures take a backseat

    By Madan Sabnavis

     

    Media is not unlike showbiz. Everybody wants to be a part of the action and the media is the vehicle to fame. Given the intense competition, it is but natural that every newspaper wants to be one up and every television channel would like to be the first to flash breaking news. Suddenly, even a standard release from the government becomes breaking news for the first channel that flashes the story. From politics to economics, it is the same story.

     

    The economic travails that we are facing today have grabbed headlines as well as eyeballs, thanks to the media, which is a powerful tool for conveying an idea, as we have witnessed in 2011.

     

    The media’s main focus has been on the policymakers and critics, which added zing to otherwise insipid developments. It is not thatIndiais crawling this year. Growth is reasonable, inflation is high, though not unusual as we have had such patterns in the past and the entire hullabaloo on exchange rate is again not really happening for the first time. But all this has come to the fore due to incessant media attention, and in a way, has gotten exaggerated. How fair has this exposure been?

     

    The interesting fact here has been the prevalence of the same basic laws of economics – demand and supply of such views in the media industry. TV channels have hours dedicated to business and economy. As every economic indicator is supposed to affect the stock market, it merits fixed hours of discussion. There are time spaces to fill in with views which get in the big names. This has led to constant interactions with government officials, policy makers, bureaucrats, ex-bureaucrats, economists, CEOs, CFOs, journalists, academicians, journalists, and so on.

     

    More importantly everybody wants the top names in the field, though the rather amusing outcome is that we have the same set of 10-20 experts in each of the fields who circulate the same, standard views.

     

    There is, in a way, nothing really wrong here, but there may have been a tendency to over-react at times as we have started viewing every economic detail on a realtime basis.

     

    Today, economic data in India comes with lags. There is a two-week lag for wholesale prices, a month for exports, consumer prices and industrial data. The lag becomes almost a quarter for GDP numbers. To top it all, there are revisions which can be quite horrendous, since the experts look like having contradicted themselves as they comment based on the information provided at that particular point of time. Now the broader question is whether we should believe such data.

     

    Why do we want to minutely dissect such high frequency data when we know that there will be changes subsequently? This is important because all such data and interpretations invariably affect stock market and investment decisions. If all experts say that interest rates will rise, then individuals will shift to bank deposits, just like how mutual funds may become attractive in case the majority view is that the economy is on track and booming.

     

    With a tendency for over-exposure and the willingness or over-enthusiasm of experts to come online, there may have been a situation of overstating cases. Generally speaking, theory will say that economies do not function in one week or month, but on a cumulative basis during a year. This being the case, in the past we have been looking only at cumulative numbers.

     

    But today if one channel looks at month-over-month numbers, all have to do it to stay in the race. This means forcing the speakers to comment or give their forecasts which they have to do once they are on the phone or on camera.

     

    This has led to a proliferation in the numbers being given on each and every economic indicator by the same person in a short span of time, say one month. When queried on reactions to a dismal number, which is actually a tautological question, the answer has to be that the person is dismayed or surprised or shocked or concerned. But actually, they may not really know why the number turned out to be abysmal.

     

    The official stance always talks of recoveries in the rest of the year while the corporates will always paint a doomsday picture when interest rates have risen. This, in turn, can drive an opinion.

     

    Things have hence been magnified throughout the media on account of relatively higher frequency of economic releases which still are subject to revisions.

     

    Unfortunately there has been a tendency for single numbers to be blown up and the complete picture obfuscated to drive home a point. We have not really had any novel solutions offered in this plethora of debates.

     

    Let us see some of them: We need to have reforms. But did we not have a good economic picture without these reforms in the past? We need to lower interest rates to help industry. Is industry the only sector driving the economy and is this the only constituency that matters? We should stop predatory competition fromChinawhich affects us. But if the product is an import going into your product, would the stance be the same? There is policy paralysis. But this cannot be a solution when the world is going through a slowdown and everyone has to adjust.

     

    Surprisingly, we do not hear western critics saying that there is policy paralysis in the Eurozone which is holding back growth – there as it is understood that all crisis situations take time to resolve as there are various constituencies involved.

     

    How then does one evaluate the performance of the media in bringing to the fore the economic crisis that we are living with? There is a plethora of views, with few interpretations. The viewer or reader has to make a choice and often times, by virtue of selection of the commentators or experts, ends up getting confused.

     

    As the media invariably represents a single view in a market economy, it has helped to bring to the fore the issues, though admittedly, government action is based on a larger public concerns and hence has remained susceptible to media bashing.

     

    We have not really had workable solutions coming forth in these discussions. But, nonetheless it has helped to stoke a lot of debate and create awareness of issues which hitherto would have been confined to only a certain section of people. To this extent, it is a job well done. What about the experts who keep giving their views relentlessly on the same lines? To quote Oscar Wilde, to be in it is merely a bore. But to be out of it is simply a tragedy. It’s showbiz after all.

     

    Madan Sabnavis is Chief Economist, CARE Ratings. The views expressed are personal.

  • Gouri Dange on a sub-species of consumer that is completely impervious to advertising ammo.

    Naming No Names: We don’t need no ad breaks

    By Gouri Dange

     

    Is there a name for some of us viewers-listeners-readers who simply cannot be bludgeoned into buying products by the advertising industry? While we do go out and buy stuff, and in that sense are consumers, we have grown an internal lock-out mechanism which makes us utterly impervious to advertising of any sort- inyourface repetitive ads, subliminal ones, funny-clever ones, oh-so-Indian mange more kind of stuff, manipulative tear-jerking advertising… none of it seems to stick to us. It’s as if we are Teflon-coated, and all attempts to grab our eyeballs and sing into our ears and play our hearts and seduce our souls simply slide away unregistered in our psyches.

     

    It’s probably genetic, and then again it is probably a defence mechanism that we developed in response to the relentless persuasion that we have been subjected to over the last some years. Ads in newspapers and magazines that come to us with the cover page in the form of some fussy pull-out, fold-in, pop-up flappy strips and straps? They don’t stand a chance. We simply tear off that part, so that we can read without the hindrance of this piece of persuasion.

     

    As for ads on TV, some of us have channel-switching or snack-fixing or loo-going or quick phone-calling down to a fine art. This way, we don’t have to watch the ad world pretending to be oh-so-concerned for our skins, our hearts, our safety, our kids’ education, our old age security and yadayadayada while reaching out to pick our pockets.

     

    Of course, the crafty fellows now have synchronized ad breaks, so if you switch channels, you can avoid being told what oil to buy, but you will have to watch happy families choosing wall paints. And on a bad day, the same ad will be playing simultaneously on three channels, so the message is ominously clear – you can run, but you can’t hide. Well then we always have the option to sprint into the kitchen, fix ourselves a drinky, make bhurji (no, not 1.59 minute noodles) and be back in our seats just as the movie or programme is back on air. I love it.

     

    My least favourite ads are the ones in which children are recruited to sell stuff; for some of us, this borders on child-labour/porn in frilly clothing. And when those come on, I mute the TV and exit the room for that loo break and can abandon a programme or a movie if it all gets too much.

     

    Making ourselves ad-proof has become such a way of life, that sometimes I can be sitting right there, right through a serious attack of advertisements on my TV, and will not be able to recall what product an ad was for, 10 seconds later. Absolutely not a clue, if we’re asked. Zilch, nada, negative, illay, nahi. And if we’re asked what brand of soap-oil-rice-sauce-atta-insurance we use, a researcher would again draw a blank. Nothing. Yes we do eat that stuff, but we simply buy stuff in rotation, and are more likely to buy things that don’t shout ‘pick me, take me, buy me, use me’ or make seductive sounds from the store shelves. So giving us the come-hither doesn’t work too well for a product.

     

    And if we’re sold something that we liked for the first time, but was less than good the second time, we’ll dump it without a second thought or a backward glance. We don’t know the concept of fidelity, faith and loyalty when it comes to stuff that has to be bought and used. We buy what works for us, and will stop buying it when it doesn’t.

     

    Nostalgia doesn’t work on us either when it comes to advertising, so anything that tries to evoke some decade we’re supposed to be all gooey-eyed about, we will simply yawn and go to the loo.

     

    How do we make consumer choices when it comes to buying larger things like cars and computers and such-like? I call my friend Bonnie (everyone should have a Bonnie). Because he knows about these things. And he knows what works for me; he puts himself in my shoes, and gives me advice. He is himself ad-proof! He too only ever buys things that have shown that they work, rather than things that strut on television and preen in print. He ruthlessly throws out goods and services that don’t deliver on promises and rarely gives them a second chance.

     

    And no, this is not an advertisement for Bonnie. Go find your own Bonnie.

     

    Naming no Names is the mid-week column where novelist, columnist and counsellor Gouri Dange presents her tongue-in-cheek view of our world.

  • Ranjona Banerji reviews the fare on primetime news and in the papers the morning after

    Dharker & Aiyar face the heat for speaking their mind

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    One of the differences between the spoken and written word in journalism has been highlighted in the discussions about Anna Hazare and the Lokpal Bill. Senior journalist Anil Dharker called Hazare a man of “limited intellectual abilities” on Times Now on Monday night. The panel around him exploded with outrage, with anchor Arnab Goswami reacting with his best display of inner sadness, magnanimously offering Dharker a chance to “retract” his statement. Dharker refused. Goswami made it clear that Times Now did not endorse Dharker’s views and was not in favour of personal remarks.

     

    Oddly, Goswami was not so upset when Ashok Pandit told Hamida Naeem that she “looked like a terrorist”. Clearly, being a terrorist is less offensive than being stupid.
    Now Mani Shankar Aiyar is in the dock on social media sites for saying on CNN-IBN, “We made a huge mistake in converting this Team Anna into a Frankenstein’s monster. Now they have had their say, we have thought about it… It is my job as a Parliamentarian to legislate. I had plenty of time to legislate and I hope that we get through this Lokpal Bill and can tell Team Anna to go back to flogging drunkards in Ralegaon Siddhi.”

     

    Had Dharker and Aiyar written the same words in articles or columns, the anger would have been slight. There is something about hearing such sentiments which seems to arouse us, while we can read much worse with perfect equanimity. Perhaps that is why all our panel discussions on Indian television disintegrate so fast into vulgar slanging matches.

     

    **

     

    I was at a panel discussion on paid news organised by Moneylife Foundation on Tuesday, together with journalists Smruti Koppikar and Dyanada Deshpande, with Geeta Seshu. It is sad to see the amount of despair and cynicism, but it is also clear that something has to be done. Better watchdogs, more resistance to management pressure, more public disclosures were some of the suggestions made. Ideas are welcome on what can and needs to be done.

     

    For those who have missed it, try and watch Umesh Aggarwal’s documentary Brokering News. Also, go to the Press Council website and read the report on paid news - attempts were made to suppress it by owners of media houses and the report is up with a disclaimer!

     

    Perhaps Press Council chairman Markandey Katju, in between his deliberations on who should get the next Bharat Ratna, should take on owners and managements?