MxMIndia

Category: COLUMNS

  • For debates-heavy news programming to be engaging, you need talking heads who can debate – authoritatively and intelligently, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Primetime News: Talking Heads or Headless Chickens?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    In the middle of a heated news television debate, the spokesperson of a top political party asserts: “Can you just give me two minutes to make my point? Then I have to go to another channel.” I was amused the first time I heard this line about two years ago. But over time, it’s become par for the course. Not too long ago, I was switching news channels and found the same spokesperson, sitting on the same seat, on four different news channels within a span of an hour, engaging with the same debate with roughly the same panelists!

     

    Till about a decade ago, news television was about reportage, accompanied by analysis, peppered with bytes that added value to it. NDTV Profit has been repeating old episodes of The World This Week as a part of the 25-year celebration of the group, and the difference between the approach to news then and now is striking, to say the least.

     

    I’m not suggesting that debates-heavy news programming on primetime is bad. In fact, if done well, it can be significantly more engaging than the more passive classical reportage format. But for that, you need talking heads who can debate – authoritatively and intelligently. And the current lot falls short on both counts.

     

    It’s evident to any regular news viewer that the spokespersons designated by the top political parties, the likes of Sanjay Jha, Nirmala Sitaraman and Rahul Narvekar, have no real authority at their disposal. They are foot soldiers, thrown in a hostile situation and left to dodge the missiles being hurled at them. To make themselves heard in the cacophony may well be their only KRA.

     

    Talking heads from regional parties, such as Derek O’Brien from Trinamool, clearly display more authority, though it is another matter that half of the time, he is defending the indefensible.

     

    On intelligence (and I don’t mean IQ here but political acumen), you can sense that parties have relaxed it as a criteria for the choice of spokespersons. From Abhishek Manu Singhvi to Sanjay Jha is quite a big shift, for example. It seems there are too many channels and you need an army to share the “workload.”

     

    In any case, the real voices that matter choose not to come to primetime television shows. Rarely would you see a minister making an appearance in a one-on-one with one of the top anchors. Because they have made themselves so inaccessible, they are treated with near reverence when they indeed make that odd appearance.

     

    Interestingly, the same revering anchors go ballistic with the lesser mortals, read spokespersons. It’s as if the anchors start their show licking their lips in anticipation of the “tough questions” they will hurl at their guests.  Nidhi Razdan’s latest interview with British MP Barry Gardiner proves that the infection to be mean has spread thick and fast. Blame Arnab, of course.

     

    I believe political parties will do well to focus on quality rather than quantity, i.e., present themselves only on 2-3 channels on any given night, but send erudite and articulate talking heads, who can rise above petty out-shouting, to deliver the goods. It will serve the parties well in the long run.

     

    Channels, on the other hand, will do well to limit a debate to 3-4 talking heads. There is no empirical evidence to suggest more talking heads means a more engaging debate or more ratings. A leaner panel will, in fact, encourage quality politicians to participate.

     

    Lest I should be misunderstood, I am not advocating a “reduce noise” recipe. I (kind of) like the noise of primetime television. It is provocative and stimulating in its own right. But if the noisemakers are just headless chicken, the point is lost. We need noisemakers who are also newsmakers!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • Ill-informed anchors, half-baked stories from reporters, politicians who have their voices set at maximum volume rule our news channels today, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: How not watching news TV has helped reduce my BP

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Any dinner party conversation in a particular part of India somehow veers towards the difficulty of watching TV news. Where it was once a compulsion for English-speaking India to cancel all engagements to watch the nightly “debate” on TV, people now discuss the methods they have for staying away. Some people say they have stopped watching TV altogether and rediscovered books. Others have just switched to entertainment channels. Some stare into space and have a little peaceful navel-gazing. And perhaps some people have even revived that archaic practice of talking to each other between 8.30 and 10.30 pm.

     

    Regardless of whether the ratings show this or not, our yelling matches are reaching an end. Their entertainment value is now showing diminished returns and they have little marginal utility. Besides, everyone knows what the usual participants are going to say. The line of argument as far as each channel is concerned is also predictable. Headlines Today and Times Now will be hysterically jingoistic and in a state of quivering outrage. News X will try to be rational but will be hampered by its low star power and the difficulty in deciphering its anchors. NDTV will take a slightly different less hysterical line but will not always succeed. And CNN-IBN will sit on the fence, tending this way and that depending on the issue.

     

    Lok Sabha TV and Rajya Sabha TV both remain civilised and more intelligent but it is unlikely that they make much difference yet. At least until the scourge of tamasha has been scrubbed out of our minds.

     

    From a personal point of view, I have avoided primetime news for two months now and my doctor is really happy with my drop in blood pressure. Ill-informed anchors, half-baked stories from reporters, politicians who have their voices set at maximum volume, the same experts telling us about everything from which chocolate biscuit is better to whether we should go to war with Pakistan – how stupid do they think we are? I take that back. We know how stupid we are.

     

    **

     

    And bring a bunch of old journalists together and you know the story. As tears fall into glasses of Old Monk, they weep about things were better in their days and wish they had a little money to start a newspaper which was not so corporatised, not so rubbish-driven, had more imagination, had more perspective and had greater understanding of news.

     

    This is a pipe dream. Or should it be so. Perhaps it shows an even greater lack of imagination that journalists cannot indeed come up with alternatives to what passes for news today. The internet provides an ideal platform and needs to be exploited. What? What are you waiting for? Don’t stand there staring at me!

     

    **

     

    BBC News carried a well-choreographed discussion on cyber-bullying on their World Have Your Say segment this week. The peg was the suicide of a British teenager who had been attacked on ask.fm. The teenagers in the show – from all over the world – provided interesting perspectives of what passes for “fun” in the adolescent mind. The anchor was intrigued but not condescending. No one had tantrums or talked over the other or screamed when there was disagreement. Incredible. Maybe it was a show from another planet?

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • Ranjona Banerji's round-up on the media: on predictable fare on Independence Day, government action on paid news and bleak job prospects in the media

    Ranjona Banerji: I-Day Blues

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Has marking Independence Day become a ritualistic exercise for today’s media? Both newspapers and news television showed a remarkable reliance on clichés. Long ago, Sunday Mid-Day’s logo used to be “Expect the Unexpected”. Now with the media in India, it’s more like “expect the expected”. A shout out to Forbes magazine however for its essays on the concept of freedom: Variations on a theme with some intelligent thought.

     

    Meanwhile, Independence Day in the media was consumed by discussion of the speeches of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. This shows how little depth we are now happy with in the media.

     

    Interesting that the deaths of 18 sailors in the fires of the submarine INS Sindhurakshak inspired much less love for “martyrs” than the deaths of five soldiers along the LOC. Was this just media fatigue at maintaining high-pitched jingoism or was it because the sailors were not killed by enemy fire? The Times of India now suggests – in what seems slightly irresponsible journalism – that the fires may not have been accidents or caused by human error. If the “enemy” waltzed once more into Mumbai harbour by the sea and blew up a submarine, then we have far bigger problems on our hands than the pre-election shenanigans of Modi. And we want more than the slivers of suggestions in the TOI story.

     

    As a side note, the use of the word “martyrs” for all armed forces personnel who die is possibly a mis-translation of the word “shaheed”. Both may be similar but they are not the same.

     

    **

     

    The government is planning to take up the menace of paid news by making amendments to the Press and Registration of Books Act. This is a serious issue which cannot be ignored by the media. There is nothing worse than government interference in the running of the media because it impinges directly on the freedom of expression. However, if the media does not combat paid news, then someone else will do it and that someone else will invariably be the government. Some thought required here but has thought become too expensive a commodity for the media to rely on? http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-15/india/41412682_1_paid-news-electronic-media-amendments

     

    **

     

    CNN-IBN has apparently laid off some 200 people with a total of 500 to go, according to rumours. The TV18 group has already had a little public relations problem with the sacking of senior people in Forbes. NDTV has been “downsizing” and the Outlook Group closed down three magazines which meant at least 100 people out of jobs. Outlook first treated its staff very badly, then some staff went to the labour court and then magically everyone reached an “amicable” solution.

     

    Immediate prospects in the media look bleak as everywhere jobs are frozen and managements are looking at cutting costs. DNA however now has a new editor, CP Surendran and many are looking hopefully in that direction. It remains to be seen whether this newspaper, once second in Mumbai and once able to give market leader Times of India a run for its money, can get back into the race.

     

    **

     

    I have to confess that I have cut back seriously on my TV time and for three months have not watched those ridiculous prime time “debates”. But I do check in on news channels through the day just to find out what’s happening. I would be interested to know from readers which news channels they trust the most and which they instinctively turn to (both may not be the same).

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • Ranjona Banerji thinks sacking CEOs and a couple of senior management honchos would be more effective than effecting massive layoffs

    Ranjona Banerji: Media sackings have little to do with incompetence

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tewari has taken a leaf from Markandey Katju’s book. He thinks that journalists should be given some kind of “licence” before they can work. Katju, in his early days as Press Council chairman, had felt that journalists needed some minimum qualification.

     

    All this concern about how and why journalists function! Should we be touched? Laugh it off? Or get really worried that the government is trying, in whatever way it can, to inveigle its way into press matters? Freedom of expression has always irked those in power and while they pay lip service to the tenets of the Constitution what they would really like is to control the press. There are obvious ways – like withholding government ads (see how many ads there are in newspapers today, August 20, about Rajiv Gandhi to see what I mean). And there are more subtle ways like these sly little suggestions on how journalists need to be controlled and cordoned.

     

    Do we need to have a licence to work? We already have some bizarre system of “accredited” journalists, which allows you some government freebies and perks. Is it strange that most of the names on the list are fixers and operators? Should journalists get freebies and perks from the government? I have a radical view on this: journalists should not even accept awards from the government and that includes all the Padmas. We as a tribe must maintain that distance from authority as well as from our sources. (All right, all right, I can hear the loud and raucous laughter you know. But this is a “high horse” moment.)

     

    In fact, there is no need to explain to the government how and why the media works the way it does. There are enough laws in this country to deal with transgressions. The media however needs to constantly assess how and why it works. This laughter is getting too loud. Moving on.

     

    **

     

    Tiwari however did make one cogent suggestion: that TRAI keep in mind how it impacts the media and business models when it makes its rules – like limited advertisement time. He was referring to massive layoffs at TV18 where more than 500 people are on the hacking list according to various sources. Some have already lost their jobs and as usual, they are people at the bottom of the food chain. I have always thought that sacking CEOs and a couple of senior management honchos would be more effective…

     

    **

     

    The loss of jobs in the media has only created little whirlpools of gossip and mires of misery. The “media” itself has been silent: as a senior colleague pointed out, contrast this silence to the raucous outcries of injustice when Jet Airways was on a sacking spree. In the past few months, I count over 100 from NDTV, 100 from the Outlook Group and now a supposed 550 from TV18. These are a lot of people made jobless and with dismal prospects because managements get infected very fast by the downsizing bug.

     

    What is worse is that the sackings (I refuse to give these actions legitimacy by calling them “downsizing” or even worse, “right-sizing”) have little to do with incompetence. They have to do with bad management which led these companies into unprofitable territory. Told ya, sack the CEOs first.

     

    **

     

    The Times of India’s edit page carries an intriguing opinion piece by Srijana Mitra Das which suggests that all the general carping about chaos and cacophony on Indian news channels reflects an outdated school of thought. “Shrill TV is not Indian media adopting loud, pushy Americana over polished Britannica – it is ordinary India reshaping its democratic space, demanding answers after 66 patient years, making an OB van the opposite of a red beacon car.”

     

    Without getting into the specifics of TV discussions on American, British, Russian, French or German TV, there is one suggestion that I would like to make. Ordinary India might just reflect on the fact that if everyone shouts at the same time, no one can hear the nuggets of wisdom falling from their eager lips. That’s all.

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • Many of us in the media cannot distinguish between a campaign that does not deliver to its objectives, and a campaign that is designed to meet wrong or strategically-flawed objectives in the first place, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: What Do You Mean By ‘I Should Know Why I’m Doing This Campaign’?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    They are omnipresent. They are on TV, in the newspapers, on the radio, on the hoardings, in the theatres, on Facebook, on Twitter. No matter where you go, a launch campaign of a new TV programme, a new TV property or a new (or being-presented-as-new) TV channel will find you out. Across just the national channels, more than 150 such campaigns of various sizes and shapes are executed every year in India.

     

    Everyone has a view on an ad: Bad ad, good ad, stupid ad, clever ad, and so on. It is natural then that TV campaigns are discussed with great interest in the media industry. “Did you see the promo of the new show on Colors”, “What do you think of the &pictures campaign”, “I really like the IBL promos on Star”, “Jee Le Zaraa looks interesting from the promos”, etc.

     

    One of the professional hazards of my work is that I invariably end up being dragged into these discussions. Either a question is posed to me, or an opinion is stated, more like a cue to respond with mine. Yes, like everyone else, I too have a view (sometimes a more confidential one, having “tested” the campaign in question). But I really don’t know what to say at most times, and my attention is focused on finding an escape route.

     

    The reason for my response is not diplomacy but something more direct and relevant to the idea of a “campaign” (or “ad”, for that matter) itself. Any campaign, across categories, should be designed to address certain sharply stated campaign objectives, i.e., the desired consumer messaging or response the campaign aims to achieve. Hence, the measure of a successful campaign is its ability to deliver on the campaign objectives successfully. Hence, how can one even begin to comment on a campaign without knowing its objectives?

     

    Many of us in the media cannot distinguish between a campaign that does not deliver to its objectives, and a campaign that is designed to meet wrong or strategically-flawed objectives in the first place. The latter is not a case of a bad campaign but a bad strategy. That’s a different discussion altogether. But invariably, the discussion gets mixed up and before we know, we are questioning why the brand even exists!

     

    But there is a bigger problem. Most campaign creators in television don’t even set objectives to start with. I have often tried asking the seemingly innocuous question: “What are the objectives of this campaign?” Some of the answers I have got, and I kid you not, have been:

     

    • To promote the show (as against promoting competition?)
    • To get eyeballs (you may as well have said “to make money”!)
    • To create awareness (rudimentary as it may be, it’s not entirely inane)
    • To create buzz (still more acceptable, given the ones above!)

     

    Recently, I met an MBA batchmate who is the brand head of a category in one of the leading FMCGs in India. As I shared my predicament with him, he looked wide-eyed and reasonably speechless, before gathering the courage to say: “I would have been sacked for saying any of that even in my first year of work!”

     

    Setting campaign objectives is not an easy task. It requires discipline and debate. In the earlier working model, ad agencies would own the brand and drive this area. Today, the strategy is reasonably scattered across functions: the brand team, the ad agency, the media agency and the research partner. Yes, there are some channels that are objectives-oriented in their approach towards some campaigns, but those are case studies that are far and few in between.

     

    Next time you have a big campaign coming up, try defining what you EXACTLY want the campaign to achieve. The answer may not be as easy as you think, and like it’s often the case, the God may lie in the detail!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • News TV is all about editorializing before the facts are known or processed. That is of course part of the reason why watching TV news can be so exasperating, rues Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Lack of professionalism and sympathy in gangrape coverage

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The morning on Twitter after the gangrape of a young photojournalist in Mumbai was an unnerving experience. Suddenly, the discussion was about how the media does not report rapes that happen in slums, about the class of the people raped and raping and how people react only when people of their class are raped.

     

    This is a stomach-churning sort of justification of rape and such reactions (the area was deserted, it was late in the evening, when women in slums are raped no one cares) are symptomatic of why rape is seen as a legitimate threat on social media. Sadly, some of these reactions were coming from journalists – showing, together with everything else, a lack of sympathy for a member of the community.

     

    Pop sociology is the scourge of journalists and of course of anyone who has access to a public platform. Which is fine as far as it goes. We are all entitled to our own opinions. But in Ye Olde Worlde, journalists had to clock in more than 365 days in the profession before they became final arbiters on just about anything. Now, of course, you turn on the TV and you are bombarded with the “new shrill India” – according to The Times of India’s worthy edit page – exercising its right to be heard.

     

    I am not sure however that being new and shrill is a justifiable excuse for lack of professionalism at least as far as the Indian media is concerned. Somewhere, editors have taken the backseat in a frenzied campaign to let youth have its say. No need to denigrate youth but no need to follow all its opinions and pronouncements either, minus discretion and better judgment.

     

    The fact that TV journalists get shrill and unprofessional in their coverage of such events does not help. On Times Now, the anchor wanted to know the class of the accused — a needless interjection at this stage. The Lower Parel area of Mumbai is introduced as a corporate hub – again making subliminal societal suggestions extraneous to the case, especially at this early stage. TV anchoring is all about editorializing before the facts are known or processed. That is of course part of the reason why watching TV news can be so exasperating. And dare I say it again, being bad for blood pressure.

     

    **

     

    The miserable side of all this is that despite all the largely excellent coverage of the Delhi gangrape of December 16 and the public upsurge of anger in the way women are mistreated in our society, nothing has changed. Our police, investigative and political responses are as incompetent and asinine. The Delhi case is limping along in the courts. And the cynic suggests that this Mumbai case will go the same way.

     

    Regardless of how people and people in the media get excited by the impact of their work, there is only so much that the media can do. Society and the system have to do their part as well to make a substantial difference.

     

    And there’s the rub.

     

    **

     

    In other news, the apparent collapse of the Indian economy has had varying reactions from different media outlets and big ticket commentators. A person with limited knowledge of money matters would be left impossibly confused if she read a variety of reports and comments. The rupee falling is good, is bad, is terrible, is wonderful, X is a genius, X has no idea about anything, listen to Y, Y is a fool…

     

    At the end of it, the media tracker is as confused as the economy. Mission accomplished?

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • Rape is a difficult subject to cover and on the run, mistakes are made. Yet where investigative journalism ends and intrusion begins is a tough call and both the media and its critics need to be aware of this, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Kneejerk reactions to gangrape coverage

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    “The Media” has been getting into a bit of trouble with the Mumbai gangrape case, for a variety of reasons. The silliest first: critics who assume that “The Media” is a single entity which thinks and moves as one gigantic slug. In fact, “The Media” is a bunch of separate publications, TV channels and now websites, all of whom are in competition with each other. “The Media” does not in fact attend the same meeting every day or week or month or year to discuss strategy and coordination. All the elements in “The Media” hold meetings everyday to try and trump each other.

     

    Then there is anger that “The Media” does not give publicity to, expose, investigate crimes against people of classes which are below their average newsroom class and never goes to remote hinterland areas. This is partially true but easily understood. Each individual publication and news channel caters to a particular readership in a particular language. Newsgathering will largely be restricted to that constituency. Sounds terrible? But somewhere there will be some media covering another constituency. That you have not heard of it is hardly “The Media’s” fault. Having said that, there is always scope for increasing coverage of the “other India” in both English language news publications and news channels.

     

    But I also know this: most people will read about film actor Om Puri’s marital troubles in today’s newspapers than anything at all on the edit page for instance. Usually a media outlet has to be at least as shallow as its readership or viewership.

     

    Then there are the serious problems with rape coverage. I am surprised at the transgressions made by The Times of India’s Mumbai edition here. Kalpana Sharma has gone into them in detail for The Hoot (http://www.thehoot.org/web/TOI-s-foot-in-mouth-rape-coverage/6990-1-1-25-true.html) and it is hard to improve upon that.

     

    It is true that calling a person who has been raped a survivor and not a victim reeks a bit of tokenism when you can’t get anything else right (including a sanctimonious front page declaration). Also, why senior journalists needed to invade so much of a victim’s privacy seems strange. Why inform people in the victim’s building? Why name the magazine where she worked?* Details of the extent of her injuries may have eventually become public knowledge, however. Where investigative journalism ends and intrusion begins is a tough call and both “The Media” and its critics need to be aware of this.

     

    However, TOI is not the only publication to blame. Rape is a difficult subject to cover and on the run, mistakes are made. Better communication between editors and reporters, good debriefing systems and a desk that is aware of the laws are vital here. Yes, I know that is asking for the moon.

     

    **

     

    What can be done within the media, since the victim/survivor and her accompanying colleague were part of the fraternity? It is ridiculous in the extreme to even entertain Maharashtra home minister RR Patil’s suggestion of police protection for working women journalists. If the police had worked harder at tracking/picking up anti-social elements in the Shakti Mills area, may be this crime may not have happened.

     

    Besides, the life of a working journalist is too unpredictable to make police protection practicable. Also, everyone needs help from the police, not just journalists. A media which constantly exposes the loss to effective policing because of VIP security can hardly appropriate some of that security for itself.

     

    Can or will media houses become more aware of the problems faced by their employees? It would be a shame if this “protection” idea led to a curtailment of assignments to women journalists who are still fighting hard to get equal status. We need more women, not less and we need less kneejerk reactions.

     

    * MxMIndia is also to blame for this. We did name the publication that the photojournalist interned at in our comment on Friday. We figured later that it wasn’t the right thing to do, and deleted the reference. Our apologies. – Editor.

     

    Ranjona Banerji is a senior journalist and commentator based in Mumbai. She is also Contributing Editor, MxMIndia. She can be reached via Twitter at @ranjona. The views here are her own

     

  • Television's aversion to all things alcohol is a symptom of the traditional mindset the medium targets at large, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Care For A Drink? No We Are On TV

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The anti-smoking infomercial that precedes film screenings is now an in-joke in the media industry. It can be argued that the government’s obsession with smoking shots in films, however passing, is not entirely misplaced. But the banal and utterly ineffective execution of the now-infamous Mukesh infomercial kills the idea.

     

    Television has no such problems. I just don’t remember when I last saw anyone smoking in an originally-produced Indian programme, fiction or non-fiction. Everyone is clean to the bone. Even when a teenage character goes astray and takes two puff of a cigarette to “try it out”, it happens off-camera, though the ensuing conflict may stretch over two weeks.

     

    Television’s take on alcohol is not very different. Yes, there have been shows where key negative characters are portrayed as alcoholics (including a sisters’ trio in Colors’ now-off-air Laagi Tujhse Lagan). But the stereotyping is striking. They are meant to be bad people because they consume alcohol. Or maybe they consume alcohol because they are bad people!

     

    Except Ram Kapoor and Sakshi Tanwar enjoying their drink in a couple of (and some of the best) episodes of Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, all heroes and heroines squirm at the idea of a bottle being anywhere in their vicinity.

     

    Television’s aversion to all things alcohol is a symptom of the traditional mindset the medium targets at large. And indeed, there may be merit in arguing for their case. In our research across markets, especially non-metros, discussions on alcoholism can touch raw nerves in the housewives community. Many of them face it as a real issue in their lives, where the husband, the father-in-law or the brother-in-law are spending disproportionate share of the household income on booze. And there is a direct linkage between alcoholism and domestic violence, as we all know.

     

    Of course, there is the other side of the argument too, which says that all television is not supposed to cater to middle-class housewives who face such real issues in their day-to-day lives. There is an audience beyond that: The urban elite, the youth, men and women in professional jobs, etc. But these characters are conspicuous by their absence in our serials anyway.

     

    Back in the early ’90s, Amita Nangia played the beer-guzzling Sheena in the much-popular Zee TV weekly Tara. But that was an era of less than 10 million C&S households, with most of them being upmarket metro audiences who were early adopters with a progressive mindset towards new ideas. As television has penetrated deeper, this audience segment has become far too miniscule to interest the broadcaster community. Even niche channels today are targeting SEC BC audiences in towns like Lucknow, Bhopal, Jaipur and Kolhapur.

     

    There are 41 alcohol scenes in Yeh Jawani Hai Deewani. But that did not deter the theatre-going Indians from making it one of the biggest box-office grossers in recent times. In fact, the casual presence of alcohol, albeit a bit overdone, made the film modern and cool in its own way, and that went well with the grammar of the film at large.

     

    I am most interested in seeing how the Indian version of 24, and the upcoming Amitabh Bachchan fiction show on Sony, handle “liquor” as an idea. In a country where having a glass of red wine can get someone to be labeled as a “sharaabi”, it will be good to see mass television influencing a few minds in the right direction.

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • Ranjona Banerji: Which news channel do I watch? Help!

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The media is now a topic of conversation as much as it is a vehicle for topics of conversation. In spite of the irritation of explaining how journalism means to “outsiders”, on due consideration this has to be a good thing. Given the intrusive nature of television and the discursive nature of social media, the days of newspapers being a medium twice removed from you are long over. The rather classist ads by I think Airtel about a liftman asking to become a Facebook friend or a girl being rather rude to a woman at a bus stop who offers use of her phone’s email facilities point to the way technology is breaking barriers.

     

    How much this will make journalists take objections into account is another matter. I see no difference in the way TV news operates in spite of their many transgressions. This brings me to a question: which English news channel does one turn to for the best all round news through the day? The prime time debate dramas I discount as they come under the entertainment sector.

     

    CNNIBN used to be good but I feel that their standard has slipped since all the sackings – or perhaps that’s my imagination. Times Now is so full of errors and editorialising in the day that it is useful only when something happens in Mumbai since that is where they are based. NDTV is bearable in the day but they have a tendency to branch off into long docu stories and entertainment guff right when some big news is “breaking”. Headlines Today is very shrill and sometimes operates at a disturbingly high level of jingoistic outrage. No longer smart news for smart people I think. News X is a sober option but their anchors are so bad that it is impossible to understand what they’re saying.

     

    I have given up on grammatical errors on TV but pronunciation errors still amuse me, I’m afraid. There is so much emphasis on getting some faux phoren accent right that much-used words are completely mangled. “Register” and “available” are common casualties and in fact and of course are in fact of course overused.

     

    The day may well be coming when we have to give up on the idea of English news channels. In any case, the news gathering skills of the language channels are often superior – the gem stone, astrology and ghost hunting programmes notwithstanding.

     

    **

     

    The insularity of India as a putative superpower is quite fascinating. Economies across the world have been suffering since 2008 for a variety of reasons. But the situation in Syria is quite frightening, with Europe and the US poised for military intervention. We however are so obsessed with our internal petty dictators and their fan clubs and our corruption scandals and the falling rupee and poverty alleviation schemes that we seem unaware of the horrors going on and imminent not that far away from us. I know the media does what its readers want but here perhaps the media needs to step away from management principles and apply some basic journalistic thought to Syria.

     

    **

     

    For the past two days, the Mumbai edition of The Times of India has been telling us Saturday’s rainfall figures. Tomorrow is Saturday so they have one more day to get away with this…

  • Ranjona Banerji recalls the 1976 film Network and wants to shout out: "I’m as mad as hell and I can’t take this any more".

    Ranjona Banerji: Juvenile hysteria on News TV

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    A Headlines Today sting on Asaram and his ashram for sexual offences in 2010 is being replayed by the channel now, after the religious leader has been arrested on charges of molesting a young girl. It is not exactly clear why the sting was not aired after it was made. The channel however has to be congratulated for putting it out in the open now. It also claims that this footage is being used by the police to bolster the case against Asaram.

     

    It is interesting though that many of these gurus, religious leaders and cult figures have relied on the media to build them up. Times Now may have had a vociferous campaign against Asaram in this case but “godmen” and assorted “gurus” from Rajneesh to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar to Jaggi Vasudev have received plenty of support from the Times Group. The allegations of murder of schoolchildren against Asaram’s ashram have more or less been forgotten.

     

    The most influential of these religious leaders was undoubtedly the late Sathya Sai Baba. In 2000 India Today did a cover story on Sai Baba which included the wide range of charges of sexual misconduct and paedophilia made against him by former disciples. The enormous pressure put on all media organisations not to take the story further was remarkable. Leaders and pillars of society in all disciplines converged on newspaper and magazine offices (TV was less of a factor in those days) to stop anyone else from covering the allegations.

     

    It is a testament to our tremendous faith in religious figures as a society that people like this are not treated like cult leaders and dismissed for what they are in many cases: clever manipulators of human weaknesses. Instead, they are feted by the media as much as by anyone else. Every time the Mumbai Marathon comes along, readers may notice how the participation of a particular spiritual speaker who specialises in the Vedas and the Bhagvad Gita is seen on pages of newspapers. The pressure on editors from his well-oiled PR machinery run by his followers to carry this story is incredible.

     

    And then there are all the news channels which devote hours of news time to astrologers, gem stone peddlers and various other mystics who can fix all problems. Sybil the Psychic from Network anyone?

     

    **

     

    In a side note, the Indian media might want to think about the fact that the word Sanskrit “sant” does not translate into “saint” in English. Nor does the word “shaheed” mean the same as “martyr”.

     

    **

     

    A personal note here: In spite of knowing that the juvenile in the Delhi gangrape case of December 16 2012 could only be tried under juvenile law, I was disturbed by the three-year sentence to the accused, who was supposed to be the most brutal of the lot.

     

    It was however clear from discussions after the rape that since the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 changed the age of a juvenile from 16 to 18 for boys, there was nothing that could be done in this particular case. Even if the law was amended, it would not have retrospective effect. This juvenile accused could not get more than the maximum penalty of three years.

     

    I was therefore amazed (why you ask, and with good reason!) to watch the most unseemly hysterics on Times Now on the issue. Some lady from the BJP and a human rights advocate got into a slanging match, Arnab Goswami was taking the moral high ground against human rights activists and the whole atmosphere was bristling with high-pitched manufactured outrage. If Goswami had bothered to pay attention to discussions on his own channel earlier this year, he would have been able to at least steer this particular conversation to a new direction.

     

    To reference the film Network again, after 10 minutes of this nonsense I wanted to stick my head out of the window and shout: “I’m as mad as hell and I can’t take this any more”.

     

    Yes, I know I have reversed the context in which Howard Beale yelled that out but it’s no less true for all that.

     

  • Going by the first eight months, 2013 has not been the most exciting year for Hindi GEC content. But the festive season could change that as Shailesh Kapoor highlights what each Hindi GEC is set for.

    Shailesh Kapoor: The Big GEC Quarter: What’s In Store?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Going by the first eight months, 2013 has not been the most exciting year for Hindi GEC content. An overview of the year so far will look like this:

     

    Most launches have been fairly ‘routine’ in nature, and no new show except Comedy Nights With Kapil has really stood out. At a genre level, the consolidation of ‘period dramas’, led by Jodhaa-Akbar and Maharana Pratap, has been an interesting development. The most hyped fiction launch of the year, Saraswatichandra, has not made a lasting impact on the GEC category.

     

    Those are the only worth-mentioning parts on the content side. All the action has happened on the non-content front, with digitization and TRAI orders keeping all broadcasters, including GECs, busy.

     

    But this festive season, September to November, this shall change. And how! Here’s what each Hindi GEC is set for:

     

    Star Plus

    Mahabharat, the ambitious Star Plus project, launches on September 16 in the weekdays 8.30pm slot. No fiction show opens higher than 2.5 TVR these days, so Mahabharat will have to build inch-by-inch over the first few weeks, if it has to emerge successful. Its fate would entirely hinge on how consumers take to Star Plus’ tone and treatment of the epic. An acceptance can widen the gap between Star Plus and competition, while a rejection can potentially allow Colors to overtake Star Plus.

     

    Colors

    Between Bigg Boss and 24, Colors will have its hands full this season. Bigg Boss will give the channel a boost, as it will replace two under-performing dailies. With the mood of the nation increasingly moving towards male-inclusive programming, a well-executed season holds potential to become an unqualified success.

     

    All eyes will be on 24 this October. There are no meaningful benchmarks on how well a show of nature can do among the mainstream audience. But we can be rest assured that Colors will leave no marketing stone unturned to give 24 a fair chance with the viewers. The promos look slick and truly International. Even if it is a moderate success in the first season, 24 can open doors to GECs pushing the envelope by breaking away from homogenous, housewife-targeted content.

     

    Zee TV

    ZEEL’s focus seems more on launching new channels, and there isn’t much striking content lined up on Zee TV, beyond the routine fiction and seasonal non-fiction launches. Sunday morning show Buddha is unlikely to create any ripples, given the weak slot. Currently, Zee TV occupies a No. 3 spot with a sizeable gap on either side, but Sony may be eyeing that spot with the new KBC season.

     

    Sony

    KBC 7 launches tonight, with a new set and a 7cr grand prize. KBC has proven that it has long legs, and those who said Sony is flogging a dead horse by investing in the format have already eaten and digested their humble pie about three years ago. The new look and format should create some freshness that the previous season lacked. And with a host who gets younger with each season, KBC 7 should be on a solid wicket.

     

    Sony’s other fiction launch Desh Ki Beti Nandini seems to explore the political drama space, with a female leader as its protagonist. It’s a genre waiting to be tapped, but a lot will depend on the casting and the narrative style. If the show manages to strike a fine balance between the conventional and the innovative, it should do well.

     

    SAB & Life OK

    Even as the other four channels lock horns with big-budget shows, SAB and Life OK will be consolidating their fiction line-ups to build on the recent momentum both have seen. At much lower content budgets, touching 140-150 GRPs is more than admirable. Life OK will experiment with high-end non-fiction, with Bachelorette India with Mallika Sherawat. Will she get married on TV? Your guess is as good as mine.

     

    PS: This column will be on a two-week break. When I write again on Sep 27, a lot of this action would have unfolded already, and it would be fun to take stock of the proceedings!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor


     

  • It's heartening to hear that the organization where the intern photojournalist and her colleague worked has been with them throughout and has offered help of various sorts that is required, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Spotlight on staff welfare in media

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    There was a report in the papers last week about how the Government of Maharashtra had paid Jaslok Hospital Rs 1.85 lakh towards the treatment of the young woman who has gang-raped at Shakti Mills compound. I put out a tweet asking why the organisation she worked for did not contribute. Part of my cynicism, I must admit, comes from my observation and knowledge about how callous media organisations often are about the welfare of their staff.

     

    I received messages from the organisation asking if they could put their point of view forward. I had a very long chat with a senior person who explained their situation. Upfront, their problem is that they can do very little in the public domain for fear of giving away the victim’s identity or jeopardising the case in any way at all. This is a legitimate and understandable concern. It is of paramount importance that the case against the accused rapists is watertight.

     

    The organisation where the photojournalist was interning says that it was prepared to foot the bill for her treatment but once the government stepped in with its offer they decided to back off. However, they say that they have been with the victim and her colleague every step of the way since the office was informed of the incident. And all further help of various sorts that is required will be given to both. This is both heartening and welcome.

     

    As I told the person I spoke to, if even half of what they were telling me they plan to do is true, it is more than most media organisations are bothered with. Staff safety, security and support are not codified and can be ad hoc at best, depending on individual bosses. As media organisations have become more corporatised, personal relations have gone for a toss. HR departments may have more people and more jargon but they are often without both sense and heart. At least in the earlier days when you had some clerk-run personnel department, proximity to the owner was not remote. But it was largely hit and miss. For instance, it took years for many newspapers and magazines to even provide home drops after night shifts.
    There is plenty of scope for discussions on checks and balances for safety on the job, taking concerns of journalists and organisations into consideration. All too often any practical solutions get lost in moral grandstanding on one side and obdurate management theories on the other. Perhaps there is a slim chance we can overcome this.

     

    **

     

    The Times of India has done an expose on the amount of fuel spent by government cars – by both ministers and bureaucrats – and came to the shocking figure of a Rs 3000 crore bill in Delhi alone. In Thursday’s paper, the Rs 3000 figure was on the front page and mentioned in the intro to the report.

     

    In Friday’s paper, a small correction tucked away at the bottom of page 15 tells readers that the paper got its arithmetic wrong and the figure is actually Rs 30 crore. The mistake was spotted by a “colleague”. However it was evidently too late to inform the edit page by then which is why the second edit on Friday’s edit page refers to the Rs 3,000 crore expenditure.
    I don’t know about you but I am sorely disappointed in this drop…