Tag: Shailesh Kapoor

By Shailesh Kapoor

The term ‘General Entertainment Channel’ (GEC) is unique to India. I don’t know who came up with it originally (could have been one of the ratings agencies in the ’90s), but the term has bad English written all over it. This article is a linguistic critique of this term (GEC). The viewer doesn’t even know this word and couldn’t care less. Hence, whatever you read here on has no business value. But if you care about the English language, read on.

Let’s start with the first of the two contentious words: General. What kind of entertainment is “General”? For some reason, the word “General” was preferred over the word “Mass”, as is evident by a counterpart category being called “Niche Entertainment”, an equally odd articulation.

If we go with “Mass Entertainment” as the meaning behind the term “General Entertainment”, we come to the next contentious word. What is “Entertainment” to the masses? Channels in the category would like to say it’s a mix of all that the mass audience want, and hence, the word “General” may have a meaning after all.

But are the GECs delivering “a mix of everything”? If you go by a broad definition of the word “Entertainment”, it would include music, documentaries, Bollywood gossip, kids content (including animation), and some would say, even news. But the homogeneity of GEC content today is evident to all of us. They are offering only two types of content that covers more than 90% of their primetime: Serials and reality shows. Even films, earlier a GEC mainstay, have slowly moved to the movie channels.

The other definition of the word “Entertainment” is a consumer definition. The chart below is a ‘thought cloud’ made from the words that were spontaneously associated with the word “Entertainment” by a large group of consumers across the country (data collected end 2015).

This is how India sees “Entertainment”. A large part of this thought cloud is not delivered by the GEC category (Hindi or regional). Is this consumer definition also a linguistic faux pas? Not really.

The dictionary definition of “Entertainment” range from “the action of providing or being provided with amusement and enjoyment” to “something diverting or engaging, such as a public performance or a usually light comic or adventure novel.”

Associations of “Entertainment” with de-stress, amusement and comedy are unmistakable across these and many other definitions available on the Internet. The thought cloud above mirrors these definitions in most part, though with an Indian contextualisation.

Does it mean that the consumer understands English language better than those coined the term “GEC”? That would be tough to believe in a country where grammatically incorrect terms like “Mind Fresh” (also seen in the chart above; an Indian English term for relaxation and mood refresh) are rampant in their usage.

In my understanding, when the term “GEC” was coined, it was coined with the right intention. There were no movie channels, kids’ channels or music channels then. Through the ’90s till the early 2000s, GECs used to air fiction programmes across genres, lots of films, had trailer and music slots during the day, and even animation bands in partnership with companies like Disney and Turner. Some even had news content.

But as more and more channels launched, this “Entertainment” saw fragmentation. Each new category started getting its share of content. Film channels fought for the first right to air a big film, because ‘Why should a GEC air a film?’. Therein started the change in definition of what a GEC stands for.

Today, almost all GECs, barring an odd exception like SAB TV, are more Drama Channels and less Entertainment Channels. Even the non-fiction content on these channels would fall under the generic definition of “Drama”: “An exciting, emotional, or unexpected event or circumstance.”

BARC India had the opportunity to change some of this faulty nomenclature in 2015. I suspect this would have been too low on their priority list. But we have learnt to live with this mess of a term (GEC) anyway over two-and-a-half decades. Who needs a change only because the English language must be respected.

By Shailesh Kapoor

The “reality” of Bollywood award shows has been a subject of much discussion and ridicule over the last decade. Till the ’90s, there was a certain aura around these events, primarily Filmfare and Screen at that time. A new generation of stars started establishing its foothold in the industry from the mid ’90s, and therein started some straight talk on the topic.

Aamir Khan shunned the awards show circuit after Rangeela. Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar and a few others followed suit over the years, attending award shows only as paid hosts or performers. Many stars openly discuss the “fakeness” of the winner selection process at award shows in their media interviews. Even an industry-insider show like KoffeeWith Karan has several references to it.

It’s not as if awards don’t matter to Bollywood stars at all. The younger actors still see awards as aspirational, more like a certification that they have arrived. But with time, the charm fades away. The charm of winning the award, not the charm of the award show itself. Because there’s a crucial difference.

The award show is a moneybag. It’s a TV event packaged with a sponsor who’s willing to pay the top dollar to be associated with the property. The organisers can afford to pay the stars handsomely to get them to host, perform or simply attend. Even a 10-minute appearance is enough, as it will take care of all the expressions required to be plastered across the three-hour length of the TV show.

All the pretense around film awards being “genuine” was officially abandoned this season, when the Star Screen Awards ground event was held even before the release of Dangal, and the nominations and awards were still given out for the entire calendar year of 2016. It was an opportunity to get a strong TV property on New Year’s Eve. And since Aamir Khan doesn’t believe in awards anyway, why let Dangal come in the way of this opportunity!

If you have watched the two awards aired so far this year (Screen and Stardust), you will notice that the TV event does not give more than 20-25% of its time to the actual awards part. The rest is for TRP generation – banter between the host and the co-host, banter between the host and the stars, dance performances, spoof acts, etc. Most technical awards are pushed out as a separate programming, mostly aired as a short capsule after the main event is over.

And the ratings are coming. Since 2015-16, award shows have been outperforming some of the biggest films on TV. Award shows and events could be the new “world TV premieres” very soon, going by the way most films are underperforming on satellite television (more on that some other week).

So, a prized Bollywood creation from years ago is now a TV property that Bollywood too earns off.

Let the irony not be lost!

By Shailesh Kapoor

Two big news events, separated by less than 24 hours, marked an exciting week. The Prime Minister’s address on Tuesday night, to announce the demonetisation of old, high-denomination currency notes caught the media off-guard. Not surprising, given that subsequent reports suggest that even Cabinet members, barring a couple, were not aware of the decision.

What followed was coverage on the go. Between making sense of what has happened, trying to give more information and getting a sense from the ground, Indian news channels and online sites had their task cut out. The sentiment nationwide was extremely positive and pro-Modi, with polls suggesting more than 80% believing it was a positive step.

Now, an average Indian, or even a well-informed one, such as a reader of this column, will know little about the technicalities of the move and the impact it could have on curbing black money circulation in India, in the short run and the long run. Public opinion was driven, hence, not by facts and analysis, but by a feeling of “Wow! How cool is that!”. That it could be done in a “surgical” (can we retire that word, please?) manner with no media leaks, a near impossible task in today’s day and age, made the move come across as a masterstroke.

Subsequent expert opinions have suggested that the move may be limiting in its impact, especially in the long run. Yet, there is not much to fault per se, as it does not have any major pitfalls, except a couple of days of inconvenience, which has not snowballed into anything significant as I write this on Friday morning.

But on Tuesday night, news media was not bothered about financial technicalities anyway. They wanted to play on the sentiment, and build a sense of euphoria. It was as if India had won something major, like a Cricket World Cup or something. The sentiment was infectious. Nowadays, you can use Whatsapp jokes to gauge that. Jokes are jokes, but if you read between the lines, the sentiment – positive (optimistic) or negative (cynical) – is apparent from their sub-text. In this case, it was clearly the former. A few politicians who criticised the move just came across as having a bad sense of timing.

This Tuesday night story stole the thunder from the US Presidential Elections, which had happened the previous day, and whose results were going to come out Wednesday morning India time. An average Indian could not care less about who becomes the US President, if they are worrying about having enough hundred rupee notes to survive the next three days, or about how and when they will exchange their high-denomination currency.

But a substantial section of India is not the “average Indian”. There has been considerable interest in India in the US elections this time, with Donald Trump ensuring that dull moments are far and few in between.

All opinion polls in the US, barring just one, projected that Hillary Clinton will be the next US President. The US media, centered in big cities where Clinton won handsomely, started their coverage assuming she will win. Around 8:30 AM IST, they were sensing they could be wrong. Within an hour of that, they knew it was going to be one Mr Trump, and not one Ms Clinton. After weeks of lead-up analysis on why Clinton will win, they found themselves analysing why Trump won. As seasoned journalist Shekhar Gupta tweeted: “Lessons for US journalists is the oldest one in our biz: Never let your voting preferences color your professional judgment.”

Journalism can be dizzy and exciting on days like these. As can be news consumption. Bring some more!

By Shailesh Kapoor

The speculation had been rife for almost a year. That sometime in the future, Arnab Goswami will do the inevitable – part ways with Times Now. But it was a simmering speculation that never really materialised. Till early this week.

We have no “official” statement from the man himself or his organisation. Accounts of an editorial meeting is the foundation of all reporting on this topic. Some social media posts and video clips from the said meeting have gone online, such as this one. But further information is hard to come by.

It was said, when the “news” first broke on Tuesday, that the show that night will be his last Newshour show. He has hosted that one and two more, as if it’s business as usual. Clearly, the news media hasn’t made much headway in investigating this case.

But that hasn’t stopped them from covering it. The coverage, despite little information available to build a running story, has been relentless. Digital news sites and apps, who ask for funding from venture capitalists using the argument that traditional news is dying, have left no stone unturned to make a TV news editor their poster boy. The irony is hard to miss.

Equally fascinating is the nature of the coverage itself. Humour is a recurring theme in how Goswami’s exit has been covered, both in social media and in online news. And why not? If you watch some of Goswami’s recent speeches at seminars and conventions, he has started talking of himself in caricature terms, often playing along, even fueling, the ArGo humor mill that has been running on top speed on social media for a few years now.

Interestingly though, there is little coverage of Goswami’s impact on the news media in India. The man may go off our TV screens for a while, but it’s certainly not an obituary that we are writing. So one can understand the absence of “contribution” pieces. The few that exist talk about the commercial contribution – of taking Times Now to a position of long and undisputed leadership.

Goswami’s real contribution lies in changing the news format on Indian television, across channels and languages. Even his harshest critics come from channels that have adopted the popular news debate format as their prime time set-piece. He has also had a considerable impact on the political and public discourse in the country, with “statements” from his debate being used in the Parliament, among other places, more than once.

Times Now does not have a strong second line of anchors. Days when Goswami is off-air, The Newshour is an insufferable watch, because it seems everyone who replaces him is out there to become another Arnab Goswami.

But there cannot be another Arnab Goswami. You may hold him in awe, be indifferent to him, or detest him. But you cannot deny that he is not substitutable. You cannot deny that we may not see another one like him in our lifetimes.

Where will he go, everyone’s asking. As long as he gets a primetime debate show, the platform won’t matter. The man will outshine the scenery. Which is not necessarily a good thing for a media company, even if it’s his own. But it comes as a part of the ArGo baggage.

As we wait for more official information to come in, it will be nice to go on an Arnab Goswami detox for a while. One just hopes it’s not a very long break.

By Shailesh Kapoor

Four weeks ago, the news coverage of the Uri attacks and its aftermath were the subject of this column. I had written that it is a pleasant surprise that the news coverage has been restrained in most part. I may have spoken too early.

That column also mentions a “silly side story”, that related to the demand of banning Pakistani talent from working in India. As it turned out, that silly side story became the headline story for much of October, sidelining, in turn, the main story itself.

The “surgical strikes” provided a climax to the main story that the news media found hard to surpass. In search of a hot topic, they found a low-hanging fruit in MNS’ opposition of Fawad Khan’s (cameo) presence in Karan Johar’s Ae Dil Hai Mushkil (ADHM). And since then, the theatre of the absurd has played out.

The logical fallacy in this controversy is like an open-and-shut case. The film was shot a year ago, under entirely different circumstances. Yet, a political outfit used it as an opportunity to get noticed. And the state’s political leadership actually legitimised it by brokering some kind of a settlement.

While much of this has been written about and subsequently criticized, especially in the social media, one aspect of this ADHM drama has not got sufficient media attention. And that’s to do with the media’s ability to influence public opinion unfairly.

A film like ADHM would have about 1.5-2 Crore (15-20 million) target audiences across India, who could potentially purchase a ticket and watch the film in a theatre. It’s safe to assume that almost all these people are consuming news in some form, and were aware of Uri and the subsequent developments, including the surgical strikes.

A large section of this target audience (60-70%) would have seen the film’s trailer (or read about the film) and recognised that it stars Fawad Khan, a Pakistani actor. You would expect these grown-up adults to put the pieces together and make their opinion on whether they want to “boycott” the film based on the connection between the two pieces of information – news from the LOC and the ADHM campaign.

And they found no evident connection. In early October, in our regular film work, we got no traces of any sentiment among the actual target audience to suggest they would stay away from the film for this reason. Many didn’t want to watch the film for various reasons, such as the trailer not appealing to them, but the anti-Pakistan sentiment was conspicuous by its absence.

And then, over two weeks, the said “connection” was hammered into their heads via prime time news debates and the social media machinery that inevitably accompanies such debates. By last week, about 15% audiences were actually considering the boycott.

Just 15%. Despite all the noise, there was no impact of a huge majority of the target audience. The film trade, especially single screens, were skeptical, fearing damage to their properties. But at the audience end, it was a fringe issue at best.

But it’s this fringe issue that should bother us too. About 20-30 lac of the film’s target audience (and several times of that in the huge non-theatre-going universe) were “brainwashed” into making an opinion. It’s one thing to watch news and build your opinion. But here, we had patriotic blackmailing at play. If you do not boycott, you are not a good Indian. And we have seen this argument play out increasingly in the media over the last year or so.

Should we worry? Yes and no. Yes, because our media is dangerously positioned to create these false binaries. And no because a vast majority of audiences have the ability to make their own judgment. And that’s a saving grace alright.2