WHAT INDIAN TV NEWS ANCHORS GET WRONG

Icould tell it was Pertie. The phone has an insistent quality when he calls. He can also let it ring, ring and ring. So the second I heard it I immediately answered. Pertie had a pressing question connected to Congress spokesperson Rajiv Tyagi’s death. “Don’t television anchors care about what they’re doing to their guests? It seems this guy was so dreadfully treated he got a heart attack and died.”

A long pause followed but I kept silent. I wasn’t sure if Pertie was baiting me or voicing a genuine concern. When he next spoke it was to ask a disarmingly simple question. “What’s the purpose of these discussions?” The simple answer is to elicit information, in a clear and intelligible form, so that viewers are acquainted with multiple facets of the issue being discussed. No anchor would disagree. The problem is how you go about it. This is where many television discussions fall apart.

If the aim is to get different people to explain their differing viewpoints, then you must spend time talking to each of them to explore their thinking. In turn, that means you must know their positions and have thought carefully of questions that will either reveal their thinking or intelligently challenge it. Otherwise, you can’t draw them out.

What many anchors do — usually because they haven’t done their research — is ask one guest if he agrees with another and get them to quarrel. No doubt this generates heat and can even create a spectacle, but if it’s light you should be shedding, raising the temperature only adds to the confusion and the cacophony. Maybe not heart attacks but blood pressures can certainly rise.

Pertie’s next question was obvious. “So, if different people express different viewpoints, how do you come to a conclusion?” Trying to force one is the second mistake many anchors make. A television discussion should air different ways of looking at a subject, leaving it to the audience to decide which they agree with. The audience will come to its own conclusion. It’s not for the anchor to contrive one.

“But there are many anchors who pummel their guests until they agree with him. Are you saying that’s the wrong way of conducting a discussion?” Actually, Pertie knew that’s precisely what I meant. It wasn’t confirmation he wanted so much as criticism of the anchors he had in mind. But no sooner did I sidestep this pitfall then he bowled another googly.

“Shouldn’t there be scope in a television discussion for guests to contradict or reject a viewpoint? Otherwise, it could be a case of four people talking to the anchor and not to each other.”

Of course, there should be. Otherwise the programme would be sterile. But any interaction between the guests can only happen after adequately exploring their individual viewpoints. Equally importantly, it has to happen in a structured way. The aim should be to explore their strengths and weaknesses in a decorous and civilised manner. Not in a verbal Mahabharat. Yet, this is what many anchors not only prefer but actively encourage.

They believe it increases viewership. If it does, it’s very definitely of the wrong sort. Current affairs discussions should be intended for those who want to learn and understand. Not people seeking entertainment.

“So are you saying anchors ought to be concerned about the quality of their viewership rather than its quantity?” This time Pertie’s question did take me aback. He was spot on. To be honest, I hadn’t thought it through to the same extent. “Yes,” I mumbled feebly. The BBC and CNN may want large audiences but they don’t pander to them by driving down the quality of their discussions. This is why you gain when you watch one of their conversations. Ours can leave you confused, confounded and with an aching head.

“Well, now you know why I don’t watch television.” With that he bid me a cheerful adieu and put the phone down.

Covid-19 has rendered children, especially the girl child, particularly vulnerable. Many of them are out of school and in families which are economically impoverished. This means that the girl child may not be a priority when it comes to food or other resources available for the family. Economic distress contributes to malnutrition and further hampers children’s health and growth parameters.

Such children are also more prone to being pushed into child labour to supplement the family income, and in case of girls, early marriages. In this backdrop, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement on Independence Day that the government is considering a proposal to increase the age of marriage for girls is a positive development.

Children are cheap labour; they are not aware of their rights; their families are desperate — ideal conditions for exploitative employers. In these fraught times, children, especially the girl child again, are much more vulnerable to trafficking. In many cases, families willingly give up their children to middlemen in the hope that they will have a better life elsewhere and also in return for money.

Children are, also, often are caught in situations of domestic violence, which is rising at this time, with women being trapped at home and frustration and anger levels among former breadwinners being exacerbated. Many children are living with relatives, as their parents migrate to cities to look for work, making them vulnerable to abuse. Street children have been left with very little support even from non-governmental Organisations (NGOS), leaving them open to sexual and substance abuse and trafficking.

The government has to figure out more proactive ways to save children from the dangers that the virus has heightened. The police have to be trained to be more alert to following up on cases of children going missing or being trafficked. A major complaint in pre-covid-19 days from parents was that the police didn’t take them seriously when they reported missing children. They were normally sent back home as the police felt that the child had run away or, in the case of adolescent girls, eloped, and, therefore, did not file FIRS in time. This must change.

At the same time, trafficking and child abuse must be treated as more than just a legal problem. It has to be tackled at the community level. Local bodies such as panchayats and women’s self-help groups should be roped in to map vulnerable families who are unable to take care of children.

With schools closed and with this mid-day meal schemes becoming infrequent, if at all, despite the best efforts of the government, existing networks must be energised and funded to ensure at least one nutritious meal a day for the child who is at home. The government must also step up its fortified meal scheme, something that NGOS such as Naandi Foundation had done effectively for years before; as with many worthwhile schemes, it was shut down. I visited a kitchen run by Naandi in Hyderabad some years ago and found that a simple introduction such as fortified soya milk resulted in huge improvements in health for children.

While the focus on medical resources and personnel cannot be compromised, the issue of protecting children and helping them come through this crisis cannot be given secondary place. The infrastructure exists in the form of various community organisations. The government must engage with them as well as the police to make sure that children’s safety, their health and nutritional well-being are not overlooked during this crisis.