After this break, don146;t complain

Sharmila Tagore732;s intriguing argument that there8217;s no moral equivalence between advertising flavoured and un-flavoured condoms...

Sharmila Tagore8217;s intriguing argument that there8217;s no moral equivalence between advertising flavoured and un-flavoured condoms 8212; she has found a TV ad on flavoured condoms unsuitable for daytime broadcast 8212; provided an appropriate context for something I have wanted to say on television commercials: too many people say too many things about TV ads. More than a few share the Censor Board chairperson8217;s partiality to perplexing censoriousness over the quality of TV ads. Many more take issue with quantity. The argument that 8220;there are too many commercials8221; is only a little younger than television8217;s first commercial: aired on New York8217;s WNBT-TV on 1 July 1941. The first TV ad interrupted normal programming without any announcement from the TV station. Whatever you say about TV commercials, you can8217;t say matters haven8217;t improved.

The short point about 8220;too many commercials8221; is that TV requires loads of money to run and ads bring in the money. There8217;s no getting away from this, unless you have access to technological solutions like TiVo this gadget is hugely popular in America and it allows you, under certain conditions, to fast forward through commercials.

BBC, I would be reminded by many, runs without ads. The short answer to that is that the British public funds BBC through a TV tax. The important point is not that BBC should not accept ads but that if it does, it should not get public funding. BBC8217;s hugely popular website is planning to accept ads and the New York Times reported on October 30 that some BBC employees are most upset at this. Integrity and independence are apparently at stake. I am not so sure. And don8217;t say BBC8217;s programming is better than that on most ad-funded TV channels. That8217;s the fault of TV stations, not advertisers.

And that provides an appropriate context for an admission: I had expected TV news to go over-the-top on the 8220;justice for8230;8221; stories ever since the death sentence was handed out in the Mattoo case. Initial evidence 8212; anchors and correspondents on NDTV, CNN-IBN, Aaj Tak editorialising on people8217;s joy and 8220;feeling of safety8221; 8212; seemed to suggest that the distinction between 8220;my news8221; and TV news may get blurred. But major channels recovered the balance. There were stories, on CNN-IBN, for example, on whether we should react to death sentences on principle. Even when Ram Jethmalani asked on Friday for a shift of venue in the Jessica case, alleging prejudiced trial environment, there was a sense of proportion in reporting the story. Times Now reported the same day that the J038;K sex scandal trial was to resume in Chandigarh. I thought Times Now missed a good and obvious story: the broad question of shifting trial venues by looking at the two relevant stories of the day.

Times Now did interview Jethmalani. I didn8217;t watch it beyond the first commercial break. But I am not complaining.