Game shows

Of course, he would in the process relieve himself of one of hismore pleasant official duties and us of the necessity of his company almost daily on television. Now wouldn8217;t that be too delicious for words? And isn8217;t it absolutely tragic besides being horribly ironic that the Prasar Bharati Board is doing everything within its powers to become an accessory to its own demise by mishandling an event as popular as the cricket World Cup and strengthening Mr.Mahajan8217;s case against it?

Onto the real thing. The opening ceremony was not telecast on Doordarshan which is just as well since it was almost as brief as a monosyllable and equally dissatisfying. The show was stiff like the beaten white of an egg and as lightweight. A few balloons, flags, a flimsy speech by English PM Tony Blair who reserves his eloquence and oratory skills for the crisis in Kosovo. Then the match began. Bob Willis and Ian Botham8217;s name appeared as commentators and they spoke astonishingly fluent Hindi. Many cable operators in Northern India are relaying the Hindi commentary ESPN-STAR offer. So it wasArun Lal and Ravi Kant Singh who opened for India. Each time the ball just flirted with the bat or an appeal was turned down, Ravi Kant Singh8217;s voice gave us a perfect imitation of Shobha Mudgal recorded in fast forward. Couldn8217;t they have found anyone else?

And so to the political jamboree briefly mentioned last week. As the general elections approach we are about to witness television coverage of each and every development or non-development under a magnified microscope. Which sounds like a contradiction in terms but is the perfect description of what will happen 8212; correction 8212; what is already substantially happening on the box. Events, non-events will be examined minutely hence the microscope and then blown out of proportion or importance therefore, the magnified microscope.

You have three news/current affairs channel in Hindi and English; you have regional language channels in the South with news and current affairs programmes and conflicting political allegiances; and of course, you haveDoordarshan. Each of these channels will be chasing politicians the way a dog chases after his own tale.

You will hear the politicians blow hot air, express their opinions same thing!; you will hear more about Sonia Gandhi than all the other politicians put together8230; So much so that at some point during the next five months, there will be a seamlessness to everything with the result that you will begin to become confused, even bemused by the political rhetoric: who exactly said what on which issues? Who supported whom on what?

At some stage you might even loose interest. That is the danger. Political parties need to be careful, beware of over exposure. Whether it is a roll of photo film or television, the result is the same: the picture will get blurred by the limelight and what we will be left with is a terribly indistinct image of the political situation. If viewers develop fatigue due to the election coverage upto September, it could have an adverse impact on their decision as voters.

Whichsuggests that television coverage of these elections needs to change. Last time there were just too many talking heads, arguing incessantly. Please spare us. Last time there were too many of the same talking heads, saying the same things on all channels to the same people that8217;s us.Please spare us. TV channels should do something new, innovate, clarify the choices before us rather than obscure them by ceaseless chatter. Please.