People stories and the public interest

It was a little unnerving to watch the amount of TV news I have to and find a distinct disinterest in exploring the story beyond the obvious.

If President Kalam were media-obsessed — there’s absolutely no suggestion of this in this most serious-minded head of state — he would have been a trifle disappointed that the most important presidential intervention in recent history got relatively so little play on TV news.

I am writing this as TV news is obscured by “white powder” and a little hyper on champagne. You can appreciate that serial tragedies are visiting the Mahajan family, recognize that the recent, violent death of the father made the sudden hospitalization of the son bigger news than it would probably have been, understand that TV had to give the story a fairly big play and still wonder why the same scramble after every piffling detail that we saw late April was back on the screen.

On Zee, the early morning anchor seemed fairly outraged that medical bulletins — the staple of Pramod Mahajan coverage — were not being issued. On Star, “champagne consumed at (Rahul Mahajan’s) party” and “domestic took the ill to the hospital” was Breaking News.

The major channels, NTDV, CNN-IBN, Aaj Tak, started the morning on a sober but newsy note. But as hours passed and small details trickled out — four men came visiting Rahul, no three did; champagne was consumed but leftover bottles were put in the refrigerator; the visitors came, stayed and left, no they came, went away and came back — reporting became a flood of recycled information, floating on which was file footage of Rahul Mahajan. All this when police investigation, at the time I am writing this, was at a preliminary stage. Why can’t at least the major channels decide not to let news die in dreadful details?

And how I waited for some interesting details when news broke that the President had sent the office of profit bill back to Parliament. Most channels bar CNN-IBN quickly made it the late evening top story. CNN-IBN’s decision was interesting — I think their editorial priority that night was informed by the argument that the withdrawal of the doctors’ strike and Bombay being threatened with rains were “people stories”, while the bill was a political story with no immediate repercussion. I can see the logic whether or not I agree, especially because CNN-IBN’s discussion on women in the bureaucratic hierarchy, which was on the same time other channels were discussing the President’s decision, was quite good.

But the morning after, and days subsequently, it was a little unnerving to watch the amount of TV news I have to and find a distinct disinterest in exploring the story beyond the obvious. It isn’t every day that a President returns a bill passed by both Houses. It isn’t every day that an issue as interesting as the matter of MPs giving themselves retrospective clearances for specific second jobs, come up. Not even when Left leaders “warned” — as some channels aptly blurbed the story — the EC on not proceeding on office of profit complaints, did TV news think it may be a good idea to look at the larger constitutional issues.

Granted, it was very important to know what first year college kids would wear this year, and TV news was in every market selling pleated skirts. But let us not kid ourselves — the President did something potentially paradigm-shifting, whether TV news agreed or not.

saubhik.chakrabartiexpressindia.com