When it146;s loud it doesn146;t sting

All TV sting stories start with music so loud that your neighbour thinks you are watching a Punjabi pop channel. Then the anchor starts introducing the story and he/she is so loud that your neighbour thinks you have switched to a televised dance competition

When the Supreme Court observed earlier this week that the problem with sting journalism is that it has become a business 8212; freelance 8220;investigative8221; outfits selling 8220;stories8221; to TV channels 8212; I thought an important but not perhaps immediately obvious point needs to be made. There is nothing per se wrong with this arrangement.

Commercialisation is a word that8217;s often invested with darker meanings than warranted. There8217;s nothing to suggest a priori that freelance journalists can8217;t get a good story. And surely if they have invested time and money in putting that story together they should look for the best price they can get. The issue here is editorial judgment 8212; it is up to the editors of the TV channel running the story to decide whether the facts check out and whether the story is substantive. I have no issue therefore with 8220;specialised8221;, independent sting journalism outfits.

I have problems with the concept of sting journalism. But the arguments for and against are well known. Less frequently discussed are the parameters that define a typical TV sting story. I have serious problems with that. Problems that would have survived even if my media heroes were chaps who habitually carry small cameras and large amount of cash.

First, why be so loud? All TV sting stories start with music so loud that your neighbour thinks you are watching a Punjabi pop channel disclaimer: I am making no value judgment on those partial to Punjabi pop on TV; I am merely pointing out that a news channel should have different audio signatures. Then the anchor starts introducing the story and he/she is so loud that your neighbour thinks you have switched to a televised dance competition same disclaimer.

Second, and related, why get so breathlessly excited? I have watched anchors and reporters hyperventilating on live TV as the 8220;shocking truth8221; unfolds. The capacity to retain a measure of restraint as we communicate is in all of us. TV journalists simply need to look within. There8217;s nothing more convincing and aesthetically pleasing than a big story being introduced with sophisticated sobriety. I can think of at least half a dozen NDTV, CNN-IBN and Aaj Tak journalists who can do this. But they mostly don8217;t.

Third, keep self-congratulation out of it, guys. It is embarrassing even for a TV news reviewer to hear a TV channel directing fulsome praise at itself for doing a 8220;great story8221;. Usually, this takes the form of the anchor telling a reporter how smart/courageous/daring/hardworking he or she has been. Variations include everyone talking about how super everyone is and therefore what a super story they have put together.

Fourth, and last, don8217;t get a bunch of people from a neighbourhood to crowd around the camera and then tell viewers this is proof of the story8217;s system-shaking abilities. This, too, is embarrassing to watch: reporter asks a few people, who are desperately hoping their loved ones can see them on TV, whether they are outraged, they say they are and then the reporter tells the anchor, people are outraged. Or, even better, reporter runs after a minister/official and asks whether action will be taken, the minister/official says yes 8212; he or she can hardly say no 8212; and then the reporter tells the anchor, the government has reacted.

Story continues below this ad

Well, I know how I have reacted, by wondering whether people who watch Punjabi pop on TV have a better time than I do.