Opinion Foaming up public discourse
The Murdoch hearings transfixed TV audiences should our own parliamentary committee meetings be aired?
In the end,Rupert Murdoch had a close shave. After more than two hours of sometimes razor-sharp questioning by British MPs on the phone-hacking scandal,the media magnate would have ended up with white foam on his face had it not been for the timely,extremely effective,and strong right-arm tactics of his wife,Wendi Deng.
Gamely,Murdoch returned to complete the session and that summed up his performance for the evening: attacked from all sides by more than just shaving foam,he tried to defend himself as best he could,feebly at times,but with his famous pugnacity resurfacing in between: he refused to take responsibility for the fiasco as one MP called it,and squarely blamed those whom he had trusted,but then insisted belligerently that he was still the best person to see this through.
James Murdoch,too,had a close shave,sporting a stubble hairstyle and a smooth expression throughout the questioning. He was nicked by British lawmakers several times for tepid answers to questions on his companys payment-settlements related to the phone-hacking affair and why he did not order a comprehensive internal inquiry into phone-hacking allegations.
It was great television,a reality show,as our news channels called it of seven hours and more,compelling to the end,although Rebekah Brooks carrot hair transfixed us more than her replies. Reminiscent of the American senate committee hearings on Watergate in 1973-74,the questioning was equally incisive,none more so than by a certain Mr Watson whose rapier sharpness Sherlock Holmes would have applauded,and who left Murdoch Sr speechless while son James tried valiantly to intervene. CNNs Richard Quest summed up the session pithily: James was out of his depth and Murdoch out of touch.
BBC and CNN had carpet coverage,striving to be scrupulously fair to their competitor. The Indian English news channels also telecast the proceedings live while their Hindi counterparts remained closer home,mostly with the Greater Noida housing issue.
The news debates on the committee hearings linked it to India and suggested we do likewise: Times Now wanted the cash for votes,the 2G hearings,on air pronto; there was much heartburn in the NDTV 24×7 debate on paid news while CNN-IBN praised India media for not being tabloid news,ignoring the sensationalism and unsubstantiated claims so integral to TV news and wondered if we were scoop obsessed. The Radia tapes on media-politicians bhai-bhai in India was mentioned,but only fleetingly,when it should have been centrestage.
Is it time for us to watch parliamentary select committee meetings live? Soli Sorabjee thought so when it was a subject of national interest (Times Now); everyone agreed,but then lets leave out strategic affairs and lets have court hearings on air too at that stage the discussion became confused.
Select committee hearings could be fascinating who would not have wanted to watch the Public Accounts Committee sittings on the 2G scam but if all committee sessions are live on TV,will politicians do their work or grandstand for public consumption,instead? Needs to be thought out; transparency argues for a public airing.
On a different note,notice how media converges right before your eyes now,and helps to get the job done: CNN used Skype to telecast an interview from San Francisco with a media affairs expert and BBC,following people inside the committee room on Twitter,used their tweets to tell us what exactly happened to the foam pie after Wendi Deng gave it a right hook.
And spare a thought for Hillary Clinton. Tuesday was her big day in Delhi and usually,news TV would have been following her with more than tweets coverage of all her meetings and evening debates on Indo-American relations. As it was,she was barely visible barring the joint press conference with S.M. Krishna and only Headlines Today debated her visit. Everyone wanted to watch Rupert Murdoch. Can we blame them?
shailaja.bajpai@expressindia.com
Share
