In old Hollywood epic movies, Roman Emperors would make their slaves fight lions in the Colosseum. The battles were one-sided by definition. No slave could kill a lion with his bare hands.
As the lion took bites out of the slaves, the crowd, egged on by the Emperor, cheered wildly at the spectacle.
Eventually, the slaves were eaten alive and the lions returned to their cages, licking their lips with satisfaction.
Why did the Romans use slaves? Well, because no sensible person would agree to fight lions only for the crowd’s entertainment and the benefit of the organisers. Or would they?
These days, when I watch news channel debates, I am often reminded of the Colosseum spectacles. Like the lion vs. slave battles, the debates are staged only to entertain the audience and benefit the organisers. The lions (defined here as the spokespersons of the ruling party and their pals, the anchors ) get a good meal out of the spectacle and return every night for more.
There is just one difference. In today’s televised spectacles, the victims are not slaves. They represent the Opposition. And they appear—believe it or not — entirely willingly, happy to be bitten into as part of the evening fun.
It’s kind of bizarre, isn’t it?
Loudmouths replace experts
I know very few democracies where the highlight (‘prime time’) of the programming on news channels is like the bloodsport that takes place in India. Most news channels abroad actually cover the news; they show footage, provide analysis, specialists offer background information, and only then, perhaps, spokespersons from political parties are given a brief opportunity to present their points of view.
These spokespeople aren’t loudmouths picked off the streets. They usually occupy respectable positions in government or their parties. When they do speak, their words carry authority.
Contrast this with our nightly television wars. There is little actual news and even less original footage. As for unbiased commentary and background, forget it. A brief build-up leads to the main event, which consists of postage stamp-sized boxes, each containing talking heads. These heads are encouraged by anchors—some of them are clearly biased (though many anchors are not)—to shout at each other. When some panellists try to fight the lions, they are heckled, interrupted or contradicted.
Though we think that this is how it has always been on Indian TV, the bloodsport is actually a relatively recent development. It began in earnest around 2012-2013 when news TV channels abandoned even the pretext of balance and decided to go after UPA II. The principal beneficiary then was not the BJP but AAP, a party that owes much of its early prominence to the support of the electronic media.
After the BJP’s victory in 2014, normal service was briefly resumed, but within a year or so, we were back to shouty debates. Anchors began openly siding with those in power, and the profile of the guests changed. Because many respectable people did not want to participate in this spectacle, news TV debates became filled with noisy nonentities, and people selected mainly for their ability to shout or abuse.
Even the nature of party spokespeople changed. The sort of job that was once performed by the likes of Arun Jaitley and Kapil Sibal was handed over to individuals of little consequence within their own parties. This arrangement suited the parties because if these spokespersons became too outrageous or extreme on TV, the parties could distance themselves from their remarks (calling them ‘fringe elements’). The new spokespersons were told to interrupt and disrupt debates when things were not going well, and accommodating anchors were always reluctant to interrupt those speaking on behalf of those in power, possibly due to instructions from their bosses.
In the beginning, all parties went along with all this, sending speakers to be devoured by lions because a) they believed these debates influence public opinion, and b) they considered it was important to get their views across.
One argument was always trotted out: The reason the BJP does so well in the Hindi belt, we were told, was because the Hindi channels—most of which are pro-BJP—only conveyed the government’s perspective.
I was always dubious about these arguments. Now maybe it is time for all parties to stop and ask themselves: Is daily participation in these spectacles doing us any good?
AAP must now have learned that it has been completely outmanoeuvred. Despite the paucity of evidence, the news channels continue to treat the so-called Delhi Liquor Scam as a big deal that has rocked the country’s governance. Does AAP benefit at all from its daily humiliation on air? If not, why does it continue to participate?
Ditto for the BJP. If the recent election results have taught us anything, it is that the ruling party needs to rethink its strategy. While the faithful will continue to vote for the BJP, will swing voters be attracted to a party whose representatives are instructed to be arrogant, loud, disruptive, and more and more extreme? All the evidence suggests that the BJP’s future lies in rebranding itself as the party of responsible and mature governance. Yet, night after night, its spokespeople convey the opposite impression.
What of the Congress? Since 2012, all that these nightly spectacles have done is to hammer away at the image and performance of the Congress. At first, I suspect, the Congress thought these debates made a difference and sent spokespeople out to be mauled.
However, it should now reflect on whether it makes sense to be part of an exercise where the party is routinely belittled, and where the only debates that take place are those that the ruling establishment wants— typically not aligned with the important news of the day.
Also read: No one treats Rahul as a joke now. When he speaks, BJP is rattled, not laughing
Losing relevance in online age
As for the influence of the TV debates, all the evidence suggests that they no longer set the agenda (if they ever did). News TV is becoming irrelevant in the age of the internet.
All of the themes that were hammered away in the ‘prime time’ debates had zero or very limited impact on the 2024 Lok Sabha election. People did not believe that Rahul Gandhi was a bumbling ‘Pappu’. The BJP did not sweep the Hindu vote because of the Ayodhya Ram Temple. Uttar Pradesh was not solidly pro-BJP despite everything the news channels said. These trends have been revisited in the recent Assembly by-elections, where the BJP has continued to perform badly.
The news channels must realise that their future is gloomy as viewers migrate to online options. They should also know that they have lost more than they have gained by being so unashamedly partisan. Moreover, the TV executives must acknowledge that all the blood on the floors of their Coliseums has actually driven away the more educated and affluent viewers that their advertisers are looking for.
And political parties must ask themselves what they gain by participating in these noisy and shoddy debates. Not only are these shows unfair to so many of the participants, they have virtually no influence on the voters.
Over the last few days, the Congress has announced a boycott of an anchor because he did not intervene when a BJP spokesperson was talking about political assassinations. Singling out an anchor seems arbitrary. Why not take a more balanced approach that takes into account the entire sector?
Suppose political parties were to say: We will not automatically send our spokespeople to your channels for every debate. If you invite us, you must tell us the subject, the names of other participants, and the identity of the anchor.
If the subject is motivated or frivolous (as is often the case), and if the participants appear to have been invited only to lower the tone of the show, then parties should refuse to participate. That is their right. They have no constitutional obligation to increase TRPs or to contribute to the profits of channel owners.
It won’t do political parties any harm to follow this policy. After all, when it comes to Opposition parties such as Trinamool Congress, the news channels have already done their worst and it has made no difference.
Raising the standard of news TV again may actually do us, the viewers, a favour. A return to mature and fact-based TV would be welcomed by many journalists employed by the channels as well. I know so many people within the TV industry who are deeply unhappy with the shameful decline in the nature and quality of programming. Many have quit their jobs. Others stay on reluctantly only because they need employment in a shrinking journalistic market.
Either way, even as it considers boycotts, the Congress must ask itself: What is wrong with us that we keep sending our people into the fighting pit with lions for the entertainment of the mob and the benefit of those who have done everything they can to harm us?
Vir Sanghvi is a print and television journalist, and talk show host. He tweets @virsanghvi. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)