"News" Shows on TV


Why are “news” shows like Arnab Goswami’s Newshour so popular? Why is that yelling-till-you-are-blue-in-the-face format the one that all the other news channels are aping?

Michael Crichton wrote this article on why speculation is rampant in US media; but many of his points would answer my questions above. First, there’s the financial aspect to such shows:
“It’s incredibly cheap. Talk is cheap. And speculation shows are the cheapest thing you can put on television.”
Talk though, while cheap, is also boring. Unless “the talk becomes heated and excessive. So it becomes excessive”, says Crichton. Of course, even heated talk is not always compelling; hence the next step:
““Crisisization” of everything possible…There is a tendency to hype urgency and importance and be-there-now when such reactions are really not appropriate.”

Ok, so it’s garbage. But does it do any harm? After all, some of my friends say they watch such shows for entertainment, not for information. You can learn debating skills, they joke: pick a side, any side; and then stick to it no matter what arguments are presented against it! So what exactly is the harm such shows do?

Crichton has some answers to that as well: first, he says such shows make superficiality the norm. People stop caring about rigorousness. Next, he says, they can make resolutions impossible. How?
“Endless presentation of uncertainty and conflict may interfere with resolution of issues…Compromise is much easier from relatively central positions than it is from extreme and hostile, conflicting positions.”
Third, it misleads people into believing that nothing is knowable for sure. Even though:
“There are many things that can be resolved, and indeed are resolved. Not by speculation, however. By careful investigation, by rigorous statistical analysis. Since we’re awash in this contemporary ocean of speculation, we forget that things can be known with certainty.”

On the other hand, why blame only the news channels? Isn’t TV just giving people what they want? Is what Calvin says below not true for most viewers?

Comments

  1. Ramiah KumarMay 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM

    That's truthful summing up, for sure: "On the other hand, why blame only the news channels? Isn’t TV just giving people what they want? Is what Calvin says below not true for most viewers?"

    -------
    Isn't same true about what governments people get, too? It almost looks 'karma' that, "we get the elected representatives that our mindset decides". Yet, we try to suggest that politicians play the vote bank politics - it is not a one way traffic.

    About the quote "...we forget that things can be known with certainty”, sometimes I do find it that way, even if I cannot imagine how we can always and about all things work out in such a way that we can know with certainty. We still don't how many things work in Nature, do we?

    Anyway, about knowing with certainty, this happened in a TV debate recently. A group was debating on 'The delay in setting up the Cauvery Water Committee' (something like that, I may not be accurate about the name here). The point was that the central government (Modi and BJP to be precise) would like this adversely affecting them in the forthcoming elections, knowing Karnataka and Tamil people are emotionally charged on this issue. Naturally, it was a deliberate refusal to act by Modi and his government. This, all the people in the panel knew for certain - and that includes the BJP spokesman too. Yet, he went on and on with his stand as to how it had nothing at all to do with the forthcoming elections and how there are many considerations that leads to time, which would actually lead to quality of the selection towards the end. I don't know if he felt hollow inside or not, but that is not the issue - he knew for sure that truth deserves to be set aside for the debate; he just did that. Understandable.

    I suppose that is the way of truth with politics. All know, or can know, what is the core truth; yet, we will see stubborn farces and pretenses at the periphery. Leaving aside politicians to do what they do, among people too this is the scenario: Impartial commoners can and will see the truth. And, those who wish to defend the party of their liking no-matter-what may choose to refuse the truth to themselves. In the end, unlike sciences, it is relativity, not truth, that rules! We can accept that, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Image
As a toddler, my daughter loved Alia Bhatt’s songs, esp. the ones from Student of the Year . (That movie did have many good songs and well-choreographed dances). Fast forward to present day, when she is 12 yo. She rarely watches Hindi movies now, but one of the few ones she likes of late, Raja aur Rani ki Prem Kahani has, yes, Alia Bhatt.   If I had any hopes that there was anything to be read in the name of her toddler-time favorite ( Student of the Year ), they have been dashed. Our conversations come exam time are perfectly captured by this photo and its caption: In fact, the pic below captures how she and I look at her answer sheets – me intently, she with an expression of “It’s over, so why are you even looking at it?”   Of late, we pull her leg and tell her that she isn’t showing any signs of academic prowess, she’d better find a rich guy to marry. Some time later, she showed us this meme on the Internet: “Me No Study, Me No Care Me Go Marry Millionaire If He Die
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn
Read more

Handling of the Satyam Scam

The Satyam scam. How does that fit into Montek Singh Ahluwalia’s book on reforms in India, Backstage ? The reason is that, as both NASSCOM and the government of India felt: “(Satyam’s) collapse would create a great deal of disruption for clients worldwide and seriously damage India’s reputation as a reliable source of software services.”   Therefore, the government decided to work with the private sector to “organize a quick takeover by a reputable new buyer, who would quickly restart the company”. But that could not be done overnight. In the meantime, the new board would have to reach out to Satyam’s clients and “reassure them that the company would survive”.   For the new board to have credibility when it made that statement, it had to be staffed with people who understood the private sector, the IT sector in particular, and commanded respect and trust. Deepak Parikh from HDFC was made chairman, and other members of the board included a former NASSCOM chairman, CII member,
Read more