"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

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"

Image
Coming up with biting and witty retorts. It’s something we dream of, but rarely manage to pull off. Worse, the more we stew over the offending remark, the more likely we are to come up with that dream retort, as Calvin ruefully points out: During our last holiday at the Taj Resort, seeing my wife carrying towels to our poolside chairs, one of the kids there mistook her for a member of the staff and asked for a towel. When my wife narrated this to us, I did not imagine that my 8 yo daughter would come up with her own retort. But a day later, my daughter recapped the incident, an incident that didn’t even involve her in the first place , and said, “You know what I’d have told that kid who asked for the towel?”. And without waiting for an answer, she told us anyway: “I don’t work here. I too am a luxury person who is living at this resort. Go get your own towel.” We were highly amused by the phrase she had coined: “luxury person”. It certainly captures the kind of holid
Read more

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

Instinctively, we think touch is based on contact. Not entirely true, explains Ed Yong in Immense World – there’s a more important aspect than contact: “These incredible feats are possible through movement. If you rest a fingertip upon a surface, you can get only a limited idea of its features. But as soon you’re allowed to move, everything changes. Hardness becomes apparent with a press. Textures resolve at a stroke.” As you run your fingers over a surface, they hit the tiny peaks and troughs and set off vibrations in the mechanoreceptors at their tips.   At the tip of its snout, the star-nosed mole has many pairs of hairless appendages. It uses them to touch things around itself. Alive or dead? Food or ignore? It does these movements at an insane speed. In the time it takes to blink our eyes, the star-nosed mole can probe, identify and swallow its food. “Light may be the fastest thing in the universe, but light sensors have their limits, and the star-nosed mole’s sense of
Read more