Key Issues with Current Panel Discussions
But in India the television picture is different. The state of panel discussions on many Indian television channels has, unfortunately, evolved into a cacophony that often resembles a shouting match rather than a platform for meaningful debate. Comparing it to a madhouse isn’t far off, and it reflects the growing perception that these discussions are more about spectacle than substance.
- Lack of Civility: Panelists frequently interrupt each other, leading to chaos rather than dialogue. Disrespectful behaviour, shouting, and personal attacks have become commonplace.
- B. Anchor’s Role: Instead of moderating, anchors often add to the chaos by speaking over participants or taking sides, prioritising drama over decorum. The anchor’s attempts to restore order often result in further noise rather than clarity.
- Absence of Constructive Dialogue: The purpose of a panel discussion is to present diverse perspectives and engage in thoughtful debate but quite often we are amused or fobbed off by their debased interactions. Instead, it has become a battlefield where exchanges of crossbows are increasingly frustrating sensible and educated debates where no one listens to anyone else.
- Commercialisation of Drama: Television ratings (TRPs) have incentivized sensationalism, where fiery arguments and dramatic moments are prioritised over reasoned discourse. The aim seems to be entertainment rather than enlightenment.
- Selection of Panelists: Often, panelists are chosen based on their ability to provoke rather than their expertise on the subject, ensuring controversy rather than clarity.
- Erosion of Journalistic Principle: Journalism’s role in facilitating informed discussions is undermined when panel discussions are driven by theatrics, bias, or political agendas.
- ‘Ad hominem:’ – where anger more than arguments are directed against a person rather than the position they are taking to substantiate their arguments. It is no secret that debates on some leading television channels descend to the level of ‘ad hominem’.
Impact on Viewers and Society
- Misinformation and Polarisation: Such chaotic discussions do little to inform viewers, often spreading half-truths and reinforcing biases. They contribute to societal divisions by amplifying partisan voices and fostering a culture of conflict.
- B. Decline in Trust: Many viewers have lost faith in these programs as credible sources of information. The lack of decorum alienates audiences who seek serious, balanced discussions.
- C. Cultural Ramifications: The shouting and rudeness on-screen set a poor example for public discourse, normalising aggression and disrespect in broader societal interactions.