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.
The current state of panel discussions on many Indian television channels is a disservice to journalism and democracy. Instead of enlightening citizens, these programs often spread chaos, misinformation, and division. Restoring their role as platforms for meaningful dialogue will require structural changes in how they are conducted, a renewed commitment to journalistic ethics, and an audience that values substance over spectacle.
A question arises as to whether viewers have become desensitised to this chaotic format, or are they complicit in demanding such sensationalism as entertainment.
How Journalism Falls Short of Its Normative Role? Overemphasis on Event-Driven Reporting
The 24-hour news cycle prioritises breaking news over in-depth analysis. The need to constantly churn out fresh content can lead to:
a.Superficial Coverage: Headlines and updates take precedence over nuanced context.
b. Sensationalism: Stories with shock value often overshadow more important, yet less “exciting,” issues like systemic inequality or climate change.
c. Digital Competition: The rise of online platforms and social media creates intense competition for clicks and views. This results in:
(i) Algorithmic Influence: News is tailored to what gets engagement rather than what educates or informs.
(ii) Echo Chambers: Personalised and repeated feeds limit exposure to diverse perspectives and crowd out other views and comments.
Decline in Investigative Journalism
Investigative reporting, which often embodies journalism’s normative role (e.g., exposing corruption, holding power accountable), has declined due to the cost involved in investigative stories require time and resources, which many media outlets cannot afford in the current commercialized model and also risk; investigative journalists face increasing threats, legal challenges, and censorship in both authoritarian and democratic nations.
Polarisation and Partisanship
Many news outlets have adopted overtly partisan stances, leading to:
- Agenda-Driven Reporting: Stories are framed to suit ideological narratives rather than presenting balanced, objective views.
- Public Distrust: Audiences lose faith in journalism when it appears biased, reducing its capacity to educate and guide citizens.
- Neglect of Public Interest: While journalism is expected to protect democracy by empowering citizens with knowledge, many critical issues are underreported:
- Global South Stories: Issues from less economically influential regions receive scant coverage.
- Slow-Burn Crises: Topics like poverty, healthcare inequities, and education reform struggle to compete with fast-paced, attention-grabbing news.