Over a decade ago, TV news was a Government monopoly. We were all captive audiences of Doordarshan. Today, there are, perhaps, 60 dedicated news channels whilst several others have news bulletins in their daily schedules. And, I haven’t included BBC, CNN, Bloomberg and Channel NewsAsia in this reckoning. They would be there regardless of the Indian news miracle. As a result it’s not an exaggeration to claim that news on television is a popular programme. Even if the viewership at any one time does not suggest that two other factors do: the enthusiasm of broadcasters for news and the willingness of advertisers to support it.

How much of what we see is true?
One consequence of this is that we are as a nation better informed or at least we have the potential to be.  I accept that it all depends on what you watch.  But the very profusion of news and its easy accessibility raise questions we would not have asked before.  Some of these questions might seem heretical coming from a television news producer.  Others point towards debates and solutions the west has encountered but which we in India are yet to experience.  But in either case they are questions that need to be asked.  Today I want to raise some of them and suggest hesitant answers.
 
Let me start by asking what sort of news do we get from television?  It’s pretty much immediate – we no longer have to wait for tomorrow’s papers to find out what’s happened today.  Television news channels can tell you within a minute.  Some boast of doing so even faster.  It can also be visual and highly illustrative.  Television shows rather than describes.  You feel as if you are there witnessing for yourself.  Although I do not wish to exaggerate but in that sense it can be participatory.

But television news has two important limitations and beyond that an inherent tendency to sensationalise.  Let’s tackle the latter first.  The screen shows only what the camera films.  In turn the camera films only what the cameraman focuses upon.  This is not merely a question of subjective choice – although it is that too – it is also a technical matter.  The camera will film the visual it focuses on excluding whatever is on either side of it.  You do not get the picture the eye can see.  You only get what the lens can fit in.  Thus a succession of close ups of a fire or of dead bodies or of fallen trees could suggest an enormous blaze or a massacre or severe cyclonic destruction.  That may be the case but it’s also possible that it may not.  Yet in either event the mind of the viewer will leap to this conclusion.  The danger is it could be the wrong one.
 
This is what I call television’s inherent tendency to sensationalise.  This is also why the statement “it has to be true because I saw it on the box” is actually misleading or, at least, based on a fallacious understanding of TV.  But this problem is easily taken care of – either by pulling out and showing wide shots that put events in perspective or by wisely written commentary.  The only thing is when journalists are up against tight time deadlines – which is more often than not the case – such balancing can be squeezed out.

What TV news don't show!
The two limitations of television news are more difficult to tackle and in India, at least, I have so far seen little attempt to tackle them.  At times there is even little acknowledgement of them.

The first limitation: TV has problems handling what it cannot show
An anchor’s talking head is not easy to follow - aural information is the most difficult to comprehend particularly when it is detailed – and graphics or photographs don’t always help.  This is why news bulletins occasionally ignore what they cannot film.  In a western democracy – where the reach of TV cameras is enormous – this has minimal impact.  In India – where the reach of TV cameras is comparatively minimal – the impact can be enormous.
 
This is why there is so much more news in the papers than on television.  This is  why we ‘hear’ or ‘read’ about events like the ABVP banning jeans in Lucknow colleges but never see it.  After all how do you show a ban?  More importantly this is also why the budget is so boring on television.  First, it’s just a speech but then there’s the question what is the speech about.  That’s an even bigger problem.  What it’s about is not the price of commodities, not even the tax on the price of commodities, but the change in the tax on the price of commodities and sometimes the percentage change in that tax.  None of that is easy to visualise so, instead, we are shown potatoes and tomatoes.  No wonder those who follow the budget on screen usually doze off.

The author, Karan Thapar is a television anchor.