KANPUR: During the political debate on the news channels we find sufficient verbal “Dangal” generating a lot of cross-questions among the panellist attending the programme. Along with the political parties’ spokespersons, the anchors also shout with the same vein. Why does such disorderly sight suddenly start? What is the efficacy of bawling while putting cross-questions? We do not find such kind of ear-splitting situation usually on the DD news channels. Why does it exist on news channels other than that? This difference says much in itself.
The DD anchors appear quite saner and serious in comparison to the news channels provoking the panellist for causing the presentation of the show in a more controversial style.
There was once an anchor that used to create a war-like situation. His ringer on other news channels seems to be generating the similar boisterous situation through his singular style. He even uses certain similar short sentences of that anchor. In spite of presenting a programme on a Hindi news channel, he has adopted a tendency to speak in the Hinglish. Do such anchors perceive viewers are influenced with this proclivity?
The saffron party spokespersons are turning out extremely impolite by their open warnings. Once very polite and sincere spokespersons of the saffron party are now turning out harsher in their respective tones. Whether it is the Bhartiya Janata Party politician or the Vishwa Hindu Parishad politician, they speak against the people whose criticism fetches them support on a larger scale.
It goes beyond comprehension despite being educated people they show the viewers a very poor mannerism. The viewers realise why they must not follow simplicity in their answers. Why does the practice of healthy debate wane on the news channels? When we listen to the debate on English news channels, there remains a very conducive atmosphere.
What do we continue to listen from the participants are “I don’t differ”, “I contradict”, “I don’t agree upon”, “I’m a little different” and etc. But on the Hindi news channels howling does not stop and the panellists are seen shooting verbal missiles on antagonistic speaker. It presents a view of market arguments. What’s worse their respective view turns out like the googly ball.
Whether this type of presentation is catchy for augmenting TRPs or not, it is always taken as a collapse from an ideal situation. But in the mere act of striking for the TRPs, the distant viewers remain annoyed with this uncontrollable noisy scene. They also feel killing of the time-span devoted in viewing the programme. Unnecessary howling and flare of the panellist, as well as the anchors for building up such aggressive scene, seem nothing but a publicity stunt, as a group of viewers realise.
People are showing disapproval or contempt towards that kind of situation at the discussion of varied political points. Such discussion brings sufficient confusion rather than presenting a clear concept regarding the topic under debate. The viewers in this perplexing scenario fail to grasp the trend in politics. When we boast of democratic values in glowing terms, we need to be more specific in the limited period debates.