The decline of the decline of Indian television

We got our first television set when i was in second grade. It was a B&W TV by a company called CROWN. I couldn't have been happier. It barely mattered that my school friends had colour TV and watched several channels while we were stuck at the mercy of a rooftop antenna. This was years before we got access to cable. Many things changed between these two phases of entertainment except one: the TV shows (or programmes, like we called them) were predominantly women-centric with strong female protagonists. Be it Swabhimaan (co-written by Shobhaa De, when she used to be more responsible with words) on DD or Hasratein on Zee. The 90s was the season of women empowerment for television. It was subtle and there was no chest-beating about it. Very matter-of-factly. There were shows (not just on the two aforementioned channels) that featured women who could think for themselves and weren't afraid to express what they felt. Unlike the goody-goody-good halfwit characters paraded nowadays, these women were remarkably believable. Tara. Shanti. Sailaab. Heena. Dastaan...the list goes on and on.

So, what really went wrong? 

I believe the laws of economics came into picture. The aforementioned shows were screened once a week. One episode, half an hour long, with two to three mini-breaks in between. Things changed drastically with Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) when it piloted in the July of 2000 on STAR Plus. Now, you'd wonder how a quiz show managed to help change the course of soap opera in our country. Well, when Amitabh Bachchan asked us "9 baj gaye kya?" in the ads leading up to KBC's debut, he was basically summoning India's attention the way Ramanand Sagar and BR Chopra did (sans any ads, of course) with their Ramayan and Mahabharat in the late 80s. Once STAR Plus had people's attention, with the 9pm-10pm slot, it was easier for the production house to keep the audience entertained around—before as well as after KBC. The resulting shows (read: Kyun Ki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi (KKSBKBT), Kahaani Ghar Ghar Ki (KGGK), Kasauti Zindagi Kay, etc) were slightly different from predecessors as they boasted 3-4 episodes a week. Each episode, half an hour long, with 3 not-so-mini-breaks in between. Instead of waiting for a week for the next episode, the audience were being fed wholesomely by Ekta Kapoors of the world. The only problem being, an assembly production line approach to screenwriting made sure that the quality of the show suffered. No wonder they (the writers) introduced the painfully cringe-worthy exercise of shots focusing on the face of all the 3847592 characters in a given show with blaring metal music in the background that would put even WWE to shame and a person with BP to premature death. This gimmick was for the writers to buy time; in other words, stretch the episode as much as possible. Anand Gandhi, who went on to direct the gorgeous Ship of Theseus (2013), was one of the writers for KKSBKBT before having an epiphany! 

Speaking of filmmakers, the likes of Anurag Kashyap and Imtiaz Ali used to make short films (one-hour specials) for Star Bestsellers. Epic stories, touching chords the way Netflix and HBO is currently doing, were portrayed in these weekly episodes. This was before the K-fever took over the television. The worst part is, the imitation game is so strong in India that any trend becomes endemic after a while. Something similar happened to TV as well. Like India blindly apes the West, the regional TV apes the Hindi TV opera. The regressive show plots were fondly copied by vernacular mediums as well. And even today, in 2016, the paradigm shift that took place at the turn of the century has the same repercussions on television where it's almost impossible to come across shows wisely written for the society. The thirst for TRP is so high that it's beyond ridicule now. Dumbing down comedy is one thing but isn't dumbing down drama next level idiocy? Exactly what has happened with Indian television throughout. Instead of enlightening the housewives (the primary targets) and other family members of the country, the ongoing shows—barring a few notable exceptions—are degrading the collective intelligence with their heavy reliance on petty characters who have nothing to offer. It's worth wondering when are we going to pull ourselves out of this nauseatingly lame swamp of sub-mediocrity. Especially when the disease has reached a point where even news channels are gladly sounding like Hindi TV opera.

PS. If there was one genre that remained uncontaminated by this wave, it has to be horror. There's no doubt that Zee Horror Show inspired the writers of the TV horror series that eventually followed, be it Aahat or Mano Ya Na Mano or Ssshhhh...Koi Hai. These shows managed to do what Hindi horror films STILL can't: scare you instead of making you laugh. And they did so primarily because of two reasons: they hired good writers who cared about the genre and they weren't asked to churn out four insipid episodes per week!

The dark shade of agenda

"If you want to end racism, stop making everything about race." 

- Morgan Freeman 

Whenever a person hijacks a cause to promote one's personal agenda, the cause suffers. And that's exactly what is happening with the Oscars. The Academy, as we all know by now, is white, old and elite for the most part. So, the charges of racism against it ain't a surprise news. But over the years, there have been more than enough instances that proves things are changing. One can't measure the rate of the paradigm shift simply because Oscar isn't a race where film personalities run and win. It's a very complex process. The mechanism is so tiring that a lot of the films (some very deserving) give up even before the nominations are announced. Speaking of which, it's ridiculous of the Smith family to spiel just because Will Smith's work didn't get recognized by the Oscars. So much so they have decided to boycott the annual ceremony next month. 

Let's take a step back and see where they are going with this. 

If these black powerful personalities didn't have their skins in the game, they would have been far more believable. Presently, their attitude comes across as that of a sore loser. They conveniently forget that the 21st century has been starkly different when compared to the previous one. In the past 15 years, we saw how the so-called minorities from the world of entertainment made their presence felt. When they do that, too much credit is bestowed upon their talents while not enough shoutout is given to the industry. On the contrary, the entire industry—Hollywood in the aforementioned scenario—comes under the radar of unfairness when the racism card is flashed. What Will's move does is it weakens the case of those black actors who are going to be awesome and shall deserve recognition in the future. If a black actor wins an Oscar next year, murmurs will be in the air on how s/he got it just because the Academy didn't wish to be the villain anymore. The whole merit on which an award (big or small) is supposed to be based on will be eroded. 

And for what? 

Just because Will Smith and his wife thought he did a splendid job in Concussion (2015)? 

Guess what, all the five actors who got the nod this year were superb. Eddie Redmayne just pushed the threshold of identity in The Danish Girl. Michael Fassbender did to Steve Jobs what Forest Whitaker did to Idi Amin and Jamie Foxx did to Charles Ray. Bryan Cranston brought Dalton Trumbo back to life and it's a shame that his film earned only one nomination. If one excuses his aversion to lose weight for the role (you can clearly see that the thin body double wasn't convincing enough), Matt Damon owned Mars. Lastly, Leonardo DiCaprio did everything humanly possible to earn his nomination. So, if Will thinks that he should be guaranteed nomination every single time he chooses a non-blockbuster film, then he's sorely mistaken. Maybe he needs to accept that his colleagues were better. Or that the jury on nominations is as democratic as it's private. It's not answerable to anyone. Not even to him no matter whether he thinks he was extremely awesome in Concussion. Also, if he doesn't wish to be a part of the circus, kindly leave but try not to make it a race issue. Because that issue is much bigger than his million dollar cheques. 

Leonardo DiCaprio is white.

The Academy has ignored for over two decades now. 

He goes back and works harder. 

Wolf-crying racism ain't his style. 

Will, learn something from him.

Be like Leo. 

Deeply offensive

Nearly two decades ago, Kurt Cobain came up with his semi-controversial song Rape Me. There was a remarkable touch of lonely pain in those lyrics. But all things sung and done, it was a song. That's it. Flash back to today's unmusical reality as something terrible happened in Delhi recently. The horrific details that emerged out of this incident (mind you, not an accident) makes one's soul turn sick. Those who committed this unpardonable offense won't be able to forgive themselves. We shall never forgive them in any case even though we might forget them in the long run. And the girl who was the victim is going to find it unbearably difficult to move on. Our society—despite its righteous hue and cry—is too stigmatic to be conducive enough for rehabilitation. Rape is infamous for doing that that to the fairer sex. More so, men who do that give rise to questionnaire...endless trail of queries that question us.

    So how do we deal with this horror as a pseudo-society? Where exactly does the problem lie? Are we so sexually regressive that our very sense of morality gets clouded at times? Good apple, bad apple? Does sadism constitute an inherent part of our DNA? Don't we keep evolving as a species? Who are we? Misogynists? Unabashedly patriarchal? Can the media do a bit more than worrying about its TRP? Would the government show its spine for a change? Where are the fast-track stringent laws that'd discourage repetition? Will the real feminists please stand up? What role did our parents play? Religio-socio hypocrisy? Have they raised their daughters at par with their sons? Why do the former feel so insecure then? Kung-fu someone? Shall our poor victim become the physiotherapist she always wanted to be? Which direction might lead to a nobler world? Were we lost? Or we are going to be lost? Gun control in US and penis control in India? Go Shariah for a change? Castration? Damn, wouldn't that hurt? Isn't pleasure from others' agony is what this is all about? Let's redeem ourself, whatsay? Set up an incorruptible fund-raiser instead? Discuss? Abort misconceptions and inseminate knowledge? Open up our mind a little and embrace our imperfections? Shout a bit softer and listen a bit louder? Do we really don't need education? Sex education, huh? Mutual respect is dead? Smiling can be dangerous? Can't trust anybody anymore? Wasn't Gandhiji right? Didn't the Mayans just fooled humankind? Do you hear that? That's animal kingdom laughing at us. 

    As a nation, we are very angry. But this understandable rage has very little to do with the crime (or the criminals) in question. On the contrary, the somewhat hapless emotion reflects strongly on the kind of frail structure we've built over the years. When a system fails, it shows. Sadly, it requires a tragedy of such momentous scale to hold our attention for long. Ergo, we've failed somewhere and that bothers us. We don't know the answers to the questions this widely-reported anomaly (although the word is an euphemism) has given birth to. And that makes us more than furious. Perhaps it's high time gender equality is offered a job and rape, retirement.

Woes of a lazy journo

This piece was supposed to be written by a former trade journalist but she's apparently too lazy to do the needful. What's intriguing though is the behavioral interpretation of whether she was/became lazy before/after she switched careers. However, what we expect of journos is that they are meant to be on their feet 24/7 with their eyes and ears wide open. But then there are exceptions too. Not all scribes are like Clark Kent (just so you know Superman has quit his job as a journalist and is currently vella!). If that weren't the case, the present standards in media wouldn't have been in love with gravity. There are people who take things for granted and it has more to do with their personalities and less to do with their profession. So what makes a mediaperson complacent? Is it the rigorous call of duty? Or are there other reasons? For instance, transcribing is considered a bane in print media. Conducting interviews is not half as cumbersome as the task that lays ahead. Typing while listening to the dictaphone lets a journalist acknowledge how indolent s/he can truly be. Media often abuses its right to speak out of turn but it's funny how you can't transcribe out of turn. You've got to wait for the interviewee to finish the sentence and then you can go ahead and twist the quotes! This is just one example of how the sinful sloth works against you. There are many more. Besides, journalism is where you get more things done out of laziness than not. And the trick is to put the know in journo and the media in immediately.

Know news is good news!

Disclaimer : No journalist or media-person was harmed during the making of this blog post.

You wake up everyday. I’m sure you woke up today, too. Once you are done with that, you get started with your routine. And one of the commonest human rituals is to read newspaper or to switch on the TV for news. (Unless you are one of those lucky people who are illiterate but content with their mundane ignorance!) Now, if your day begins with news, what does it say about you as a person? You are curious? Yup, always been. Want to stay abreast of current affairs? Great!

But what exactly do you do with all that you read and learn and watch presented under the garb of news? Nothing, in most cases. Following news is just another evolutionary practice inculcated into our daily life for knowledge’s sake. There is not much one can do about a majority of stuff out there on the paper or screen. So why are we so fond of news, be it good or bad? Because we are an entertainment-loving species and news is gossip presented in a very refined manner. As elementary as that.

On a personal scale, I relish half-baked truths. I have them for breakfast daily. The French in me calls it biscuit. They call it news. To add to the misery, I read something or the other every morning which tells me I should quit reading them. But I never do. In fact, the recent events revolving around Rupert Murdoch made me realize that even some of the oldest media giant might go down for news. Meanwhile, I’ve got no doubt that the world would miraculously change for the better the day we stopped reading newspapers. But then, even if I switched to TV, I’d still be hopeless. After all, in India, the thin line separating TV news from TV soaps is almost invisible now. And this has been the case long before Arnab decided to put the media in comedian.

You see, there might be absolutely nothing out there to report but our media will beautifully turn it into news for gab-hungry masses. Anyone can create news out of thin air. If nothing else works, the media can report on the thinness of the air. [No, wait, the weather bureau is already doing that, aren’t they?] Moreover, watching news destroys a few of those newsworthy moments that could have been ours. Being the minions that we are, we’ll never know what is true and what is being reported as true. Unfortunately, rumours won't give up on news at any cost and vice versa. Fortunately, the spread of fire will never catch up with the spread of its news.

One lesson newspaper teaches us every single day – better not believe every crap you read. Times changes, perceptions changes and of course, news changes. Remember when they got Osama (at last) and how he got killed by breaking news? No one was allowed to see his face nor his dead body but we somehow managed to gulp the shoddy information of his demise. At that moment, the less you looked out for news, the more you’re convinced of the sheer wastage of time and energy.

And the hard part is when they collect too many viewpoints at once and make you look confused than a newborn dinosaur. Goes without saying, the plural of news is nuisance. As a part of social experiment, we should read last week's newspapers and ascertain its relevance in present day, if at all. Or not check news, at all.

You’ll never come across a channel which will go “We’ve got breaking news for you! Damn. We just broke it!” That’s the whole point. There’s hardly anything sacred about truth or news or journalism at large. I don’t mean to sound cynical but everything is commerce now-a-minutes. And the day each one of us is happy is the day news dies.

Microscope on Terrorism

The word “terrorism” invokes fear and panic. It doesn’t stop there. Fear and panic is just the start-push button. What follows these two is what terrorism is all about. Terrorism has been a part of human society since time immemorial. It must have originated in the caves of Stone Age where bellicose, unruly chest-thumping men ruled the roost. Terrorism didn’t die as we progressed from one age to another. It just started adapting itself to the scenarios available be it any part of the world, as far as humans are concerned.

Animal kingdom is bereft of terrorism. I say so on the basis of the unwritten laws of nature that animals adhere to. Terrorism neither applies to a Cheetah nor a Springbok. They are just playing the game of survival and if lucky, get some food in the meantime. The dying Springbok has no contempt for its killer but it will try to run away as far as its breaths allow. Hatred has no place in animal kingdom.

We, the so-called intelligent creatures, have ingrained terrorism through the annals of human fallacies. Destructive and manipulative human activities like war, genocides, espionage, covert practices that affect a large number of people at a single time, has threads of terrorism embedded in it. The only difference is how we perceive this terrorism. Terrorism is not about flying a plane into steel towers or planting a human bomb in crowded marketplace. It could be generalized into finer perspective. For a school going child who is weak in mathematics, the idea of terrorism starts with his report card and ends with his parent’s reaction to it. Similarly, a stowaway youth can experience terrorism if he’s confronted with the ticket examiner. We don’t call them terrorism. We name it disciple or thereof, the lack of it. But to a human mind, any exaggerated fear or anxiety could be terrorism in its nascent form.

Then there is general terrorism. We all read news and learn about how this world functions. Though it may sound normal but we can’t escape the reach of terrorism at our own personal level, thanks to bhais/goons/mafias who *command* respect or simply the corrupt policeman who is no better than the former! These characters are evolution of unchecked abuse of power. Until and unless the hoi polloi join force against these dastardly terrorizing agents, the idea of eliminating terrorism would be just a jolly mirage. This was terrorism at the local level. Now, everyone can say aye to the fact that these are the real terrorizing elements in our society not the once-in-a-while news-maker terrorists who get open visa across the border or sea.

The most popular type of terrorism is nothing but a magnified version of above-mentioned kind. This variety of terrorism is played with full volume. The reason for its unabashed display of belligerence is due to the kind of money involved. These terrorists feel that their lives are worse at the cost of someone else’s prosperity. Poverty and unemployment are the deadly combination for these recruits. So, for them, the motivation has to come from something that is unison in its approach as poverty varies from person to person. The answer lies in undivided faith. Religion is the bogeyman for them with distorted poetic verses from religious book that help model their consequential behavior. It’s like a hopeless case of betrayal and impatient maneuver of a gullible person’s will.

So the solution to this terrorizing menace lies in understanding and making others acknowledge their ignorance. Education is the key. People can’t help themselves any better by taking up arms like the Naxalites and the Maoists are getting used to. Violent tendencies will make it worse. The idea of terrorism can be defeated solely on the basis of proper insemination and literacy. There will be lots of ‘Doubting Thomases’ who may argue that some of the biggest terrorist names have an engineering degree to their credit like Osama Bin Laden who coincidentally, is a civil engineer. These skeptics believe that education has nothing to do with terrorism and indoctrination takes the final brownie. But engineers-terrorist are deviants who had money to waste but the huge following they enjoy is of the illiterate, miserable and innocent masses. The focus must be shifted to those voiceless crowds who may go on to fill the employment form at a terrorist organization!

Now here’s where the media comes into play but sadly, in most cases, they execute a damaging role. They can do a lot better than they are doing right now since it’s the duty of the media vanguards to report the cause and consequences of terrorist displays. They focus just on the consequences. Causes are hardly addressed lest it create a sympathetic view towards the perpetrators. But how can we ever go to the nexus of the menace if we don’t address them.

Media can start their redemption by taking a step or two in this direction. The truth is that common public doesn’t trust anything and media is no different but when the foolproof mixture of fear and panic is consociated and continuously shown on TV and newspapers and broadcast on radio, at that moment, media wins over public’s trust. Now this trust is a matter of time. It has nothing to do with morality or righteousness. Media is the eternal fourth estate that has to preside over grievances and relay it to the concerned parties in power. But that’s not exactly what’s happening, as of late. Media has taken the relaying a too far. It has started designating its stamp of approvals on news that makes views and then sells it.

Being a common stupid person is easy but living his/her life is difficult so its time the common person stop acting stupid and lethargic and start working on his duties, rest will follow. Terrorism is a hot selling idea and it has to be seen in the same way we see any other menace like racism or fascism. There are hundreds of reasons why it shouldn’t be frame worked into something that it is not. Fear should not be encouraged and transparency is needed. After all, the Stone Age men invented terrorism and it’s our legacy that has to be discontinued for our future generations.

Pictures credit: Reuters

The good ol' media

The clarity of oneness and the transparent reporting by journalists were hardly meddled by any editor until and unless some fiery deadline was on bait. Radio was the uniquest way of expression and newspapers, the solemnest. But today, with emerging mass media of various kind and size, it can be safely said that journalists are in a dire twist of choice. They are presented with a hoi polloi so variant in nature and so depicted in their perspective, that it hardly makes any sense to demarcate their trust.

The journalists are having a hard time. They are already enveloped with heavy duty job and now they are having a heavy mass on the tip list. Entertaining a diverse group of people could get challenging. One of the toughest jobs, after fishing, must be journalism. The most inadvertent changer of views and implementers of new ideas on print don't get it that easy as it seems with the crisp presentation of news in studio or on field. They are embedded in wars; freelancers don't even get that luxury, so to say. Yet with the change in trend and demassified crowd on run, these poor cluster of reporters are made to hold marbles far exceeding their palm.

The standard of media is very subjective and even objective, in case of repressive governments, such as China and Pakistan. The media have always showed inextricable loyalty towards exposing the malignant power on chair. They could be termed disloyal or even quislings! But their purpose of unifying en masse onto similar ground is astonishing and noteworthy. In United States, the scenario is a bit too complicated. Here the mass media is ruled by a consortium of less than half a dozen of big media houses. These houses have made sure that their unanimous money churning roll-outs of news stay uninterrupted, as seen in recent Afghanistan and Iraq war fiascos. European mass media seems to bask in the same groove as it had shown in the 60s and continued on. It provokes intellectual bias and do so without clashing out with its consumers, but reviling was hardly encouraged in this paradigm of free society. Now, where does India sub-continental media stand in these criteria. Moreover, where does India stand here, duly because of its enormous influence over the place?

The answer could be both the way of reasoning. The common populace is tired of the old clichés prevalent in print and screen. The new generation wants something refreshing and spookier than prescribed. Taking into account the fact that India is the world's youngest nation, with 54% of its population lying in the age bracket of 15 to 25, which means in 15 years time period, all the grooming of the current generation will fruition into actual utopia of change. The media is juxtaposed between finding a mere balance between this quickly receding gap in thoughts and actions. A look at Indian news channel in regional language, save DD, all others are mere display of tiring effort at keeping the TRPs on trail of competition. It is pathetic and embarrassing to witness such degradation of an effective platform.

This is the problem. What about the solution. The answer lies in the demographics and the distribution of population across the nation. The city lurkers are critical and have opinion on every issue around whereas the rural scouts don't show such spontaneity and are limited in their horizon of sagacity. It doesn't imply to say that the urbaners are high handed in the design of mass media output. It simply cites the involvement in the architectural by product of media. The rural world lacks in participation what urban world lacks in unanimity. This colliding factor isn't helping the media cause in the bigger picture. The news prints are faring better in this case. All the newspaper, almost everyone, has this obligation to reporting as per se, the scenario. A single paper charges in minute scale and dwarfs in comparison to the www score of pay per view format.

Education too must be a culprit here, not mentioning the reason behind its uninformed distribution but the lore tale myopic view that is rampant in most Indian people and are anarchical subjugation of facts on hand, and jumping upon the wagon of explicit entertainment. Media can't grow well when its provider is not meted with a constructive remedy. Besides, polarization is good provided the polarized concept is free of prejudice and bias. Now, how to bring the new tech world to a point when such bias is eliminated free hand wombs the true solution. Indian mass media along with its postal caliber was always well rated in global rank, but in recent time, due to cable TV invasion of private space of common people, the weights are against holding a dumbed down show of happenings with good and loyal returns. The fourth estate is greeting its knights with daily loop of curious task which demands singularity in thoughts, print and view.