In Defence of Viewers

These days, a common ruse of liberal journalists who work mostly for alternative media in online portals is that - viewers want to see sub-standard content, they are not interested in news but only sensation, that is why it is shown, and that is why TV news channels like Republic are so popular.  This I believe is basically a dishonest, flawed and a lazy argument; quite irresponsible for serious journalists to propound this as truth, and to do away with their own responsibility in this critical matter of importance.  It is an ivory tower argument, where all fault lies beneath, and nothing touches that elevated purity.  The falsity of the argument can be illustrated with several examples, but two very basic examples below can serve to explain the point.

The first example is from the movies.  The eighties were a bad time for Hindi cinema, and many bad movies came out at that time which no one can even recall now.  Still those movies worked on box office and the audience watched it.  The film fraternity, instead of introspecting on their own deteriorating standards conveniently blamed the audience that they wanted to watch such movies and that is why such movies were made.  Then came Qayamat se Qayamat Tak in the early nineties and everything about Hindi cinema changed.  Even with two unknown faces, the movie became a blockbuster.  Not only the same audience that was scapegoated for bad cinema liked it but it changed the tone of Hindi cinema.  Within a decade, from the early 2000s the standard of Hindi movies dramatically improved and were also quite successful.  It was the same audience who was blamed for bad movies was now making good movies successful.  The fact of the matter was that the audience watched what was available to them.  They could not have completely cut-off from cinema even if it was third-rate, as it was a reverie, an escape, a psychological and physiological need that could not be denied.  Unlike the daily grind of life where the audience as a common man was directly responsible for the decisions that affected his life, cinema was a diversion where he handed himself over to somebody else.  In those three hours of his life he was not in control, he was not responsible, there was no decision making, no repercussions for anything, he was just a viewer, who after paying his ticket price had surrendered himself in the hands of the filmmaker.  In his earnestness he expected something good and entertaining, but had no control over the quality of cinema served to him.  He enjoyed this sense of freedom where it was not he who had to make decisions.  This cannot be construed as an endorsement from the viewer for bad cinema.

The second example is from grade school.  In a class, if the teacher abdicates her duty of teaching her grade level students, and shares jokes and lighter stuff with students, it would tremendously please students, not knowing that they are being harmed by a teacher who appeared to be friendly and on their side.  A dedicated teacher who covered the syllabus thoroughly, made the students work, quizzed them on the content and graded them on performance will not be a teacher that is likely to be popular among students.  Over time she would earn her respect and later in life students might remember her with all affection and gratitude for doing her job.  Instead of being in a popularity contest, a good teacher knows her professional duties and imparts education that is best for her students.  It is the teacher’s responsibility that her students learn well, not the other way round.

In a similar fashion, it is the duty of a journalist to bring correct news and analysis to the viewers.  They are not in the entertainment business, not in judiciary, nor experts in any other field to peddle their own opinions or at worst peddle fake news.  So, it is not about what viewers watch, it is about what the integrity of the profession demands.  Viewers, watching news surrender themselves like cinemagoers or students, to the journalists.  They subconsciously expect that the other professional will do their job in providing them the correct and truthful news.  If that does not happen, it is not the viewers but the journalists/anchors who have abdicated their professional ethics and duties are to be blamed and not the people.  By failing their professional duties, they have become something else than journalists.  It is the job of journalistic bodies and fraternity to enforce and maintain journalistic standards and not of viewers.  Like other professions, journalists too are bound by professional ethics to do what they are supposed to do, i.e. deliver honest, truthful, unbiased news to the common man.  It is easy to blame the common man, but he is in no position of power to effect a change and in no way responsible for somebody else’s job.  If there is a collective decline in the integrity of a profession, others cannot be blamed for that.  It is the professionals of the field who have to introspect and make corrections.

The argument of TRPs too is completely false and lazy as people will watch if good, honest news is presented to them.  Several good journalists/anchors who were thrown out of popular channels had quite good shows with leading TRPs.  They were shown the door not because of performance or falling TRPs, but due to the political leanings of their masters.  People were deliberately denied good journalism, to keep them uninformed which serves to hold on to power.  Moreover, TRPs are not bulletproof, they are easily manipulated and rigged with moneyed interests.  When fascism takes its roots, dissent and truth are suppressed, and is first reflected in co-opting of media.  This again has not to do much with viewers.  Even with a minority of votes a fascist force can eke power for itself in a representative democracy, i.e. majority of people still oppose it and expect news channels to do their job and expose the powers that be.  A pliant media will eventually assumes the character of the fascist rulers, and will become indistinguishable from the fascist state. 

A more sophisticated argument put forward is the consolidation of media by the capital and serving pure business interests.  It is no longer journalism then, it is running a business model for profit, where sanctity of truth does not matter.  The capitalist interests will never allow it to report and stand for the working class and will bend them to serve their class interests.         

Media is the fourth pillar of democracy, it is in the serious business of holding up democracy.  If the media falls, or is weakened, the stability of democracy becomes precarious, it hangs in thin balance, quite prone to fall.  The common man who stands at the bottom, stands to suffer the most if the edifice of democracy comes crashing down on him.  It is the utmost duty of the journalists, akin to the Hippocratic oath taken by the doctors, to uphold democracy, by simply being honest to their profession.  Serious journalists working in alternative media, must stop blaming the people and start holding accountable the bad apples in their profession in a very real way, going beyond condemnation and fangless diatribes.