Channel Surf -NDTV 24X7

Television is accused of dumbing down, sensationalising or trivialising news – sometimes all three at once. Often unfairly, because it’s not like print holds itself to some lofty standards all the time either. We have witnessed rather sloppy reporting demonstrated by the big boys of print often enough (Remember the hysterical piece on Raisina Hill being spooked? Sensational and trivial). However generalisations, although inevitable, tend to be unfair to those who’re doing something different. A show that stands out for its clarity and content is Truth Vs Hype on NDTV 24X7. On it, an issue is reported on by Sreenivasan Jain and not “presented”. An important distinction in a time when presenting seems to be more aspirational for younger journalists than reporting, which is a pity because what suffers then is the quality of news.

It’s one the very few shows which takes an issue and examines the specifics, angles, layers etc. It’s not just a cursory general report rushing into the next. While that may be okay for some stories which don’t merit such examination, there are issues where a 2-minute story or a 60-minute shouting match does not leave the viewer with any new information or documented facts. In-depth reporting is rare, and that’s not good for the viewer or TV news professional. Other shows do it – Total Recall on Times Now, Big Ticket on Headlines Today, Bollywood Blockbusters on CNN-IBN and Flashback on NewsX. What? Some people do watch News X you know. Or at least did, till it vanished off Tata Sky. Now, all the other shows I’ve mentioned are on cinema. So the message is that only Bollywood deserves well-researched and fleshed-out programming with facts, figures, dates etc. For politics and business shallow superficial reportage is enough. Disturbing eh?

Coming back to Truth Vs Hype, unfortunately what’s true is that it gets little hype. You could have watched programme after programme through the week, all studio-based debates on the coal block allocation controversy and I guarantee that you’d be none the wiser on what exactly the fuss is about. Nothing specific, no facts, no documents, no policy implications explained. Shouting, allegations, counter-allegations are all you’d have witnessed (with yours truly being party to a couple of these “debates”). However, if you skipped the entire week of coal block allocation programmes and over the weekend watched Truth Vs Hype you’d get a pretty good idea of policy, implementation, objections and the defense. All simply and clearly explained. If giving information accurately, backed by research and documents is one of the jobs journalists are supposed to do, this show does. This is what reporting should be and all reporters should get a chance to do something like this. Just as an exercise in discipline, of facts being the bedrock of reporting and not speculation.

In the past few weeks, Truth Vs Hype has had episodes on Jhina Hikaka kidnapping, Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar, Yeddyurappa, fuel pricing, the Kingfisher financial mess, Raja’s “bail” yatra and coal block allocations. It’s on subjects such as Kingfisher, coal block allocation, Myanmar and fuel pricing where Truth Vs Hype scores head and shoulders above any amount of talking heads on other channels – who are more often than not devoid of facts, specifics and accountability.

As far as the style is concerned, Sreenivasan for long has been one of the few understated journalists on the beat. For those who remember the hysteria around the Mumbai attacks coverage, he stood out for the way he conducted himself and presented the story. No shouting and dodging bullets. His pitch or hysteria was not the story, the trauma unfolding around him was.

Truth Vs Hype reports from the ground, so the reporter goes to locations – the mines, the city, the village – which are relevant to the issue. No amount of studio research and presentation can replace that.

Another thing that struck me on Truth Vs Hype is that it’s the only show where you have a minister who gets to see documentary proof of an impropriety or inaccuracy and says – “Now I know I will investigate it. This is wrong”. Or a Sushil Kumar Shinde coming out looking clueless as hell about every question he was asked on coal block allocation. The thing is, when research backed by specific documentation is put in front of a minister and specific questions asked, we see how ill-informed and ill-equipped they are. When you give them a studio, a few loud adversaries and an anchor to stir the pot, it works to their advantage. That is not hard questioning. In fact, that does the opposite. Gives them a chance to add to the shouting, ignore the specifics, obfuscate the issue and get on with the “debate”. Nothing substantial is expected of them in studios, so they can say whatever they want no matter how nonsensical and get away with it.

In real reportage, the interviewee does not have that option. It’s way more rewarding for the audience and I assume for the reporter too, than doing stand-ups, two-minute sound-byte driven reports and lives or “sim-sats”. It would be a great idea to give all reporters – especially the younger lot – one such issue to deconstruct in an episode.

Speed news is great. A complete wrap-up of all that happened in the country in 20 minutes with 60 seconds per story layered on a bed of fast music and a voice conveying urgency. But in the battle of Truth Vs Hype, what would be a big loss to news reporting as well as audiences is if the latter were to prevail.