The media and the spectacle … Hussain H Zaidi
In the age of information, the media has emerged as one of the most powerful pillars of society. The media not only presents facts but also shapes the perspective from which the facts are seen and interpreted. At the other end of the scale, the way the media works is itself shaped by social norms and constrained or encouraged by political control or lack of it.
Some of the distinct currents of thought in our society have shaped the workings of the media. The most obvious of these is the primary mode of thinking and analysis, which is unscientific. Science is a body of knowledge but more than that it’s a way of thinking. The scientific mode of thinking has two key characteristics.
First, don’t accept a notion unless there is incontrovertible evidence in support of it – ‘empiricism’, as it’s called. The only basis of a scientific statement is facts and not preconceived notions, prejudices or biases. A scientist is always prepared to have his/her theories tested. In case fresh evidence crops up, which can’t be accounted for by the theory of the day, it’s the theory and not the evidence that’s set aside.
Scientists are primarily interested in going back to the roots of the problem at hand, dissecting and understanding it – ‘rationalism’, as it’s called. Apportioning blame or praise, declaring people wicked or pious, angels or demons is their least concern.
This is logical because if we don’t understand a problem, we can’t legitimately hope to do anything about it. From the scientific standpoint, the only purpose of debate and discourse is to arrive at an enhanced understanding of the issues on hand; not to make a parade of our knowledge, piety, patriotism, or other such virtues, and demonstrate that the other side is totally bereft of these.
A genuine thinker is always prepared to appreciate perspectives different from his/hers, knowing that in most cases the truth is too complex to be ensconced in simple, sweeping, eye-catching, headline-making statements. It follows that the participants in a dialogue needn’t be considered adversaries. Even if they are poles apart, they are helping the audience or readers look at a matter from divergent angles.
The dominant mode of thinking in our society leaves little room for painstaking research, making generalisations only on the basis of sufficient evidence, the ability to question our own assumptions in the face of facts, and a willingness to appreciate the other’s viewpoint. Every dialogue is seen as a polemic, where one side must beat the other. Every debate is regarded as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to establish our moral and intellectual superiority over others. Every discourse is considered to be an exercise in painting the ‘opponent’ in the darkest of colours.
Such characteristics were always present in our society. However, in recent years, which coincide with the expansion of electronic media, they were propped up immeasurably by the corruption narrative, which swept the society, particularly the young generation, off its feet. The narrative rigidly compartmentalised both society and politics into angels and demons, saints and sinners. As the virtuous see themselves as being a messianic mission to set up a heaven on earth by annihilating the wicked, a dialogue between the two isn’t possible – nay it’s a sin.
‘Innocent unless proven guilty’ is the fundamental legal norm in all civilised societies. However, this golden percept is turned on its head in a sanctimonious society, where ‘others’ are treated as guilty unless they prove themselves innocent to the satisfaction of the virtuous.
In a civilised society, a distinction is made between an accused and a culprit. If you are charged with a crime, say theft, the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt the veracity of the charges against you. Only after you have been convicted in a fair trial done by a duly constituted court, are you declared a culprit. But in the eye of the self-righteous, mere allegations or perceptions are sufficient to make you an offender.
These currents of thought have decidedly contributed to the emergence of anchorpersons as an elite on the national scene. Every late evening, these media persons hold their on-camera court. In many cases, armed with only a scrap of knowledge but an inflated ego and the ability to give anyone – with few typical exceptions of course – a rap on the knuckles, they relish delving into the most intricate of matters and determining their legality, constitutionality, and consequentiality.
It is in the talk shows that ministers and public officials are grilled – as if they were in the dock – and after a summary trial certificates of competence or incompetence, culpability or innocence, negligence or diligence are awarded; and a final verdict on the fate of democracy, economy, society and regional and global politics is handed down.
If you fail to come clean before a self-styled truth-intoxicated anchor, you’re presumed guilty of a grave act of omission or commission. Not surprisingly, the new elite are courted by politicians, businesspersons and bureaucrats, many of whom have a skeleton or two in the cupboard. No one wishes to land by a freak of fate on a well-known anchor’s wrong side.
Arguably, the most sought-after spectacle in a talk show is two politicians – typically one representing the government and the other the opposition – being at loggerheads. For each guest, the other is the villain of the piece. The anchor, with a supercilious smile playing on his/her lips, gives each the complete licence to wade into the character and antecedents of the other.
After the audience has got a glimpse of the diabolical credentials of both guests and is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that each is an evil incarnate, the host winds up the programme with a split verdict, leaving it to a befuddled audience to make their own mind as to who’s the lesser evil. But the average viewer is seldom interested in the truth. For them, the whole exercise, like a cockfight, performs primarily an entertaining function. The channel management knows this and so do the sparring politicians, who as soon as they are off camera, turn swords into ploughshares until they meet again.
Not all anchors fashion their programmes on a comic skit. Nor is calling to account the men and women in important places – again, with some familiar exceptions – everyone’s cup of tea. Instead, some of them appear to be genuinely interested in the dissemination of information, which in the good old days was prized as the media’s foremost function. Unfortunately, this breed of media persons is on the way to extinction, as from a commercial perspective, drama is far more important than a sober discourse.
Anchors also tend to cast themselves in the role of a crusader. Hence, they take it upon themselves to declaim against political and administrative vices and lay bare all the machinations of a corrupt and rotten-to-the-core system. Most of the anchors, and the distinguished guests that regularly grace their shows, are steeped in conservative, verging on reactionary, ethos. So in their book, the root cause of all social ills is deviation from our glorious traditions – pure and simple – and logically the root and branch remedy consists in going back to the past.
In a word, an increasingly polemical, unscientific and sanctimonious national psyche has provided a fertile ground for the rise of anchorocracy. There can hardly be a better menu to satisfy the ravenous appetite for the intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic aspirations of such consciousness than a 45-minute TV programme, where the most crucial and complicated matters are addressed and disposed of and conviction or acquittal is handed down in a summary fashion. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Courtesy 