The Rat Race Called 'Rating'

As a talk-show is set to go on-air in a few hours, here is sample of a passing conversation among the host or anchor, producer, social media person and the researcher.

Anchor: We will be doing an exclusive interview of Imran Khan tonight. Please do the needful. Thanks.

Producer: Thumbs up.

Social Media Person: Hot cakes.

Researcher: Very well.

This discreet-or maybe not-so-discreet-dialogue conveys everyone within the team what needs to be done. The producer knows that he has to piece together chunks of the relevant (read: controversial) statements of the guest to make available some sensational short clips. The social media person knows that he has to make attractive e-flyers, polls, Twitter trends etc to hype up the show on social media. The researcher knows that he has to prepare a comprehensive questionnaire, list down relevant stats, statements etc to better equip the anchor.

The sequential build-up of the show is in progress-step by step- which continues till the last minute before the show goes on air. 

All preparations done and strategies are discussed.

Studios ready. Lights in place. Crew in action. All ready to set the ball rolling.

Here goes the show.

Scratch . . . Engage . . . Dig. . .Recoil. . .Strike. . .Grill. . . Infuriate. . . Brawl.

Boom …jackpot!

Note that the hard (read: rating-grabbing) questions are neatly packaged together with the softer questions. For the sake of rating the goal is to produce a show such that the audience stays glued to the screen. Many may not admit it first but there is always an eye out for the rating. And the show ending in a brawl is certainly a jackpot.

Since there are no hard and fast rules of the game (except for a loose consensus that certain issues are sensitive which need to be handled with care) the anchor can openly ridicule and grill the guest(s) as one likes. And most of the time the guests are politicians who are comfortably assumed to be soft targets.

A similar technique or its variation is followed in most of the talk shows. 

Disrepute of the Talks-Shows

Amidst the rat race called “rating”, it is the quality of analyses and objective reporting that is compromised the most. Anchors and guests are often spotted caught in a cold war leaving no room for nuanced analysis.

Here is what retired Lieutenant General Ghulam Mustafa (who now occasionally offers his analysis in various talk shows) had to say about his experience with talk-shows:

“Talk shows have degenerated into a meaningless exchange where participants defend their particular stand point and are mostly engaged in point scoring. Quite a few hosts/anchors either become party or indulge in monologues to give their specific views. An intelligent debate aimed at educating the public about various issues is a rarity”

Besides obsession with rating, talk-show anchors are also generally accused of receiving money under the table for supporting or opposing a certain party or a point of view (lifafa journalists as they are called). Hence, it is thought that talk shows are, in a way, scripted and the questions are planted.

Such is the disrepute of talk-shows in general that this impression is shared by many viewers who are at the receiving end.

However, there are certain problems with such an impression.

First, all talk-show hosts do not fall for a blind race for rating all the time. In their talk-shows they sincerely try to raise issues of public importance and posit genuine questions. Analyses in these shows actually enlighten the viewers about the subject at hand and serve a useful purpose in educating and helping the viewers to make an informed opinion. Hence, blaming all the talk shows with a quest for rating only undermines the sincere efforts done behind and in front of the camera.  

Second, the impression that the talk-shows are wholly scripted and all questions are planted as such is, at best, superficial and naïve. Generally the questions raised by the talk show hosts are according to the situation depending on the direction the discussion takes. It is almost impractical to host a show scripted end-to-end. Although biases and interests of the host may leave a strong impression on the debate overall yet presuming that every successful TV host is a lifafa journalist and practices yellow-journalism is simply outrageous.

The question remains: Why do TV talk-shows still have such a bad repute?

Why do TV talk-shows still have such a bad repute?

Here is the thing. . .

Granted that every talk-show host is not obsessed with rating and the questions are not wholly scripted, the sheer clamor and emotional spiels without objective analysis surely gives one a headache.

Besides several other instances, the recent hysterical media warfare after Pakistan-India tensions stands witness to it.

There were special TV transmissions of talk shows arranged, joint transmissions facilitated by Pakistani and Indian media and whatnot.

Expectedly there may have been serious cost-benefit analysis of the situation on ground on both sides of the border. But the gimmickry of media left the impression that the option of a war was a gasp away and the viewer understandably panicked.

Probably the flurry of Pakistan’s private media was too excited to witness a war for the first time and was hard put to let the opportunity not go to waste. If Pakistani media was vociferous, Indian media was no less. And the dangerous romance with terms like “surgical strikes”, “befitting response” and others continued for a few days.

The stage was already set; people glued to screens; and the media just could not let it go- clamor and emotional spiels galore.

Mega jackpot!

Amidst warring media of Pakistan and India, I came across this telling suggestion, made by the novelist Moni Mohsin,which is worth sharing:

"Why not send war hungry media anchors from India and Pak to fight each other with guns and grenades and leave us in peace?"

Reactions like these tell a lot about how people in general have had enough of it already.

As much as there is a need to change the national “narrative”, the use of media as a propaganda tool has in fact given way to commodification of the passive viewers at the receiving end. Business interests rather seem to have trumped the cause.

Ironically, the clamorous talks shows is what we are stuck with for now. And it is not going to change for the better in near future.