Here’s the standard argument for cheap, lowbrow content from media houses. Such content means more eyeballs, more TRPs and more advertising revenue. Without revenue, they cannot meet the costs of running a media organisation. Moreover, the competition is doing it too; why would we be left behind? There’s not much, they claim, they can do. It’s simply economics in the final analysis. Tunguru Bhola is incidental. If it’s not Tunguru then we have to find someone else. Viewers have no problem with our content, why do you bother?
Fine. But pornography has a huge demand. TRPs would go through the roof if media houses offer pornographic clips for viewer consumption. It would be wonderful for the finances of respective organisations. Would they, law permitting, provide these to their consumers? A couple of decades ago, when journalism still had some sense of purpose and decency, the answer expected would be no; now you cannot be too sure.
Blame it on the rise of social media if you want. Before the new age media became all-pervading, content providers had no clear idea about the taste and behaviour of readers/viewers; now the trend of viral news – well, the idea of the news is getting redefined too – offers them clues to designing content according to what the latter prefer. Content that is sensational, opinionated, scurrilous and emotional finds great traction on social media. Posts loaded with malice and aggression are lapped up with glee. When the other media, primarily television, follow social media, the quality of their content is bound to dip.
But who asked them to emulate social media? The latter has the leeway to be inappropriate because they operate in in-groups. Also, they offer scope for a counter. If a post is disliked by readers, they can react and respond, through words, symbols and whatever technology offers. The matter here is between individual publishers and those who are part of their networks. But the case is different for the mainstream media. The product may be privately-owned but it is public by nature. A social media user having a lakh followers is not the same as a news channel with a lakh viewership. Being public entities, they don’t have the same freedom to be reckless as the former. Moreover, they are not interactive. The scope for a counter view on the platform is virtually nil for the consumer.
For example, if people find Tuguru Bhola story downright distasteful, they can react to it on the social media but not in the case of a television channel or a newspaper. For those familiar with newspapers would know how letters to the editor, the only window for the reader to be visible, are treated in newsrooms. Television does not have any window at all. Of late, some on social media have started bringing in filters on comments though. The point here is, that mainstream media being public entities cannot afford to be irresponsible and vulgar. As shapers of public discourse, they have a moral responsibility to maintain minimum standards of decency and decorum.
But, of course, as the trend suggests they would care a damn about decency. They have two strong arguments – viewer approval and revenue. The situation makes one wonder how low it can go. If media observers in Odisha feel Tunguru Bhola is a new low in journalism, we don’t know how unpalatable the succeeding lows would be. Maybe it will be pornography soon.
Someone among the big media houses must say enough and make it loud enough for everyone to take note. But who? Not many seem keen on drawing the red line.
Comments are closed.