Pathankot
has set tongues wagging again. While the sanitising was still in progress
judgements were already being delivered on how the attack should not have
happened, what went wrong and what remedial
and punitive measures should be taken forthwith. The customary expertise
was immediately mobilsed in the TV studios from the inventories of retired
military, political and freelance “commandos” who seem to be always on red
alert. They all gave their views, some
repetitive, some purely political, and many of no consequence.
As
for the anchors, their performance was on predictable lines. Years of regular
experience of watching and hearing them have given us instinctive prescience
and nothing surprises us. What does worry me. though, is the lack of restraint
and discretion that is highly necessary in reporting matters with military
content.
In
a panel discussion yesterday on Pathankot one of the regular anchors got carried away as he usually does. He explained why Pathankot was targeted and to
prove his point he then gave a list of the military assets in Pathankot- number of MIGs. SAM’s,
helicopters etc. 26/11 should have taught the media a sharp lesson and one would have expected the TV
managements to have trained their anchors and reporters in the needs of
specialised reporting We do not have to
help provide sensitive information, right or wrong.
Our
anchors would do well to realise that viewers watch their channels not to hear
theanchors’ views on diverse matters but
to listen to genuine experts on the screen. The anchors are expected to act as
traffic policemen and ensure smooth flow of communication between the experts. They
should stop their strident and often offensive intervention in debates promoting
their own opinions. The invitees on the panels should never have to plead for
their turns to speak.
As
for the panelists there is a need to make better choices to ensure that they
are genuinely qualified to speak on the subjects on the agenda. Choice of the
diplomats to speak on foreign policy is spot on and it shows in the dignity and
maturity of the debate. On the other hand one also sees panelists who are
better known for their visible presence at parties and social gatherings
dispensing dubious wisdom on matters of national interest. The consequence of
this also shows in the content of that debate. On military matters any retired
military officer seems to qualify as an expert on strategy. With a few exceptions
the general trend of their advice on dealing with any enemy reminds one of the Queen in “Alice in
Wonderland’. Her standard direction was “Off with their heads “!
TV
channels are an integral part of daily
life and is Oxygen to many like me. It is the bounden duty of the TV channels
to provide us with filtered, pure news and
mature views which enlighten
rather than confuse.
