The death of Congress spokesperson Rajiv Tyagi due to a cardiac arrest following a TV show debate has raised questions on the “toxic” culture perpetuated in these TV news studios.
The Congress leader had attended a television debate at 5 PM on 12 August and complained of chest pain soon after the programme ended. He then fell unconscious and was rushed to the Yashoda Hospital, where doctors pronounced him dead.
Although there is no medical evidence to show that the cardiac arrest has any link to what went down at the TV debate on 12 August, several Congress leaders and social media users called out the sensational and aggressive style of debates that have become the norm on TV news channels.
Television channels have often been criticised for hosting “shouting matches” in the name of debates. Heated exchanges, abusive name-calling and sometimes even fist-fights have become a normal sight on television debates. But how do senior journalists and regular panelists view this style of debates?
'Pick and Choose TV Channels, Anchors, Debate Topics’
Senior journalist Saba Naqvi, who regularly appears as a panelist in several TV debates, said “sometimes it takes a toll on her psychological health”.
“Anyone who appears on the TV debates regularly is bound to be stressed out, although different people react differently to that stress. Once, I had walked out of a debate with Mr (Arnab) Goswami because the entire discussion was becoming so predictable and boring. Another time, I was particularly enraged when one of the panelists made a sexist comment about me. After that, for two months I did not go to a debate held by that particular TV channel.”Saba Naqvi, Journalist, Regular Panelist
She said, “For the Hindu-Muslim jibes, even though I don’t like it, I know how to respond to it. But when I was profiled on the basis of my gender, I was astounded.”
She added, “Let’s admit that television is one medium which gives one more reach and visibility so I cannot avoid it completely. But I pick and choose which TV debate to attend.”
‘A Fixed Match’
Arfa Khanum, senior editor at The Wire, has worked as a news anchor at NDTV and Rajya Sabha TV but now wishes to distance herself from most TV debates. “The nature of TV debates have changed so much that I stopped doing debates because they are so artificial. It is always like some kind of a fixed match. They begin with the premise that they are going to take the side of the ruling establishment and everybody has to prove that they are not guilty.”
“In my TV career, I conducted a few thousand TV debates and in none of them did anyone use any abusive words or fight or have any heated argument.”
“I refuse to go in most debates because I know they expect me to take a particular position and when I take that, I will be put in the place of an accused. I don’t want to go there to humiliate myself.”
While journalists, activists and experts can be selective about the TV channel debate they want to participate in, that may not always be possible for party spokespersons.
‘Try My Best to Not Get Provoked’
Pavan Verma, who had appeared for several TV debates as JD(U) spokesperson before being expelled from the party in January 2020, told The Quint, “As a party spokesperson, you have to participate in these panel discussions but you can do that with both restraint and dignity. Anyone who has seen me on TV can vouch for the fact that I have rarely lost my temper.”
“I always tried not to get provoked at these debates. It is difficult but you have to make a choice. And I had made that choice very early that I won’t be part of shouting matches, I will wait when I get my turn to speak, I will not get provoked by ill-behaved panelists because I don’t want to be a part of that kind of dialogue.”
‘Feels Humiliating to be Completely Neglected’
CPI leader and spokesperson Dinesh Varshney says, “It often disturbs you mentally. In most of these TV channels, the moment you speak something against the establishment, they interrupt you and speak to you in a very uncomfortable, unacceptable language. I have stopped going to certain TV debates since the last couple of months to avoid mental stress. But avoiding certain debates becomes easier because I belong to the CPI which does not have any official spokesperson.”
“Sometimes in these TV debates, the anchor does not let you speak even once. That may cause you another kind of tension that you have been neglected. And that is humiliating.”
‘Aiming For TRP – A Trend Popularised by Hindi TV Studios’
Veteran journalist and former editor-in-chief of IBN Lokmat, Nikhil Wagle, says, “Our television news is driven by TRP nowadays. Several TV news channel owners, editors and anchors now think that they can get TRP for their channel if they create some noise. I can tell you from my experience as a former editor of a news channel that if a debate is controversial but is conducted in a civil manner, you still get TRP”.
“It depends on the editor to choose a path. The problem with most editors today is that they are not serious about journalism. Many people say this sensational style of journalism is inspired from the way Arnab Goswami conducts his debates but this style has existed since long in Hindi news channels, the roots of which I can trace to Uday Shankar, CEO of Star News.”
Wagle added, “Uday Shankar converted news into entertainment. The platform was given to the members of fringe groups who started representing their views as that of the entire Hindu society or Muslim society. They are no longer seen as the fringe in today's debates. So I would say that Arnab just practices a worse form of that style of journalism but this style existed long back in Hindi newsrooms."
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)