By Karan Thapar

“Poor you! I simply don’t know how you stand it.”

It was an odd way to start a conversation and it took me aback.

“Stand what”

“The politicians you meet and keep interviewing.”

“Why?” I asked still perplexed. But the lady looked at me as if I was the one who wasn’t making sense. She puffed on a long cigarette, blew the smoke stylishly over her shoulder and turned to explain. We were guests at a party last weekend. She was dressed in large white pearls and a transparent skimpy saree. However, I shall be discreet and hold back her name.

“They seem such ghastly people. They come across as selfish, quarrelsome and full of themselves.”

Her vehemence surprised me. Whilst a few politicians may be like that the vast majority are not. Of them my opinion is very different. But that only meant I found myself locked in a long argument. It developed into a regular ding-dong but I’m not sure I convinced her. However, I did realise that television is partly responsible for conveying this false impression. Most of you who don’t know politicians judge by the way you see them. But the presentation is neither wholly accurate nor truly fair. Today I want to make amends.

The problem begins with our television talk shows which encourage politicians to quarrel. It’s not that left to themselves they would be sedate and calm, reasonable and reflective, but that we’ve convinced them and probably entrapped them into believing that the fight is more important than the argument. The fault lies in the way such shows are conceived. They seek to portray the

tamasha of politics – its theatre and spectacle rather than its content and substance. They generate heat but they don’t shed light.

Unfortunately most politicians willingly play along. Once the cameras roll they slip into a role, perform to a preconceived script. The result is quarrelsome shouting matches which lead nowhere and are usually an end in themselves.

This is tragic for at least two reasons. Firstly, it demonises politicians. In fact, it panders to the already widespread opinion that they are a base tribe. People readily accept what they see because it bolsters their already biased view.

More importantly, it wastes politicians. The object of a television talk show is to inform and to learn. This can be done in many ways. By explaining issues, by discussing differing views, by seeking answers, by carefully analysing. But each of these require that we listen and to listen we have to care about what we hear.

That’s where our problems start. Channel heads believe audiences don’t care about the discussion. They claim most subjects bore them. Worse still, they don’t think audiences can be made to listen. In their opinion serious conversation is a switch off. Rather than risk that they blend it with drama. Create a storm in the studio and the thunder and lightening will hold the audience. It doesn’t matter that the atmospherics are simply a waste of time. Or that politicians are used as objects to laugh at rather than opportunities to learn.

Fortunately, the solution is simple. It would follow automatically if we change our attitude to news and current affairs. So far we judge by their ratings. We assume they are products for a mass market. But they’re not, nor should they be. News, and more so current affairs, are only for those who want to know and, dare I say it, care to. They are not vehicles for delivering eyeballs to advertisers. Yet when they are treated as such it becomes inevitable they will be designed primarily to capture attention. That’s why channel heads are scared of demanding concentration and, instead, lure with cacophony.

Yet we have producers, editors, cameramen and even anchors who could comfortably take on the BBC and CNN. We could easily deliver a comparable product for ourselves. The reason we don’t is because those who run channels either don’t trust the audience or don’t know how to differentiate it. They fear that if they make you concentrate you will run away and they don’t have the confidence to realise that if you do it won’t really matter.

So this is not a case of getting the programmes we deserve. Clearly we deserve better. This is a case of receiving the type of programmes our channel heads think we will accept. The question is : how do you change that?

That’s the challenge the lady I met last weekend should address. Unfortunately, that’s also the bit of the conversation she found most difficult to follow. But I can confidently predict that if she succeeds she will discover that most politicians are very different to the impression she has of them.

Now, wouldn’t that be a pleasant surprise?