Reclaiming panel discussions

BY BIRAJ SWAIN| IN Media Practice | 30/05/2014
Shows such as these by their nature and their in-depth discussions should be the norm, yet they are exceptions in our 24X7 news world,
says BIRAJ SWAIN. PIX: Anurag Dixit on extreme left

With prime minister Narendra Modi’s unveiling of his 10-point governance agenda and asking his ministers to give a 100-days’ roadmap, most of the news channels went on a madding drive, programming on or speculating over, the roadmap to good days (Achche Din) on their prime time slots on May 29

But, much before this became an agenda for news channels, Anurag Dixit, of the public broadcaster Lok Sabha TV and the anchor of ‘Lok Manch’, asked this very question i.e. Kaisey aayengey achchey din? That he chose to do so on May 21, just a day after Mr Modi had broken down during his address at the Central Hall of Parliament deserves a mention too. So when most news-casters chose to pontificate on the strong PM showing his emotions, Dixit chose to ask the hard question on the roadmap. 

The programme had the unusual suspects from the major political parties i.e. PL Punia from the Congress and Muralidhar Rao from the BJP-cum-Swadeshi Jagran Manch as panellists along with journalist Rajiv Mishra, the CEO of Lok Sabha TV. It was a comprehensive discussion, ranging from challenges posing the new government, to the nature of adversarial politics and its manifestation in the form of disruptions of Lok Sabha and the consequent fate of legislations. It also had its fair share of wry humour from the anchor questioning the inherent contradiction of a Swadeshi Jagran Manch leader seeking Foreign Direct Investment for tiding over financial woes and that too after stone-walling the Congress’ FDI efforts. 

Most importantly, Dixit asked the hard question on the rationale of the PM asking the nation to wait for five years for a report card on his government’s performance. He questioned the reasons for absence of a 100-days’ work-plan and the ambiguity around programme and policy priorities. About time those questions were asked! Surprisingly they came from the not-so-autonomous public broadcaster! 

A Google search on anchor-journalist Dixit, doesn’t yield much result or details or profile-pieces in English. Unlike Hindi journalists Ravish Kumar and the late Surendra Pratap Singh, who have broken the language barrier and texts on them exist in the cyber-space, both in English and Hindi domains, Anurag Dixit, it seems, is yet to be discovered in the English domain. 

For that matter, not much exists on him in Hindi either. Partly, it is because of the Lok Sabha TV’s own lack of initiative in publishing digitised versions of their prime shows on YouTube et al. But a persistent and creative search does yield a few more episodes of ‘Lok Manch’ hosted by Dixit, all recorded in the run up to and during the parliamentary elections 2014. All of them (and there are very few indeed) deserve a dekko. But three of them deserve special mention for the choice of the panellists, sharpness of the discussion and reinforcing the adage that a programme demanding valuable time from audience should at least educate and inform

The panel on ‘Money power in elections’ had Anurag Mittal, aired on April 11, the ex-coordinator of ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms), SK Mehendiratta, consultant with the Election Commission and Rajkishore from Dainik Jagran. The show opened with the absurdity of the fact that the reported figure for campaign finance at INR 30,000 crores was three times the cost of the flagship national health programme at INR 9000 crores and the national skill development fund at INR 1000 crores, combined. The show discussed the inherent problems with the Indian method (or lack of the same) of campaign finance, the lack of punitive action from the Election Commission in spite of having the powers and the unprecedented role of media in the 2014 elections. It also talked about hope, the increasing public scrutiny of manifestoes and candidate affidavits and the increasing role of non-government organisations and public spirited citizens in cleaning up the election. It also discussed the grotesque dichotomy when majority of India is caught in abject poverty and survival issues and the amount of money being spent on elections. It is this poverty and inequality which makes clean elections and effective democracy a necessity, the panellists stated. 

The ‘Role of media in elections’ panel, aired on April 16, featured senior journalist Satish K Singh, NK Singh of Broadcast Editors Association, Om Thanvi of Jan Satta and Rajiv Mishra of Lok Sabha TV. The frankness in the show was refreshing. With panellists (all of whom were senior journalists) calling for public disclosure of media-house earnings, was music to ears. The over-emphasis on media management as campaign strategy was lamented as was the metamorphosis of media as megaphones of major political parties. The lack of analysis, lack of investigation, ground reports and absence of healthy scepticism came in for scathing criticism. The changing nature of the media with contractual employment, obscenely high salaries for some and the consequent mortgaging of independent voice was also discussed. And so was paid news. The self-righteous nature of the media leaders, who, when charged with mal-practise, cried foul and invoked freedom of press, came under specific scrutiny. 

Satish K Singh made the rhetorical remark (considering this episode was aired during the earlier phases of voting), that if media’s role was so important and it could interfere in the electoral outcomes, then Mayawati wave would not yield any seats. He asked if panellists thought Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party would end with zilch. And none of the panellists concurred with that prospect. That Bahujan Samaj Party did actually end up with no seats, is prophetic and chilling, simultaneously.   

The discussion on ‘Political parties’ seriousness towards the Muslim community’, aired on April 18, had Safdar H Khan, ex-member of Delhi Minorities Commission, senior journalist Tahseen Munnawar and Vinod Agnihotri of Amar Ujala on the panel. From talking about the manifesto announcements for the Muslims to the recurrent ghettoisation of Muslims into vote banks and their entrapment in the vicious cycle of poverty and fear, it was an enlightening discussion. The consensus on the lack of a dynamic civil rights leader like Dr BR Ambedkar amongst Muslims and the low/no impact of affirmative action was also explained, along with the dubious role of religious leaders. 

All the above shows, by their very nature and in-depth discussions should be norms rather than exceptions, yet they are exceptions in our 24X7 news world! 

Dixit’s shows have very well-researched introductions, solid panels (most of whom are not prime time regulars on private channels). Though, there is an over-presence of journalists sometimes. He doesn’t overwhelm his panellists with his own opinions and words nor interrupts them unnecessarily. Cross-talks and shouting matches are conspicuous by their absence. And repartees, come-backs and sarcasm are laced with innocence and irony rather than arrogance and cynicism. His sign-off statements are constructive and there is always a sense of anticipation and openness to differing perspectives yet focus on the topic. While Dixit is the face of the show, the team of ‘Lok Manch’ deserves credit for producing the programme three days a week – Monday, Wednesday and Friday! A good panel discussion is incumbent upon the anchor, research and production team and choice of panellists. This effort shows in the programme, almost every week. 

That we are stuck with panel discussions as the dominant news programming format is the reality. That space and resources for ground reports and investigative journalism is shrinking, is the truth. Even satirist-commentator John Oliver has investigated the death of investigative journalism. Unfortunately most panel discussions are variant versions of star anchors, shouting matches, pretentious punditry. Current crop of panel discussions are dangerously close to Mark Twain’s remark, “If you don’t read the newspaper you are un-informed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed”. The word newspaper can be replaced with panel discussions and the statement will still hold! 

Hence it becomes even more important that panel discussion as a format is re-claimed and the programmes inform, educate and enlighten. Every effort towards this reclamation counts. Anurag Dixit’s Lok Manch is one such....

Biraj Swain can be reached at biraj_swain@hotmail.com. She works on issues of poverty, public policy & citizen-state engagement in Horn East and Central Africa and South Asia. She is a self-confessed news addict.


Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps. 
Subscribe To The Newsletter
The new term for self censorship is voluntary censorship, as proposed by companies like Netflix and Hotstar. ET reports that streaming video service Amazon Prime is opposing a move by its peers to adopt a voluntary censorship code in anticipation of the Indian government coming up with its own rules. Amazon is resisting because it fears that it may alienate paying subscribers.                   

Clearly, the run to the 2019 elections is on. A journalist received a call from someone saying they were from Aajtak channel and were conducting a survey, asking whom she was going to vote for in 2019. On being told that her vote was secret, the caller assumed she wasn't going to vote for 'Modiji'. The caller, a woman, also didn't identify herself. A month or two earlier the same journalist received a call, this time from a man, asking if she was going to vote for the BSP.                 

View More