The day of the bystander

Why some of the media making an ass of itself can be so pleasing

Shefali Misra

Far worthier observers than yours humbly have given you their wisdom on Agra, always assuming that you needed any. Far be it from this columnist to put in her two-penny bit. Far more interesting in any case, methinks, are the things the Musharraf visit says about the media.

It is not wrong perhaps to carve up the media, for the purposes of a visit to which it has become impossible to allude in uncliched terms, into three distinct parts. One is the majority, by far, of the unabashedly silly in the English-language, allegedly national, media. Second is the sniggering bystander, exclusive to some parts of the print medium. And third is the unabashedly haughty strain that frowns on the trivialisation of a grim visit by a grim perpetrator of, er, grim crimes.

Let’s dwell on the first for a bit. Yes, I know we’re all up to our ears in sap about the man’s preferred attire and his gastronomic fate at the hands of a bunch of embarrassingly obsequious hosts, his wife’s wardrobe and every other conceivable piece of trivia. Although, admit it, haven’t you enjoyed being treated to such profundities as “Zaahir hai, General Musharraf ne Taj Mahal ki tasweeren dekhi hongi, aur duniya ke saat mein se is ek ajube ko dekhne ki chaah unke dil main kahin na kahin zaroor rahi hogi (Obviously, Gen Musharraf must have seen pictures of the Taj and hidden somewhere in his heart must have been a desire to see this, one of the seven wonders of the world)”?

Yeah, alright. So what did you think television was about? Soundbite over thought, image over substance, the superficial over the deep, that’s TV. No one much that I have noticed is complaining — except those in the media who are forced to keep up with this silliness to stay in the race, and those lucky enough to be able to opt out.

Being fine intellectuals, all of us, it makes perfect sense for us to be disparaging. For my part, I am amused at the deep indignation that the logical culmination of the age of television is apparently inspiring. I would have thought that some wise guy would have pointed out by now that Indian TV has finally caught up briskly with American TV — can you think of a greater compliment? — in the personalisation of politics and its emptying of content.

It may not be terrific journalism, though even here it might be pertinent to ask why the other kind is more relevant, but it’s good entertainment, right, so who the heck cares?

Switch next to the sniggering bystander. Your columnist can fairly claim to belong in this august camp, being free of the imperative, as a financial journalist in a financial daily, to keep up with the Joneses in all their breathless giddiness.

It’s a peculiarly happy situation to be in. Having raved and ranted for the longest time about how one’s work was irrelevant to the largest number of people, having elected to write in a language that a minority reads on a subject that excites maybe five hundred people, it’s a good feeling to be able to be condescending towards the so-called “stars” of the profession.

I can assure you that it’s not exactly flattering to go meet someone professionally and seek to engage them in a meaningful conversation, only to be asked eagerly if one has the good fortune of being acquainted with some celebrity news reader on some famed TV channel — who makes twice as much money to boot!

In this schadenfreude I assure you I am not alone. Colleagues have glinted wickedly at me this past week while relating the woes of common friends in the electronic media who have been sheepishly calling us for the phone numbers of business people who’ll give an on-camera “quote” on the Musharraf visit.

These well-paid sods have their pound of flesh to pay. What God-fearing businessman will say on-camera what he really thinks about Pakistan, especially when he doesn’t know what the follow-up question might be? It’s not as if electing not to answer it is any kind of viable option!

Now, finally, for the sensitive types. These are people in the media who have no objection in principle to some trivial coverage, provided perspective is maintained: you get giddy about a Clinton who is basically an amiable man, foibles and all, and it’s really quite endearing that the man will make a glutton of himself given half a chance.

But can the man “responsible” for a thousand Indian deaths go straight from unanimous demonisation to unanimous glamourisation? A valid enough viewpoint, if the perspective wallahs accept that the demonisation is as much a media artifact as the eulogisation. Take your pick.