TRP Madness

(Many newspapers or news channels carry fake news articles on April 1st – All Fool’s Day – to celebrate the occasion. This left Faking News with a big dilemma as we fake the news round the clock, round the year. Hence we decided to carry a rather serious article on this day! Or maybe we just ran out of ideas, but why should we accept that? Anyway, the serious article follows:)

The current mess of television journalism is often blamed upon "the mad TRP race" i.e. the race to show sensational and senseless stuff in name of news just to attract eyeballs i.e. attention of common men and hence their viewership, which translates into high TRP numbers. So is this 'business' of achieving high TRPs against the 'business' of journalism?

Historically news organizations have been running the business of ‘printing and publishing’. The modern journalism is supposed to have started with the Gutenberg press in the fifteenth century, when Bible was printed and made available to the common masses, liberating it from the clutches of the clergy.

The Bible printing press evolved into of a press that printed books, periodicals and finally Daily Newspapers by the seventeenth century. Soon various newspapers were in business all over Europe and America. Journalism was a ‘mission’ as well as a ‘business’.

Many of these newspapers were ‘promoted’ or ‘owned’ by people on a mission – people committed to the ideals of democracy. Even in India, journalism students are taught that modern journalism started with some of the great freedom fighters, including Mahatma Gandhi, starting their own periodicals or newspapers.

So journalism started as a ‘business of selling ideals of democracy’.

These ideas sold. People, the common man as well as the rich and the famous, bought them and they didn’t mind paying a price. The business sustained.

By the end of nineteenth century, some businessmen in the USA could recognize that the massive reach of newspapers made them the most powerful tool of mass marketing and advertising. The term ‘yellow journalism’ came into being a few years after. Profits skyrocketed.

Journalism became a ‘business of selling advertising spots’.

And it gave birth to page-3 journalism, it gave birth to sold out editorial spaces (by cleverly calling it advertorials), and it made the 'mission' of journalism take the back seat and give the driver seat to the 'business' of journalism.

The problem with television news was even more complex. Unlike the printing and publishing business, television business didn’t start with any grand mission of propagating ideals of democracy, revolution or education.

Television had broadly two roles when it started – government controlled mass communication medium or an entertainment medium better known as the idiot box, which attracted eyeballs and sold advertising spots as part of business strategy.

When independent television news channels started, they had the challenge to not take on either of these roles – a government propaganda machinery or an idiot box. While they ‘seem’ to have saved themselves from becoming a propaganda machinery of the government, they are definitely struggling to save themselves from adoption the idiot box business strategy of selling TRP slots.

We have assumed that TRPs almost solely determine the advertisement rates of the television news channels. Higher the TRP values, higher the advertising rates, and hence higher the revenues, causing the business strategy of the news channels to be TRP driven.

We have also assumed that it’s mostly non-serious and non-journalistic television content that attracts higher eyeballs and hence higher TRPs.

Both these assumptions are not completely unfounded. Television advertising rates depend heavily on TRPs (although not solely) and people tend to watch more of entertainment and non-serious content on television, because television remains a very important medium of entertainment.

Could these two factors be changed?

The first one (making television advertising rates a lot less dependent upon TRPs) would require a change in the market dynamics of the television advertising industry, while the second one (people start preferring serious television content) warrants a radical social behavior change or mass arrival of a completely new and personal medium of entertainment making television an ‘intelligent box’.

Obviously the change in market dynamics of the television advertising industry seems more feasible than hoping to radically change the society or entertainment mediums.

Television advertising industry has three major players – the rating agencies (who calculate and release TRPs), the media planners (who interpret these TRPs to price advertising spots), and the advertisers (who spend money to buy these advertising spots).

All these will have to mutually agree to come up with a formula where some other factor is given equal importance alongside TRPs while pricing the television advertising spots. For example, the rating agencies could ask common television viewers to rate television news channels on some ‘credibility’, ‘neutrality’ and ‘objectivity’ index and media planners factor these ratings while pricing advertising spots.

Yes, I am proposing that television adverting spots should have ‘quality’ (public perception) too apart from ‘quantity’ (eyeballs and reach) to offer.

And it’s not an outlandish or too idealistic a proposition. In outdoor advertising, subconsciously or otherwise, advertising spots have surely a ‘quality’ attached to them. If you are driving on a highway, you won’t find a billboard at a spot that could be considered an eyesore by the passing people, even though the ‘eyeballs’ (traffic on the highway) remain constant all across.

Therefore the major players of the television advertising industry will need to be convinced that advertising on a news channel, which is considered to be frivolous or irresponsible by common people, is like putting up a billboard near a stinking heap of waste on a highway. So an advertiser is advised to look for a ‘better’ spot. It seems a bit difficult, but not impossible.

The first step towards the above solution warrants that there should be a public rating to calculate and evaluate parameters like sincerity, seriousness, credibility, neutrality and objectivity of different television news channels, just like there is currently the TRP scale to calculate and evaluate the channel reach. Will it happen? Let’s see.

(The full (and even more boring) article is originally published here)

Mumbai terror attacks by media

This is one of the rare occasions when our team writes something serious, and unfortunately this is again a tragic occasion.

Our readers must have been watching television news for most of the day to get latest updates on the terrorist strikes in Mumbai, which started on Wednesday night and continued even as we write this (9.30 PM, Thursday) completing 24 hours when the first shootout was reported in Mumbai.

And I’m sure our readers not only got latest updates, they would have got to see latest ‘LIVE AND EXCLUSIVE’ videos and pictures on most of the news channels. The channels surely did a good job at getting news and information, whatever the source was, fast.

And the terrorists inside the hotels must have deputed one person to keep track of news reports to track movements of the security personnel and the army, and to finalize strategies to attack them.

Journalist friends of our team inform us that Home Ministry had called up editorial heads of news channels to direct them to stop reporting about deployment and movement of security agencies as it could compromise their safety, but the channels had some ‘internal resistance’ as they thought compliance with Ministry’s advices would compromise their ‘LIVE AND EXCLUSIVE’ status and TRPs.

But we watch the ‘LIVE AND EXCLUSIVE’ things and give them the TRPs. Maybe there should be an option of negative TRPs, just like we want negative vote in our electoral process.

Anyway, many of you couldn’t have slept and kept watching television (and improving TRPs) as the situation was so glum and depressing. And even if you had napped for a while, I guess you were shaken out of your slumber by our television anchors who hollered when smoke billowed out of Taj Hotel, as if a freak goal in football was scored or as if an accident in F1 race had taken place.

They also hollered to declare that it was 9/11 of India. Even a CIA official on CNN called it the same. In fact, foreign media, especially CNN and BBC, were talking all day about the terror strikes, even though it took some hours before CNN could convince their conscious that they should address the ‘gunmen’ as ‘terrorists’.

Yeah, indeed, it was 9/11 of India. But what did CNN do when 9/11 happened? They didn’t try to show ‘LIVE AND EXCLUSIVE’ rescue action, and they didn’t invade ground zero. Clearly Indian media could have learnt that. Hope they learn.

But they seemed to do one thing that CNN did when 9/11 happened. They didn’t take commercial breaks all night yesterday and till today’s morning. CNN had not taken commercial breaks for more than three days, perhaps for a week; correct us if we are wrong. Instead, CNN was showing messages of “we will not forget” and other messages of unity and reassurance during breaks between news bulletins. Our team thought our India media could at least match this aspect.

But we were wrong. Starting today afternoon, every channel, even the ones who exercised better editorial discretion (and ‘incidentally’ they were all English news channels), were showing advertisements of Chocolate Man, A monkey fond of wearing vests and underwear, slim sanitary napkins for women, and many other creative advertisements. And yeah, advertisements to vote for either BJP or Congress.

One of our pessimistic team member thought they didn’t take commercial break all night as those advertisement slots are anyway either not booked or realize low revenues, as there are very low TRPs of news channels in the night. Well, we don’t know what the reason was. Our journalist friends in news channels also don’t know.

Some of you might argue that after all news channels are in business, how can we expect them to not earn? Very true. We are not asking them to run in losses. We are not asking them to drop commercial advertisements with each terrorist strike as they seem to be routine now. But we believe that they could have taken such a decision this time as it was a rare occasion. They themselves called it 9/11 of India, everyday is not 9/11.

What would it have cost them? Just a 0.55% dip in the revenues for not showing advertisements for 2 days out of 365 days. Instead of each 100 rupees, they would have earned 99.45 rupees.

Such a big price to pay to show respect for the deaths of innocent people, in deference to sanity, in favor of wining credibility and support of people? Clearly the priorities lie elsewhere.

Anyway, we might be overreacting (are we?). But what explains the rationale behind India TV’s decision to broadcast a phone call by an alleged terrorist LIVE AND EXCLUSIVE?

The voice, listened to by millions all over India and abroad, claimed that the “Muslims of India would be proud of this act. Muslims of India are feeling relaxed and satisfied at their heart for this. Allah is with us and we’ll strike again” and similar messages.

And this audio clip was played again and again. Unedited, unrestrained, and unexplained. And a CNN reporter from Mumbai told his studio in Atlanta that some parts of India were feeling communal tensions and there could be communal riots.

India TV proudly claimed – आतंकवादी इंडिया टीवी देख रहे हैं – Terrorists Are Watching India TV. Poetic!

Lord, forgive them as they don’t know what they are doing.

Colors of terrorism

With Indian media reporting and probing the question of terrorism for long, Faking News team too decided to voice its opinion on the current terrorist scenario of India. Faking News Intelligence Group (FNIG) decided to study and analyze the various terrorist groups and activities, and has come up with a report – colors of terrorism.

FNIG has compiled the above report with the following assumptions, which we think most of the Indian media also makes when reporting and analyzing topics related with terrorism:

1. Government agencies tell the truth
2. Government acts in good faith to protect its own citizens
3. Terrorists are guilty until proven innocent
4. Media has right to pronounce judgments as courts take too long a time
5. Communal riots are not an act of terrorism

Our report concludes that there are just two colors of terrorism – Green and Saffron i.e. Islamic terrorism and Hindu terrorism respectively. And even though our intellectuals have been claiming that all kinds of terrorism are same and must be denounced, FNIG has found out that there are many differences between Islamic and Hindu terrorism, and any strategy to counter them must take into account these differences.

For the benefit of the security agencies and intellectuals, FNIG is making the findings of the report public in shape of the following table, which documents all the major differences between the two colors of terrorism:

Note for vote, a solemn solution for Indian politics

Faking News Intelligence Group (FNIG), the research and analysis wing of Faking News editorial team, has come out with an electoral reform suggestion that can change the character and dynamics of politics and elections in India. FNIG has submitted its report to the election commission of India, which recommends paying money to all such Indian citizens who vote in an assembly or parliamentary election.

In its report, FNIG has proposed that all the candidates fighting an assembly or parliamentary election would need to submit a non-refundable amount of money with the election commission apart from their security deposit. This non-refundable amount of money would depend upon the total number of eligible voters in that constituency. FNIG has suggested that the candidates should deposit ten rupees per eligible voter with the election commission.

For example, if the total number of eligible voters in Karol Bagh parliamentary constituency of Delhi is 12 lakhs, each candidate fighting to represent Karol Bagh in Lok Sabha will need to deposit 1.2 crore rupees (12 lakhs x 10 rupees) with the election commission. This amount of money will be paid from the central funds of the political party to which the candidate belongs, while independent candidates would need to cough out the money from their own pocket.

Money collected by Election commission through such means would be used to pay the voters who would come to the polling booths to cast their vote. Each voter will be paid his/her share of ten rupees that each candidate had deposited with the election commission. So if there are ten candidates fighting for Karol Bagh parliamentary seat, each voter will receive 100 rupees after he/she casts his/her vote.

The money left with the election commission due to those voters who didn’t turn up to vote would go towards meeting electoral expenses or other development works.

FNIG believes that such a system will help address multiple challenges facing the Indian electoral system today.

Firstly and primarily, it creates an incentive system for an ordinary Indian to vote, and what can be a better incentive than giving out money.

It also restricts emergence of non-serious candidates or political parties that fight elections just to make noise and disturbance. Mostly such candidates or parties base their politics on myopic beliefs. Such parties would literally need to pay a huge price for their cheap antics in the proposed system.

Since political parties would now need to spend money heavily on paying the common man, they would stop wasting money on regular political campaigns and be frugal in their electoral spending. It will also push them to look for innovative and transparent ways to raise funds for electioneering.

And lastly but most importantly, since each political party would now need to pay each eligible voter by default, they would be impelled to think of inclusive policies and ideologies. This would ensue from the fact that such an arrangement ends up forcing parties to cater to all segments of the Indian society (by paying each of them), and not just a particular caste, religion, linguistic group, etc. Something Indian politics seriously lacks today.

Agartala blasts coverage by national channels

This is no joke, this is no satire, this is no fake news. This is reality of today’s television media.

Today in the late evening, serial blasts rocked Agartala, capital of north eastern state of Tripura. Two people got killed and dozens got injured, some were in critical condition. The blasts, both in intensity and number of casualties, were very similar to the blast(s) that happened in Mehrauli area of Delhi last Saturday (on 27th September).

Now contrast the coverage and importance given to both the blasts by our ‘national’ television media. They flashed the news, called it breaking news (some rare times when they actually use the term wisely) and talked to their reporters (many of them don’t have reporters in Tripura and they appoint reporters just in Assam to cover whole of North East. Unfortunately for them, blast didn’t happen in Assam).

But they ran out of steam after an hour or so. Remember they were screaming on top of their voices for whole day when blast in Mehrauli had happened.

I can understand the national news channels’ ‘difficulties’ and ‘constraints’. As I put earlier, most of them don’t have full-time reporters in Agartala so were handicapped to get more information. Connectivity in north eastern states is not world-class so getting data and information becomes even more difficult. Maybe even government keeps a tight noose on media in those areas, I don’t know.

Clearly they didn’t have enough ammunition to ‘play up’ the news for hours and hours as they did when Mehrauli blast took place. Although sometimes I wonder that if they can play up a silly 2-minute video from YouTube about a lion and boar for almost half an hour news bulletin, what stops them to play up such news?

But this was not shocking. They have right to editorial discretion. And this discretion was shocking.

Around 10-11 PM (barely a couple of hours had passed since they first flashed the news of bomb blasts in Agartala), almost all of the so-called national news channels were flashing the following breaking news on their screen –

“Shahrukh Khan attends the premier of Abhishek Bachchan’s film Drona”

The news that there were no differences between Bachchan family and Khan family was so exciting for most of our national news channels that they forgot Agartala blasts. The grief was relegated to scrolling ticker in many of the channels and the stars had arrived on top.

I remember one of my friends telling me that an indignant girl from north eastern state had once asked some leading journalist in a seminar – ‘why do you put the news of rape of a girl in Delhi on front page of national edition, whereas when such cases happen in north east it never gets mentioned? Do our national journalists believe that the modesty of a girl from north east is lesser to that of a Delhi girl?”

Such questions must have again arisen in minds of people from north eastern states again today. Two lives of Delhi are more important to the country than those in Tripura? In fact, forget the lives of people, Shahrukh Khan and Bachchan family is more important than dying people in Tripura? Give me a break. And please give TRP a break.

Faking News team expresses its grief and dismay over blasts that took place in Tripura. Even though some of our fake news reports have even made fun of terrorists activities and situation, but we do believe strongly that this nuisance has to be done away with for good.

Bachchan family and Khan family might have no differences, but with each blast, the distance between a Srivastav family and Siddiqui family or between a Mishra family and Mirza family is growing. I hope one day our national television news channels would flash the breaking news of these families forgetting their differences and coming together.