This blogger questions the people holding government (public) positions giving interviews to private channels. A minister, a member of judiciary and bureaucrats are not paid to give exclusive interviews to private TV channels. This should be taken as a breach of conduct. Once a politician assumes office he has no business to associate with TV channel or Press, this is a form of corruption- media suaveness at the of expense competence in the job, it is dereliction of duty and misuse of position for personal gains. Press release and statements given at common platform- conferences, are the way to communicate to public. Any other involvement of members of Executive, Judiciary or Legislature is serious threat to democratic functioning. The official time and money shouldn’t be used to work on PR.
One had lots of expectation when a member of marginalized section of society took over as Chief Justice of India but unfortunately our man spent more time in giving interview to media. Where does he get the time to indulge in these?. This is also true of Cabinet ministers. The Finance Minister gave ‘exclusive interviews’ to many channels after the budget, one must admire his energy hopping from one TV studio to another, repeating the same thing.
Let us look what this exclusive involvement in TV studios mean: Out of one billion people let us negate the people who do not have access to TV- there are millions, lets say at an optimistic level around 80% people have access to TV. Of this how many have access to cable connection?. From the percentage of people who have access to cable how many watch English channel (which in a ridiculous dement have assumed themselves as ‘National’), a favorite channel for lickers since they exist because of PR in English as also their proximity to power center. Take the example of any politician (or minister) who rushes to TV studios and you will see a licker owe his (or her) existence to the sycophancy and positioning in TV studios. Coming back, so we do have very miniscule percentage of people who watch English Channels. Now those who do watch English TV channels there are lot many channels to choose from. So what is the chance that someone has switched on the particular channel at the specified time to watch that ‘exclusive interview’? How many watched the interview of let’s say Finance minister or the Chief Justice. Few thousands at the most and this from one billion!!!. This brings in the question: who the Minister is responsible to?. Obviously to the cabinet and the legislature…..meaning to the people. So what is he doing in the TV studio giving ‘exclusive interviews’ wherein he is representing more than a billion people???. Why is a Minister who is representing one billion people choosing medium to address few thousands? Why is he investing his precious public time on these platforms??
A politician can use media when he is not in the office, before elections and so on, like you see the actors coming out before release of movies. It is a win-win situation for both; it is about how well who uses whom. That’s ‘fourth estate’ for you!!. It is quite a sight to watch a slave interviewing a popular figure, particularly from the film industry. The intensity is as much as you see a dog in front of butcher shop (next time try observing and compare with media snooping on “Abhi-Aish” wedding!!). The salivating slave will try to extract whatever from the celebrity, it is a kind of tussle and the slave’s future is very m
uch dependent on it (do we laws protecting the slaves??). Once you get the ‘bite’ it’s for the spin doctor’s to take over. So we have out of context quotes and if luck favors “Breaking News”. And then we have self appointed guardian- the newsreader, fresh from beauty parlor, you feel will almost break into ‘everything we do, we do it for you’. The reason why they don’t have this song running while they read the news is a mystery; probably they guessed it right that it’s beyond Homo sapiens to comprehend too many noises. Well we can blame god. Not very Market savvy I say.
One wonders whether we do have copyright laws??. Since the input is on TRP, the news is about entertainment. Thus we have more of movie and song sequences in TV channels. Infact they try to create news so as to include movie bites and songs (another favorite area is cricket). Nothing wrong it is ok to be desperate about profit- it is an internationally accepted understanding!!. The question is do they pay for it particularly to producers, script writers of the movie and songwriters, lyricist of the song, if not it is exploitation and cheap way to make money. Have they bought the rights of the movie or the scene which they are broadcasting?? (offcourse scenes from new movies are part of promotion and that is an important revenue source). Also many of the channels have song competitions; the creators of these songs should get the cut (recently songs are being used to peddle products. Easy job!!). Movies and songs are not public property nor are TV channels doing any public service. It is important that there is freedom of expression but it also very important that there should be protection of creativity. The unscrupulous shouldn’t be given free run to undermine everything to make profit. There is an immediate need to create laws to end this exploitation. Meaning less shubh laab …….rrrreppppeeeeattt (from Rajnikant movie song!!)
One had lots of expectation when a member of marginalized section of society took over as Chief Justice of India but unfortunately our man spent more time in giving interview to media. Where does he get the time to indulge in these?. This is also true of Cabinet ministers. The Finance Minister gave ‘exclusive interviews’ to many channels after the budget, one must admire his energy hopping from one TV studio to another, repeating the same thing.
Let us look what this exclusive involvement in TV studios mean: Out of one billion people let us negate the people who do not have access to TV- there are millions, lets say at an optimistic level around 80% people have access to TV. Of this how many have access to cable connection?. From the percentage of people who have access to cable how many watch English channel (which in a ridiculous dement have assumed themselves as ‘National’), a favorite channel for lickers since they exist because of PR in English as also their proximity to power center. Take the example of any politician (or minister) who rushes to TV studios and you will see a licker owe his (or her) existence to the sycophancy and positioning in TV studios. Coming back, so we do have very miniscule percentage of people who watch English Channels. Now those who do watch English TV channels there are lot many channels to choose from. So what is the chance that someone has switched on the particular channel at the specified time to watch that ‘exclusive interview’? How many watched the interview of let’s say Finance minister or the Chief Justice. Few thousands at the most and this from one billion!!!. This brings in the question: who the Minister is responsible to?. Obviously to the cabinet and the legislature…..meaning to the people. So what is he doing in the TV studio giving ‘exclusive interviews’ wherein he is representing more than a billion people???. Why is a Minister who is representing one billion people choosing medium to address few thousands? Why is he investing his precious public time on these platforms??
A politician can use media when he is not in the office, before elections and so on, like you see the actors coming out before release of movies. It is a win-win situation for both; it is about how well who uses whom. That’s ‘fourth estate’ for you!!. It is quite a sight to watch a slave interviewing a popular figure, particularly from the film industry. The intensity is as much as you see a dog in front of butcher shop (next time try observing and compare with media snooping on “Abhi-Aish” wedding!!). The salivating slave will try to extract whatever from the celebrity, it is a kind of tussle and the slave’s future is very m
uch dependent on it (do we laws protecting the slaves??). Once you get the ‘bite’ it’s for the spin doctor’s to take over. So we have out of context quotes and if luck favors “Breaking News”. And then we have self appointed guardian- the newsreader, fresh from beauty parlor, you feel will almost break into ‘everything we do, we do it for you’. The reason why they don’t have this song running while they read the news is a mystery; probably they guessed it right that it’s beyond Homo sapiens to comprehend too many noises. Well we can blame god. Not very Market savvy I say.One wonders whether we do have copyright laws??. Since the input is on TRP, the news is about entertainment. Thus we have more of movie and song sequences in TV channels. Infact they try to create news so as to include movie bites and songs (another favorite area is cricket). Nothing wrong it is ok to be desperate about profit- it is an internationally accepted understanding!!. The question is do they pay for it particularly to producers, script writers of the movie and songwriters, lyricist of the song, if not it is exploitation and cheap way to make money. Have they bought the rights of the movie or the scene which they are broadcasting?? (offcourse scenes from new movies are part of promotion and that is an important revenue source). Also many of the channels have song competitions; the creators of these songs should get the cut (recently songs are being used to peddle products. Easy job!!). Movies and songs are not public property nor are TV channels doing any public service. It is important that there is freedom of expression but it also very important that there should be protection of creativity. The unscrupulous shouldn’t be given free run to undermine everything to make profit. There is an immediate need to create laws to end this exploitation. Meaning less shubh laab …….rrrreppppeeeeattt (from Rajnikant movie song!!)
