- 28 Apr 2012
Should the Heavens fall? - 31 Mar 2012
Let us just deny it out of existence - 17 May 2012
A right fine mess - 21 Apr 2012
Covering the Bhoja Air crash - 08 Apr 2012
The cult of political name-calling
- RSS
- Today's Paper
- Subscribe
- beta 2.1
Alerts
What are TV anchors made of?
In eyes of the marketing departments, a good anchor is one who can shout a lot or make people fight on-air.
The writer hosts a show called “Capital Circuit” for News One
The conduct of television anchors and the quality of their work is becoming a favourite topic of discussion at social gatherings and on social media. An anchorperson or a talk show host is often blamed for growing social maladies like radicalism, intolerance and cynicism. At times, a butt of a thousand jokes, an anchor is often characterised as a person pretending to be an expert on everything. Though most of the criticism holds water, at least in some cases, in the absence of a serious scholarly work on the subject, many nuances of the trade are overlooked.
As the craft in Pakistan is only a decade-old in terms of its real impact, no scholarly studies are available to assess its weaknesses and strengths. Many questions, meanwhile, remain unanswered or their answers misunderstood, and one wishes that scholarship on the subject is encouraged to help us understand why things are the way they are. The purpose of this piece is to bring some oft-ignored facts to the fore.
The phenomenal rise of TV anchors started with the advent of private news channels against the backdrop of a failing entertainment industry. Only a few years prior to the launch of the first private news channel, Pakistan Television abolished its in-house production facility and outsourced the laborious task of content generation. An audience long deprived of televised serious independent debate on politics fell in love with the newly-introduced political talk shows and some even started expecting quality entertainment from them. But political talk shows will ever be only political talk shows and it is wrong to think that they can compensate for the comedy, drama, tragedy and adrenaline pumping suspense of the entertainment industry.
Another sad background fact is that before the advent of private television channels in Pakistan, the only exposure the masses had to such a genre was through the limited channels available on the dish antenna. Since the first affordable news channel for the average urban household was BBC World, its most noteworthy show “Hard Talk”, with the confrontational attitude of Tim Sebastian, became the archetypal benchmark. While there are countless formats available in the field the world over, the best among them being non-confrontationist, the audiences and the anchors growing in this era have been conditioned to this format.
With further experiments came the drama of quarrelling guests and the sensation it created. Now, in the eye of the marketing departments of these channels, a good anchor is one who can shout a lot or make people fight on-air. And with a sophisticated rating system in place, their assessment is hard to challenge. Of course, it is an unfortunate vicious cycle and an engine of mediocrity where innovative ideas are often lost.
When innovation came, it arrived in the wrong shape. You were not to expect Oprah Winfrey from our channels but the introduction of comedians, actors and other representatives of the entertainment industry in otherwise serious political discussions.
As things stand today, talk shows and their anchors are perfect specimens of Theodor W Adorno’s culture industry. It is imperative that, instead of expecting this Herculean task of breaking the mould only from a TV anchor — who, in any case, is a product of the society we breath in — all stakeholders work together to bring change. After all, it is quite unfair to expect comedy, drama, tragedy, thrill and then constructive discussion from the same anchor.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 24th, 2012.
Reader Comments (18)
Opinion Latest Stories
Blazing trails: Australia and Pakistan
Australia will support new govt in its efforts of good governance, economic development as it faces challenges ahead.
Naya Pakistan!
Federal govt, which remains as elaborate as before 18th Amendment, has been trying but failing to make ends meet.
Achakzai’s pie-in-the-sky formula
If Achakzai can make peace in Gulistan, I will be a little more confident of his scheme apropos of the TTP.
Blaming Imran (II)
To say that the abysmal state of Pakistan cricket is his doing, like Aamir Sohail has done, is absurd.
A letter to overseas Pakistanis
There are many here, in Pakistan, who fight for justice, for equality, for education and for freedoms.
Blaming Imran
I would like to point out that Sohail himself captained Pakistan after Imran’s retirement. What accolades did he earn?
Provincial budgets — practice in devolution
Pakistan’s political governance structure is taking shape in a manner that appears set to serve the country well.
NSA and the PRISM programme
Pakistanis who use Google, Microsoft and Facebook on a daily basis may want to reconsider their options.
Recent Slideshows
More in Opinion
A study tour of Turkey
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, redistributed or derived from.
Unless otherwise stated, all content is copyrighted © 2013 The Express Tribune News Network.
Technical feedback? [email protected]
If you can get your guests to argue you are good but if you can get them to fight with most filthy and abusive language known, you are a star.!!
Recommend
How about just plain simple honest journalism, is that too much to ask. Arabi Ghore, calling themselves anchors, journalist. Not all of them but an overwhelming majority.
Recommend
The Anchor person of Sawal Yeh hai say MI5 as M sixteen!
Talat Hussain spins a story of Nepali boy trained by Raw to attack Bombay in 26/11.
Mubashar Luqman’s arrogance is breathtaking.
Shahid masood’s anchoring is laced with Nahi… par ..aap kaise dekhate hain,yaani aap aise nahin dekhate hain.
These anchor persons are as Mushrraf say Full paisa wasool!
Recommend
The events of 2007 provided a special spur to anchorism and TV talkshows. Retrospectively, had there been no General Musharraf around after 2004 at least, the TV talkshow boom might have not taken place. What we find now is Sheikh Rashid everywhere. The media is now Sheikh Rashidized. Sheikh Rashid has also perfected the art of becoming a perpetual darling of the anchors. What we have forgotten is the role of the national and multinational companies in preferring those programs for advertisements which sensationalise news more and which holds potential to disrupt peace of society. TV talkshow aspect of the media is touching its satuation point. Just look at other programs the content of which is full of humour or crime stories or even witch hunting. In these new entries, TV talkshows are losing relevance. Who can survive? Both the best intellect and the best confrontation-ist anchor.
Recommend
Only insane person expect something constructive from most of TV anchors in Pakistan. Overwhelmingly they are abusive, rude, shouting , taunting and insulting the invited panel. Degrading politicians and government functionaries in the pretext of criticism, is their favourite pass time during the show. All this juggling is going on to get the higher TRP to ensure big money from advertisements for the channel owners and hefty pay checks for themselves.
Luckily, their are some professionals in the field who have journalistic back round, do the necessary research on the relevant topics and conduct the show in a sober and intellectual manner without fearing the low TRP. These are ones who gain the real respect and appreciation of viewers.
Recommend
I don’t normally watch TV (except the news headlines), but sometimes (when I have nothing else to do) I watch these political talk shows. Mostly the participants talk simultaneously, shouting at the top of their voices (not surprising, since we know the background of our politicians). It makes one wish that the anchors would have the means to allow only one person to talk and to switch off the microphones of the other participants.
Recommend
People meters are recording the populairty of TV programs. All TV programms are rated regualrly for marketing purposes. It may sound absurd but the most objectionable anchor person may also be the mostly widely watched. Expert can hold different opinion about the bavaiour they exhibit in their program but this is meaningless as the anchor person is more concerned about the rating he/she is going to get that will set bench mark rates for the commercials they air during their program. Therefore, more drama in their program fetches them higher rating. People love them this way. The only way to change them is to change what people like watching…….Is there any thing we can do to change what people like to watch??
Recommend
Though our anchors are the product of our society but such anchors’ mouth should be either taped or be properly trained to run an effective and decent program.
I understand the rotten quality of our politicians forces anchors to wear this image but it is still unacceptable.
Recommend
I don’t really understand the reference to Oprah Winfrey, she isnt a political talk show host; she occupies a unique niche in tv that she quite obviously worked for. No one is expecting our anchors to provide comedy, drama, thrill etc; why can’t they just do their job? And seriously, do we need to produce scholarly articles on the subject of the actual job description of a tv anchor, before they can figure this out on their own? The responsibility lies with channel owners and the anchors in question to draw some red lines, and agree on some basic principles which should never be compromised in the quest for better ratings. I suspect there will be a time not too far off when everyone will get fed up of these political shows, I know I have stopped watching them already.
Recommend
most anchors and ‘anchornies’ are clearly 3rd rate. Lately we also see two anchors in one show..one (with a brief from some group/agency) pretending to be analyst..this is extremely vulgar and testing nerves of us viewers to the extreme. Then we also have to put up with so called senior or investigative journalists who come carry briefs of vested interests.
Some shows are certainly worth watching particularly in which Najam Sethi, Mr Shami, Nusrat Javed (some time back we also saw Athar Abbas in one of the shows) appear. Their comments are mostly fair, balacned and enlightening as well.
Recommend
Urdu is a beautiful language, I see them as persons with a super command on the language. I love all of them irrespective of their political views. My personal favourite is Dr Shahid.
Recommend
@Dr Qaisar Rashid:
Imranized too!!
Recommend
Everything that has been said in this article (and in the comments as well) equally applies to the talk shows in Indian channels
Recommend
“After all, it is quite unfair to expect comedy, drama, tragedy, thrill and then constructive discussion from the same anchor”
Exactly! People dont expect an anchor to have all the above characteristics! All we want is just an anchor! Seems like you are saying that people expect anchors to melodramatise news! You are wrong sir!
Recommend
The basic job of all media is to educate people, but our electronic media is fueling frustration and hopelessness. It is more inclined towards making and breaking the governments and less towards make them realize their right direction. Our media Mujahideen should only do their basic job if not more.
Recommend
media anchors are going through the learning process, just like our politicians and viewrs. They all show great deal of immaturity (with exception of one or two). These discussion programmes are now the entertainment, not serious debates on politics or economy. Their rating also reflects the profile of viewers who love a see bit of hot stuff and some physical punch-up. With time, things wikk improve, once the viewers decide that these are not worth watching and this effect the rating. AS long as there is big audience, why do the tv channels need to change the formatRecommend
I really appreciate the opinion of Mr. Farrukh Khan Pitafi, who exposed the reality about the anchorpersons, even he is also the senior journalist as well as TV anchorperson for talk show. the most important point of Mr Pitafi is absolutely right, that the successfull anchor is the one who has the art of creating a drama, I would like to copy the and past the some line of Mr. Pitafi column which is more interesting and contained on facts.
“With further experiments came the drama of quarrelling guests and the sensation it created. Now, in the eye of the marketing departments of these channels, a good anchor is one who can shout a lot or make people fight on-air. And with a sophisticated rating system in place, their assessment is hard to challenge. Of course, it is an unfortunate vicious cycle and an engine of mediocrity where innovative ideas are often lost.”
Respected Chief Editor, I would like to request in your honor, kindly re- publishe the above piece of writing.
Regards
Recommend
Mr. Pitafi: You have touched upon one of the most relavant and important topic of the day. It is just a brief count of the situation which is of course very serious, sensitive and alarming in nature. It needs detailed deliberation and discussion. You are right by saying emphasized textin the absence of a serious scholarly work on the subject, many nuances of the trade are overlookedemphasized text.
It is duty of the seasoned big name of the industry (media) and the stakeholders to take stock of the situation. They should discuss it among themselves to give a direction to a Shutre Be Muhar. You have provided an excellent agenda for the discussion and deliberation. The anchors shouting and taunting remarks tantamount to highly objectionable social conduct in front of camera without any consideration ad respect to conduct and norm of the industry and social setup. It is the responsibility of the industry to have a check and balance on the behaviour of its components as well.
You have been very careful, prudent, patient and selective in words, I hope the concerned anchors will read your article and learn something from it. The industry should arrange some training courses for them should but your article as a case study for their training.
But the big question mark is emphasized text vested interest.
A Peshawary
Recommend