I remember the old days when there was only one TV channel which telecast not only news but dramas, films, documentaries, musical shows and literary programmes. In the beginning, the arrival of private channels was exciting. We all hoped that there would be competition and we could watch a variety of programmes. These hopes were soon dashed to ground. These channels offer something new what is now popularly known as the talk show.
Every TV channel is faithfully following the same cookie cutter pattern of the talk show without any change or innovation, generally, on the same topic and with the same persons. It has become a routine matter that two groups of experts, having opposite point of views, are invited to face each other and provide entertainment to the viewers. It has replaced the drama series of the PTV of yore. There are the same few experts who keenly take part in every discussion on different channels. They are politicians, journalists, and occasionally representatives from different public sectors.
In most cases, the anchor person tries to show his own expertise and speaks most of the time. Instead of asking questions he expresses his own views, and sometimes forces the experts to follow his line of arguments. He allows each person to present his point of view within one minute and moves to another person and then to the third person. The result is that nobody gets time to finish their argument.
There are some professional experts who are on every channel and speak on every topic with confidence. As they have acquired experience of how to impress viewers and how to demoralise their adversaries, they shout loudly. If the other side is not capable of shouting in response, it means they win the contest. Recently, I watched a programme on Pakistani textbooks. There were 3 persons on one side and 3 were facing them to respond to their shouting. The topic was to analyse Pakistani textbooks.
On the one side were three academicians who were speaking softly to express their point of view. On the other side were professional experts of TV talk shows. They shouted with full force and knocked down the other party. Instead of discussing Pakistani textbooks, their argument was that the American textbooks avoid telling the truth to their students and do not mention their aggression in Vietnam. His companion pointed out that British textbooks do not inform their students about their imperialism. The gist of the argument then turns out to be that if Americans and Europeans are not telling the truth, then why should we?
Recently, I watched a programme which was being conducted on history. I was curious to know the views of the participants. The discipline of history is changing rapidly and there are fresh perspectives cropping up to facilitate greater understanding. I was happy that this topic was chosen instead of a hackneyed one. A professor of history was there whose knowledge of history and performance shocked me. A prominent literary figure also joinded and expressed his views on history.
Regarding Mahmud of Ghaznavi, he referred to Edward Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The expert stated that he invaded India along with 200 elephants crossing the Hindukush. So, it was claimed that Mahmud superseded Hannibal who crossed the Alps with elephants. I was shocked by the ignorance of the so-called expert. My God, first of all, there are no elephants in Afghanistan or Central Asia. Moreover, the route of his ivasion was the Khyber Pass.
I doubt that Gibbon made such a blunder. Nonetheless, one should apply ones knowledge and common sense before accepting such things. Even the professor present on the show did not correct him and kept his silence. It is sad that our history which was already being distorted by our textbooks is now being further obliterated by these TV channels.
Some talk shows, in the hope of making the show more colourful and entertaining, have introduced a new trend of inviting the audience for an open Q-and-A session. It provides a good opportunity to those who are good speakers and shout aggressively to get applause from the audience. I was on the panel in some of discussions and miserably failed to convince the audience of my point of view and the audience was unreceptive of reasoned logic. Sentimental dialogue, emotional rhetoric, and reiterating of popular views are liked by the viewers and audience in most cases.
These talk shows, instead of providing knowledge or creating awareness and consciousness, entertain the viewers by inciting the panelists to exchange unparliamentarily dialogues and insult each other. Such a show is regarded very successful and gets high ratings. However, repeatedly showing the same programme with the same people has become boring and uninteresting. As there is no creativity among TV anchor person, they are resorting to other easier alternatives to make their shows interesting.
These talk shows have reduced the academic standards of dialogue to nothing and have converted discussions into nothing but a tamasha. To make it appealing, they sensationalise issues instead of substantively discussing them. Not only do political scandals provide enough material but politicians are also ever-ready to take part in this, especially in order to either justify their party stance or to oppose their adversaries. Such hollow discussions are changing the mindset of society.
There is no soberness in our daily discussions, rather they are animated by emotion and emotional concerns. Reasoning requires knowledge and emotional appeals are the best way to hide a lack of knowledge. These talk shows truly represent our intellectual hollowness and bankruptcy.
The writer is one of the pioneers of alternate history in the country.
