What the hell is Vir Sanghvi arguing?
There is a blogging elite on the prowl these days, argues Vir Sanghvi on, well, his blog. They criticize the media and television news channels for running after eyeballs at the cost of serious news.
The answer is obvious. Some of the more opinionated bloggers and tweeters believe that they are part of an elite. They distance themselves from the tastes of ordinary people and have contempt for the kind of programming that gets TRPs (i.e. is preferred by ordinary people).
Thus, we have a bizarre situation where traditional media are criticized for fulfilling their role of appealing to mass audiences on the grounds that the programming does not appeal to a tiny minority on the Internet (and compared to TV audiences or newspaper readerships, the blogging elite is really tiny). [link]
Now, it is quite an interesting claim. One could get a little snarky and point out that writing in a language which is understood by less than 10% of Indian population makes one elitist in it self. Or that, pray, why would Vir Sanghvi, prominent columnist, bothered by criticism of a tiny elite—even if one admits such an elite exists.
But let’s look at more substantive criticism. First, if the news media admitted that eyeballs was all that mattered, then little criticism would come it’s way. If it claimed no special privileges—from protected speech to benefits like subsidized housing–no one would attempt to hold it to higher standards. But the media claims it serves a larger purpose—a pillar of democracy no less—and therefore deserves special considerations. Well, as the oldest cliche in the book goes, with power comes responsibility. So let the media admit that it is no better than the entertainment channels of Indian television, and no one would be particularly concerned by what they produce.
Second, the media claims it holds elected representatives accountable. And why would it then shy away from accountability it self? Indeed, many politicians argue that they are not accountable for their acts of commission and omission because they have been elected by their constituents. By Sanghvi’s logic, media should leave them alone because they have won the electoral equivalent of TRPs by winning elections! For starters, maybe, Sanghvi should stop calling Narendra Modi a “mass murderer” because he did win the election in Gujarat despite his dubious role in the 2002 riots.
Third and perhaps most importantly, what is the role of criticism? Should movies or books be judged by their content or only their sales ? If that is the case, why does the media employ reviewers which routinely dismiss a lot of Bollywood blockbusters as bad movies. Is it a form of elitism? Of course it is. But does that make it wrong? The idea that popular taste cannot be critiqued militates not only against the idea of excellence but also of personal taste and choice. Those who criticize the media—the dreaded blogging elite—are in no way stopping anyone from enjoying the dubious pleasures of The Times of India. But to argue that somehow criticizing the Times of India “is dissing the vast majority of media readership and viewership” is simply preposterous.
Finally, Sanghvi rather rhetorically asks,
But the next time I see attacks on journalists from pseudonymous bloggers who complain that the journos are only trying to get TRPs (i.e. reach a mass audience), I will wonder: just who do you guys represent? Are you speaking on behalf of viewers and readers? Or are you just another anonymous elite that feels emboldened to pass judgement on the rest of the world from the darkness of your rooms?
It is interesting indeed that Sanghvi does not even admit the possibility of non-anonymous bloggers. But it is amusing that the idea people may speak for themselves does not even cross Sanghvi’s mind!
p.s And what may be wrong with pseudonymous bloggers considering they don’t enjoy the protection of large media houses and cannot command mobs of thousands ostensibly marching to protect freedom of speech. Or the fact that the traditional media has been the first one to demand the muzzling of their voice.