The newbie
channel, Day and Night, is trilingual with a strong
Punjabi flavour, focussing on urban and educated Punjabis. But
why would the educated, urban middle class Punjabis view D&N
when they have far superior up-market mainstream channels to
choose from? Does it address the concerns of educated Punjabis
and, understandably, the NRIs? From what one has seen so far,
most of the stuff is not really primed for any such objective.
There are shows like the one Fair & Square that
supposedly regale the viewers with tęte-ŕ-tętes between
the anchor and an invited guest. Last time, when one saw Ujjal
Dosanjh featured on the show, one wondered whether the honorable
MP from Canada is the only exotic VIP of Punjabi origin
accessible to the desi channels; and, then, the usual
questions that might have been of interest when Dosanjh gave his
first interview explaining why he changed his
"English" name Dave when he migrated to Canada from
the UK.
This lack of imagination and professionalism can also
be seen in the programming of Defenceline. In one of its
recent episodes, the panellists discussed the Brooks Report on
India’s 1962 debacle, and similar reports on the 1965 and 1971
wars. There were several inconsistencies in averments made by
the panellists consisting of three retired military top brass
and one veteran journalist.
Firstly, it was stated that there
is only one copy of the Brooks Report, which is kept in the Army
Chief’s office; this report is "secret" and not in
the public domain. Yet, Kuldip Nayar and Lieut-Gen Depender
Singh clearly suggested that a British journalist, Neville
Maxwell, accessed the report’s contents for his book on the
1962 war. In fact there are several books on the three wars that
draw their contents both from first-hand experiences as well as
"sources" – a euphemism for unofficial access to
these reports.
Then General Depender Singh, who was an aide to
the late Army Chief Manekshaw, stated that although he could
have gone through the Brooks Report lying in the office, he did
not. Is this an indication of professional indifference or a
case of being economical with the truth? Would a professional
soldier, who must have actively participated in designing and
activating various strategic plans, ignore such an illuminating
document that was within his reach?
The panellists were
exercised over the fact that the reports were kept
"secret" when these should have been declassified by
now. They wanted the nation to learn from its past mistakes. It
does not make sense that our strategic planners – the top
brass in the armed forces – really hadn’t have access to
these reports.
As for declassifying these reports, it would be
of interest to chroniclers of military history. What struck one
was the behaviour of the moderator, Kanwar Sandhu, who failed to
ask searching questions based on the inconsistencies in the
panellists’ statements. He merely simpered and made polite
talk like a good host would in his drawing room.
Be that as it
may, D&N has a lot of sprucing up to do,
professionally speaking, if it really wants to make tangible
headway in the face of stiff competition. We find that the
Managing Editor, apart from featuring in promos, is also a
newsreader and anchors three shows; when one gets caught up in
the nitty-gritty of routine work, no quality time remains for
engaging in macro-level administration and policy matters.
Quality suffers as a consequence. Moreover, when compared to
those in the mainstream news TV channels, D&N’s
lady newsreaders look amateurs. Most of the staff is apparently
from the print media. I am sure D&N can afford to
hire well-trained quality professionals from the electronics
media to raise its profile among the viewers.
