Please..No personal comments and avoid names

Well this is a very personal sort of ranting place I do not intend to make it anything like an extended meet or raising professional concerns etc and in any case not like a gossip centre - it is not moderated and yet 'the sniper' gleefully shot down 11 comments.
Thanks

I swear..the anchors!!

There is an urgent need for deliberation in life. ND caught hold of a video of security forces and others touching the shivling. It suddenly attained ‘Enlightenment'. Declared to the world that the shivling melted exactly and only because of this act. The video was shot by some pilgrim - tourist who was inside the cave when supposedly no one should have been allowed in. The anchor, a screeching novice, even questioned and blamed the source (who shot the video) in very crude ways; got very personal, agitated and blatantly accusative, lost his breath and nerve. Now hold on. Wats going on? First you need to know how to handle ur source. Second, exactly how can anyone say that the acts shown on the video melted the shivling. Technically speaking yes of course the thermal gradient bwtween the fingers of the devotees and the twelve feet ice structure would contribute but lets have some sense of proportion. This random sensationalizing, presented with absolute illogic, made me nauseous. Thankfully, by the evening as seasoned ones took over, the matter was corrected and the morning moksha was rightly referred to as 'contributary' factor along with global warming other such mega factors . Interestingly, the reporters were the wiser ones- they kept on ignoring anchors' 'euraka!' cry and despite annoying prods, specifically pointed out numerous other reasons which could have contributed to the melt down. This was ND Hindi. Usually I watch 24*7 but thankfully the cable guy decided not to wire it that day. I just wish n pray it was better.

This underscores, emphasizes in bold and italics and in 72 pts., the crying need for anchors who have some perspective. Some element of logical scrutiny- that there exist in this world, associations and correlations that are not ‘necessarily' causal etc. Or that there could be multi factor cause –effect relations. To hell with it, first and foremost an anchor must be a journalist.

But where was the desk? How and why was it undone? Why did that screeching buffoonery continue for over 3 hrs? Was nobody watching? Or did the producer tell him "Boss ! this is exclusive... get aggressive ...we got it this time, make it big" and the anchor, given the constrains of limited bandwidth of perspectival space to play on - did it just as he wud or cud. Simple. Anything is possible. A saner person in charge would have actually done it - without extreme reductionist noises or high-schoolish bullying of his source; would have handled it with grace while not undermining in the least the 'importance' of tapes in hand. And could actually have made it big.

This trend or should i say style of hiring nubile readers(started by a hindi ch) ; straight out of class XII, who gleefully dwell on the most complex of issues in society and beyond, with utter innocence and wide eyed bewilderment- must be stopped forthwith. I recall- a very senior and respected journalist had remarked (4 yrs back) "C'mon! Now, if u want to be taken seriously, get these pre-puberty babes out of screen". I tell u and most wud testify that in most ch's the anchors are the most ill -read, least capable of handling anything with grace and understanding. Because, they usually know nothing abt news – clueless abt most things. Nuances of language, hidden or loaded queries or the art of communication: they don’t even know what’s it all about. That must change. No amount of training, retraining, restraining, cajoling works - you don't have it, you won't have it. Simple. It is perhaps only in India that to be a news anchor all u need a is gud looking face or some sort of screen performance. I remember the day of Uma bharti’s undoing. At around 5 PM it was officially declared that she had been suspended. There were two anchors in readiness. Blanks. Only 3 and half min to go. I talked to the two wide-eyed wonders on repercussions and issues and soon surrendered in despair. After a quick walking–down-the–corridor-discussion with the bulletin producers decided to write down the questions and STRICTLY directed the anchor not 2 ask or say anything at all beyond the written word – nomatter what happens. On the other side, by the OB with mike in hand was was one of the most seasoned journalists in India. Boy! Wat an irony!. Thankfully, the link snapped midway and the decked up beauty moved on to the next item on TP.

Authenticity in news - in form and content and the content of the form, is beyond HR's grasp. But is anybody thinking abt it!

PS: Dependra Pathak's retort - Congratulations. While discussing law n order in Delhi the anchor(another channel) acted sarcastic even when Mr Pathak was clear, forthcoming and genuine in his replies. D P picked on the words- showed greater grasp and play with the words. His retort was crisp, composed and carried an advice - show perspective when 'making' news. Differentiate between the isolated and the pattern. If someday I open a journo school Mr Pathak u r on the faculty. At least on how not to anchor.