It's election season, and that generally means increased viewership for television news channels. Exhaustive coverage also means that voters are now accustomed to a range of gadgetry, punditry and minute-by-minute scoring to a degree unequaled in the past. So, what makes for good election coverage? Why do channels, which are bleeding red, still invest in expensive opinion polls? And, most importantly, what does the viewer want? Firstpost spoke to IBN18's Editor-In-Chief, Rajdeep Sardesai to understand the science of electoral coverage on TV. But before that, a quick disclosure. CNBC-TV18 is part of Network18, that also runs IBN18.
Editors carry a lot of responsibility on their shoulders. Sunday is counting day. You have big four state elections, including Delhi. What are the foremost things that go on in your mind during counting day?
I think counting day is the most exciting day for any political journalist. Just the idea that you're in a live situation where the careers of politicians are made or broken, in a sense, is a great high. The first thing is to just stay with the news as it's happening because now, counting day on television has become a 20-20 match. It starts at 8 o-clock and ends by 11-12 o-clock. Earlier, I remember doing an election 20 years ago, where it took two days before we knew who was winning, maybe even longer! The General Elections of '96. So, the big difference is that counting days are not like 20-20 cricket where you've got to be on top of the game and you've got to be constantly ready for news breaks. It's much faster now! It's much more high energy, perhaps, more than it was 10-15 years ago.
But as the big face, the big anchor on the news channel, how do you deal with it? Because you have your own personal bias, you also voted for somebody, you have your own likes and dislikes because you know these people so well. How do you deal with that?
I just enjoy politics. I think if you enjoy politics and electoral politics in particular, that enjoyment seeps through the audience. I'm in the communication business; I want to communicate that enjoyment. I want to try and make it accessible to people; all these big numbers that are being thrown up. So, that's my goal. Frankly, it doesn't make a big difference to me who wins or who loses. It really doesn't. Whoever I vote for in that election; at the end of the day I just want to enjoy the idea of being part of this process of observing what's happening on counting day. I would like to believe that I'm able to detach myself from all the surround sound and just focus on telling the story.
As a viewer, if you were to watch your own show on your own channel on Election Day, what would you like the viewers to take away, apart from the numbers?
Look, I think the big question is everybody tells you what is happening. Everybody has the numbers. But, why is it happening? To try, and as I say, make election analysis accessible to people. You know, I think that's been the big failing in the past, that we throw numbers at viewers and expect them to digest those numbers without trying to explain to them why things are happening the way they are, without shouting and screaming, it's possible to do that! Election Day is a day to really try and make politics accessible to as many people as possible. I've always enjoyed the way the BBC did it; I grew up watching BBC for a long time on Election Night. They were wonderful. CNN has taken it to another level with their graphics. But I think the key at the end of the day is making elections accessible.
We're talking about banning opinion polls, there's so much written about it. You blogged about it. You spoke about how in the UK there is regulation. I know where you stand on banning opinion polls but how important is it to get regulation into this? I read your quote in one of the magazines. It can be a gimmick. It's scientific for some people but a lot of people also do it for political gains. So, how important is it to regulate and not ban opinion polls?
My sense is that a lot of opinion polls in this country have become teen-patti. Look at what happened after the Delhi elections. People were still voting in Delhi elections and we had exit polls coming out. In a tightly run race, that can go horribly wrong. Are we introducing enough statutory warnings? Are we doing enough of disclosure? I think all that is critical. So when I talk of regulation, I'm saying I think we need to be a little bit more honest with our viewers when we do these opinion polls or exit polls. Our credibility is at stake. Look, you could get it right or wrong. It's not a math sum. Opinion polls could go wrong but at least if you're honest with your disclosure and telling the viewer what are is your methodology, how you do the poll, putting all the statutory warnings; that would, in my mind, enhance the credibility of the opinion polls. If we continue down this path, opinion polls are going to become teen-patti, literally! That's not a great way to be doing opinion polls.
If I'm not mistaken, the Election Commission found 20-22 cases of paid news in Delhi election. How real is this problem of paid news during election and how do you ensure transparency? It's a lot about perception. As an editor, how do you ensure that the viewer knows that you are honest and there is transparency?
It's very difficult because, I think, the viewers are posing their own biases and prejudices at times on you. I remember we did a couple of programs on the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and suddenly we've been accused of being pro- AAP. Someone else says we're pro Modi and BJP. Someone else says that we're pro- Congress. Frankly, at the end of the day, we do not follow any agenda. That's the truth.
Is this a real problem?
It is a problem because the quality of people who are entering this profession; there is a significant decline. People are entering this profession just to make a quick buck. There are a number of people and election is the time to make a quick buck! You're referring to paid news incidents in Delhi. I'm told that there are equal numbers of paid news instances in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan and there are all kinds of fly-by-night operators who see elections as an opportunity to either get government advertisements or to get advertisements from individual candidates. Again, it's a question of disclosure. If you are going to cover a particular candidate's speech for money, then you've got to say "This speech is sponsored by." At the same time, viewers have to realise that if we show Narendra Modi's speech live, that doesn't mean that I've taken money from Modi. I'm showing Modi's speech and Rahul's speech. Now, what do I do if Modi speaks for one hour and Rahul speaks for 18 minutes? That's not my fault. Then, somebody will jot it down and say that you've covered Rahul for these many minutes and Modi for these many more minutes.
Has that become worse with Twitter and social media? I remember how you spoke about wanting to quit Twitter
Yes, it has! You know, at the end of the day, all that a journalist has is his credibility and it takes years to build. To destroy it in 140 characters is unfair. You know, you can tweet anything and say "so and so is paid media" without any evidence. Just because one does an interview with the AAP, which is no evidence to suggest that I'm pro- AAP. Just because one shows the Narendra Modi speech live doesn't mean that I'm pro-Modi. Audiences and viewers have to recognize that if someone has built a career over 25 years...
But Rajdeep, it's not only about you.
The profession faces a credibility crisis. That's all I'm saying. The opinion polls come in, that's where paid news comes in. That's where I say have regulation! I remember when I was president of Editors Guild, we went and the then chief election commissioner, Dr SY Quraishi, told us about this paid new problem during elections. We sat together and to the credit of the Election Commission, they have now told their district officers that if you see evidence of paid news, it will be included as a corrupt practice. I would like to believe that in the last 3-4 years, as a result of that, the number of instances are actually declining. They still exist but you need regulation. In India, if there is no fear of the law, people will continue to abuse the law, whether that is with paid news or with opinion polls. So, all I'm calling for is greater transparency and greater regulation. I don't believe banning is the solution but I do believe that, given the credibility crisis that this profession faces, we need to make ourselves much more transparent in the way we operate.
Coming back to opinion polls, exit polls and getting the numbers right. All channels and papers claim that they've always got it right. There's a lot of advertising going on. In the age of Twitter, is the pressure more to get it right?
I feel terrible about one thing. You know, what is happening is, on Election Day, rather than me focusing on analysis, I'm worried about getting my numbers right! The first three hours is like a school exam. I remember Uttar Pradesh last year. In the first hour it appeared that the BJP is winning and the Samajwadi Party was nowhere in the race. We'd given the Samajwadi Party +200 seats, a clear majority. I remember Yogendra Yadav sitting next to me. Our faces had fallen! We wondered if we'd got it wrong. I remember the BJP spokesperson saying to us live on air at 9:30am, "You will have to apologise for what you've done". When we got it right that same evening, it eventually turned out that we were right. I didn't get a dinner from Digvijay Singh. That BJP spokesperson who wanted me to apologise for getting it wrong is not going to say "Well done, Rajdeep!" It's not a math sum. That's the problem with exit polls and opinion polls. The viewer and the expectation of the viewer, we're catering to that expectation with these tag lines. We get it right. If the viewer says we didn't get it right, it means you're biased. It's not that! Delhi is going to be a nightmare to predict. Chhattisgarh - nightmare for anyone to predict because large constituencies are Naxal dominated. We're partly to blame because we've created this heightened sense that we will get it right each time and we will not get it right every time. All I'm saying is if we're transparent and tell the viewers... I've told the viewers - Delhi - don't expect us to get it right!
You're also showing your polls and results on Friday.
We are showing our polls on Friday and not on Wednesday because we do what we call a 'Post-poll'. Out of all the various polls that are found, pre-polls, exit polls can go horribly wrong. Post polls tend to be a bit more right. We've had a very decent track record comparatively so I'm a little surer with that. Even so, we've got 36 hours to go to people's houses, ensure that in a 70 seat assembly where last time 20 seats were decided by margins of 2,500 and less, we're expecting to get it right in a 3 cornered race? Who knows! Suddenly, let's assume BJP wins 10 seats by less than a 1000 votes. No exit poll, no opinion poll or post poll can predict that. So, it's a nightmare. But, we've put ourselves in the snake pit and we're ready to be bitten.
In India at least, post polls, exit polls; they're all commissioned by media houses. At a time when media houses are fighting for every rupee and this is a very expensive exercise, why does it make sense to do such elaborate post poll surveys?
Brilliant question to which I have no answer! I really don't have an answer. I think we do it partly because of competitive pressure, partly because I still believe that if we do a good post poll, you get a lot of information that can generate decent content. For example, in Chhattisgarh the post poll has told us how the vote is shifting in the Naxal areas. Now, our poll is showing that there's a five percent switch away from the BJP and suddenly a five percent swing to the Congress, in the Naxal areas. Now, it may well turn out that it becomes 8-9 percent eventually and the Congress wins and sweeps those areas. People will say that you've got it wrong. But, I do believe that that five percent swing will measure through a poll, in itself, gives us an opportunity to examine trends in that area. I think as a trend-spotter, post polls still have value, providing academic rigour. The viewer desperately wants to know the moment the polls have closed, who has won, who has lost.
But does the viewer care about so much analysis or do we end up doing journalism for each other?
I've got a 24/7 animal to be fed and for the 3 days of elections, that's the biggest story. Because it's the biggest story I'm looking for new ways to keep that story going. One of the ways is a poll.
There's a general fall in trust in news media. What do you think is the cause for this and what is the remedy?
I think it works both ways. At one level there is a fall in trust and at another level there is a greater reliance than ever before. We are all over the place. So, every time news breaks, people do turn to television to find out the reality. So, there is a far greater reliance at one level at what's happening. The flip side of it is that people today feel that number of us are doing what we're doing for wither TRPs or drama or simply to create sensation.
Is that untrue?
I think it's unfair to label everyone and paint everyone with the same brush. I hate it when people say "Sab Neta Chor Hai". I used to, for a long time, say, "Hamam mein sab nange hain". Increasingly I believe that it's a very unfair way to look at people in public life and I believe that it's an unfair way to look at people in the media. There are decent people in the media and then there are those who take shortcuts. I think we need to make the difference.
Comments
0 comment