DC Debate: Recent embarrassment in a TV show raises queries of decorum in live programmes

The trend of having live debates between two sworn opponents is yet in its infancy in Tamil television channels where the space for neutral and marginalised voices has opened up only recently.

The challenge is to have nuanced debate. This is a rarity in a state where the animosity is deep-rooted. I have been shocked as a host to see guests from rival parties or social organisations failing to even exchange pleasantries. In a democracy, the visual media cannot treat its viewers as mere spectators.

One such effort to engage the viewer is the practice of having his or her comments on its scroll thanks to social networking sites. Another is allowing the common man to air his views over the telephone. It is unfortunate that some unscrupulous elements misused the opportunity for bro­adbasing the discourse.

The anchor should have instantly condemned the caller and tendered an apology to the guest who was subjected to humiliation in full public glare. The technical team behind the show should have been vigilant and muted the voice.

Pre-recording of calls may not be a solution as live-in phonos have inbuilt vulnerability. It is a fact that on many occasions the caller offers interesting insights and twists that make the debate more meaningful and lively.

Instead of routing the call stra­ightaway to the anchor, the support team can ring the caller after collecting his or her details, though there is no guarantee that he would reflect the same opinion he had given initially to the team.

The punitive action against the abusive caller should have a deterrent effect. But, who will tell our politicians, who often lose their tempers, abuse their rivals in a language which is far from decent or dignified? Who will remind them that debates are for winning hearts, not settling scores?

Some of the national television channels screen the panelists before they take them on air and also check with them before the show to ascertain their opinion.

The city police has arrested the caller who spoke in an unparliamentary manner as he had called from Tamil Nadu.

What would have happened had he called from a foreign country where one has no jurisdiction. One needs to screen the caller before letting him go on air to express his views.

The television anchor or technician must allow only known names and phone numbers into the phone-in programmes, the shows’ anchor must exercise alertness and cut short any abusive call-in and abort it before any damage is caused.

Do not have callers at all on a live talk show. You can ask reporters to go around the state, film public opinion and air them during the discussions. This is one way in which one can avoid an abusive caller.

I have stopped watching talk shows as they are unproductive. Panelists shout and fight on the floor. One should let others also speak rather than stressing their own point. Viewers learn abusive behaviour only from these panelists and not from anywhere else. If this is the case how will one’s audience behave?

Debate should be in the right spirit and not one-sided, as it happens in many cases. Panelists are prejudiced, and so are callers. I think technology can play a minor role in situations when somebody gets abusive on a live talk show.

Even though there are technological interventions they seem to have no use as the device cannot immediately stop a person from making any comments.