Telly talk
News television has its own lexicon; here’s a
ready primer
These days, as I settle down in front of the TV every
evening, I am increasingly struck by how news television seems to occupy an
alternate reality of its own, completely removed from the world as we know it. Events
unfold at a breakneck pace; everything (no matter how trivial) is informed with
a certain urgency; and yes, of course, everyone is much, much shriller. There seems
to be no place for subtlety; no feel for nuance; and certainly no room for
shades of grey – it’s all black and white even if it appears to be depicted in brilliant
technicolour.
And in this parallel universe – populated by shouting,
hectoring anchors, breathless, sometimes near-hysterical reporters, and guests
who yell louder and louder in an attempt to be heard – words and phrases tend
to take on a completely different meaning from the ones they have in the real
world.
So, in an attempt to help you decipher the workings of
your favourite news channel, here’s a ready reckoner of what things mean in the
real world – and how they translate when they’re used on TV news.
Breaking News
In the real world: This means news that is of
earth-shattering importance. The kind of event, announcement or development you
hold the front page for. The key word in this phrase is not ‘breaking’ but
‘news’. What matters is the quality of the ‘news’ and the impact it has on us,
not the fact that it is ‘breaking’.
For instance, it may be ‘breaking’ that Rakhi Sawant
has had breast implants; but that does not make it ‘Breaking News’. On the
other hand, if a bomb attack has been reported, a volcano has erupted, or a
minister has been sacked, then the term ‘breaking’ may usefully be employed.
In the world of news TV: However, the term ‘Breaking
News’ has come to mean any old bit of news that is coming through on the wires
and will provide a welcome break from the tedium of half-hourly updates. So, it
doesn’t matter if the news item in question is as frivolous as Deepika Padukone
making a dig at her former boyfriend Ranbir Kapoor or as unexciting as the
release of the list of candidates for the local municipality elections, it will
still be described as ‘Breaking News’ and conveyed to the viewer in a suitably high-pitched
tone.
As if this was not enough, one channel has gone even
further and titled one of its prime-time shows ‘Breaking News’ – as if genuine
‘news’ would ‘break’ at a time of their choosing – thus making a complete and
utter mockery of the phrase.
Exclusive
In the real world: There is no confusion about what the
term ‘exclusive’ means. It means something that is available to only some
people. In journalistic terms, the meaning is even plainer: an ‘exclusive’
refers to a piece of news, a breaking story, an interview, or some information
that only one particular news outlet has access to.
It could be an ‘exclusive’ interview with the Prime
Minister (assuming our Prime Minister ever found his voice). It could be the
revelation of some documents in the 2G case. It could be a story about Rahul
Dravid’s retirement; or even an interview with Shah Rukh Khan about his
mid-life crisis.
But no matter what the story, it is only an ‘exclusive’
if nobody else has it. Pretty self-evident, don’t you think? No, not for the
denizens of the news telly universe, apparently.
In the world of news TV: The word ‘Exclusive’ seems to
mean the complete and exact opposite. Even when a news story is ‘breaking’
simultaneously across several channels, and even when all of them have the
exact same information, each channel still insists on branding their story with
an ‘Exclusive’ tag. Why do they bother when their viewers – who tend to surf
through all news channels – can see for themselves that there is nothing
‘Exclusive’ about their information? Don’t ask me. I am as puzzled by this
self-serving mendacity as you are.
First Look
In the real world: This means pretty much what it says.
If a magazine says that it is bringing you the ‘first pictures’ of, say,
Angelina and Brad’s new baby, then it means that nobody else has access to
these pictures. If a newspaper promises you a ‘first look’ at some documents
relating to the Adarsh scam, you can rest assured that these will not crop up
in a rival publication on the same day.
In the world of news TV: Though, everyone rushes to
assure us that they have been the ‘first’ to bring a story to our attention, even
when this is patently untrue. But no matter what the event (or how tragic the
circumstances), news channels vie with one another to tell us that they are the
first to bring us visuals of a bomb blast/an earthquake/a tsunami/insert
catastrophe of choice. Not only are these contradictory claims completely
baffling but it also begs the question: is it really necessary to insert such
an inappropriate note of self-congratulation in the coverage of what is essentially
a disaster in human terms?
Spoke to our reporter
In the real world: This old chestnut means that the
politician/film star/industrialist/sports star/celebrity actually spoke to the
publication in question on a one-on-one basis, answering questions that a
reporter put to them.
In the world of news TV: This seems a handy way to
describe any press conference, where the channel’s reporter was also wielding a
microphone on the grounds, presumably, that the reporter was also being ‘spoken
to’. Go figure.
