Keep it simple

Why do hotels insist on investing in TV systems that their guests find impossible to master?


So, among the list of demands the Rolling Stones lay down when they go on tour these days is that the hotel staff must leave detailed written instructions on how to work the TV system. I couldn't help but laugh when I read this.

How the mighty have fallen! (Or do I mean just grown old?) There was a time when the only use the Rolling Stones had for a TV set was to wreck it completely as they trashed hotel room after hotel room on their many tours around the world.

But now that all of them are either in or approaching their 70s, those days of drugs, sex, and rock and roll are long gone. Now it's just rock and roll, and a few hours of downtime in front of the television, watching the news or their favourite series, or maybe even a bit of sport, to calm down after the adrenalin rush of playing large stadiums full of roaring fans.

You can just picture it, can't you? Mick Jagger comes back to his hotel room, all hot and sweaty, having done his best Tina Turner impression yet.  His slips into the shower (avert your eyes discreetly now!), comes out in his bathrobe, and picks up the remote hoping to catch the news on the BBC.

The TV comes on. But instead of showing one of the channels, it says Menu, with a bewildering array of options listed underneath. He finally scrolls down to TV and presses what he thinks is 'Ok' on his remote. Nothing happens for a few excruciating minutes. The the TV begins to show him all the movies that he can order and charge to his room. He presses 'Exit'. Nothing happens.

By now I am guessing that Mick is ready to revert to his bad old days and trash the TV along with the room. But he draws on the restraint his 70-plus years on the planet have taught him, picks up the phone and asks for some help. A few minutes later, a young whippersnapper arrives in the room, supercilious contempt writ large all over his face, and shows the mighty Stone just how it's done.

It is at this point in my fantasy that I stop chortling and start steaming. Because the scene I have just described is exactly what happens to me in four hotels out of five on my travels.

It seems to me that the golden rule of hoteliering is that the more fancy the TV system, the more difficult it will be to navigate. I last encountered one such system a week ago at a very swanky hotel, which was perfect in all respects but the TV technology.

The television system was controlled through an Ipad that seemed to have a mind of its own. It took me a good ten minutes before I could crawl through all the clutter of options to access the TV channels to watch a bit of news.

Later that night, as I settled down to watch a DVD before going to bed, I came up against an unexpected obstacle. I could not find the DVD player.

And yet, I knew that it did exist, given that its remote control was lying right in front of me. I looked high and low, opening drawer after drawer of the TV console. But no luck.

After 10 minutes of this fruitless search, I finally gave up and called for help. A smiling young lady arrived a few minutes later. I explained that I could not find the DVD player. Ah, she said, walking across to the writing table in the opposite corner of the room, and opening the bottom drawer, "Here it is!"

And how would I operate it from the couch in front of the television, I asked. I could hardly jog across the room every time I wanted to press pause.

Oh, you don't need to do that, she said. In fact, you don't even need to use the remote control at all. You can just operate it with the Ipad from anywhere in the room.

With the same IPad that had driven me insane an hour ago? No thanks. I made my excuses and went to bed with a book.

So, why do you think hotels do this? What is the point of investing millions in a TV system that just drives your guests bonkers every time they try and use it. Any system that requires someone to give you a 20-minute tutorial on how to operate it, is simply not the best choice for a hotel chain. (Their guests really do have better things to do than try and master a system that they will only use for a couple of days.)

At the end of a long day, when you are looking forward to unwind by watching an episode of The Good Wife or the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, the last thing you want is to have to summon help to get the TV working (especially since, more often than not, help will arrive long after your show is over). And that is just as true of us ordinary mortals as it is of the Rolling Stones.

So, Sir Mick, sorry about taking the mickey out of you. "Detailed written instructions on how to use the television system" sounds just about right to me.

Reading between the lines

What people say on television and what they actually mean can be two very different things

The thing about news television in India is that what you see is rarely what you get. You have two channels claiming to have the same guest on ‘live’ at the same time even though that is a physical impossibility – unless the guy has cloned himself; in which case he should be ‘Breaking News’ and not part of a discussion programme (not that ‘Breaking News’ is ever either ‘breaking’ or even ‘news’). Questions asked at press conferences are passed off as one-on-ones. An ‘exclusive’ interview is one which every channel has managed to score. And so on.

My favourite bits, however, are those ‘debate’ programmes in which people rarely say what they mean or mean what they say. And that goes for both the anchors asking the questions and the guests who are answering them. And half the fun of TV-watching lies in reading between the lines; in deciphering the difference between what people say and what they, in fact, mean.

Let’s start with the anchors, because, well, we all know they are the real stars of the show, no matter how rich/powerful/famous the person they are questioning. So, let’s see how we can best de-code their catchphrases.

When they say: “People are asking why you haven’t resigned as yet?”

What they mean is: “I can’t risk offending you by asking you to resign on camera; it’s safer to quote some unnamed ‘people’ as having asked you to do so.”

When they say: “There is widespread outrage about (fill in details of the controversy du jour)”

What they mean is: “I read a few tweets about it on my Twitter timeline this afternoon and thought it had the makings of a story.”

When they say: “I’m sorry but you are not really answering my question.”

What they mean is: “I’m really annoyed because you are not giving me the answer I am looking for.”

When they say: “Okay, so let me summarise what you are saying…”

What they mean is: “Let me roughly paraphrase what you said so that I can subtly alter its meaning to fit in with my narrative this evening.”

When they say: “Now, please give me an honest answer.”

What they mean is: “You lying bastard, I know that you are lying to me. And that you will continue to lie, and lie, and lie, because that is all you are capable of.”

When they say: “Mr X has refused to appear on our channel because we don’t do soft interviews.”

What they mean is: “Our rival channel has managed to snap him up – but no harm in a little heckling to try and shame him into granting us an interview as well.”

When they say: “With the greatest respect, sir…”

What they mean is: “With the greatest disrespect, you scoundrel…”

When they say: “The nation wants to know…”

What they mean is: “I don’t have a clue what the nation wants; but I’m guessing it would want the same things I do.”

So much for the news anchors. But what about the politicians who come on every evening to be interrogated – or harangued, hectored, pilloried, bullied, abused; pick whichever word works for you – in line with what the anchor perceives as the public mood that day.

Are they any better? Not on your life. Let’s see if we can de-code some of their pet phrases.

When they say: “There cannot be trial by media. You cannot run a kangaroo court in TV studios in which you are accuser, judge, jury and executioner.”

What they mean is: “I have no answers to your questions. So I am going to act all outraged and pretend that you have no business asking them. Maybe somebody out there will buy it.”

When they say: “I’m sorry but your bias is showing. It is very clear which side you are on.”

What they mean is: “I am on very dodgy ground here. But on the grounds that offence is the best defense, I am going to attack you personally. Maybe that will scare you into backing off.”

When they say: “Please allow me two minutes to make my point – without interrupting.”

What they mean is: “Let me waffle on and eat up air time without ever answering your question. By the time my two minutes are up, you will move on to your next guest and I will be off the hook.”

When they say: “I’m sorry but I have to leave to appear on another channel.”

What they mean is: “This interview isn’t really going well for me. I may have better luck on another news show.”

When they say: “We all know that you will do anything for TRPs…”

What they mean is: “The only reason I am on this show, even though I make a fool of myself on it every evening, is because of your TRPs. But what’s the harm in a little point-scoring.”

And so it goes, on and on and on…

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.