Bundles of Noise

A month on, as CNN's 'Situation Room' looks back at the Boston bombings and the shootout in the suburb of Watertown, the unnerving thing is that no one is screaming. If the incident had happened in India, and if the alphabets 'IBN' had followed 'CNN', the air in the studio would have been gunmetal blue with affronted dignity. Over at the competition, the air quality would have been even worse, with unacceptable levels of suspended particulate matter. Times Now would have looked back on the incident through the fog of war and a mist of blood, and demanded hot pursuit on all fronts, including Aksai Chin and Ground Zero.

Are different perceptions of the

audience at work here? Does CNN

visualise a human viewer while its Indian peers feel compelled to pander to the passions of some kind of imaginary

monster? Or do structurals matter in less than obvious ways? Indian producers seem to regard the studio show as the backbone of their operations, which wraps up the events of the day in a noisy, wriggly bundle. It saves money and with our population problem, there are

always more than enough people willing to sound off about everything. In Hindi, we call this the "cheap and best" way.

The CNN show, which tracks the endless craziness of American society, records mostly on the street. The studio segments are very short individual interviews, never crowd scenes, and there is no room for high feelings. Rather, there is space for reason and retrospection. For instance, Watertown was clearly a situation in which the police barely retained control, but there was no attempt to blame them. John DeCarlo, who teaches criminal justice at the University of New Haven, spoke of "contagious shooting", an excess which would have occasioned an enquiry commission had it happened in an Indian city. Another specialist revealed that a police vehicle had come under friendly fire, and a home-owner pointed out bullet holes in his walls, courtesy the police. Moving on to the creepy Castro case in Cleveland, the programme allowed the counsel for the defence to demonise the coverage as "the media trial of a monster… without knowing the whole story." Programme anchor Anderson Cooper repeatedly

... contd.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus