Television That Few Want to Watch

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/world/asia/television-that-few-want-to-watch.html

Version 0 of 1.

NEW DELHI — There is a coup underway in India: Some people who are inconvenienced by democracy have taken over nearly all the country’s television news channels.

India has more than 800 television channels, though nobody knows why. About half of these are news channels, but in this case everybody seems to know why, even though most lose money. They are owned by billionaires — including India’s richest man — shady real estate barons and politicians. Some of these channels have blackmailed businessmen and politicians, solicited funds from political parties in return for coverage or laundered illicit money.

In some states, political parties or their fronts exert a monopolistic control over the cable systems that deliver channels to homes. Channels that show unfavorable news are blacked out.

These facts are retold in a new book, “Behind a Billion Screens: What Television Tells Us About Modern India,” by Nalin Mehta, a historian and former television journalist.

Television news in India can be highly entertaining. One channel reported not only the discovery of aliens on Mars, but also debated whether they might wage war on humans. Another, the book notes, featured a discussion on the topic “Do aliens drink cow milk?”

Despite such programs, news television attracts just 7 percent of viewers. English-language news channels have a market share of 0.1 percent. All Indian news and entertainment media combined, including digital, are estimated to earn annual revenues of about $15 billion. A top television executive, Uday Shankar, points out in the book’s introduction that the entire Indian media industry is smaller than the top six Indian companies.

More than 160 million homes in India have television sets connected to cable or satellite, but Mr. Shankar has no clear idea what they watch. There is no “reliable data,” he writes. “In fact, as a TV executive, I am surprised sometimes how I am even able to function.”

One system of extracting data is fixing a meter to television sets and tracking the viewing habits of those homes. In 2001, I was given a confidential list of homes in Mumbai where such gadgets were installed. These homes were marked as being in affluent neighborhoods, and their viewing habits determined the placement of top-end advertising, including for luxury cars. But when I visited these homes, I discovered they were in slums where families earned less than $100 a month. These families had been lured by a rating agency with gifts. Some were asked to answer a set of questions and made to feel that they were being rewarded for their answers with the meters. All this because installing a meter was an inconvenience the rich would not tolerate.

The rating system continues to lack credibility, but there is a broad consensus in the news media industry about what most viewers do not wish to watch: journalism that is not entertaining. In a country where people live very close to great human miseries, they seek escape from grim reality. One channel did manage to make a popular show about issues like female feticide, but that was because it had secured the participation of a conscientious film star.

Mr. Mehta’s book portrays a host of problems facing Indian television, including the tastes of viewers, a lack of talent, youth hampered by poverty and substandard schooling, and government policies that impede the ability of channels to expand their revenues. This is unfortunate because at least some news channels are legitimate businesses.

During a panel discussion to mark the book’s release, Rajdeep Sardesai, one of India’s best-known television journalists, said: “TV is dead. This book is an obituary.” Someone in the audience accused the panel of being negative. The panel searched for something nice to say. One panelist said there were drinks awaiting all.

Follow Manu Joseph, author of the novel “The Illicit Happiness of Other People,” on Twitter at @manujosephsan.