I Stopped Watching TV Debates Because Anchors Have Turned Into Memes

I came across the viral clip of news anchor Rahul Shivshankar scolding the wrong guest, embarrassing himself live on (inter)national TV. It was from the debate #UkraineLastStand he was moderating that involved Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, and Bohdan Nahaylo, chief editor of Kyiv Post.

He rebuked Nahaylo for blaming India as opposed to “fighting alongside his men”, believing that he was McAdams.

Throwing words like “you people” in his sentences, Rahul Shivshankar was consistently speaking over the man cutting his words. He was trying to make sure that his voice boomed over the other two, heroically making all the points he wanted to make.

This very attempt from him fell flat on his face because the real Daniel McAdams spoke up, saying, “Dear host, I haven’t said a word yet. I don’t know why you’re yelling at me. I am Mr McAdams.” After which a visibly embarrassed Rahul Shivshankar apologised for his transgression.

It was a technical mistake that happened on behalf of the team because the names that appeared on the boxes were mismatched. Rahul Shivshankar probably had an opportunity to stop the whole situation from going downhill, but his tirade is exactly why it backfired. He wasn’t giving both men the space in the first minute and a half to make their simple point of mismatched identities.

This kind of verbal tirade is exactly the reason why I stopped watching the news debates altogether. I don’t participate in social media or clubhouse debates for the same reason.

There Was A Time When I Enjoyed TV Debates

People came in to discuss various social issues. It was a learning experience for both sides of the debate. In a perfect world, the anchor or moderator is expected to take a neutral stand. They will have to ensure that both sides get their chance to speak and make their points. If someone is making personal attacks, then they are called out.

However, the more I watched some of the channel debates, the more I realised that they were mostly shouting matches filled with personal attacks, gaslighting, whatabouteries and other fallacies. Some of the “what abouts” tend to be so out of control that the whole context of the debate is out of hand.

In most cases, the anchor has taken a side of the debate. As it goes on, anchors “let” those people on the side they concur with speak more freely when compared to the other side. This is seen with anchors like Arnab Goswami and Rahul Shivshankar.

The recent debate I watched about the Karnataka Hijab issue is a classic example of that. Arnab has taken an anti-hijab stand and he kept speaking over one of the panellists who was trying to read out school rules which permitted Muslim students to wear Hijab.

Nothing about the school, the nature of the school and its ground rules were being discussed, though. Instead, Goswami kept making the one point about the politicisation of the Hijab.

A debate completely dedicated to an opinion by Naseeruddin Shah saw Goswami making several whatabouteries and “why-didn’t-he-speak-up-then” arguments while rebuking Shah’s niece who participated in the debate. When she called out his whatabouteries, Goswami responded, “I don’t do whatabouteries,” and immediately gave space to countering panellists.

This kind of gaslighting of the panellists is seen a lot.

A study by the Network of Women in Media titled Staging Aggressive Masculinity mentioned how debates moderated by men with all-male panels (or majority male panels) tend to be too aggressive and hostile. While talking to a male panellist, tropes like aggression dominate facts, sidelining of context and sexism was seen.

Panellists conveniently threw personal attacks when they reached where they had nothing to counter.

Sexist words like “nalla” (impotent man) have been thrown a lot, along with usage of feminine connotations like “wear bangles” and “wear sarees”. The sad thing is that this sexist tendency is seen in participants from the liberal side as well.

“Interestingly, both male and female journalists on panels were likely to engage in masculinist behaviours. It was also observed that the anchor sometimes tried to exert dominance over the panellist’s viewpoints by paraphrasing their comments and interpreting different conclusions,” said the report.

While debates moderated by women have reported less aggression and other toxic behaviours from panellists, gaslighting and manipulations of truth have taken place a lot.

Debates Are More Shouting, Less Listening

It is almost natural for a person to go for those pieces of content or media that display what they want to see or hear. Right-Wing leaning channels tend to have a similar audience. Similarly, liberal media will have more inclusion of various identities.

Even within these debates, when countering panellists speak, people listen and absorb only those points they want to hear. Toxic debates often throw around fallacies and expect the audience to sink into the idea.

“British gave India freedom.”
“White people created civilisation.”
“Homosexuality is against God.”
“Men gave women voting rights.”
“Patriarchy emancipated women.”
“Reservation kills merit.”

Looking at the above examples and phrases that are more or less similar to them, during a debate that has less than 2–3 minutes to speak, one cannot expect someone to take time and energy to call out the nature of these arguments — the ones that disregard experiences, marginalisation, participation of revolutionaries, contributions and lived realities.

Even within these debates, misinformation gets thrown a lot, along with gaslighting. Often the context involves justification of oppression by projecting privileged sections as both heroes and victims.

I happened to hear an audio snippet from a clubhouse debate where a guy was attacking feminism. What bothered me was all the misinformation he gave to justify his views.

For example, about voting rights, he said that “only taxpayers were permitted to vote” and “women didn’t pay tax”.

Well, in France, out of the clergy, nobles and peasants, only peasants paid taxes and they didn’t have voting rights. The French revolution was born as a result of this.

In the West, there was a “no taxation without representation” movement and women with an income had to pay tax. He conveniently excluded the situation in India where universal suffragette was recognised after obtaining Independence.

And didn’t mention the discrimination women faced when it comes to property inheritance and getting bank accounts without a male guardian at the time (This is not limited to a particular year, era, or country. Not everything is factually documented from every single scenario around the world).

The point is the guy digressed to international territories while trying to make an anti-feminist point within the Indian context. In the modern era, anti-feminists have to play the social justice card to appear rational and relevant in debates.

This level of digression happens a lot on news channels as well. The debate topic might be a relevant social justice issue, but oftentimes, panellists resort to definitions, fallacies and digressions.

Such debates still gain enough viewership because a section of the audience enjoy watching panellist tearing one another down. And, as I mentioned before, they will watch to hear what they want to hear.

Observing the lack of factual accuracies, misinformation, whatabouteries, digressions, personal attacks and other forms of aggression makes one develop headaches and stress. I certainly wish that all channels could be relied on in terms of relevance and ethics.

With the inclusion of toxic and superficial politics within the aggressive presentation by the anchors, channels are resulting in more memes instead of applause.