Television and communication barriers

'One donkey at a time' is one of the oldest sayings, which denote that one thing should be done at a time and rushing to several at the same time may end up in disaster and turmoil. A certain learned teacher once told me that the saying sprung up as a result of a foot bridge ('edanda') on which people have tried to cross from one side to the other with their donkeys but the fact is that the foot bridge is not strong to hold several at the same time. So the advice was that one man should cross the foot bridge with his donkey at a time.

I am constantly reminded of this saying whenever I happen to watch a forum programme on television where several issues, mainly of the political type, are raised by a moderator from the representatives of political parties and sometimes from various social units consisting of a panel of talkers with argumentative skills.

Undoubtedly, this is one of the best formulae all over the world when it comes to a visual medium like television where one can see the speaker's face as well as hear what he is talking.

The tele scholars or visual media scholars are of the opinion that the strength lies in the speech mannerisms and the body language plus the ethical behaviour patterns such as the ability to listen and response gibing way for a large hearted agree to disagree ideology. But does this happen in actual practice? Where lies the fault?

In the first place it is the moderator's task to brief the participants or the panel members about the way they should behave before a camera. A communication channel can provide provision to debate in the best manner possible friendly in order to enlighten the masses, who are exposed to that particular medium.

At this juncture it is necessary to observe that a medium acts like a catalyst in the provision of values as a teacher, watcher and a forum. The masses would like to know more about an issue as they are bound by a basic right. But what happens is a negative reaction where the political figures or representatives of political parties meet their rivals face to face.

Perhaps the best opportunity of being in friendly talk is lost, instead the anger and ill will is made to dominate losing the pleasant qualities of the body language and the power of the soothing verbal communication.

The moderator gives way for a person to respond to his issue but in the process he goes on and on disallowing the others to air their views. This is nothing but the gross non-stop dominance on the part of a participant out of several in the panel.

The problem of time is hinted by the moderator but the participant in a rude manner goes on and on. Then he comes to a sudden disjointed halt on the signal of the moderator, allowing another to respond, but the respondent is dishonoured when the previous one barges on once again dismantling all the ethics needed for a smooth discussion. Sometimes it so happens that the moderator concerned is overlooked, unlistened to and disobeyed indicating that they are not in need of such a person to conduct a programme.

The situation reaches a climax when a rivalry reigns the entire programme format where the mere 'noise' prevails over the clarity of interpretations and analysis. Although some participants bring along with them several data sheets like press cuttings, photocopies of reports and other sources of information relevant, they are not allowed to read them as some dislike the technique or repelled by them.

This is clear evidence of being rude and rugged over the use of a visual medium like television which should be utilized for the maximum in order to express views more scientifically.

The masses feel that they are miserable in a big mess of noises opposing the voice of the opponent giving vent to disarray of the presentation. Thus the voice becomes a noise and to be more scientific the scholars denote it by two terms the 'channel noise' and the 'semantic noise'.

The channel noise is the very pollution of the medium via technological means and semantic noise is the meaninglessness of the message put across.

When more than one person talks at a given moment the meaning of the intended message becomes unclear and cluttered leading to a semantic noise.

Then the chance comes to the viewers as well, for the moderator gives the telephone numbers to contact.

The telephone message which begins with a loud 'hello' giving the name of the caller and the place from where he or she calls too is normally a harangue in tune with the participants.

The viewer normally wants to exhibit his or her skill not in the asking of questions but in the expression of erudition of knowledge on a particular issue.

Thus the 'tele message' and the participant expression when examined closely becomes a waste of time in the form of a dialogue half of which is lost in the process. In these verbal disarrayed expressions the precious time of the good viewer who so expects some kind of awareness on a subject area is lost.

As the UNESCO has often pointed out the mass media - press, radio and television do have a capacity not only to reflect but also shape opinion, and to play a part in forming attitudes.

But according to things happen as briefly mentioned before, many observers think that media generate (especially television) an illusory perception of the real world, instead of offering a broader range of knowledge and a choice of viewpoints.

It is the responsibility of the communication policy makers and professionals to see that such situations avoided and distortions corrected with a better training given to participants (whether they are politicians or not)