SANJAY PANDITA
There was a time when the credibility of television news rested largely on the accuracy of information, the clarity of presentation, and the composure of the newsreader. The task was considered straightforward: to inform the public about events that mattered, explain their significance, and leave viewers to draw their own conclusions. The newsreader was the medium through which information reached the audience, not the principal attraction of the broadcast. In contemporary television journalism, however, this relationship appears to have undergone a significant change. On many news channels, the manner in which news is presented seems to compete with, and sometimes overshadow, the news itself.
A viewer watching certain news programmes today may feel less like an observer of current affairs and more like an audience witnessing a dramatic performance. Voices rise and fall with calculated intensity, facial expressions convey indignation or disbelief, pauses create suspense, and emphatic gestures accompany statements that might otherwise require little more than a factual explanation. Events are narrated with an urgency that sometimes makes every development appear extraordinary. The distinction between reporting an event and performing it has consequently become increasingly blurred.
This raises an important question about the changing nature of television journalism: has news presentation become a form of entertainment designed primarily to attract viewers, or have audience preferences changed to such an extent that news channels are merely responding to the demands of their viewers? The answer is unlikely to be found entirely on either side. The relationship between broadcasters and audiences is reciprocal, with commercial pressures, technological changes, and evolving viewing habits influencing both.
Television news operates in a competitive environment in which audience attention has considerable commercial value. Channels compete for viewership, advertising revenue, and public visibility. In this setting, a dramatic presentation may appear more effective than a measured account of events. A forceful headline, an emotionally charged monologue, or a confrontational exchange can attract attention and encourage viewers to remain tuned in. The pursuit of television rating points, commonly known as TRPs, can therefore create incentives for more dramatic forms of presentation, although the extent to which this determines individual editorial decisions varies across channels.
The problem arises when the methods used to attract attention begin to influence the substance of journalism. An event that deserves careful investigation may be reduced to a confrontation between opposing personalities. An allegation may be presented with the intensity of an established fact, while a developing story may be narrated as though its conclusion were already known. In such circumstances, the emphasis shifts from establishing what happened to creating a compelling television moment.
The use of emotion in journalism is not, in itself, objectionable. News is about human beings, their experiences, their suffering, their achievements, and their struggles. A report about a natural disaster, an act of violence, or a humanitarian crisis cannot always be conveyed adequately through a detached recital of facts. Empathy is essential to responsible journalism, and an expressive presentation may sometimes help viewers appreciate the human consequences of an event. The difficulty begins when emotion ceases to illuminate the facts and instead becomes a device for directing the audience’s response.
There is a fundamental difference between informing viewers that an event is serious and using vocal intensity, dramatic pauses, and emphatic expressions to make it appear more sensational than the available evidence warrants. The former helps the audience understand the significance of an event; the latter risks substituting emotional impact for explanation. When anger, fear, outrage, or suspense becomes a recurring feature of presentation, viewers may find themselves reacting to the anchor’s performance before they have had an opportunity to examine the facts.
This tendency also raises questions about the role of the news anchor. A journalist must sometimes challenge a public official, question an expert, or confront an individual whose statements appear inconsistent with the available evidence. Such interventions are legitimate when they are grounded in facts and directed towards accountability. However, a persistent emphasis on confrontation can turn an interview into a contest of voices rather than an exercise in scrutiny. The anchor’s ability to dominate a discussion may then become more visible than the quality of the questions being asked or the answers being obtained.
The audience, meanwhile, cannot be treated merely as a passive recipient of this transformation. Viewing habits have changed considerably in an age of instant communication, social media, short videos, and an unending stream of information. People encounter news in an environment where speed, novelty, and emotional appeal compete for attention. Some viewers may find energetic, opinionated presentations engaging, while others prefer calm reporting and detailed analysis. Broadcasters respond to these differences, but their choices also influence what audiences come to expect from news.
A cycle can consequently emerge. Dramatic presentation attracts attention; sustained attention encourages broadcasters to repeat successful formats; repeated exposure makes such formats familiar; and familiarity can gradually shape expectations. A restrained account may then seem less compelling in comparison, even when it is more informative. This does not establish that audiences have lost their capacity for critical thinking or that sensational news is universally preferred. It suggests, rather, that the media environment can reward certain forms of communication at the expense of others.
It would also be misleading to imagine that journalism in earlier decades was entirely free from bias, sensationalism, or political influence. News media have always operated within institutional, ideological, and commercial constraints. What distinguishes the contemporary television environment is the prominence that visual presentation, instant reaction, and continuous competition for attention can give to dramatic forms of communication. The change is not simply that newsreaders have become more expressive; it is that presentation itself can become a central part of the product being offered.
The consequences extend beyond the television screen. When reporting is dominated by emotional intensity, complex issues may be reduced to simplistic narratives, leaving insufficient room for context, competing evidence, or uncertainty. Repeated exposure to exaggerated urgency may also make it difficult for viewers to distinguish between genuinely exceptional developments and events whose significance has been amplified for effect. More importantly, the constant presentation of public affairs as a series of confrontations can encourage a reactive understanding of politics and society, in which immediate anger takes precedence over considered judgment.
Responsible journalism must therefore preserve a distinction between reporting, analysis, and opinion. Facts need to be verified, allegations clearly identified as allegations, and uncertainties acknowledged rather than concealed behind confident delivery. Opinion-based programmes may legitimately offer interpretation and argument, but viewers should be able to recognise when they are listening to an opinion rather than receiving a straightforward report. The tone of a broadcast should not be allowed to create a misleading impression of certainty or importance.
News organisations also have a responsibility to recognise that credibility is a long-term asset. A sensational presentation may generate immediate attention, but journalism ultimately depends on public trust. That trust is strengthened when reporting is accurate, corrections are made transparently, and opposing claims are examined fairly. It is weakened when dramatic effect repeatedly takes precedence over verification and proportion.
Viewers, too, have a role in sustaining better journalism. They can compare reports across credible sources, distinguish established facts from speculation, and question presentations that appear designed primarily to provoke anger or fear. A discerning audience does not reject emotion; it asks whether the emotion is justified by the facts. Nor does it demand that journalists remain expressionless; it expects their expressions and conclusions to be proportionate to the evidence.
The future of television journalism will depend, in part, on whether broadcasters and audiences can restore a healthier balance between engagement and information. News must remain accessible and interesting, but it should not have to imitate theatre to command attention. A journalist can be firm without being aggressive, passionate without being sensational, and critical without turning every disagreement into a spectacle.
Ultimately, the purpose of news is not merely to hold the viewer’s attention but to improve the viewer’s understanding of the world. The most effective newsreader is not necessarily the one who raises a voice most forcefully or displays the strongest emotion, but the one who makes a complicated issue intelligible without distorting its meaning.
The question, therefore, is not whether we should watch news without feeling anything. It is whether our feelings are helping us understand what we watch or preventing us from examining it critically. When presentation overwhelms information, journalism risks becoming a performance in which the anchor commands the stage and the facts become supporting actors. The real measure of a news broadcast should be neither the intensity of its drama nor the emotions it generates, but the accuracy of its information, the fairness of its treatment, and the clarity it brings to public understanding.
A society needs journalism that can expose wrongdoing, question authority, and communicate human suffering without converting every event into a spectacle. The responsibility of the newsreader is to inform before impressing, to investigate before judging, and to explain before provoking. For the ultimate purpose of journalism is not to tell people what they must feel about the world, but to give them the knowledge and perspective necessary to understand it for themselves.
Sanjay Pandita is a poet, columnist & critical analyst , can be reached at sanjaypanditasp@gmail.com
