IT IS really atrocious and unbecoming to find today’s TV anchors in dress codes that are not only alien to our native culture, but also detrimental to our very sartorial tradition. Since the time we have been living, we have a tendency of calculating everything in terms of money. TV channels, producers and programme generators are very much aware that air time is the costliest of times, and if failed to invite maximum attention in such times of extreme market value, their very profession would be devoured by competing channels that go to any extent to win a few points in the viewership index they manipulate to hoodwink their clientele.
It is this monetary mentality that goes into the making of these anti-social dress codes, obscene body languages and disgusting language affectations. Sorry to say, we do not have a native language, we do not a have a dress code and we do not have a set of socially accepted facial expressions. We take pride in the mixes: Mixes of dresses, languages and mannerisms.
Think of a popular TV anchor. A pair of low-waist trousers, precariously adorned with the help of a belt that is much longer than the waist-circumference, and a couple of the most comfortable fingers thrust into its front pockets. And not to forget a made up face, and top it all - a language that is sufficient enough to shake any listener’s normal thinking process. This is the appearance of an ordinary TV anchor, who hosts a programme or a talk show. The funniest thing is that the above dress code could be attached to a male or a female anchor. A few differences you may find are - where and how the fingers are thrust in and which fingers s/he finds most comfortable for making this style statement. Yes, it is called style statement! To cap it all, if you find a male anchor sporting a blouse-like shirt, or a girl leaving a belt of her skin in between the trousers and the top, don’t raise your eyebrows. They are here to stay, and you may expect much more attractions in these presenters themselves than what they are going to present in the shows and programmes.
Some female anchors look as if they have just been pulled out of their bathrooms. You cannot predict whether they were dressing up in there or undressing when this most heinous act took place. Some female anchors are found hosting in dresses that depict a different story altogether. Slits and sloppy side-shows happen to appear unpredictably from anywhere of their dress-scrapes, and the viewers are left with all their faculties of imagination and fancy.
The flip side: A cable TV operator charges you Rs 150 or 200 for a month, and he funnels in your interiors some 100 plus channels. Most of these work 24/7, all day long. That is five to seven rupees a day for 100 channels; five to seven paise per channel. With all the attractions and varieties of the programmes these channels offer, a cable TV subscriber is kept satisfied with visual treats of dress, body and its language of anchors of all denominations. What do you want more? Nothing? Then just sit glued to your TV and watch these signs of shining India! In the meantime, try to go to the nearest supermarket and buy the products these programmes promote during commercial breaks. Eat them sumptuously sitting in front of the TV itself, and again watch and go to hell or hospital.
Don’t we actually need a dress and a decency code for our anchors? Are they not able to influence people in a 24/7 grid? How can we protect our families from these atrocious sartorial insanities? Snap the cable or unsubscribe the connection? Or, let’s understand the obvious fact that our life had been much better, calmer and more comfortable (before the advent of these aerial entertainment extravaganzas) than it is today? The last proposition may help you make amends in the way you approach cable TV. You may find that “Yes, my family and I can do without it”. Just do without it. The sooner, the better.
Tail piece: I am very much conscious of the fact that this article blindly criticises all cable channels and programmes. I am aware that there are many informative, educative and entertaining channels aired from in-country and abroad as well, and these all have excellent media culture, which could be simply emulated. And if we could distinguish between what is good and what is bad for us, all these channels could be tapped through our cable network. But how many of our youngsters want such channels and programmes? How many of us are able to spare time for quality information and entertainment? We go for what we like, or what is made to be liked. So there is no room for such discussions. If you belong to the second category of people who are able to distinguish between what is good and bad, you may please excuse my one-sided writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment