In the 1960 US presidential debate between the candidates John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, many viewers who watched the debate on television believed Kennedy had won, while those who listened to the debate on the radio believed Nixon had won. How so? Prior to the debate, Nixon had recently been hospitalised and was recovering from a knee injury, causing him to appear pale and tired. In contrast, Kennedy appeared confident and well-rested. This demonstrates the power of television in shaping public opinion and the importance of appearance and image, especially in political campaigns.
In the Indian TV space, randomly picking a TV news channel, one will probably see a debate going-on. Many a times, what is supposedly two sides of the arguments – For and Against the issue, is broken. Not unusual, you may discover, is the role of the News anchor, who appears to lean on one side of the argument as well, thus making a two-horse race into a three-legged contest.
Quality of News
If we look back at the era of simple Radio-only era, it brings concept of conversation and clarity of communication. With broadcasting evolving, it was a refreshing change to have India’s first public service TV broadcaster Doordarshan. Soon there were dozens of private channels. Sadly, despite the multitude of TV channels, the increased competition has not led to better quality. The quality of news content has gone down, probably due to insufficient time to get the facts and figures right, and for analysis.
Today, the format of television news across all channels prioritises flashing ticker and noisy debates, rather than news reporting objectively from the field, and analytical presentation with calm and content. Many channels produce irrelevant or emotionally laced debates, often by aggressive anchors who take joy in not allowing their guests to share their views, interrupting them often to share their own laced viewpoints.
It does serve our interest to dive deeply into such a behaviour. What happened to the Indian culture of discussions being a means of arriving at a knowledgeable debate? Where did we lose our ethos of sharing views, even differing ones, without the need to insult the other views?
Indian Tradition
The Indic dialectic tradition has stood for higher standards of thinking. Content and context went together for any presentation of views. It also held deep respect for the others. Often, with the support of royalty, these debates were conducted to examine various religious, philosophical, moral and doctrinal issues. Indian wisdom has long held and valued the ‘science of enquiry’ (Aniviksiki). One sub-root of this took the branch of study further and referred to as Nyaya or Logic (the theory of reasons), sometimes even called Tarka-Vidya or Vada-Vidya, (the science of debate or discussion respectively). For the curious detailed narrations of such discussions, debates and dialogues are recorded in Chandogya-Upanishad, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Prashna-Upanishad. Contestants employed standards such as aptopadesa (reliable assertion), pratyaksa (perception), anumana (inference), and yukti (reasoning).
The premise of Nyaya is founded on the belief that knowledge is not self-revealing. Humans must make effort through a systematic process to gain correct knowledge and conversely, to abandon incorrect knowledge thereby gaining a clearer perspective of life. Nyaya is the analytical way for a young person in the process of growth to attain equanimity. It instructs, the teachings that have come down to us through traditions must be critically examined before accepting them.
With such a rich tradition of dialogue prevalent in India, let us turn our attention to standards of modern day debate. It is not only across TV channels, but also across in-person discussions and on social media, that we seem to behave poorly. We discover that most discourse ends up with deeply polarised viewpoints, and emotionally laced political charge.
Discussion or decided?
"A debate is a contest in which the truth is often the casualty." - Vance Packard
Instead of a truth that needs to be unwrapped or revealed, there is a battle for pushing forward a dominant narrative that builds a moat for the vested interest. It also develops the path for such a biassed agenda, and obfuscates the issues, rather than bring clarity to the subject under discussion. Quickly, there is both labelling and personal attacks, both grossly unfair in the spirit of a dialogue.
Often disagreement can be a source of good, not ill, even in our polarised age. Of late, disagreement is getting out of fashion. By opting in or opting out of WhatsApp groups, choice of what social media posts one reads, you end up narrowing the diversity of information that you come across. Also, because the algorithms used by social media platforms often prioritise content that is similar to what you have engaged with in the past, they may show you more of what you have already seen or what they think you will like.
For example, if you opt out of a WhatsApp group that shares news from a particular ideology perspective, you may miss out on important news or opinions that challenge your own views. Similarly, if you only choose to read social media posts that confirm your existing beliefs or interests, you may be less likely to encounter diverse viewpoints or new information. Joseph Joubert rightly argues that the "The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress."
But then, there are these worries in such narrow debates:
Oversimplification: In order to make their points quickly and clearly, debaters may oversimplify complex issues, leaving out important details and nuances. This can lead to a shallow understanding of the issues among viewers.
Polarisation: Debates can often devolve into two sides arguing against each other, with little room for compromise or nuance. This can reinforce a polarised political environment and make it harder to find common ground or solutions.
Emotional manipulation: Debaters may use emotional appeals or personal attacks to win over viewers, rather than relying on facts and evidence. This can lead to a distorted view of the issues and make it harder for viewers to make informed decisions.
Misrepresentation: In some cases, debaters may misrepresent their opponent's views or twist the facts in order to make their own argument seem stronger. This can mislead viewers and contribute to a climate of distrust and misinformation.
Sadly, in a society where quick reactions are evident than careful analysis, and where it is celebrated as sign of intelligence, shallow nature of constructive discussions fall off the realm of possibilities. It is essentially for our societal positivity, and to celebrate human intelligence, that we need to bring back the essentials of true debate. One that celebrates multiplicity of views, and not base it’s acceptance on the source or the person delivering the views.
—The authors, Dr. Srinath Sridharan, is an Author, Policy Researcher & Corporate Advisor, and Steve Correa, is Executive Coach, OD Consultant and an Author. The views expressed are personal.
(Edited by : C H Unnikrishnan)
First Published: Apr 4, 2023 12:40 PM IST
